Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Improbabilities and Coincidences Around 9/11

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-11-10 01:46 PM
Original message
Improbabilities and Coincidences Around 9/11
The idea here is that rather than focus on "proofs" of how 9/11 was an inside job-- proofs that can be endlessly debated-- is to show exactly how many unlikely things we must accept if the official 9/11 account is true. Even if these various events are 50% probable (and most are much lower), together, the odds of 9/11 happening as officially described are incredibly low.

Links to items are here:
http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2010/08/improbabil...

Improbabilities and Coincidences in the Official Hijacker Story, pre-9/11

A FBI informant lives with two hijackers in San Diego-- supposedly fails to learn of plot.

Several hijackers go to flight schools in US, engage in dubious activities, FBI agents give warnings, they are completely shut down by higher ups, yet the the govt was completely caught by surprise.

One flight school attended by lead hijacker Atta had illegal drug and CIA connections, yet the the CIA was supposedly caught by surprise by 9/11.

An incompetent, seemingly mentally challenged hijacker Hani Hanjour was able to obtain a commercial pilots license.

One hijacker was interviewed by the CIA before entering the US, yet the the CIA was supposedly caught by surprise by 9/11.

Several govt officials stop flying commercial aircraft prior to 9/11, and some specifically were warned on 9/10 not to fly on 9/11, due to security concerns, yet the the govt was completely caught by surprise by 9/11.

US govt receives a large number of warnings from foreign countries of a major terrorist attack, plane hijackings, etc, and fails to enact policies to stop 9/11.

Richard Clarke went around the Bush White House in the summer of 2001 warning people there about an upcoming terror attack, but no one really paid attention to him enough to do anything to prevent the attacks.

Dick Cheney was assigned to revise the country's anti-terror policies, but apparently didn't think it was important enough to do in the first nine months in office to prevent a terrorist attack.

Bush was warned on August 6th, 2001 about bin Laden trying to strike the US mainland, but was apparently not particularly concerned enough to do anything to prevent the attacks.

Hijackers did not act at all like devout Muslims prior to the attacks, yet supposedly they were on a holy "jihad" suicide mission.

Improbabilities and Coincidences in the Official Hijacker Story, on 9/11

Lead hijacker Mohamed Atta and Abdul-Aziz Al-Omari took an early morning flight into Boston from Portland Maine, and rented a car in Boston, increasing chances of missing their hijack flights in Boston. Many other unlikely aspects to their actions occur the night before the attacks.

Not one hijacker was caught by airport security for taking a boxcutter or fake bomb parts onto the planes.

The hijackers, only armed with boxcutters and fake bombs, were able to overpower flight attendants, passengers and pilots to take over four out of four planes.

An early FAA report of a gun and a gunshot victim on board one of the hijacked aircraft was apparently erroneous-- improbable that the account was truly a mistake.

Elite Israeli commando Daniel Lewin was seated next to hijackers on flight 11 but apparently was unable to stop them (some reports have Lewin as the gunshot victim)(bizarre coincidence).

Improbable cell phone calls made from hijacked planes -- notably Ed Felt and Tom Burnett on flight 93.

Ed Felt calls 911 dispatcher from bathroom of flight 93 and seems not to have any idea of passenger counter-attack even though is monitoring last few minutes of flight. Felt improbably knows tail # of flight 93 plane.

Not one pilot on the four hijacked aircraft was able to notify ground control of a hijacking, either by radio or by typing in the hijack code into the transponder.

The highly sophisticated US air defense system was caught completely off-guard by the hijacked craft, despite having practiced for such scenarios previous to 9/11.

NORAD was actually running a live-fly hijack drill on the morning of 9/11 (bizarre "coincidence").

NORAD commander Eberhard was strikingly uninformed and lackadaisical about the attacks.

Normal hijacking procedures involving coordination with the National Military Command Center were not followed.

The AA77 pilot Charles Burlingame, had worked on anti-terror strategies at the Pentagon.

Security footage purportedly from Dulles Int'l airport, showing two AA77 hijackers going through security, mysteriously fails to record time/date stamp.

AA77 hits the only part of the Pentagon not heavily occupied.

AA77 hits a recently renovated and reinforced part of the Pentagon.

Hijacker passport found on the ground near WTC during the attacks.

Improbabilities and Coincidences in the Physical Events-- "Crashes and Collapses"

Amateur pilots were able to control the planes at speeds far over normal operating speeds, and were able to hit their targets on three out of three real attempts.

Not one massive tail section from any of the four crashed planes is recovered and no piece of any tail section is photographed.

Videos of flight 175 show it entering the south WTC without any significant debris breaking off and without a hole for the tail to go through.

Videos of flight 175 entering the tower show a explosion away from impact site-- highly improbable this was from plane impact.

Flight 175 port horizontal stabilizer does not have a hole for it to enter the tower, there is not even an indentation, and yet no evidence of it breaking off.

Videos of flight 175 entering the tower show wingtip making a massively improbable explosion.

Pure coincidence that at least four people who disseminated videos of the second plane were professional video animators (Devin Clark, Luc Courchesne, Scott Myers, Naka Nathaniel)

Another plane was flying near WTC at time of attacks, that Diane Sawyer said circled the towers, and that has been covered up.

All four planes completely disintegrated upon impact, leaving only small pieces of debris: a few engine fragments, a few landing gear pieces and a few fuselage fragments.

One fuselage fragment photographed south of the WTC, improbably had neither the livery of AA or UA.

Mystery plane-like debris was photographed north of the WTC, but improbably there is no record of this debris in any 9/11 accounts, even though it appears to have injured a woman when it appeared.

A large engine fragment, officially from UA175, landed at the intersection of Church and Murray after transiting the south WTC tower, improbably ended up: UNDER a construction canopy, on one end (as oppsed to its side), without making any significant impact crater.

Flight 93 crash site is a relatively small hole in the ground, with no large debris in the hole or nearby.

Much of flight 93 burrowed underground, black boxes for flight 93 found up to 25 feet in the ground, however the hole is only 5-10 feet deep and has only dirt at the bottom.

Flight 93 plane burrowed underground, at the same time it exploded, simultaneously "cremating" all people on board.

Despite being hit at very different spots, both WTC towers undergo almost identical complete global "collapses".

Both WTC towers are strong enough to absorb hits from high-speed Boeing 767s, but then, improbably, completely disintegrate a short time later from fires.

The destruction of both towers is associated with massive pyroclastic clouds reminiscent of a volcano eruption or a nuclear bomb test, which is unlikely for a simple collapse.

The destruction of both towers produces extremely fine dust; the energy needed to produce this dust cannot be accounted for by a gravitational collapse; a pure gravitational collapse is therefore highly unlikely.

A large number of steel core columns ends up disappearing from the rubble of the twin towers-- unlikely for a simple collapse.

WTC7 undergoes improbable symmetrical collapse, from only facade damage and limited fire.

WTC7 improbably undergoes main "collapse" at free-fall speed, as it there was no support at all inside the tower.

BBC improbably reports collapse of WTC7 before it actually happened.

Steel beams from the WTC7 rubble show evidence of extremely high temps, which is extremely unlikely to be from a normal building fire.

Not one of four flight recorders recovered from WTC rubble, despite human remains from plane supposedly being recovered from WTC.

At the Pentagon, a plane flying low strikes a lamp post, knocking it flying into a speeding cab. The post flies into the cab, through the windshield, and lodges in the backseat. The driver is not injured and is unable to move the pole himself. He requires a stranger to help him get the pole out, so he can drive away, however, after the pole is taken away, he remains on the scene for hours. The hood of the cab is strangely unscratched and undented. Later, when questioned, cab driver says he was not at the location where pictures show him to be. Photos of him next to his cab appear to show slightly different scenes.

At least 10 witnesses of the Pentagon plane report a different path than the official path.

Improbabilities and Coincidences in the 9/11 Aftermath

Improbable that initial news reports that three hijackers attended school at military bases was just a silly mistake.

An air traffic controller supervisor went to improbable lengths to destroy a tape of NYC air controllers statements made on 9/11, when there was nothing to hide.

No one can decide how much of flight 93 was buried underground though 95% of plane was supposedly recovered.

Ground Zero generates severe heat in the rubble for months, despite clean-up effort and massive quantities of water (both from rain and from fire hoses) showering the debris.

Steel from WTC was shipped on trucks under extremely high security because it was so valuable, yet it was then sold away to China.

US Senators who questioned 9/11 either lost their elections in 2004 (Dayton, Torricelli), left the Senate (Graham) or died in a plane crash (Wellstone).

National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice testified before Congress that she apparently had no idea that terrorists might use airplanes as weapons to attack the US.

The Bush administration delayed and stonewalled the 9/11 commission-- it is highly unlikely that this was done if there was no govt complicity.

US govt improbably continues large-scale cover-up of evidence of the attacks, such as photos, videos, pieces of debris, for years, because of "national security".

NIST promotes highly unlikely collapse mechanism for WTC twin towers involving weakening of trusses supporting one floor failing and pulling the whole tower down; they improbably suggest that this resulted in the massive, complete, global collapse.

In 2007, horrendous VaTech shooting occurs coincidentally right after appearance on news a story that the French had warned the US very specifically of 9/11.

Reporter Jeffrey Scott Shapiro says Larry Silverstein had WTC7 wired for demolition. Witnesses who were there on 9/11 described a countdown to when the building would be coming down.
Refresh | +3 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-11-10 02:01 PM
Response to Original message
1. can we see the coincidences
that point to your theory of "mini-nukes"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
RC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-11-10 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. What mini-nukes are you hallucinating about?
The OP has not mentioned anything about them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-11-10 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Look up Spooked's many posts on...
"mini-nukes".
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-11-10 02:08 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. Spooked believes mini-nukes brought down the towers
I accept any coincidences listed above over the idea mini-nukes were involved.
You?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
RC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-11-10 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. There were no nukes involved.
WTC 1, 2, and 7 were rigged for demolition.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-11-10 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. They were not rigged for demolition
I suggest you look up HAARP.
They were brought down by soundwaves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
whatchamacallit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-11-10 03:59 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. Strawmania
Weak.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-10 06:23 AM
Response to Reply #1
30. there is the coincidence that the exploding top of WTC1 looks like an H-bomb test,
and the coincidence that ground zero is the name for a nuclear bomb exploded area.

But most of the mini-nuke theory rests on the improbability of the OCT explaining what happened to the towers, and the aftermath.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-17-10 06:13 AM
Response to Reply #30
123. don't like that one?
I thought it was pretty good.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-17-10 08:41 AM
Response to Reply #123
125. You just replied to yourself...
dude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-20-10 01:25 AM
Response to Reply #123
132. Almost as if "Ground Zero" is some Cheney dark side joke .... ?
Edited on Mon Sep-20-10 01:25 AM by defendandprotect
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
deconstruct911 Donating Member (809 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-11-10 02:41 PM
Response to Original message
7. You have to see this
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-10 06:30 AM
Response to Reply #7
32. thanks
I've read about Wittenberg before. Oh well, another thing for the OCTists to ignore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
immune Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-11-10 05:55 PM
Response to Original message
9. Research project ...
The 9/11 hijacked plane manifests:

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/evidence/cnn_A...

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/evidence/cnn_A...

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/evidence/cnn_U...

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/evidence/cnn_U...

Social Security Death Index:

http://ssdi.rootsweb.ancestry.com /

How many deceased passengers do you think will have matches on the SSDI. I last checked a good many of the names against the index a couple of years ago .... guess how many I found. Zip.

Splain this thing to me, Lucy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-11-10 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #9
10. My guess would be poor research skills on your...
part.

Here's a thought...why don't you call up their relatives and tell them their loved one did not rely die on 9/11. Make sure you take notes on their reaction and report back to us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
immune Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-11-10 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. Weak?
Maybe that's why I linked the manifests and the SSDI, to give you ample opportunity to outperform my pitiful research. Are you not up to the task? Speaking of who's weak.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-11-10 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Let me make sure I get this straight...
do you honestly believe the victims from those flights aren't dead?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
immune Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-11-10 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. I don't have any beliefs
Just questions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
IScreamSundays Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-11-10 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. "....report back to us."
got a mouse in your pocket?? Yeah, I didn't think so. Us=?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-11-10 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #9
15. Duh....
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
immune Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-11-10 09:43 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. The rare exception does not exclude the rule.
So how many people on those planes would you have to be claiming did not have SS cards or whose death was not reported to SS? All of them? If you can buy into that much of a coincidence, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-11-10 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. Dude....
I'm done with you and your rebunked nonsense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
NYMdaveNYI Donating Member (497 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-11-10 09:48 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. Dude,
Edited on Sat Sep-11-10 09:49 PM by NYMdaveNYI
cmon dude, we all know that shapeshifting reptiles brought down the towers.

They provided the mini-nukes!

And they collect the Social Security payments!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
terrafirma Donating Member (339 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-12-10 10:40 PM
Response to Reply #16
20. Did you READ the reasons
why someone may not be listed in the SSDI? My grandfather passed a year ago and he's not listed.

Have any suggestions as to where he might be since the SSDI is the end-all-be-all for you in terms of whether or not a person is truly dead??
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
immune Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-13-10 12:10 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. Yes, I have read the reasons someone may not show up on
SSDI. My grandfather isn't there either, of course he didn't have a SS# to record.

This wasn't my brainchild, I was following up on something I had read and thought to debunk it. I couldn't.

And I'm not questioning the probability that SOME of the victims wouldn't have been recorded for whatever reason ... but MOST of them? And I did spend a lot of time looking for matches off those lists and I couldn't find ANY. That's why I posted the lists, so somebody with more time on their hands than me could be more thorough about it. Apparently there haven't been any takers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-13-10 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. If the family didn't opt for lump-sum benefits...
the victim is not listed there. Duh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
immune Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-13-10 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. And this was true of all of them?
What was the purpose? The shield them, or to hide them? Or .... what?

And if its that simple, why didn't it make the news?

I do remember a lump sum benefit for survivors, but if I remember correctly, it was based on an agreement not to sue the airlines.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
immune Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-13-10 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. From an extensive article on lump sum benefits by CNN
"Congress and President Bush created the fund two weeks after the attacks in an effort to shield the hijacked airlines from potentially bankrupting civil lawsuits.

Families who applied had to surrender their right to sue American and United Airlines, which each saw two of their planes crashed -- into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and, after a passenger uprising, a field in Pennsylvania, killing a total of 2,976 people on the planes, in the buildings, or on the ground.

The airlines are additionally protected by a $1.5 billion cap on damages per airplane."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/12/23/victims.fund /

Thousands of people did accept these lump sum offers, but certainly not all of them, as is mentioned in the article. And there is no mention of Social Security agreeing to withhold the victim's names from their database as being part of these agreements. Perhaps that information is somewhere else that I haven't looked. But if scrubbing the victim's names from SSDI was demanded by the government, what was their reasoning? That's not too much to ask ... say, for example, that at some future date, someone may be researching their ancestry and the official record will be incomplete.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-13-10 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. Jesus...
Edited on Mon Sep-13-10 01:34 PM by SDuderstadt
Read the material you previously provided and you can answer your own stupid questions. Deaths are not automatically reported to the SSDI. Why you think a settlement fund provided by the government has anything at all to do with SSDI is beyond me. If a family chooses to take survivor SS benefits as opposed to a lump sum (neither of which has anything at all to do with a government settlement fund having to do with 9/11), the victim's name will not appear on the SSDI.

I'm not wasting any more time on this with you. Do you really believe the victims of the plane crashes that day aren't really dead? Simple question: how absurd does a notion have to be before you decline to embrace it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
immune Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-13-10 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. I don't think a government settlement has anything to do
Edited on Mon Sep-13-10 01:47 PM by immune
with Social Security. I thought that was your argument.

I don't know where the victims of the planes are. Neither do you. I don't know where the survivors of those victims are. Neither do you. I don't know how many survivors accepted a lump sum as opposed to how many that took survivor benefits. Neither do you. I have doubts that ALL of the families accepted survivor benefits. I would like to know these things, you wouldn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-13-10 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. Nearly every victim of the plane crashes were...
identified by DNA. To claim we don't know where they are is stupid.

Maybe someone else will buy your "truther" bullshit. I'm done.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
immune Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-13-10 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. Yeah, I'm from the government and I'm here to identify
Dr. Marcella Fierro, Chief Medical Examiner for the Commonwealth of Virginia, met with FBI and DoD officials at the JOC on September 12. She informed them that Virginia forensic laboratory and mortuary resources were prepared to go to work in support of the response. The FBI and DoD officials declined the offer, preferring to conduct forensic and mortuary activities at DoD facilities.

Nuff said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
KDLarsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-12-10 01:34 AM
Response to Original message
19. Since it's a lazy sunday morning and I'm bored..
A FBI informant lives with two hijackers in San Diego-- supposedly fails to learn of plot.
They were staying with him at the recommendation of Omar al-Bayoumi, who had helped Al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar settle in San Diego. It wasn't a matter of him actively pursuing them. Besides, I thought you were of the opinion that there were no hijackers in the first place?

Several hijackers go to flight schools in US, engage in dubious activities, FBI agents give warnings, they are completely shut down by higher ups, yet the the govt was completely caught by surprise.
Institutional problems, which have been acknowledged and (hopefully) corrected. Besides, I thought you were of the opinion that there were no hijackers in the first place?

One flight school attended by lead hijacker Atta had illegal drug and CIA connections, yet the the CIA was supposedly caught by surprise by 9/11.
Where's the connection? It's not like they were flaunting their plans, and I'm not exactly sure the terrorism and the drug divisions in the CIA are right next door. Besides, I thought you were of the opinion that there were no hijackers in the first place?

An incompetent, seemingly mentally challenged hijacker Hani Hanjour was able to obtain a commercial pilots license.
"seemingly mentally challenged", give me a break. The guy had language problems. Which he had corrected for, by taking intensive english lessons prior to attending flight school. Not to mention, he only passed with a "satisfactory" rating.

One hijacker was interviewed by the CIA before entering the US, yet the the CIA was supposedly caught by surprise by 9/11.
Who? This is the first time I've heard this claim.

Several govt officials stop flying commercial aircraft prior to 9/11, and some specifically were warned on 9/10 not to fly on 9/11, due to security concerns, yet the the govt was completely caught by surprise by 9/11.
Uh no. I know it's the John Ashcroft angle, and he was flying commercially for private travel.

US govt receives a large number of warnings from foreign countries of a major terrorist attack, plane hijackings, etc, and fails to enact policies to stop 9/11.
Richard Clarke went around the Bush White House in the summer of 2001 warning people there about an upcoming terror attack, but no one really paid attention to him enough to do anything to prevent the attacks.
The US recieves quite a number of warnings every day, but without specifics it is difficult to enact policies to counter them. What would you have them do? Lock down the country?

Dick Cheney was assigned to revise the country's anti-terror policies, but apparently didn't think it was important enough to do in the first nine months in office to prevent a terrorist attack.
Political failure. We all know he was busy cozing up to Big Oil anyway.

Bush was warned on August 6th, 2001 about bin Laden trying to strike the US mainland, but was apparently not particularly concerned enough to do anything to prevent the attacks.
Again, lack of specifics.

Hijackers did not act at all like devout Muslims prior to the attacks, yet supposedly they were on a holy "jihad" suicide mission.
The acts of the hijackers seems to depend on who you're asking. There's the alleged hard drinking at the Pink Pony in Florida the night before the attacks (which would be impressive, given that the hijackers at that time were in Virginia, New Jersey & Massachusetts). There's the story of Amanda Keller who alleged she was Atta's girlfriend, yet when her story was investigated, it was found lacking, and she subsequently admitted to have lied.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
BeFree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-13-10 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #19
26. The alleged hijackers
Try to remember that KD.

As for the rest of your screed, you got nothing.

But you do expose the fact that there are many unanswered questions. Good job.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-10 06:32 AM
Response to Reply #19
33. You need to keep going on the list.
Those top issues unfortunately are things that have been argued over extensively but again-- it's the sheer number of improbabilities that I am emphasizing here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-10 06:24 AM
Response to Original message
31. Here's an amazing coincidence I forgot to add
http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2008/01/huge-wtc-s...

The exact floors where the "planes" hit, were subject to renovation before 9/11. Quite an amazing coincidence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
terrafirma Donating Member (339 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-10 11:33 PM
Response to Reply #31
34. That is indeed amazing
Should be relatively simply to find out who, in fact, did the renovating, and BAM!

There's your culprit for mini-nuke device planters!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-10 11:36 PM
Response to Reply #31
35. More of your bullshit...
Spooked.

How is that an "amazing coincidence"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
terrafirma Donating Member (339 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-10 11:45 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. Because...
He thinks that during the renovations, the PTB were actually planting and rigging the towers with explosives to blow out holes in the shape of large airliners.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-10 11:48 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. Despite the fact that the renovations began as early as....
1995.

Brilliant.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
terrafirma Donating Member (339 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-10 11:53 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. Look...
You can argue facts and logic all you want, dude, but that won't stop the TRUTH from coming out!!!!!


/sarcasm
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-14-10 11:55 PM
Response to Reply #38
39. I wonder what year it's...
gonna come out.

I mean, what are they waiting for?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-17-10 06:12 AM
Response to Reply #37
122. so what?
it's clear they had 9/11 planned for a long time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-17-10 08:39 AM
Response to Reply #122
124. Jesus, dude...
you've got to be kidding.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-17-10 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #124
127. No
please get a clue
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-17-10 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #127
128. Dude...
Edited on Fri Sep-17-10 11:15 AM by SDuderstadt
you claim that the hijackers weren't "caught" trying to get the boxcutters onboard and this somehow represents an "improbabilty".

Of course, the reality is that it did not violate airline security to bring a boxcutter or a knife with less than a 4" blade onboard, prior to 9/11. Of course, you would know that if you had the slightest notion what you were talking about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-17-10 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #122
126. "it's clear they had 9/11 planned for a long time."
If it's clear, please tell us when it started.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-15-10 01:02 AM
Response to Reply #36
40. you are mistaken
it wasn't explosives, it was mini-nukes.
get your "facts" straight
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
immune Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-15-10 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #31
41. Renovation seemed to be all the rage back then
Edited on Wed Sep-15-10 10:39 AM by immune
The Pentagon, too.

http://www.911-strike.com/pentagon-all.htm

As noted in the Purdue computer simulation report, there is an extensive literature regarding the effects of impact of aircraft on reinforced concrete structures. The question is important because of the possible effects of an air crash (such as, for example, a terrorist attack) onto the concrete containment of a nuclear power plant. The studies indicate that it is difficult for an aircraft to penetrate a blast-hardened, reinforced concrete containment. While the construction of the Pentagon is not strictly comparable to a nuclear containment vessel, nevertheless the western wedge had recently been rehabilitated for high blast resistance. We attempted some basic calculations (see appendix I) and found that the Pentagon structure may well have been strong enough to resist destruction by an aircraft such as a 757 flying at speeds less than 200 to 300 mph.



I don't know what can be taken from that, though, if anything.


Although I've always said that any self respecting terrorist with an intent to do maximum damage would have dive bombed right down into the center of the complex.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
terrafirma Donating Member (339 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-15-10 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #41
42. Center of the complex?
Never knew that self-respecting terrorists had a jihad out on courtyards...

Methinks you don't quite grasp the size of the Pentagon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
immune Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-15-10 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #42
43. What?
I'm talking about vulnerabilities, not size. Smacking a plane into a reinforced concrete barrier instead of straight down into the maze of the compound seems like wasted effort to me. Kinda like crash test dummies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
terrafirma Donating Member (339 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-15-10 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #43
44. Ooooooh....
Forgive my confusion since the center of the complex is a courtyard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
immune Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-15-10 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #44
45. Your expertise on the best /worst possible targets within
the Pentagon are, without a doubt, much better than mine, I simply don't care where the courtyard is located. Or the restrooms, for that matter. But if one was planning a successful attack on the Pentagon, he'd probably make damn sure he knew the best place to pull his Kamikaze jihad ahead of time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
terrafirma Donating Member (339 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-15-10 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #45
46. So murdering hundreds in one shot
is unsuccessful in your mind?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
immune Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-15-10 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #46
47. Have you ever attempted
Edited on Wed Sep-15-10 02:39 PM by immune
to put yourself inside someone else's mind to try to figure out how they think? To get an idea why they do things the way they do, or don't do? Or are you all insulated inside your own mind where no one else's thoughts matter?

But considering that you probably already know I don't buy into the OCT, that was a silly question.
And considering that about the only people who've been punished for that attack are American soldiers and innocent civilians in two separate countries that had no part in those 100 + deaths on 911, I would say that someone has called it successful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
terrafirma Donating Member (339 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-15-10 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #47
48. Actually, I have...
But I'm not sure what that has to do with anything we're discussing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
immune Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-15-10 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #48
49. Sheesh,
how about cui bono? Why would someone attack the WTC and Pentagon? Who would benefit?

Who HAS benefitted?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-15-10 08:51 PM
Response to Reply #49
50. I think one can make a solid argument that Bin Laden benefitted. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
immune Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-15-10 08:55 PM
Response to Reply #50
51. Okay, Go for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-15-10 09:04 PM
Response to Reply #51
52. It should be obvious.
Why would he not be happy to see the target of his terrorism embroiled in expensive, pointless, seemingly never-ending military engagements?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
immune Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-15-10 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #52
53. Just got bit by the software .. it stole my post
I can't see him letting that happen at the expense of his brother Muslims ... unless he was double crossed. And that wouldn't surprise me in the least.

I've always been bothered by two things related to Osama ... first, taking into account the OTC, fifteen of the nineteen alleged attackers were allegedly Saudi and second, that the entire Bin Laden family, which also, of course, is Saudi, was spirited out of this country while the nation's airports were all still on lockdown.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-15-10 09:24 PM
Response to Reply #53
54. That's a strange response.
I don't think brotherly love is any more common among Muslims than it is among other religious groups, who seem quite happy to slaughter each other over the slightest difference in interpretation.

Why do those two things bother you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
immune Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-15-10 09:35 PM
Response to Reply #54
55. They don't make any sense to me.
If they make sense to you, fine.

The possibility that Bin Laden was part of the WTC attack plan ... well, maybe. But I seriously doubt if he would've be open to attacks on Afghanistan or Iraq by the US military (even though Saddam and Osama were diametrically opposed in their beliefs). The Taliban offered to turn Bin Laden over to a third party for prosecution if Bush could provide any evidence of his involvement and Bush said, "screw that" and started lobbing bombs. Not very civilized behavior, I'd say.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-15-10 09:40 PM
Response to Reply #55
56. They make sense to me.
Osama recruited followers from the group he came from - perhaps he found them the most accessible?

The Bin Laden family would have been targets of public rage after the attacks, and since they were long-term associates of the Bush clan, it is not surprising they were able to egress from the states immediately upon the lifting of the air travel ban.

I agree that Bush's behavior was uncivilized. I was incensed about it then, and I am still angry about it now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-15-10 09:42 PM
Response to Reply #56
58. Keywords:
"immediately upon the lifting of the air travel ban".

Immune has got basic facts wrong yet once more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
immune Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-15-10 09:46 PM
Response to Reply #56
60. How soon after the attacks were those planes
loaded up with the family and hauled bootie? PDQ. I honestly don't remember.

How did Osama and his recruits get NORAD to stand down while those hijacked planes flew over dozens of military bases?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-15-10 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #60
62. It was after the lifting of the air travel ban.
For some reason I thought it was immediately after, but apparently it wasn't until the 19th of September.

Your second question is interesting. It makes some assumptions that I don't think are very well supported - the NORAD "stand down", for example.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
immune Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-15-10 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #62
64. No, it was during the frenzy of the travel ban.
I don't know where you got that date from but I do remember some mighty bitter complaints about everything but the planes carrying the family being grounded.

Hey, the NORAD stand down wasn't something I dreamed up, members of the military were livid about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-15-10 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #64
65. No, it wasn't.
I remember when it happened, and (according to the wikipedia - it has a better memory than I do) Senator Frank Lautenberg obtained the flight passenger manifest in 2004.

Really? I haven't seen evidence that supports your claim.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
immune Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-15-10 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #65
67. Wikipedia can be altered by anybody
In the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks while U.S. airspace was restricted, planes sanctioned by the Bush administration flew about the country gathering some 140 high-ranking Saudi Arabians including several relatives of al-Qaida chief Osama bin Laden who were then spirited out of the country within a week of the terror, according to a senior official.

The Boston Globe reported at the time that two flights bound for Saudi Arabia with members of the bin Laden clan on board left Logan on Sept. 18 and 19. Other reports put the departure date at Sept. 14.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

Now why on earth would there be any disputes about the date of the flights?

As for the stand down .... Leading horses to water .....
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-15-10 10:28 PM
Response to Reply #67
68. Yes, I know.
Are you questioning the point about Senator Lautenberg?

Why would there be any disputes? Because not everyone has access to the same quality of information.

I'm not sure what you mean about "leading horses to water". Please explain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
immune Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 09:23 AM
Response to Reply #68
75. "I'm not sure what you mean about "leading horses to water". Please explain."
I just love protestations of innocence. You do, of course, know what that phrase means, but I'll explain anyway:

If you refuse look at something, its impossible to see, nobody can make you, and so you are doomed to not know what you don't want to know.

Like some women/men who refuse to acknowledge that the spouse is flagrantly cheating on them when everyone around them knows it and pities them. And I have yet to see an instance like that when, after the truth shakes out and the dust settles and denial is no longer possible that the injured party didn't say, "The clues were all there, I should have been paying more attention".

And all around us there are millions of people who once believed the OCT because the alternative was too painful, but who are now saying, "The clues were all there, I should have been paying more attention".

Funny how that works.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #75
119. Oh, I know what the phrase means.
Perhaps I was unclear - I intended to ask you to provide whatever evidence that I had been "led to water". You may think you have seen evidence supporting your claim, but I certainly haven't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-15-10 10:55 PM
Response to Reply #67
70. You need to research what...
"on alert" vs. "combat ready" means.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-20-10 01:41 AM
Response to Reply #64
136. True -- it was while everything else was grounded ... EVERYTHING else...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-15-10 09:41 PM
Response to Reply #55
57. Yeah...
we should trust the Taliban. Duh.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-15-10 09:42 PM
Response to Reply #57
59. I would have preferred it we'd at least made an attempt.
We were after Bin Laden, not the Taliban.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
immune Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-15-10 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #57
61. The Taliban has never lied to me
unlike other people I could name.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-15-10 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #61
63. They might not have done that, but they were (are) not very nice people.
I was pissed when they destroyed those giant Buddha cliff carvings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
immune Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-15-10 10:10 PM
Response to Reply #63
66. So blow those bastards all the way back into the stone age.
and now they're all human cliff carvings. Three year old bastards, included.

Serves 'em right for what somebody did to Buddha.

/sarcasm (my smilies are on the blink)




Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-20-10 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #63
143. Misplaced --
Edited on Mon Sep-20-10 02:03 PM by defendandprotect
thru ISI/Pakistan --

See: Brzezinski on that --
and how we used them to "bait the Russians into Afghanistan... in hopes of
giving them a Vietnam-type experience."
This was CARTER administration!

Keep in mind, US/CIA created the Taliban/Al Qaeda and financed it right up to 9/11....
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-20-10 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #63
144. Keep in mind, US/CIA created the Taliban/Al Qaeda and financed it right up to 9/11....
thru ISI/Pakistan --

See: Brzezinski on that --
and how we used them to "bait the Russians into Afghanistan... in hopes of
giving them a Vietnam-type experience."
This was CARTER administration!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-20-10 01:38 AM
Response to Reply #50
135. Of course, Bin Laden would have wanted 10-year US wars on Afghanistan and Iraq!!!
And a million or more Muslims killed!!!

And a total US occupation of the ME -- !!!


:crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-15-10 10:41 PM
Response to Reply #45
69. You don't know that the pilot hit his target exactly.
Plus, if it were an inside job, why would they crash a missile into the side of the Pentagon in plain view of so mo many witnesses and cameras, when they could have so much more control over the story by having the crash in the courtyard?

If you try to answer that question, you have still haven't admitted that we don't know if the pilot hit his target exactly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
deconstruct911 Donating Member (809 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 12:15 AM
Response to Reply #69
71. what cameras do you speak of
Edited on Thu Sep-16-10 12:16 AM by deconstruct911
that show a plane?

Please share!

Maybe a lot of financial evidence was destroyed? Maybe if a group of terrorists wanted to hit the pentagon they would just dive-bomb into it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 12:24 AM
Response to Reply #71
73. You're acting as if there were no cameras.
Weird, but consistently inconsistent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
deconstruct911 Donating Member (809 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 09:37 AM
Response to Reply #73
78. I'm acting
like none of them show a plane.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 09:42 AM
Response to Reply #78
80. Do you know what fps rate...
most security camera record at?

Now, calculate how fast the plane was going, then do the math and you'll figure out why the plane doesn't show clearly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
deconstruct911 Donating Member (809 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 10:17 AM
Response to Reply #80
87. How many time are you going to bring that up
And how many time do I have to tell you I know that.

Read what I originally replied to. The fact is none of them show a plane. Got it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 10:26 AM
Response to Reply #87
89. And there is a perfectly valid explanation of...
why that is, despite your denials.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-20-10 01:45 AM
Response to Reply #71
137. Pentagon couldn't account for $2.3 TRILLION ... and coincidentally all those records lost --!!!
Pentagon is and was surrounded by cameras...Michael Moore makes that point ...

in one of his documentaries --

And still -- evidently the only camera fixed on the "event" just happened to not

be able to take accurate photos!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
deconstruct911 Donating Member (809 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 12:19 AM
Response to Reply #69
72. Russ Wittenberg
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 12:26 AM
Response to Reply #72
74. Not interested. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
immune Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 09:26 AM
Response to Reply #74
76. And there you go folks
Don't confuse me with facts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 09:32 AM
Response to Reply #76
77. Excuse me...
how does Russ Wittenburg saying something make it a "fact"??
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
deconstruct911 Donating Member (809 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 09:38 AM
Response to Reply #77
79. It doesn't
how does the government saying something make it a "fact"??
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 09:49 AM
Response to Reply #79
81. Jesus...
do you really believe that in the various reports the government just "says things"?

I suspect you haven't even read the various reports. For example, NIST's reports on the building collapses are incredibly detailed. On the other hand, Wittenburg commits egregious errors of fact in his "interview". For example, he dramatically understated the training the hijackers received.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
immune Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #81
84. NIST's reports.
And anyone who changes one word in the NIST report shall have his name removed from the book of life forever. Its a religion, dude, and you are, without a doubt, one of its most devoted priests.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 10:05 AM
Response to Reply #84
85. And you are a science-denier...
not to mention that your post makes no sense.

Simple question: have you even read any of the various NIST reports?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
immune Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 10:14 AM
Response to Reply #85
86. Not all of them. My eyes glazed over after so much
prevaricating. Maybe you could give us a sermon on the necessity of faith in your NIST gods.

I've also personally spoken with a retired Air Force Colonel who strongly stated that HE could not have flown those jets with such precision. I won't go into his creds, but believe me, I'm more than satisfied with them. Other pilots have said the same thing, but their voices have been drowned out by the chants of NIST's monks and priests. Speaking of science deniers.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #86
88. How much "precision" does it take...
Edited on Thu Sep-16-10 10:24 AM by SDuderstadt
to crash a plane into a building??

Did you talk to any of the pilots that find the flying of the hijackers unremarkable? Do you think a hijacker would care about flying a plane they intended to crash into a building "beyond its design parameters"?

Can you point to some of the "prevarications" in the NIST reports? Can you show your math? Or, is it just easier to summarily reject the science based upon your own personal incredulity?

Moral of the story: don't let DRG do your thinking for you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
immune Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #88
90. Have you ever flown a plane?
Particularly a jumbo jet?

Could you disconnect the transponders?

And all this with a bunch of passengers behind you that needed to be contained and knowing you were flying over dozens of military bases that could easily shoot you down before you made it to your target? Knowing that you were going to die in a few minutes?

And more.

If so, my hat's off to you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #90
91. No, I haven't and...
Edited on Thu Sep-16-10 10:44 AM by SDuderstadt
neither have you from your silly statement about "disconnecting" the transponders. You do realize it's a setting, right? More importantly, your statement about flying right over AF bases reveals that you don't understand the difference between "on alert" and "combat ready" which explains why none of those bases could have shot them down even if they could have seen them.

There are numerous pilots who state the hijackers could easily have done what they did. What leads you to believe they are any less credible than Wittenburg? Other than your own personal incredulity, of course...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
immune Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #91
92. You're right that was poor wording. I was on my way out the door ...
just got back.

If a plane is off course, or four planes are off course, especially for the length of time these planes were off course, why wasn't an alert called? See, that seems to be the BIG thing that no one seems to be able to answer.

I have flown puddle jumpers, nothing larger and never solo, however the colonel I spoke with at length about the 911 flights has flown combat missions in more than one war, as well as larger aircraft, so I trust his word.

Here's the deal as far as I'm concerned, whenever an investigation or study is performed and there is a desired outcome, and when the individual facets of evidence that are submitted don't fit the desired outcome they can be bent, twisted, or flat out dismissed, or even worse, invented in order to reach that desired outcome, THAT isn't science. Many people, myself included, believe this is what happened.

And then there are the funders of investigations or studies .... a whole nother subject. Money talks. Its a science unto itself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #92
96. You keep revealing your ignorance of that day...
Edited on Thu Sep-16-10 12:46 PM by SDuderstadt
an alert WAS called and fighters were scrambled out of Langley and Otis ANG bases. You can't even get basic facts right about 9/11.

To be blunt, I don't see any way to have a conversation with you when you are so misinformed and poorly educated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
immune Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #96
103. Here are some facts for you
The Changing Story

For the first few days after the attack, the official story was that no interceptors were scrambled until after the Pentagon strike. On September 16th Vice President Cheney told Meet the Press that George Bush personally made the decision to scramble interceptors, and suggested that he did so only after the Pentagon was hit. 1 General Myers, during his confirmation hearing on September 13th, said that no military aircraft were scrambled until after the Pentagon was hit. 2 There was also no mention in the major media of scramblings of jets prior to the Pentagon hit, until September 14th, when Dan Rather announced on the CBS Evening News that F-15s were scrambled from Otis at 8:44 and F-16s were scrambled from Langley at 9:30. 3 Officials such as Cheney apparently were not kept apprised of these new "facts," since his Meet the Press interview was two days later. Four days after the CBS disclosure, the new story was incorporated into NORAD's official timeline.

The official timeline was changed again with the release of the 9/11 Commission Report. The differences between the NORAD and Commission timelines are graphically summarized on the timelines pages.

Continue reading, it gets better.
http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/defense/index.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #103
105. More of your CT bullshit...
Edited on Thu Sep-16-10 01:27 PM by SDuderstadt
did you notice that you just contradicted your claim that there was no alert?

And, even your "source" does not understand the difference between "on alert" and "combat ready". Maybe you should ask your retired "colonel" friend about the difference in response time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
immune Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #105
107. Wow, you're a speed reader.
Did you notice that the jets weren't scrambled until after the Pentagon was hit? And that's according to Cheney. Well, until the story changed, anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #107
110. I've read your "source" before...
unlike you, I read both sides. This is your same source that doesn't understand the difference between "on-alert" and "combat-ready".

More importantly, you don't seem to to understand that this contradicts your claim of "no alert".
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
immune Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #77
82. It is a fact
that Wittenburg made the video.

It is a fact the deconstruct911 posted that video for greyl to view.

And it is a fact that greyl chose not to view it.

Its hard to determine the validity of something if you refuse to look at it.

And that seems to be the theme song of the anti truthers: "Stay True to your School". Ah, the days of innocence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 09:57 AM
Response to Reply #82
83. Yet "truthers" allow people like David Ray Griffin to...
Edited on Thu Sep-16-10 10:01 AM by SDuderstadt
tell them what to think about the 9/11 CR and the NIST reports and have never actually read the reports themselves.

And, as I previously pointed out, Wittenburg commits egregious errors of fact in his "interview".
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
immune Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #83
93. Like I keep tellin' ya ...
NIST is a religion ... maybe a better word would be cult. If they had told you little green men were flying those planes you'd genuflect. Its all you've got. And the world was created in six days.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #93
94. "If they had told you little green men were flying those planes you'd genuflect."
Actually no, I wouldn't.
I would say that it was silly.
Much like mini-nukes are silly.
Much like no planes are silly.
Very condescending of you.
by the way, my dad flew all his life, first the air force and later commercial airplanes.
He doesn't think what those pilots did was very remarkable.
Of course, he is probably in the majority of commercial airline pilots, but you go ahead and cling to your "military dude" cuz he fits with your theory.
Keep making sure you toss out any evidence that doesn't fit with your theory.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
immune Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #94
95. Ah, but make them little brown men and .... wallah
which means "I swear to God" in Arabic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #95
98. No...
that's your misspelling of "voila".

Now there's even less reason to take you seriously, if that's even possible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
immune Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #98
99. Look it up.
It seemed more appropriate in this context.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #95
108. that makes no sense
actually everything you have posted seems weird.
no offense, but is english your first language?
if not, that might explain your arguments and mis-spellings...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
immune Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #108
117. What have I mis-spelled?
I will grant you that possibility.

That's me, the weirdo. Round pegs, square holes. Always trying to put my feet in someone else's moccasins. Always questioning authority. Trust me, it gets easier to live with as you get older. Actually it keeps me from getting bored out of my mind with the one note sallys.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #117
118. And, of course, anything is possible when you...
don't know what you're talking about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 12:47 PM
Response to Reply #93
97. More talking points from you...
What is your SPECIFIC criticism of the NIST reports?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
immune Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #97
100. Prove it prove it prove it.
Speaking of talking points. The information is available, you refuse to go there. Fine. And I'll call a spade a bloody shovel whenever the mood strikes me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 01:04 PM
Response to Reply #100
101. No, I want to hear your specific criticism...
from you. The best you can do is mumble "the information is available". You don't fact-check anything or subject your "knowledge" to critical analysis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
immune Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #101
102. I am not your teacher.
And actually, the best teachers force you to look it up and dyodd so the information sticks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #102
104. More of your dodges...
To be blunt, I believe you're just parrotting whatever "9/11 was an inside job" CT bullshit you last heard or you could answer simple questions.

I think there's little question you're in over your head.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
immune Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #104
106. I just finished posting some facts for you.
about scrambled egg heads .. er, I mean scrambled jets. See what you make of the changing story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #106
109. What I make of the changing timelines is...
chaos and confusion, wanting to avoid embarrassment at the gaps and, possibly, some well-intentioned, though still wrong, desires not to disclose gaps in defense coverage to our enemies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
immune Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #109
111. Oh yeah, better incompetent
than otherwise. The alternative would be just too big to get your arms around. I really feel bad for people like that. Reminds me of Patrick Henry.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #111
112. Makes more sense than your claim it was deliberate...
Edited on Thu Sep-16-10 01:43 PM by SDuderstadt
Do you really believe that the 9/11 Commission would have or even could have covered up a stand-down? Can you explain how that would work?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
immune Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #112
113. Seems to me that a "coverup" of the stand down
wouldn't have been necessary if all they had to do was change the timeline. And it seems like there were a few changes in timelines ... like flight take off times and wheels up anomolies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #113
114. There isn't a "wheels up" anomaly...
this bullshit is all invented by the "truther movement" to conceal their lack of real issues.

Serious question: do you read anything outside of CT bullshit?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
immune Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #114
115. more prove it prove it prove it talking points.
I'm going to stop responding to them. Its like riding a merry go round to nowhere. You wouldn't recognise a serious question if it was accompanied by a 2 X 4 upside the head.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #115
116. Asking you for proof of your goofy claims...
can't be a talking point. It's a demonstration that you cannot back up your arguments.

I have a suggestion. You should change your name to "immunetofactslogicreasonandscience".
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AZCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 10:21 PM
Response to Reply #93
120. Hmmm... One would think you would be more careful...
of criticizing the NIST when you have admitted you haven't the technical skills to do so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-20-10 01:50 AM
Response to Reply #120
138. NIST is a PRIVATE company working under contract for government ....
geez ... guess they'd be willing to say OCT was wrong!!

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-20-10 02:09 AM
Response to Reply #138
139. NIST is an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce...
I swear I have seen anyone more misinformed than D&P.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-20-10 08:40 AM
Response to Reply #139
140. That should read...
I have never seen anyone more misinformed than D&P.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
greyl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-16-10 11:21 PM
Response to Reply #76
121. I'm not interested in clicking unexplained YouTube links.
Sorry, I could have been more clear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-20-10 01:34 AM
Response to Reply #45
134. PLUS ... NO WARNING/ALERT went off in the Pentagon ....!!! Basis of a lawsuit...!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-20-10 01:32 AM
Response to Reply #41
133. It was STEEL-reinforced concrete ....and, btw, one of the victim's father got the Pentagon contract
Edited on Mon Sep-20-10 01:33 AM by defendandprotect
to repair the damage done to the rennovated wing!

Evidently $40 million!! Was one of the "notables" -- can't recall name right now.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
spooked911 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-19-10 11:13 AM
Response to Original message
129. added Northwoods to the top of the blog post
Edited on Sun Sep-19-10 11:15 AM by spooked911
http://covertoperations.blogspot.com/2010/08/improbabil...


Operation Northwoods plotted by the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, proposed a false-flag terror attack involving plane hijacking and fake plane crashes, in order to spark war with Cuba. President Kennedy rejected idea, and was coincidentally assassinated a year later with apparent complicity of the US govt. Thus, improbable that US military would not use a false-flag terror attack involving fake plane crashes to start a war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-20-10 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #129
142. Great reminder . . . and wonder how many Americans still aren't aware of Operation Northwoods...?
They should also know that Nixon/Watergate 'HUSTON PLAN' -- which was designed

to STOP the 1972 elections from going forward -- was also modeled on

Operation Northwoods!

Somewhere I have some details on Huston Plan -- I'll try to post later --

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-19-10 09:28 PM
Response to Original message
130. US Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) questioned 9-11 and she got the boot twice.
All she did was remark on how the war on terror business was good for associates of the Bush family. Ms. McKinney also was on record as being one of the few in Congress to go on record and stating Bush stole the election in 2000. In doing so, she showed more guts than the rest of them put together.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-20-10 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #130
141. McKinney also went after Rumsfeld re $2.3 TRILLION Pentagon can't account for ...!!
Edited on Mon Sep-20-10 01:27 PM by defendandprotect
Seems the records were all kept in the wing under rennovation --!!

All according to the Hitler Handbook -- crime and cover up !!



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Sep-20-10 01:18 AM
Response to Original message
131. So much is wrong with the OCT that it's difficult to even keep track of it all--!!
First, this is the Superpower which protected itself against Russia for half a century, but

just relaxed so much that even NORAD was AWOL -- if they had told us that the Russians had

done this we still be :rofl:


Two of the hijackers were on FBI's 24 hour Watch List -- meaning they were under constant
surveillance -- AND they used credit cards to buy one-way tickets under their own names!
No one alerted anyone -- no one alerted airlines.

Re Florida flight schools -- involved in drug running/CIA -- and had strong connections
to Jeb? Didn't Jeb come and clear out all their records?

In August, White House and our intelligence agencies were also warned by UN Security Council
which sent its representatives to bust the Bush "Operation Ignore" -- after Russia expressed
its concerns to UN. Evidently there was a TV documentary which mentioned this -- I didn't
see it, but heard about it some time later.

FBI has said that the cell phone calls were impossible --

Even when the TRANSPONDER is turned off - the airline and military still can ID the plane.

Not only was NORAD AWOL on 9/11... but its planes had been moved to the Canadian border --
and to a southern state! Meanwhile, the alleged "hijacked planes" flew over many military
bases which did NOT react.

And, yes -- hijack drill included a plane attacking skyscraper!
This was so bizarre that even one of the guys watching the monitor asked if "we are actually
supposed to believe this coincidence?!"

And, evidently, one of the notable "victim's" father gets a $40 million contract for the NEW
work needed to restore the Pentagon!

NORAD commander sends a flight pilot up immediately to "find out what hit the Pentagon" and
pilot reports back ... "NO PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON."

The "Bugs Bunny" holes in the WTC are what should be noted -- no aluminum plane goes thru
steel like butter!

Re the planes and lack of debris ... I often wonder whether there was an insurance recovery
on the planes? Must be records on that?

WTC towers were scheduled or ordered to be taken down as they were put up -- scaffolding would
have had to have been built. NO DEMOLITION WAS TO BE PERMITTED!

"Ground Zero" ID suggests someone's arrogance re a mini-nuke having been used --
This would have been a great opportunity for weapons testing -- microwave, etal.

Improbable that initial news reports that three hijackers attended school at military bases was just a silly mistake.

Actually, AG Robert Mueller commented on that -- confirming they had that info -- and made a stupid comment I can't quite recall now, but essentially that it was a great concern.

National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice testified before Congress that she apparently had no idea that terrorists might use airplanes as weapons to attack the US.

Yet it was Condi Rice who warned the Mayor of LA -- NOT to fly around period of 9/11.


NIST is a private organization, contracting with US to perform services.

In 2007, horrendous VaTech shooting occurs coincidentally right after appearance on news a story that the French had warned the US very specifically of 9/11.

THAT kind of "violent event" has been occuring so frequently in seeming cover up of other events they should certainly become suspect, in themselves.

Reporter Jeffrey Scott Shapiro says Larry Silverstein had WTC7 wired for demolition. Witnesses who were there on 9/11 described a countdown to when the building would be coming down.

Hadn't heard that one, but obviously, the WTC towers were pre-wired for DEMOLITION --
they had become "white elephants" - non-desirable rental space.

See also reports of weekend before 9/11 -- and all security systems being off -- and construction
like individuals having free access to the towers.


Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Aug 22nd 2014, 09:00 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC