Ditch,
Polls
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/13469
http://www.zogby.com/search/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855
http://www.thepowerhour.com/news2/911_polls.htm
http://www.scrippsnews.com/911poll

Paul.L.

Here’s a more detailed timeline with many cross-references.
http://www.911timeline.net/

Note the NORAD involvement and the supposed response incompetence.

If this attack on National security warrants an investigation of the highest order, why destroy Air Traffic Controllers recorded evidence?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A6632-2004May6

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/06/national/06CND-TAPE.html?ex=1399262400&en=3473eb2aa7591d4e&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND

Where are the BBC and Saudi retractions of the hijackers identities?
Except for a few references to possible identity theft I can find nothing. If it was identity theft then who were they really?

My concern with the 911 Report is the omissions. They only looked at counter-terrorism and none of the related factors that could implicate insiders. It seems as if the outcome was decided first and then only those supporting factors were included.

Where were the testimonies of -

Ex- CIA Director George Tenet who would state that the Government had advanced warning of the attack.

Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta who would tell of Cheny’s involvement in the shoot-down orders in relation to the Pentagon attack.

WTC janitor William Rodriguez who told of explosions in the basement of the North Tower just before the first plane hit. (Photos also exist of the aftermath of these explosions).

FAA counter-terrorism expert Bogdan Dzakovic who told of a deliberate federal policy to reduce airport security prior to the attack.

And why did GWB insist of being interrogated in private, accompanied by Cheney and that no audio, video recording or written notes be taken during the interview?

(Continues)

(Continued)

Other 911 report issues related to this thread include several reports stating that prior to crashing, Flight 93 was being tailed by US military fighters.

One came from CBS; another came from a flight controller who had ignored an order not to talk to the media; and one such report even came from Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz.

The Commission's own timeline, besides being contradicted by other reports, is also contradicted by James Bamford's account, which is based on a transcript from ABC News.

According to this account, Cheney's authorization was transmitted to Colonel Marr at NEADS, who then "sent out word to air traffic controllers to instruct fighter pilots to destroy the United jetliner." Marr reportedly said: "United Airlines Flight 93 will not be allowed to reach Washington, D.C."

The Commission's account is contradicted by reports that the shoot-down actually occurred. Major Daniel Nash, one of the two F-15 pilots sent to New York City from Otis, later reported that after he returned to base, he was told that a military F-16 had shot down an airliner in Pennsylvania.

Besides ignoring all these reports, the Commission also ignored reports from people who lived near the spot where the airliner came down.

There is still evidence suggesting that the FAA notified the military about Flight 93 in time to respond effectively, that Cheney went down to the underground shelter about 45 minutes earlier than the Commission claims and that he gave the shoot-down authorization about 25 minutes earlier than the Commission claims. (From more testimoney not allowed to be heard).

I still believe it is possible that military jets went after and shot-down Flight 93.

I think we should just agree to disagree and let history decide.

Wobbbles, you'll believe what you choose to believe. You'll believe the "other" story because for some reason you like to see a conspiracy at play. While you've admitted otherwise now after I called you on it, you saw the global warming issue as a conspiracy.

No matter how much this is debated you choose to believe certain comments and half truths as being the basis for your conclusion. Go ahead. I've got better things to do with my evenings than to debate ad infinitum over an issue that a small minority choose to accept as the truth.

'A small minority'. Equally a vague statement.

We do not know one way or the other.

Wobbles,

On 27/10/2006 the BBC issued a statement in their Editors blog, stating that the initial allegations in their 2001 article were a result of mistaken identity. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/10/911_conspiracy_theory_1.html

For a complete refutation of the claims that any of the hijackers are still alive http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/05/david-ray-griffin-115-things-he-gets.html
This is definitely far more rigorous in its investigation than the 911 timeline you gave.

They claim that the USAF was so advanced that the attacks simply couldn’t have happened without collusion. This is clearly a claim by someone not particularly knowledgeable in areas of defence.

The missing recording, while strange, wasn’t actually primary evidence. It was, as the article states, the recollections of a group of traffic controllers on audio tape after the event. All of their actual communications during the hijack were captured and presented as evidence.

I see you are not just arguing that the US allowed it to happen. You are now also suggesting that they actually had a hand in destroying the Twin Towers using demolitions.

Re Tenet. It’s one thing to suggest that there were warning signs that an attack might be being planned. It’s a whole other thing to suggest that the warning signs were ignored so that the attack could take place. You switch between your theories whenever it serves you. Instead of making the simplest conclusion which is that 20-20 hindsight is a powerful thing, you make the wildest jump to suggest a conspiracy.

So the ABC news is the correct and unimpeachable well from which all 9/11 facts spring? You must be joking.

Even if I agreed with you that they shot down flight 93, that still wouldn’t suggest that there had been a conspiracy to allow the attacks to occur. There would still be virtually no evidence that US intelligence encouraged the attacks and absolutely none that points to the US as the actual perpetrators of the 911 attacks.

Its easy to pick holes in any complex chain of events as there were literally 10’s of thousands of people involved. Try producing an alternative scenario and see how many holes we can pick.