Cheney at the Helm of 9-11

4 views
Skip to first unread message

knews4...@yahoo.com

unread,
May 1, 2010, 11:42:01 AM5/1/10
to

Curly Surmudgeon

unread,
May 1, 2010, 12:11:04 PM5/1/10
to
On Sat, 01 May 2010 08:42:01 -0700, knews4...@yahoo.com wrote:

> http://rense.com/general90/911chen.htm

"It now appears that PDAS was used by Cheney to implement on the morning
of 9/11 a new policy issued on June 1, 2001 that provided for a "stand
down" protocol that replaced a long-standing shootdown order for hijacked
and suspected hijacked planes. The new order transferred the authority to
shoot down aircraft from Pentagon and NORAD military commanders to the
President, Vice President, or Secretary of Defense."

Of course. 9-11 was impossible under existing scramble and shoot
protocols. Without intervention it was literally impossible. This is
why I'm convinced that the Islamicists were aided and abetted by someone
in our own government.

--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dante's 9th Circle: http://tinyurl.com/573eq
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Message has been deleted

knews4...@yahoo.com

unread,
May 1, 2010, 4:11:53 PM5/1/10
to
On May 1, 1:05 pm, Winston_Smith <not_r...@bogus.net> wrote:
> Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudg...@live.com> wrote:

> >On Sat, 01 May 2010 08:42:01 -0700, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >>http://rense.com/general90/911chen.htm
>
> >"It now appears that PDAS was used by Cheney to implement on the morning
> >of 9/11 a new policy issued on June 1, 2001 that provided for a "stand
> >down" protocol that replaced a long-standing shootdown order for hijacked
> >and suspected hijacked planes. The new order transferred the authority to
> >shoot down aircraft from Pentagon and NORAD military commanders to the
> >President, Vice President, or Secretary of Defense."
>
> >Of course.  9-11 was impossible under existing scramble and shoot
> >protocols.  Without intervention it was literally impossible.  This is
> >why I'm convinced that the Islamicists were aided and abetted by someone
> >in our own government.
>
> "Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on
> a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of
> it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common
> people don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that
> matter in Germany. That is understood.
>
> "But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the
> policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along,
> whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament,
> or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always
> be brought to the bidding of the leaders.  
>
> "That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being
> attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and
> exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
>
> --  Hermann Goering
> __
> WS in a.s and m.s
> Two parties, not a dimes worth of difference.

Just have to keep the "people" dumb.
http://www.newswithviews.com/iserbyt/iserbyt101.htm

Iarnrod

unread,
May 1, 2010, 10:12:51 PM5/1/10
to
On May 1, 10:11 am, Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudg...@live.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 01 May 2010 08:42:01 -0700, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >http://rense.com/general90/911chen.htm
>
> "It now appears that PDAS was used by Cheney to implement on the morning
> of 9/11 a new policy issued on June 1, 2001 that provided for a "stand
> down" protocol that replaced a long-standing shootdown order for hijacked
> and suspected hijacked planes. The new order transferred the authority to
> shoot down aircraft from Pentagon and NORAD military commanders to the
> President, Vice President, or Secretary of Defense."
>
> Of course.  9-11 was impossible under existing scramble and shoot
> protocols.  Without intervention it was literally impossible.  This is
> why I'm convinced that the Islamicists were aided and abetted by someone
> in our own government.

Lies of course. There was no "stand down," there was no previous long
standing shoot-down order for hijacked aircraft. Kurly, you're still
lying.

Iarnrod

unread,
May 1, 2010, 10:13:50 PM5/1/10
to
On May 1, 2:11 pm, knowsknothing...@shit-for-brains.kook foamed:

> Just have to keep the "people" dumb.

You are proof of that, knowsknothing.

Strabo

unread,
May 1, 2010, 10:23:58 PM5/1/10
to
Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
> On Sat, 01 May 2010 08:42:01 -0700, knews4...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> http://rense.com/general90/911chen.htm
>
> "It now appears that PDAS was used by Cheney to implement on the morning
> of 9/11 a new policy issued on June 1, 2001 that provided for a "stand
> down" protocol that replaced a long-standing shootdown order for hijacked
> and suspected hijacked planes. The new order transferred the authority to
> shoot down aircraft from Pentagon and NORAD military commanders to the
> President, Vice President, or Secretary of Defense."
>

I'm shocked!

Strabo

unread,
May 1, 2010, 10:26:51 PM5/1/10
to
Winston_Smith wrote:

> Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 01 May 2010 08:42:01 -0700, knews4...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>> http://rense.com/general90/911chen.htm
>> "It now appears that PDAS was used by Cheney to implement on the morning
>> of 9/11 a new policy issued on June 1, 2001 that provided for a "stand
>> down" protocol that replaced a long-standing shootdown order for hijacked
>> and suspected hijacked planes. The new order transferred the authority to
>> shoot down aircraft from Pentagon and NORAD military commanders to the
>> President, Vice President, or Secretary of Defense."
>>
>> Of course. 9-11 was impossible under existing scramble and shoot
>> protocols. Without intervention it was literally impossible. This is
>> why I'm convinced that the Islamicists were aided and abetted by someone
>> in our own government.
>
> "Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on
> a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of
> it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common
> people don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that
> matter in Germany. That is understood.
>
> "But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the
> policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along,
> whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament,
> or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always
> be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
>
> "That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being
> attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and
> exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
>
> -- Hermann Goering
>

The delectable dialectic.

Curly Surmudgeon

unread,
May 2, 2010, 7:11:47 AM5/2/10
to

You've just rejoined my Bozo Bin.

--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bible: Slavery good, gays bad, snakes talk.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Curly Surmudgeon

unread,
May 2, 2010, 7:12:53 AM5/2/10
to
On Sat, 01 May 2010 22:23:58 -0400, Strabo <str...@flashlight.net> wrote:

> Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
>> On Sat, 01 May 2010 08:42:01 -0700, knews4...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>> http://rense.com/general90/911chen.htm
>>
>> "It now appears that PDAS was used by Cheney to implement on the
>> morning of 9/11 a new policy issued on June 1, 2001 that provided for a
>> "stand down" protocol that replaced a long-standing shootdown order for
>> hijacked and suspected hijacked planes. The new order transferred the
>> authority to shoot down aircraft from Pentagon and NORAD military
>> commanders to the President, Vice President, or Secretary of Defense."
>>
>>
> I'm shocked!

Sarcasm doesn't communicate well in this medium.

>> Of course. 9-11 was impossible under existing scramble and shoot
>> protocols. Without intervention it was literally impossible. This is
>> why I'm convinced that the Islamicists were aided and abetted by
>> someone in our own government.
>>

--

Iarnrod

unread,
May 2, 2010, 11:13:57 AM5/2/10
to
On May 2, 5:11 am, Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudg...@live.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 01 May 2010 19:12:51 -0700, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On May 1, 10:11 am, Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudg...@live.com> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 01 May 2010 08:42:01 -0700, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> >http://rense.com/general90/911chen.htm
>
> >> "It now appears that PDAS was used by Cheney to implement on the
> >> morning of 9/11 a new policy issued on June 1, 2001 that provided for a
> >> "stand down" protocol that replaced a long-standing shootdown order for
> >> hijacked and suspected hijacked planes. The new order transferred the
> >> authority to shoot down aircraft from Pentagon and NORAD military
> >> commanders to the President, Vice President, or Secretary of Defense."
>
> >> Of course.  9-11 was impossible under existing scramble and shoot
> >> protocols.  Without intervention it was literally impossible.  This is
> >> why I'm convinced that the Islamicists were aided and abetted by
> >> someone in our own government.
>
> > Lies of course. There was no "stand down," there was no previous long
> > standing shoot-down order for hijacked aircraft. Kurly, you're still
> > lying.
>
> You've just rejoined my Bozo Bin.

Like I give a shit, kook?

My purpose here is to COUNTER the lies. I could not care less how you
liars react.

It is a PROVEN FACT that there was no "stand down" because the fuckin'
PLANES WERE ENROUTE, you stupid shitheads. Sorta pulls the rug out
from under you right off the bat, don't it?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!

Iarnrod

unread,
May 2, 2010, 11:15:04 AM5/2/10
to
On May 1, 10:11 am, Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudg...@live.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 01 May 2010 08:42:01 -0700, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >http://rense.com/general90/911chen.htm
>
> "It now appears that PDAS was used by Cheney to implement on the morning
> of 9/11 a new policy issued on June 1, 2001 that provided for a "stand
> down" protocol that replaced a long-standing shootdown order for hijacked
> and suspected hijacked planes. The new order transferred the authority to
> shoot down aircraft from Pentagon and NORAD military commanders to the
> President, Vice President, or Secretary of Defense."
>
> Of course.  9-11 was impossible under existing scramble and shoot
> protocols.  Without intervention it was literally impossible.  This is
> why I'm convinced that the Islamicists were aided and abetted by someone
> in our own government.

That is a lie. Your claim of "existing scramble and shoot orders" is
false.

knews4...@yahoo.com

unread,
May 2, 2010, 2:07:30 PM5/2/10
to

Iarnrod

unread,
May 2, 2010, 2:34:21 PM5/2/10
to
On May 2, 12:07 pm, knowsknothing...@shit-for-brains.kook foamed:

> On May 2, 8:13 am, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 2, 5:11 am, Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudg...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sat, 01 May 2010 19:12:51 -0700, Iarnrod <iarn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > On May 1, 10:11 am, Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudg...@live.com> wrote:
> > > >> On Sat, 01 May 2010 08:42:01 -0700, knowsknothing...@shit-for-brains.kook foamed:

> > > >> >http://rense.com/general90/911chen.htm
>
> > > >> "It now appears that PDAS was used by Cheney to implement on the
> > > >> morning of 9/11 a new policy issued on June 1, 2001 that provided for a
> > > >> "stand down" protocol that replaced a long-standing shootdown order for
> > > >> hijacked and suspected hijacked planes. The new order transferred the
> > > >> authority to shoot down aircraft from Pentagon and NORAD military
> > > >> commanders to the President, Vice President, or Secretary of Defense."
>
> > > >> Of course.  9-11 was impossible under existing scramble and shoot
> > > >> protocols.  Without intervention it was literally impossible.  This is
> > > >> why I'm convinced that the Islamicists were aided and abetted by
> > > >> someone in our own government.
>
> > > > Lies of course. There was no "stand down," there was no previous long
> > > > standing shoot-down order for hijacked aircraft. Kurly, you're still
> > > > lying.
>
> > > You've just rejoined my Bozo Bin.
>
> > Like I give a shit, kook?
>
> > My purpose here is to COUNTER the lies. I could not care less how you
> > liars react.
>
> > It is a PROVEN FACT that there was no "stand down" because the fuckin'
> > PLANES WERE ENROUTE, you stupid shitheads. Sorta pulls the rug out
> > from under you right off the bat, don't it?
>
> > BWAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!
>
> Yea, enroute in a holding pattern over the Atlantic.http://www.google.com/search?q=norad+9-11+stand+down&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-...

Idiot, they didn't know where the planes were. They had to be ID'd
first. Transponders had been turned off.

THIS ISN'T A FUCKIN' HARRISON FORD MOVIE, this is real life. Stop
believing Hollywood, kook.

Yer a true fuckwit.

knews4...@yahoo.com

unread,
May 2, 2010, 2:47:45 PM5/2/10
to

Iarnrod

unread,
May 2, 2010, 4:52:36 PM5/2/10
to
On May 2, 12:47 pm, knowsknothing...@shit-for-brains.kook foamed:
> They have this new thing called RADAR.http://www.google.com/search?q=9-11+radar+jets&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t...

Hey knowsknothing, WTF do you "think" 2,000 aircraft look like on
radar with the transponder turned off?

BWAHAHAHAHAA!! It would be of great help to you in these discussions
if you would actually LEARN something before you hit "SEND" and
embarrass your parents this way.

Knowsknothing continues to PARADE HIS IGNORANCE before his many
intellectual betters!

knews4...@yahoo.com

unread,
May 2, 2010, 5:47:14 PM5/2/10
to

All your flat chest pounding proves nothing.

2000 aircraft, 4 without transponders on.
Like shooting fish in a barrel.
Fuck you.
You're a liar.
You're a shill.
You're a troll.

knews4...@yahoo.com

unread,
May 2, 2010, 6:08:09 PM5/2/10
to
On May 2, 1:52 pm, Ioonylies<iarn...@yahoo.com> spewed:
> On May 2, 12:47 pm, knowsthe911truth@911truth informed:
>
>
>
> > On May 2, 11:34 am, Ioonylies <iarn...@yahoo.com> spewed:
>
> > > On May 2, 12:07 pm, knowsthetruth @911truth informed:
>
> > > > On May 2, 8:13 am, Ioonylies <iarn...@yahoo.com> spewed:

>
> > > > > On May 2, 5:11 am, Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudg...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Sat, 01 May 2010 19:12:51 -0700, Ioonylies<iarn...@yahoo.com> spewed:

> > > > > > > On May 1, 10:11 am, Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudg...@live.com> wrote:
> > > > > > >> On Sat, 01 May 2010 08:42:01 -0700, knowsthetruth@911truth informed:

Yet they knew the jet was 50 miles out, no, 40 miles out, no, 30 miles
out....
"Do the orders still stand?"
http://www.google.com/search?q=norm+mineta+911&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Iarnrod

unread,
May 2, 2010, 7:50:07 PM5/2/10
to
On May 2, 3:47 pm, knowsknothing...@shit-for-brains.kook foamed:

It proves everything of course. Not in dispute. Here you continue to
parade your ignorance. Watch as I destroy your stupid kooker ass:

> 2000 aircraft, 4 without transponders on.
> Like shooting fish in a barrel.

Now, moron, i shall teach you a lesson you will not soon forget when
you dare to take me on. Since I have never been wrong yet, one would
think you would be more careful and check your info, but no.

The controller screens that show planes with transponders is NOT the
same system that shows basic radar blips. When the transponders are
turned off the display goes away. When the controller looks at the
other screen, there is no transponder information for the other
planes. You have to find the needle in the haystack, you fuckin'
idiot.

> Fuck you.

Sorry but you would have to have a dick for that and i am afraid you
simply don't qualify, fuzznuts.

> You're a liar.

I just proved you are.

> You're a shill.

YOU are the proven shill for Bush, you asshole traitor. What did you
sell your soul to him for to make you pose as the useful idiot making
your stupid physically impossible claims that are meant to tar the
legitimate opponents of that criminal Bush?

> You're a troll.

I am TRUTH and I am here to counter the bushfilth like you. I will
correct your every post, knowsknothing, because proven pathological
liars like you can be dangerous to the other feeble-minded idiots like
you.

Iarnrod

unread,
May 2, 2010, 7:51:46 PM5/2/10
to
On May 2, 4:08 pm, knowsknothing...@shit-for-brains.kook foamed:
> On May 2, 1:52 pm, Mighty Iarnrod shoved truth up this stupid kooker's ass:
>
> > On May 2, 12:47 pm, knowsknothing...@shit-for-brains.kook foamed:
>
> > > On May 2, 11:34 am, Mighty Iarnrod shoved truth up this stupid kooker's ass:
>
> > > > On May 2, 12:07 pm, knowsknothing...@shit-for-brains.kook foamed:
>
> > > > > On May 2, 8:13 am, Mighty Iarnrod shoved truth up this stupid kooker's ass:

>
> > > > > > On May 2, 5:11 am, Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudg...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Sat, 01 May 2010 19:12:51 -0700, Mighty Iarnrod shoved truth up this stupid kooker's ass:

> > > > > > > > On May 1, 10:11 am, Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudg...@live.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > >> On Sat, 01 May 2010 08:42:01 -0700, knowsknothing...@shit-for-brains.kook foamed:

Yes and where were the jets at that time, shit for brains?

Uranidiot.

knews4...@yahoo.com

unread,
May 2, 2010, 9:27:09 PM5/2/10
to
On May 2, 4:51 pm, Ioonylies <iarn...@yahoo.com> spewed:
> On May 2, 4:08 pm, knowsche...@pentagram.gov toldyou:
>
>
>
> > On May 2, 1:52 pm, Mighty Ioonylies shoved her fist up her ass:
>
> > > On May 2, 12:47 pm, knowsche...@pentagram.gov toldyoubefore:
>
> > > > On May 2, 11:34 am, Mighty loonylies shoved her fist up her ass:
>
> > > > > On May 2, 12:07 pm, knowsche...@pentgram.gov toldyou:
>
> > > > > > On May 2, 8:13 am, Mighty Ioonylies shoved her fist up her ass and spewed:

>
> > > > > > > On May 2, 5:11 am, Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudg...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Sat, 01 May 2010 19:12:51 -0700, Mighty loonylies shoved her fist up her ass and spewed:

> > > > > > > > > On May 1, 10:11 am, Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudg...@live.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >> On Sat, 01 May 2010 08:42:01 -0700, knowsche...@pentagra.gov:

Two already hit the towers
The one that hit the pentagram was on radar fuckwit.
How else did they know it was heading toward the Pentagram?
http://www.google.com/search?q=norm+mineta+911&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
You are a Toll.
You are a shill.
You are a liar.

cop welfare

unread,
May 2, 2010, 10:53:04 PM5/2/10
to
larnrod the panicky,
stood up and loudly denounced the dogcatcher for exposing his
poodle.

"My purpose here is to COUNTER the lies. I could not care less how you

liars react." - larnrod

ah, yes...
how brave and noble it sounds.
BUT the truth is...
that is bs.
your purpose is ALWAYS to unwaveringly support the "official" version
of anything and everything.

Iarnrod

unread,
May 3, 2010, 12:59:56 AM5/3/10
to
On May 2, 7:27 pm, knowsknothing...@shit-for-brains.kook foamed:
> On May 2, 4:51 pm, Mighty Iarnrod shoved truth up this stupid kooker's ass:

>
>
>
> > On May 2, 4:08 pm, knowsknothing...@shit-for-brains.kook foamed:
>
> > > On May 2, 1:52 pm, Mighty Iarnrod shoved truth up this stupid kooker's ass:
>
> > > > On May 2, 12:47 pm, knowsknothing...@shit-for-brains.kook foamed:
>
> > > > > On May 2, 11:34 am, Mighty Iarnrod shoved truth up this stupid kooker's ass:
>
> > > > > > On May 2, 12:07 pm, knowsknothing...@shit-for-brains.kook foamed:
>
> > > > > > > On May 2, 8:13 am, Mighty Iarnrod shoved truth up this stupid kooker's ass:

>
> > > > > > > > On May 2, 5:11 am, Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudg...@live.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Sat, 01 May 2010 19:12:51 -0700, Mighty Iarnrod shoved truth up this stupid kooker's ass:

> > > > > > > > > > On May 1, 10:11 am, Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudg...@live.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >> On Sat, 01 May 2010 08:42:01 -0700, knowsknothing...@shit-for-brains.kook foamed:

You FUCKIN' MORON, how does two hitting the towers help them know what
others are hijacked and where they FUCK they are? HOLY SHIT you're
stupid.

Were you born without a brain or were you lobotomized, shit-for-brains?

Iarnrod

unread,
May 3, 2010, 1:01:33 AM5/3/10
to
On May 2, 8:53 pm, cop welfare <cop.welf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> larnrod the panicky,
>   stood up and loudly denounced the dogcatcher for exposing his
> poodle.
>
> "My purpose here is to COUNTER the lies. I could not care less how you
> liars react." - larnrod
>
> ah, yes...
> how brave and noble it sounds.
> BUT the truth is...
> that is bs.

Sorry, fuckwit, but everything I have said is PROVEN TRUTH.

The FACT that you are too much of a pussy coward to even try to NAME
ONE THING I have said that is wrong is PROOF that you are a shit-for-
brains lying kook. 'nuff said!!

You can't and you won't!

> your purpose is ALWAYS to unwaveringly support the "official" version
> of anything and everything.

Pathetic that the lying kooker can't even NAME ONE THING I have said
that is wrong. And that is the PROVEN FACT!

Curly Surmudgeon

unread,
May 3, 2010, 3:28:57 AM5/3/10
to

Standing regulations target any jetliner in the DC-NY region for
interception who fails to respond or kills their iff/sif transponder.
It's automatic, no human intervention required. Goes straight to NORAD
and alert interceptors are airborn in <10 minutes.

How long did those jetliners fly around without a single interceptor
launch?

Iarnrod

unread,
May 3, 2010, 8:24:46 AM5/3/10
to
On May 3, 1:28 am, Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudg...@live.com> wrote:

YOU LIE.

That was not the case on 9/11, Kurly Kook.

> It's automatic, no human intervention required.  

YOU LIE.

It is PROVEN FACT that this was not the case.

"Automatic" is not even the case right now, Kurly Kook.

> Goes straight to NORAD
> and alert interceptors are airborn in <10 minutes.

YOU LIE. This is complete fabrication even for now let alone on
9/11/01

> How long did those jetliners fly around without a single interceptor
> launch?

You watch too many Hollywood movies. Life is real, not Harrison-
Fordland.

cop welfare

unread,
May 3, 2010, 2:21:38 PM5/3/10
to
larnrod the toilet attendant,

forced to retrain after becoming redundant, became a fulltime
apolologist/shithouse lawyer for 50 cents an hour and tips.


"Pathetic that the lying kooker can't even NAME ONE THING I have said
that is wrong. And that is the PROVEN FACT!"

alright, you deliberately snipped my post when there was no need.
that's a lie, now isn't it?
hiding someone's words is a form of lying.

and here are the 'dangerous' words, the truth, that you chose to snip/
delete:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
***********your purpose is ALWAYS to unwaveringly support the
"official" version
of anything and everything.************** - cop welfare
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

gotcha!

(you now exist only as my personal urinal.)

hahahahahaha
hahahahhhaha
hahahhahahah
hahahahhahah
hahahaahahaa

Iarnrod

unread,
May 3, 2010, 10:22:37 PM5/3/10
to
On May 3, 12:21 pm, cop welfare <cop.welf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> larnrod my intellectual better,
>
> I was forced to retrain after becoming redundant, became a fulltime
> kook/shithouse lawyer for 50 cents an hour and tips.

>
> > "Pathetic that the lying kooker can't even NAME ONE THING I have said
> > that is wrong. And that is the PROVEN FACT!"
>
> alright, you deliberately snipped my post when there was no need.
> that's a lie, now isn't it?

Nope. Snipping your kooker dribblings is a public service, nutbag! It
certainly isn't lying. But your continued avoidance of even TRYING to
NAME ONE THING is utterly transparent and exposes you as the lying
kooker that you are.

BWAHAAAHAHAHAAAA!!

> hiding someone's words is a form of lying.

No, it is no such thing, insane one.

Now open your mouth again, I need to take yet another dump down your
stupid kooker throat!!

BWAHAHAHAHAA!!

<<S-Q-U-E-E-Z-E-!-!-!>>

<<plop>>

Now swallow hard, kooker rightard.

cop welfare

unread,
May 4, 2010, 12:03:57 AM5/4/10
to
larnrod,

you REALLY should seek help.
but if you want to waste yer pitiful life
defending the government and the status quo
unceasingly,
you have my permission.

bwahaha

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzjkBwZtxp4

Iarnrod

unread,
May 4, 2010, 12:22:19 AM5/4/10
to
On May 3, 10:03 pm, cop welfare <cop.welf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> larnrod,
>
> you REALLY should seek help.

Why, you need even MORE shit down your throat than i can provide on my
own?

> but if you want to waste yer pitiful life
> defending the government and the status quo
> unceasingly,
> you have my permission.

You're a kook, remember? Your permission is meaningless. You're
delusional and a liar on top of it. My only purpose here is to correct
you and then gloat, to nutjob,

Now run along, little boy.

Henry

unread,
May 6, 2010, 2:12:28 PM5/6/10
to
Ironhead amused its many betters with:

> Lies of course.

Of course. You never post anything else. But you're not
merely a liar - you're also mentally ill....

http://rense.com/general90/911chen.htm


Tell us why you "think" Cheney would permit a known
hijacked plane to enter the most heavy guarded airspace
on the planet almost an hour after the first tower was hit.
His stand down order resulted in a horrific loss of life
and property.


http://www.911truth.org/article_for_printing.php?story=20070402105006226

3. Norman Mineta's mind-blowing testimony before the 9/11 Commission
concerning the last fifty miles of flight of the plane that hit the
Pentagon and Dick Cheney's orders about it, are matters of no apparent
concern to Dunbar and Reagan. Thus, were one to rely on their telling,
one would be unaware that Mineta was directed to the Presidential
Emergency Operations Center in the White House sometime after the second
plane hit the South Tower. One would not learn that he found Cheney in
charge and being informed by a young man as to the path of the plane
that hit the Pentagon. Nor would one know that Cheney was notified
periodically that the plane was fifty miles out, thirty miles out,
twenty, and ten. Avoiding the entire episode, Dunbar and Reagan
obviously make no mention of the young man's inquiry of Cheney upon the
final progress report, "Do the orders still stand"? Cheney's response,
turning abruptly to the young man and asking pointedly if he (the young
man) had heard anything to the contrary -- a fact of considerable
importance for an understanding of the entire event -- therefore is not
discussed in the pages of Debunking. As a consequence of this avoidance,
one will find no examination of the ramifications of this testimony. One
finds no query concerning the nature of the orders referred to, and no
speculation concerning Pentagon defenses and their failure to deploy.
There is no reference to the failure of the 9/11 Commission to find out
who the young man was, or how many other people were in the room, and
what their reactions were. There is no discussion of how the incident is
simply eliminated from history by the adoption of an alternative
chronology that contradicts a string of accounts and offers no
explanation of why Norman Mineta, now holder of the Presidential Medal
of Freedom, bestowed upon him by President Bush, would make up such an
amazing tale or have such an elaborately embroidered faulty memory. None
of these are matters for Dunbar and Reagan."


http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/HowTheyGetAwayWithIt.html

"The young man's reports to Cheney of the airliner's impending
approach is followed by his urgent question whether "the orders still
stand?" The young man was questioning the order. That question had to be
about whether the order NOT to destroy the approaching plane still
stood. Given the two prior attacks against the Twin Towers using the
commercial airliners as weapons, an order to destroy the plane
approaching the Pentagon would be the only order to give and would not
be subject to question by the young man as the plane approached.
Furthermore, had Cheney's order been to fire on the plane approaching
the Pentagon (which first came near the White House), the anti-aircraft
capacity of the Pentagon (or White House), would have sufficed to take
out that plane, and certainly to have attempted to take out that plane.
Since the Langley/Norfolk jets are at least 10 minutes away and out of
range, Cheney's order is about the on-site Pentagon or White House
defenses. Neither a shoot-down nor an attempted shoot-down occurred, and
since Mineta does not speak of a last-second change in orders by Cheney,
the only supportable conclusion is that Cheney's order was NOT to defend
the Pentagon, an order so contrary to both common sense and military
defense that it, and it alone, explains the questioning by the young man."


http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8788

With regard to the morning of 9/11, everyone agrees that at some time
after 9:03 (when the South Tower of the World Trade Center was struck)
and before 10:00, Vice President Dick Cheney went down to the
Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC), sometimes simply called
the ?bunker,? under the east wing of the White House. Everyone also
agrees that, once there, Cheney was in charge---that he was either
making decisions or relaying decisions from President Bush. But there is
enormous disagreement as to exactly when Cheney entered the PEOC.

According to The 9/11 Commission Report, Cheney arrived ?shortly
before 10:00, perhaps at 9:58? (The 9/11 Commission Report [henceforth
9/11CR], 40). This official time, however, contradicts almost all
previous reports, some of which had him there before 9:20. This
difference is important because, if the 9/11 Commission's time is
correct, Cheney was not in charge in the PEOC when the Pentagon was
struck, or for most of the period during which United Flight 93 was
approaching Washington. But if the reports that have him there by 9:20
are correct, he was in charge in the PEOC all that time.

Mineta?s Report of Cheney's Early Arrival
The most well-known statement contradicting the 9/11 Commission was made
by Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta during his public testimony
to the 9/11 Commission on May 23, 2003. Saying that he "arrived at the
PEOC at about 9:20 AM," Mineta reported that he then overheard part of
an ongoing conversation, which had obviously begun before he arrived,
between a young man and Vice President Cheney. This conversation was
about a plane coming toward Washington and ended with Cheney confirming
that "the orders still stand." When Commissioner Timothy Roemer later
asked Mineta how long after his arrival he overheard this conversation
about whether the orders still stood, Mineta replied: ?Probably about
five or six minutes." This would mean, Roemer pointed out, "about 9:25
or 9:26."

This is a remarkable contradiction. Given the fact that Cheney,
according to Mineta, had been engaged in an ongoing exchange, he must
have been in the PEOC for several minutes before Mineta?s 9:20 arrival.
If Cheney had been there since 9:15, there would be a 43-minute
contradiction between Mineta?s testimony and The 9/11 Commission Report.
Why would such an enormous contradiction exist?

One possible explanation would be that Mineta was wrong. His story,
however, is in line with that of many other witnesses.

Other Reports Supporting Cheney's Early Arrival
Richard Clarke reported that he, Cheney, and Condoleezza Rice had a
brief meeting shortly after 9:03, following which the Secret Service
wanted Cheney and Rice to go down to the PEOC. Rice, however, first went
with Clarke to the White House?s Video Teleconferencing Center, where
Clarke was to set up a video conference, which began at about 9:10.
After spending a few minutes there, Rice said, according to Clarke:
"You're going to need some decisions quickly. I'm going to the PEOC to
be with the Vice President. Tell us what you need." At about 9:15,
Norman Mineta arrived and Clarke "suggested he join the Vice President"
(Against All Enemies, 2-5). Clarke thereby implied that Cheney was in
the PEOC several minutes prior to 9:15.

In an ABC News program on the first anniversary of 9/11, Cheney?s
White House photographer David Bohrer reported that, shortly after 9:00,
some Secret Service agents came into Cheney's office and said, "Sir, you
have to come with us." During this same program, Rice said: "As I was
trying to find all of the principals, the Secret Service came in and
said, "You have to leave now for the bunker. The Vice President's
already there. There may be a plane headed for the White House." ABC?s
Charles Gibson then said: "In the bunker, the Vice President is joined
by Rice and Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta" ("9/11: Interviews
by Peter Jennings," ABC News, September 11, 2002).

The 9/11 Commission?s Late-Arrival Claim
The 9/11 Commission agreed that the vice president was hustled down to
the PEOC after word was received that a plane was headed towards the
White House. It claimed, however, that this word was not received until
9:33. But even then, according to the Commission, the Secret Service
agents immediately received another message, telling them that the
aircraft had turned away, so "no move was made to evacuate the Vice
President at this time." It was not until "just before 9:36" that the
Secret Service ordered Cheney to go below (9/11CR 39). But even after he
entered the underground corridor at 9:37, Cheney did not immediately go
to the PEOC. Rather:

Once inside, Vice President Cheney and the agents paused in an area of
the tunnel that had a secure phone, a bench, and television. The Vice
President asked to speak to the President, but it took time for the call
to be connected. He learned in the tunnel that the Pentagon had been
hit, and he saw television coverage of the smoke coming from the
building. (9/11CR 40)

Next, after Lynne Cheney "joined her husband in the tunnel," the
Commission claimed, "Mrs. Cheney and the Vice President moved from the
tunnel to the shelter conference room" after the call ended, which was
not until after 9:55. As for Rice, the Commission added, she ?entered
the conference room shortly after the Vice President? (9/11CR 40).

The contradiction could not be clearer. According to the Commission,
Cheney, far from entering the PEOC before 9:20, as Mineta and others
said, did not arrive there until about 9:58, 20 minutes after the 9:38
strike on the Pentagon, about which he had learned in the corridor.

Cheney?s Account on Meet the Press

The 9/11 Commission's account even contradicted that given by Cheney
himself in a well-known interview. Speaking to Tim Russert on NBC?s Meet
the Press only five days after 9/11, Cheney said: "After I talked to
the president, . . . I went down into . . . the Presidential Emergency
Operations Center. . . . When I arrived there within a short order, we
had word the Pentagon's been hit." Cheney himself, therefore, indicated
that he had entered the PEOC prior to the (9:38) strike on the Pentagon,
not 20 minutes after it, as the Commission would later claim.

Dealing with the Contradictions
How did the 9/11 Commission deal with the fact that its claim about the
time of Cheney's arrival in the PEOC had been contradicted by Bohrer,
Clarke, Mineta, Rice, several news reports, and even Cheney himself? It
simply omitted any mention of these contradictory reports.

Of these omissions, the most important was the Commission?s failure to
mention Norman Mineta?s testimony, even though it was given to the
Commission in an open hearing---as can be seen by reading the transcript
of that session (May 23, 2003). This portion of Mineta?s testimony was
also deleted from the official version of the video record of the 9/11
Commission hearings in the 9/11 Commission archives. (It can, however,
be viewed on the Internet.)

During an interview for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in 2006,
Hamilton was asked what "Mineta told the Commission about where Dick
Cheney was prior to 10 AM." Hamilton replied: ?I do not recall? ("9/11:
Truth, Lies and Conspiracy: Interview: Lee Hamilton," CBC News, 21
August 2006). It was surprising that Hamilton could not recall, because
he had been the one doing the questioning when Mineta told the story of
the young man's conversation with Cheney. Hamilton, moreover, had begun
his questioning by saying to Mineta: "You were there [in the PEOC] for a
good part of the day. I think you were there with the Vice President."
And Mineta's exchange with Timothy Roemer, during which it was
established that Mineta had arrived at about 9:20, came immediately
after Hamilton?s interrogation. And yet Hamilton, not being able to
recall any of this, simply said, "we think that Vice President Cheney
entered the bunker shortly before 10 o'clock."

Obliterating Mineta?s Problematic Testimony
To see possible motives for the 9/11 Commission?s efforts to obliterate
Mineta?s story from the public record, we need to look at the
conversation he reported to the Commission. He said:

During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there
was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, ?The
plane is 50 miles out." "The plane is 30 miles out.? And when it got
down to "the plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the Vice
President, "Do the orders still stand?" And the Vice President turned
and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand.
Have you heard anything to the contrary""

Mineta?s story had dangerous implications with regard to the strike on
the Pentagon, which occurred at 9:38. According to the 9/11 Commission,
the military did not know that an aircraft was approaching the Pentagon
until 9:36, so that it ?had at most one or two minutes to react to the
unidentified plane approaching Washington? (9/11CR 34). That claim was
essential for explaining, among other things, why the Pentagon had not
been evacuated before it was struck---a fact that resulted in 125
deaths. A spokesperson for Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, when asked why
this evacuation had not occurred, said: ?The Pentagon was simply not
aware that this aircraft was coming our way? (Newsday, Sept. 23, 2001).
Mineta?s testimony implied, by contrast, that Cheney and others knew
that an aircraft was approaching Washington about 12 minutes before that
strike.

Even more problematic was the question of the nature of "the orders."
Mineta assumed, he said, that they were orders to have the plane shot
down. But the aircraft was not shot down. Also, the expected orders,
especially on a day when two hijacked airliners had already crashed into
buildings in New York, would have been to shoot down any nonmilitary
aircraft entering the ?prohibited? airspace over Washington, in which
?civilian flying is prohibited at all times? (?Pilots Notified of
Restricted Airspace; Violators Face Military Action,? FAA Press Release,
September 28, 2001). If those orders had been given, there would have
been no reason to ask if they still stood. The question made sense only
if the orders were to do something unusual---not to shoot the aircraft
down. It appeared, accordingly, that Mineta had inadvertently reported
Cheney's confirmation of stand-down orders.

That Mineta's report was regarded as dangerous is suggested by the
fact that the 9/11 Commission, besides deleting Mineta?s testimony and
delaying Cheney?s entrance to the bunker by approximately 45 minutes,
also replaced Mineta?s story with a new story about an incoming
aircraft. According to The 9/11 Commission Report, here is what really
happened:

At 10:02, the communicators in the shelter began receiving reports from
the Secret Service of an inbound aircraft. . . . At some time between
10:10 and 10:15, a military aide told the Vice President and others that
the aircraft was 80 miles out. Vice President Cheney was asked for
authority to engage the aircraft. . . . The Vice President authorized
fighter aircraft to engage the inbound plane. . . . The military aide
returned a few minutes later, probably between 10:12 and 10:18, and said
the aircraft was 60 miles out. He again asked for authorization to
engage. The Vice President again said yes. (9/11CR 41)

The 9/11 Commission thereby presented the incoming aircraft story as
one that ended with an order for a shoot down, not a stand down. And by
having it occur after 10:10, the Commission not only disassociated it
from the Pentagon strike but also ruled out the possibility that
Cheney's shootdown authorization might have led to the downing of United
Flight 93 (which crashed, according to the Commission, at 10:03).

Given the fact that the 9/11 Commission's account of Cheney's descent
to the bunker contradicted the testimony of not only Norman Mineta but
also many other witnesses, including Cheney himself, Congress and the
press need to launch investigations to determine what really happened.

--

"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." --
Albert Einstein.

http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
http://www.ae911truth.org


Iarnrod

unread,
May 6, 2010, 11:32:44 PM5/6/10
to
On May 6, 12:12 pm, Henry <9-11tr...@experts.org> wrote:
> Ironhead amused its many betters with:
>
> > Lies of course.
>
>   Of course. You never post anything else.

You cannot prove one single thing you say, while I have proven
everything I have said. This is not even open to dispute at this point
after my two years of kicking your stupid kooker fired janitor ass all
over usenet, Hankie.

Henry

unread,
May 7, 2010, 10:03:08 AM5/7/10
to
cop welfare wrote:
> larnrod,

> you REALLY should seek help.
> you REALLY should seek help.
> but if you want to waste yer pitiful life
> defending the government and the status quo
> unceasingly,
> you have my permission.

It's been getting some generous help from its many betters who
post to the newsgroups it pollutes, but nothing but government
lies and propaganda seem to penetrate though its dense iron skull.
At this point, ironhead's only use seems to be for the amusement
of others and to further discredit its insane, physically impossible
magic fire/Super Arab cartoon conspiracy theory. <g>

Here are some links to proof of WTC7's free fall - proof so solid
and irrefutable that even the government hired employees at NIST
were finally forced to concede free fall. Even ironhead should be
able to understand it, but so far, it's still as deluded and
confused as ever....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDvNS9iMjzA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXTlaqXsm4k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3mudruFzNw

Videos from:http://www.911speakout.org/

http://cms.ae911truth.org/index.php/evidence/35-key-facts/275-nist-admits-freefall.html

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages