Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
host if you wanted to address what I said in your first post, it would have helped if you would have done so instead of responding to what someone else wrote elsewhere.
As for the rest of your post I would like to direct you to this thread
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=67071
While, I am pleased the thread has sunk below the 'one month' mark, I think its where it would be best served. |
Did you read the news reports and quotes from the 9/11 Commission chariman and members that I have posted?
You've responded to the contents of my last two posts by directing me to a thread in the TFP "paranoia" forum. Yours is not a reasonable reaction to the information contained in my last two posts. I've posted a record of false testimony, avoidance of investigation of that false official testimony, inexcusable delays in reporting the "results" of the "compromise" "self investigations" of the false testimony, and the fact that the "report", exonerating the DOD officials who were accused of falsely testifying to the 9/11 Commission, which was "promised" to be release "shortly" by the DOD Inspector General, has not, evidently, been released, 3-1/2 years after the investigation was requested, and 17 months after "shortly".
I documented that the DOD Inspector General's "findings" of "poor recordkeeping" by NORAD on 9/11, in the initial report released 08/05/06, were contradicted in the 9/11 Commission Report.
It is more "reasonable", not to believe the Official version of the 9/11 attacks, than it is to accept it. That is not a conclusion that is appropriate for a "paranoia thread" discussion, it is a conclusion driven by the intentional official record of deception, in testimony to the 9/11 Commission, and in details communicated to the American people and to the rest of the world.
A "reasonable" discussion on this thread cannot happen if the Official "story" of why post 9/11 increased airport and flight security was justified, is no more credible than this 2006"liquid explosives on airliners "plot":
Quote:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...leged_uk_.html
....I'd be interested in the number of plotters who had passports. How could they even stage a dummy-run with no passports? And what bomb-making materials did they actually have? These seem like legitimate questions to me; the British authorities have produced no evidence so far. If the only evidence they have was from torturing someone in Pakistan, then they have nothing that can stand up in anything like a court. I wonder if this story is going to get more interesting. I wonder if Lieberman's defeat, the resilience of Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the emergence of a Hezbollah-style government in Iraq had any bearing on the decision by Bush and Blair to pre-empt the British police and order this alleged plot disabled. <h2>I wish I didn't find these questions popping into my head. But the alternative is to trust the Bush administration.</h2>
|
Quote:
|
.....“I would not hesitate to allow that liquid explosives can pose a danger,” Greene added, recalling Ramzi Yousef’s 1994 detonation of a small nitroglycerine bomb aboard Philippine Airlines Flight 434. The explosion was a test run for the so-called “Project Bojinka,” an Al Qaeda scheme to simultaneously destroy a dozen widebody airliners over the Pacific Ocean. “But the idea that confiscating someone’s toothpaste is going to keep us safe is too ridiculous to entertain.”....
|
More than a year ago, post #38:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Aladdin Sane
|
We were told by our officials, in AUG., 2006:
President Bush Discusses Terror Plot Upon Arrival in Wisconsin
President Bush on Thursday said, "This country is safer than it was prior to 9/11. ... in the United Kingdom for their good work in busting this plot. ...
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060810-3.html
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0060831-1.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
August 31, 2006
President Bush Addresses American Legion National Convention
...The truth is there is violence, but those who cause it have a clear purpose. ...or hijackers plot to blow up planes over the Atlantic,....
|
Quote:
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com...icleid=2800843
* Published Date: 13 August 2006
Terror alert: Blair to force through 90-day detention
The uncompromising response to the growing threat came as it emerged that the ban on hand luggage on British aircraft is set to continue indefinitely, and could be bolstered by stringent new security screening at all the nation's airports.
By BRIAN BRADY AND EDDIE BARNES
TONY Blair is planning to push through 90-day detention without charge for terror suspects following the alleged plot to murder thousands of airline passengers by blowing their jets out of the sky.
Senior ministers believe <h3>public concern about terrorism is now at such a level that they will be able to reintroduce the controversial detention powers, which were rejected in favour of a 28-day limit following the 7/7 attacks..</h3>
|
Quote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7093795.stm
14 November 2007, 14:16 GMT
One-bag air travel rule relaxed
Crowds at Heathrow Airport
Critics say the checks have damaged Britain's reputation
Plans to ease baggage restrictions for air travellers have been outlined by Transport Secretary Ruth Kelly.
.....The UK remains the only country to operate a one-bag rule for air passengers.
Curbs were imposed in August 2006 after police said they had foiled a plot to bring down as many as 10 planes.
All hand luggage had to be checked into the hold of aircraft, with only passports and travel documents allowed on board.
The delays resulted in hundreds of cancelled flights, costing the industry millions of pounds.
Weeks later the restrictions were eased and passengers were allowed to take one small item of hand luggage on board.
In October, shadow transport secretary Theresa Villiers said Heathrow was "rapidly becoming a national embarrassment" because of the rules.
And Willie Walsh, the chief executive of British Airways, has said the restrictions were "damaging the UK's reputation around the world from a business perspective".
|
The "point", Ustwo, is that the US/UK "collaboration", 17 months ago....has resulted in restrictions on liquids and other "carry on" items screened in pre-boarding lines at US airports that are justified ONLY by a 1994 explosives "test" by terrorists on an airliner in the Phillipines, since none of "the evidence" of the sensational summer 2006 liquid explosives "plot", was persuasive of any actual credible "terrorist plot".
Before the ridiculous UK non-plot was "foiled", the 1994 incident influenced no such airport security extremes for the next dozen years.
The "19 jackers" of 9/11, we're told, are dead. Cockpit doors on airliners are now hardened. Flight crews are instructed to keep themselves sealed in the cockpit to avoid the chance of hijackers gaining control of an airplane.
Neither our government officials or the Blair admin. in the UK, were sincere and forthright enough in communicating to us to earn and keep OUR trust.
If we face a "serious" terrorist threat, they should speak to us honestly about the actual risks and about the evidence that they actually have.
We cannot take any of this seriously, they have not been serious with us, as leaders in both countries have spent seven years consolidating power and restricting our rights. Anyone can still attempt to ship bomb containing cargo by air, if they are serious about exploding a bomb in flight on a large jet plane.
Air cargo carried in passenger aircraft cargo holds is <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000086&sid=asap.u05WtsE">not methodically screened</a> the way passenger luggage and carry on items are.
There are sky marshals on random flights, and some flight crew members are now armed.
Unless our leaders can come clean about what happened on 9/11, honestly communicate actual threat levels, stop hyping wars of choice that are not justified by actual imminent threats to our national security, ALL pre-flight post 9/11 screening "enhancements" should be curtailed at airports.
A fraction of the savings achieved by reducing TSA and private contractor security staffing could pay for four air marshals on EVERY flight with savings left to spare....
2008 would be a great time to do it, and to vote in leaders who take earning and keeping our trust, a top priority in upholding the US constituion and maintaining our best national security interests.
This is all bullshit....enough already!