Is anyone interested in Apollo missions...

[Paul Rigby]

I'm no fan of Shayler, but this is very good:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1...11133&hl=en

The tendentiousness and sheer intellectual dishonesty of this BBC programme should have brought an end to the organisation in its current anti-democratic form. Let's hope Shayler's doc gets the ball rolling.

[Peter McKenna]

Why, if their 'official' version happened as they say it did do they keep vidoes of the planes hitting the Pentagon secret?

Provide evidence on one of the appropriate threads that unreleased videos exist.

The debris secret?

Already explain crash debris is not normally publicly available provide examples of when it has been previously and that peple have asked for and denied such access.

The NORAD facts secret?

What facts?

...hasty removal without forensic analysis of the twin towers steel and debris.....but...no video of the 'thing' hitting the pentagon....no anti-aircraft missiles fired at the 'thing' that hit it!....no interception and delayed and confused orders to intercept....twin towers that collapse with no resistance and #7 without any hit or major fire-damage; find 'terrorist passports of paper, but not plane parts...liquid steel and molten steel seen; reliable reports of expolosions before the strikes of planes on the towersand more

All BS claims as indicated elsewhere on this forum

It has generally been my policy not to even comment on Leninisms.....but I drank too much wine...

The building is [by their own boasts] the best protected building in the world...it has anti-aircraft missles on the roof and around it, satelites trained on it, radar and other high-tech protetction and cameras up the yazoo watching it. How could something hit it [and large]..without being: photo'd; anti-aircraft missle fired at; intercepted by fighters UNLESS the senario called for just what happened to 

happen. Len-in, I don't really think you are as naive as you pose to be....but a foil for those wh

o do these things. If I'm wrong, my humble apologies...if not ....[deleted]

I have read rumor of a Stinger missile (is this a rumor?) installed in WTC 7, for use in a scenario for Presidential protection, where a SAM type defense would be appropriate. If true there likely would have been a number of SAM missiles installed and launch ready. This would have been a similar scenario to the WTC 1 and 2 aircraft attack.

Was this only a rumor? If not why indeed was the stinger missile(s) not made ready for use against, at least, the second (south tower) attack? I haven't read anything addressing this. Could it be that the potential civilian toll, were the plane brought down earlier than the crash, have been too great? Or, and more likely, it wasn't even considered for this situation, and if not why not?

If a conspiracy existed, is it possible that it included the destruction of this evidence (SAM defenses) provoked the destruction of WTC 7? This is possible IMO.

Edited June 30, 2007 by Peter McKenna

[Ron Ecker]

it has anti-aircraft missles on the roof and around it

I have seen this stated as fact, but I read somewhere that it is not true. I don't remember where, but I think it had to do with too many civilians being in the area. I don't know of any definitive source on this question, if there is one.

Edited June 30, 2007 by Ron Ecker

[Jack White]

Why, if their 'official' version happened as they say it did do they keep vidoes of the planes hitting the Pentagon secret?

Provide evidence on one of the appropriate threads that unreleased videos exist.

The debris secret?

Already explain crash debris is not normally publicly available provide examples of when it has been previously and that peple have asked for and denied such access.

The NORAD facts secret?

What facts?

...hasty removal without forensic analysis of the twin towers steel and debris.....but...no video of the 'thing' hitting the pentagon....no anti-aircraft missiles fired at the 'thing' that hit it!....no interception and delayed and confused orders to intercept....twin towers that collapse with no resistance and #7 without any hit or major fire-damage; find 'terrorist passports of paper, but not plane parts...liquid steel and molten steel seen; reliable reports of expolosions before the strikes of planes on the towersand more

All BS claims as indicated elsewhere on this forum

It has generally been my policy not to even comment on Leninisms.....but I drank too much wine...

The building is [by their own boasts] the best protected building in the world...it has anti-aircraft missles on the roof and around it, satelites trained on it, radar and other high-tech protetction and cameras up the yazoo watching it. How could something hit it [and large]..without being: photo'd; anti-aircraft missle fired at; intercepted by fighters UNLESS the senario called for just what happened to 

happen. Len-in, I don't really think you are as naive as you pose to be....but a foil for those wh

o do these things. If I'm wrong, my humble apologies...if not ....[deleted]

I have read rumor of a Stinger missile (is this a rumor?) installed in WTC 7, for use in a scenario for Presidential protection, where a SAM type defense would be appropriate. If true there likely would have been a number of SAM missiles installed and launch ready. This would have been a similar scenario to the WTC 1 and 2 aircraft attack.

Was this only a rumor? If not why indeed was the stinger missile(s) not made ready for use against, at least, the second (south tower) attack? I haven't read anything addressing this. Could it be that the potential civilian toll, were the plane brought down earlier than the crash, have been too great? Or, and more likely, it wasn't even considered for this situation, and if not why not?

If a conspiracy existed, is it possible that it included the destruction of this evidence (SAM defenses) provoked the destruction of WTC 7? This is possible IMO.

Missile defense systems are classified information.

Collateral damage is expected is military operations.

Jack

[Len Colby]

It has generally been my policy not to even comment on Leninisms.....but I drank too much wine...

The building is [by their own boasts] the best protected building in the world...

Citation

it has anti-aircraft missles on the roof and around it,

The supposed missile batteries on at the Pentagon were dealt with here.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=75728

Unless someone comes up with real evidence there were any there the issue is pretty much settled.

satelites trained on it, radar and other high-tech protetction and cameras up the yazoo watching it.

Citation

How could something hit it [and large]..without being: photo'd; anti-aircraft missle fired at; intercepted by fighters UNLESS the senario called for just what happened to happen.

If what you claimed were true you might have a point but it isn't so you don't

Len-in, I don't really think you are as naive as you pose to be....but a foil for those who do these things. If I'm wrong, my humble apologies...if not ....[deleted]

Lem-kin, I don't really think you are as whacked out as you seem to be....but a foil for those who carried out the attacks. If I'm wrong, my humble apologies...if not ....[deleted]

[Len Colby]

I have read rumor of a Stinger missile (is this a rumor?) installed in WTC 7, for use in a scenario for Presidential protection, where a SAM type defense would be appropriate. If true there likely would have been a number of SAM missiles installed and launch ready. This would have been a similar scenario to the WTC 1 and 2 aircraft attack.

Was this only a rumor? If not why indeed was the stinger missile(s) not made ready for use against, at least, the second (south tower) attack? I haven't read anything addressing this. Could it be that the potential civilian toll, were the plane brought down earlier than the crash, have been too great? Or, and more likely, it wasn't even considered for this situation, and if not why not?

If a conspiracy existed, is it possible that it included the destruction of this evidence (SAM defenses) provoked the destruction of WTC 7? This is possible IMO.

I really doubt there were SAM's of any type at or anywhere near the WTC. Even if there were no one in NYC was expecting a second plane and whoever was on the ground probably would NOT have had the authority to shoot down a large passenger jet. Also even if flight 175 had been shot down it is my understanding that planes don't usually fall straight down like rocks. The plane might have crashed ev further down on the South Tower leading to even more deaths.

[Len Colby]

For those of us without either the time or the patience to watch an 80 minute video can you tell us the ‘highlights’?

[Evan Burton]

Ron, do you have details of the photographer who confirms the timings?

I still believe Mineta was mistaken about his times; all other sources (stand fast the photographer) disagree with his timings.

According to Mineta, the following was underway between his arrival at 0920 and 0926 ("about 5 or 6 minutes"):

- VP in PEOC. USSS logs disagree (0937). It was also noted that as they entered the PEOC, they paused in the tunnel and saw television footage that the Pentagon had been attacked (report page 40)(impact at 0938).

- SLOTUS in PEOC. Logs disagree (arrived at 0952).

- President on way to Louisiana. Logs disagree; Air Force 1 didn't depart until 0954.

- White House being evacuated. Logs disagree; the Regan tower controller didn't notify the USSS Ops Centre until 0933 of an unidentified inbound (Report, page 39), and the evacuation was not ordered until 0936.

Now, if we assume that Mineta was mistaken about the times and arrived about 1005 or thereabouts, all the events match up. The VP is there, SLOTUS is there, Bush is in the air, the White House has been / is being evacuated, and he hears the conversation regarding UA93.

There was also much confusion and I'd say that Mineta was not aware that the Pentagon had been hit.

[Evan Burton]

The claim of SAMs or MPADs being on the Pentagon in 2001 is just so much bull.

[Sid Walker]

I'm no fan of Shayler, but this is very good:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1...11133&hl=en

The tendentiousness and sheer intellectual dishonesty of this BBC programme should have brought an end to the organisation in its current anti-democratic form. Let's hope Shayler's doc gets the ball rolling.

Why's that, Paul?

Edited July 1, 2007 by Sid Walker

[Peter McKenna]

Ron, do you have details of the photographer who confirms the timings?

I still believe Mineta was mistaken about his times; all other sources (stand fast the photographer) disagree with his timings.

According to Mineta, the following was underway between his arrival at 0920 and 0926 ("about 5 or 6 minutes"):

- VP in PEOC. USSS logs disagree (0937). It was also noted that as they entered the PEOC, they paused in the tunnel and saw television footage that the Pentagon had been attacked (report page 40)(impact at 0938).

- SLOTUS in PEOC. Logs disagree (arrived at 0952).

- President on way to Louisiana. Logs disagree; Air Force 1 didn't depart until 0954.

- White House being evacuated. Logs disagree; the Regan tower controller didn't notify the USSS Ops Centre until 0933 of an unidentified inbound (Report, page 39), and the evacuation was not ordered until 0936.

Now, if we assume that Mineta was mistaken about the times and arrived about 1005 or thereabouts, all the events match up. The VP is there, SLOTUS is there, Bush is in the air, the White House has been / is being evacuated, and he hears the conversation regarding UA93.

There was also much confusion and I'd say that Mineta was not aware that the Pentagon had been hit.

What's a SLOTUS? Sec. of Labor?

Len, OK with the no SAMs (I did read it though), but if there was what's the difference between a SAM and scrambling a fighter and shooting it down? If the plane was observed soon enough, the missile could take it out well away from downtown Manhattan, and a well timed strike could probably ensure it went into the East River, No?.

[Evan Burton]

Second Lady of the United States (i.e. Lynne Cheney)

[Paul Rigby]

I'm no fan of Shayler, but this is very good:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1...11133&hl=en

The tendentiousness and sheer intellectual dishonesty of this BBC programme should have brought an end to the organisation in its current anti-democratic form. Let's hope Shayler's doc gets the ball rolling.

Why's that, Paul?

Sid,

By way of reply - and a plug for a fellow "bluenose" - try this link for very important reasons to view Shayler with extreme scepticism: http://www.borderland.co.uk/notes_from_the...derland_002.htm

But the fact remains that the above-linked doc is still very well done.

Paul

[Paul Rigby]

I'm no fan of Shayler, but this is very good:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1...11133&hl=en

The tendentiousness and sheer intellectual dishonesty of this BBC programme should have brought an end to the organisation in its current anti-democratic form. Let's hope Shayler's doc gets the ball rolling.

And who better to unravel the spooky ways of the BBC than an "ex-"MI5 man!

BBC Allowed Security Service To Spy On Employees

IT IS a tale of secret agents and surveillance that could have come straight out of the BBC's classic John le Carre spy drama, Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy.

By Chris Hastings in London

07/04/06 "SMH" -- -- Confidential papers show that the BBC allowed Britain's domestic security agency, MI5, to investigate the backgrounds and political affiliations of thousands of its employees, including newsreaders, reporters and continuity announcers.

The files, which shed light on the BBC's hitherto secret links with MI5, show that at one stage it was responsible for vetting 6300 BBC posts - almost a third of the total workforce.

They also confirm that the corporation held a list of "subversive organisations" and that evidence of certain kinds of political activity could be a bar to appointment or promotion.

The BBC's reliance on MI5 reached a peak in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

The papers show that senior BBC figures covered up these links in the face of awkward questions from trade unions and the press. The documents refer to a "defensive strategy" based on "categorical denial". One file note, dated March 1, 1985, states: "Keep head down and stonewall all questions."

It is only now, after a request by London's The Sunday Telegraph under the Freedom of Information Act, that it has finally been willing to release details of the vetting operation.

Another internal BBC document, dated 1983, confirms: "We supply personal details to the Security Service.

If there is any adverse information known, we receive this information and also, where necessary, an assessment based upon the involvement of the individual. This is presented to us as advice; line management then make the decision as to action."

The documents do not name any of those subjected to vetting.

Senior officials were checked because they had access to confidential government information in relation to their jobs. Thousands of employees were vetted because they were involved in live broadcasts and the BBC was worried about the possibility of on-air bias.

The vetting system, which was phased out in the late 1980s, also applied to television producers, directors, sound engineers, secretaries and researchers and even the spouses of applicants.

The BBC tried on several occasions to be more open about the system, but was blocked by MI5. A memo, dated March 7, 1985, states: "Secrecy of the complete vetting operation is imposed upon us by the Security Service - it is not of our making."

For their part, the security services were increasingly concerned about the number of people being referred to them by the BBC. During the first four months of 1983, they were asked to investigate 619 people.

The BBC declined to comment on the documents.

Telegraph, London

The dutiful servants of a foreign, and frequently hostile, power thus sit in judgement of the political reliability of those who don't serve their masters.

The British establishment in a nutshell: grovel to the strong, bully the weak.

[Guest David Guyatt]

I believe I am right in saying that there has always been a suit from the Box sitting on the Beeb's Board of Governers. He who pays the piper gets to chose the tune... and turn over the lunchtime wine cabinet

And so, basking in my current anti-Shayler moodinss, I see nothing especially new or alarming about this (having not watched it, naturally). And especially am not surprised to see this story crisped up in the Daily Bellylaugh. Right down their proverbial passage, methinks -- they get more inspired leaks from the military inteligence community than Priivate Eye (if the ever so wicked rumours are true?) which is probably why they are the rag of choice for officers in Blighty's Armed Forces (and duly reccomended by bomber command).

Btw, is Chris hastings related to Max "Hiler" Hastings, former editor of the Bellylaugh?

David