The way I understand it and I havent watched the video yet, is that the F-22 is still experimental it's not finished, it's not a training plane it's just still incomplete. They've been working on this plane for years.

>> ^bareboards2:

The very first minute of this report says these planes have never been used in combat.
Why we are risking the lives of these pilots for a training plane? It is seriously nuts.
I think of it as penis waggling. Boys and their toys. Even the pilots said they were happy to fly again at first.
Who in the Pentagon is so invested in keeping these in the air and why? It isn't rational.

The very first minute of this report says these planes have never been used in combat.

Why we are risking the lives of these pilots for a training plane? It is seriously nuts.

I think of it as penis waggling. Boys and their toys. Even the pilots said they were happy to fly again at first.

Who in the Pentagon is so invested in keeping these in the air and why? It isn't rational.

When I was in high school, I had the great privilege of attending a lecture by Grace Hopper in Fulton, Missouri, at Westminster College. This would have been about 1986. She gave every one of us a nanosecond and gave a captivating talk.

I remember clearly one of her stories about going to the Pentagon to "The Room" to ask for funding for one of the early computer projects she was working on. She had never been to "The Room" before and she was very scared because she was asking for, I think, about $500,000. She steeled herself, gave the presentation, and looked at all the generals sitting in "The Room". They were silent for a bit. Finally, one spoke up to say, "Granted." As she was leaving, another General pulled her aside to explain to her that they were all somewhat dumbfounded by her amazing presentation and obvious passion for her work, and oh by the way, no one had ever asked them for less than $5,000,000 prior to that point.

Grace Hopper is also the actual person who found the first computer software "bug". A moth had gotten inside Eniac and was electrocuted in the machine, shorting out some of the circuits involved in the programming.

Sigh.

While I'm not going to defend her comment in general, it's pretty clear that the "they" she is refering to is not the rape victims, but the Pentagon. She's not saying that women should expect to get raped, she's saying that the Pentagon already knew that some of the women serving were getting raped, so increasing the number of women serving would also increase the number of rapes occurring.

So much horseshit, that if it were compiled virtually into a virtual Universe like ours in mere seconds it would suddenly implode from the horrendous amount of mass gain, leaving only a black hole behind--I would applaud as we collapse.

Second, as Cenk brings up, it's very nice indeed that no one ever bothers to mess around with the Pentagon or in it's entirety the military budget, except for a few canceled plane programs replaced by another tactical trident nuclear submarine, etc... It blows my mind that we as a people in America are fine spending unlimited resources, even into debt, to pay for death, killing, destruction, hatred, bad reputation--military and citizens/tourists, torture, Guantanamo (non-POW camp), illegal actions (politically motivated sometimes, soon it may be at home, other times it's not and you end up with...), Abu Ghraib Prison (soldiers obeying orders or not, it's hard to tell), etc...

Yet you bother to ask people to join together to pay for the humanities of our country, like the sciences (why do we use telescopes at 26 million dollars per year, it's a waste of money--IT DOES NOTHING--same with NASA, worthless), education (well my kids are not being taught the right things anyway so I might as well keep them at home), and the biggest black sheep: universal health-care (why should I pay for someone else's sickness, are they going to give me a random check when I'm not sick for a long time as a reward--it totally doesn't make sense; plus, I'm not paying for abortions, drug abuse, and all those liars that are not sick and abuse the system...)...

We are willing to pay for free and in fact reach into our wallets and give them ten more dollars each for killing each other, but just to simply provide health-care for all and be our brother's keeper, even 10 cents a day is too much.

The United States of America IS DYING and both political parties are just fine with it--in fact they are helping every day......

/Disgusted is where I'm at mentally; boiling with rage.

>> ^Skeeve:

>> ^heathen:
"1 in 3 women in the military are sexually assaulted" - What the f k?
How the hell is that not the focus of this video?
I think TYT has commented on this before - they didn't just ignore the statistic


Yeah, sorry, I was so shocked by the percentage I just reacted.

Seems they covered a similar story back in February.

TYT: Pentagon Class Action Lawsuit Over Rape
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_k-zikhqvmk

@quantumushroom, I'm not old enough to remember things before FDR, much less the time of Jefferson.

I'm not old enough to remember Nixon either, but while I agree that he did found the EPA, I should point out he was a Republican, not a Democrat.

I guess the real difference between us is that I see America's progress over the period from the Civil War through to about 1968 or so as being mostly in the right direction. Increased individual rights, increased equality, increased prosperity, and a largely shared prosperity.

Sometime in the 1968-1980 period that started to break down. In the Reagan-era, I mostly just saw the pieces of what was the American Dream being hauled off and sold, with the rich keeping the proceeds.

My goal is not to see government controlling everything -- that's the mirror-image assumption again.

I would like to see us have a more generous set of welfare programs, like many European countries have. But that's not socialism, it's still capitalism, just like we've had since the country was founded. Socialism would be the government literally running everything, with private ownership of capital being illegal. The only place that still runs that way is North Korea, and I'm no more eager to emulate them than you are.

I don't like corporations using government to stamp out competition, or to line their pockets with subsidies and tax cuts, either. I just think the solution to that problem is to get corporations out of government, rather than government out of corporations.

I want to see everyone get richer, I just don't think that cutting taxes on the rich and abolishing environmental regulations helps anyone, not even the rich.

And I've definitely not "won" with millions of people unemployed, millions without health care, millions of children needing food stamps, and seeing our roads, bridges, and schools crumbling away, while the military budget keeps on going up and up and up.

You're winning! The public sector is shrinking! Corporate profits are at all-time highs! Union participation is at historic lows! Taxes collected are at historic lows! The Pentagon budget is bigger than ever, and we're at war with two countries!

The world outside your window is the result of your triumph! Aren't you happy?

@xxovercastxx

I don't know where you come up with "rather high accuracy". There's so many factors you wouldn't know. You could estimate where they were, but you still wouldn't know. And like I previously said, you wouldn't know if other radar systems were patched in to cover probable gap areas. If a particular radar has a listed range, you still wouldn't know how far beyond the range you could still get a response or the quality of response, or at what altitude you would be flying "under the radar".
The ONLY way to know where the radar gaps were would be to analyze computer tracking data of hundreds if not thousands of flights in that area. I guess air traffic controllers could have done this, but it serves them no real purpose unless they were tasked with doing it. So for the hijackers to know the gaps, they would have had to had access to that data and someone to interpret it.

Sure, it's all coincidence. Actually all the planes had their transponders either turned off or changed. Flights 11, 77, and 93 did so in dead zones. Flight 175 changed it's code (identity) a minute after flight 11 crashed into WTC1. A few minutes later turns and changes it's identity again. 10 minutes later it crashes into WTC2. This is the flight where (to my knowledge) no radio communication has been released, but has the most video evidence of crashing into WTC2. However for the first few hours it was reported flight 77 was the one that crashed into WTC2. United thought 175 was still in the air somewhere and didn't confirm it had crashed until after all aircraft had been grounded and 175 wasn't found anywhere. It didn't use this protocol for flight 93 which it confirmed had crashed almost immediately after it was reported. But we also know that the flight that hit the south tower couldn't have been flight 175 because the engine that was found doesn't match that of United's Boeing 767 (@3:03 here). FAA and NORAD lost 77 on radar and thought it was the second flight that crashed. After they later "found" 77, some were identifying it as flight 11 on radio. Also false blips were on the radar screens from active war game exercises. These were on the for most of the attacks, until at least after the Pentagon attack.

The point is the only reason to be messing with the transponder codes is to confuse ATC. Which wouldn't work if they weren't able to switch the codes under poor quality radar coverage. The planes would still show on radar if the transponders were turned off. So without war game false blips to blend in with, that would also be pointless.

Somehow these hijackers knew where the radar gaps were, knew how to read the jet's instrument panel, and knew when the jet was entering the gaps. They also knew how to maneuver and fly Boeing jets at 500 mph. These are the same schmucks that couldn't pass basic flying school with a single engine Cessna. These are the same schmucks that were recorded on radio to ATC, thinking they were talking over the intercom to the passengers. Let's also not forget that none of the pilots squawked an emergency or hijack code, or announced one over the radio. 0 for 4: more highly improbable coincidence.

I'm sorry you feel that way about the "truther movement", but it's not about treating "all explanations that can be imagined" equally. It's about treating all hypothesis equally and searching for evidence and reason to support it. It's about letting the evidence lead the way to truth wherever that may be and NOT jumping to conclusions or "explanations" from authorities without evidence like the official story ie the official "theory" has done. There's probably all kinds of crazy theories that can be easily debunked with physical evidence. But for some reason the authorities didn't want to do an honest investigation. It took over a year of pressure from victim's families for the government to agree to do their job. And even then the 9/11 commission members admit their report is basically a cover-up. Government bodies concluding the original half-baked government story, ignoring or covering up any evidence to the contrary. That's not how a real investigation is done.

What do you get out of it? Well..., maybe you wake up. Let's go back to my original question: Do you disagree with the documentary or are you instinctively hostile to 9/11 truth efforts?

Well so far, you've only managed to bring up one thing you disagree with and like I've explained, your conclusions on that issue are erroneous. And it's not about "getting my ideas heard", it's about finding the truth and spreading that message to other people. So why are you hostile toward that message? Why do you hold a bias against that?

>> ^Stormsinger:

>> ^marbles:
Airplanes Have Been Flown By Remote Control Since 1917
One day after 9/11, an article appeared in a top science and technology news service stating “hijackings could be halted in progress with existing technologies, say aviation researchers”. The article quoted a transportation expert as saying:
“Most modern aircraft have some form of autopilot that could be re-programmed to ignore commands from a hijacker and instead take direction from the ground . . . .”
See also this article, in which the former head of British Airways “suggested . . . that aircraft could be commandeered from the ground and controlled remotely in the event of a hijack.”
...
While some claim that remote control played a part in 9/11, a separate – but equally interesting – question, is whether remote control could and should have been used to safely land the hijacked airplanes. Given that Al Qaeda flying planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon was wholly foreseeable, and hijackings could be stopped using existing equipment, why wasn’t the equipment used to stop this type of attack? In other words, why didn’t ground control have the ability to override the hijacked airlines to safely land them and take control of the aircraft?

Which do you think is going to be more common...terrorist hijackings, or script kiddies exploiting security holes in the software?


huh?

>> ^marbles:

Airplanes Have Been Flown By Remote Control Since 1917
One day after 9/11, an article appeared in a top science and technology news service stating “hijackings could be halted in progress with existing technologies, say aviation researchers”. The article quoted a transportation expert as saying:
“Most modern aircraft have some form of autopilot that could be re-programmed to ignore commands from a hijacker and instead take direction from the ground . . . .”
See also this article, in which the former head of British Airways “suggested . . . that aircraft could be commandeered from the ground and controlled remotely in the event of a hijack.”
...
While some claim that remote control played a part in 9/11, a separate – but equally interesting – question, is whether remote control could and should have been used to safely land the hijacked airplanes. Given that Al Qaeda flying planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon was wholly foreseeable, and hijackings could be stopped using existing equipment, why wasn’t the equipment used to stop this type of attack? In other words, why didn’t ground control have the ability to override the hijacked airlines to safely land them and take control of the aircraft?


Which do you think is going to be more common...terrorist hijackings, or script kiddies exploiting security holes in the software?

>> ^hpqp:

It's no secret that OBL was trained by the CIA during Russia's invasion of Afghanistan, as a part of the proxy wars between USSR and USA during the cold war.
As for the evidence, you might like to start with the links I've already provided you with. Twice. Oh well, "Third time's the charm" for you superstitious types: http://www.debunking911.com/

_{(Btw, if you're going to defend your questionable beliefs, try linking articles that are a tad more convincing than the conjecturing ramblings filled with leading questions of a Srebrenica-massacre-denialist and defender of a renowned war criminal.)}>> ^marbles:
>> ^hpqp:
Yes, why do truthers keep avoiding the evidence and logic?

I'm not avoiding anything. Please share all credible evidence backing the official theory. No such evidence exists.
And logic? Maybe you should do some research on who Osama bin Laden aka Tim Osman really was.
Osama bin Laden: Made in USA



And it's no secret that al-Qaeda was a database of "freedom fighters" of a CIA proxy army. It's also no secret they were given 6+ billion dollars in the 80s by the CIA and Saudi Intelligence to fight the Soviets over Afghanistan under the invented threat of Communism. Now here's where that "logic" comes in.

When did OBL stop working for the CIA?
OBL was immediately blamed for 9/11 (within a few hours after the attacks) and now we are fighting wars under the invented threat of Muslim jihadists.

Why were some of the alleged hijackers living with CIA and FBI informants?

Why were some of the alleged hijackers training at US military bases?

Why did Anwar al-Awlaki dine at the Pentagon just months after 9/11?

What was ISI Chief Mahmud Ahmad (who wired $100,00 to Mohammed Atta) doing at the Pentagon the week leading up to and morning of 9/11?

Oh, I'm looking for "logical" answers here.

And for "evidence" supporting the official story, don't be a chicken shit. List your best supporting evidence. Of course, I know this is impossible for you. For it would require you to actually construct a coherent argument.
Maybe instead of letting debunking.com do your thinking for you, you should try getting all the facts and confirm them for yourself.

And my "questionable beliefs" are grounded solidly on credible evidence and sound logic, so question away. The link was to an article, not a guy. I'm glad you can google, but if you want to refute the article, try to avoid using logical fallacies (after all).

_{(Btw, "conjecturing" isn't an adjective. You can google that too! It's funny, you keep accusing me of "conjecturing", but you're too much of a chicken shit to demonstrate it!)}

Airplanes Have Been Flown By Remote Control Since 1917

One day after 9/11, an article appeared in a top science and technology news service stating “hijackings could be halted in progress with existing technologies, say aviation researchers”. The article quoted a transportation expert as saying:

“Most modern aircraft have some form of autopilot that could be re-programmed to ignore commands from a hijacker and instead take direction from the ground . . . .”

See also this article, in which the former head of British Airways “suggested . . . that aircraft could be commandeered from the ground and controlled remotely in the event of a hijack.”
...

While some claim that remote control played a part in 9/11, a separate – but equally interesting – question, is whether remote control could and should have been used to safely land the hijacked airplanes. Given that Al Qaeda flying planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon was wholly foreseeable, and hijackings could be stopped using existing equipment, why wasn’t the equipment used to stop this type of attack? In other words, why didn’t ground control have the ability to override the hijacked airlines to safely land them and take control of the aircraft?

Indeed Bruti. If you are going to claim that a plane hit the pentagon, Prove it.

So if those planes didn't hit the building, what happened to the people on the planes?

Also, one of the Exec Producers for CNN had his wife on the plane that hit the pentagon, and she called him and left him a message. Was that all setup so a missile could hit it? She must have been pretty okay with abandoning her life =P

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!

If someone's ready to fly a plane-full of explosives into a building, that person needs to be put away, regardless of who handed them the 'splosives.

/devil's advocate

>> ^bamdrew:

Yeah... kindof a stretch with this one, FBI...
Reminds me of the 'badguy test' where a person who the 'badguys' are thinking about trusting is shown a room where a captured informant is being tortured... they hand the new guy a gun and say 'shoot this informant to show us your commitment'.
Difference here is the FBI hand a kid a plane with some explosives,... 'I thought you said you hated America, well here's your chance... justkidding we're the FBI and you're under arrest'