Every jail has a tuning room, nanrod.

Know your Supreme Court Rulings?
In April of 2012 the "high" court decided that jails may perform suspicionless strip searches on new inmates regardless of the gravity of their alleged offenses. As one justice put it, "[p]eople detained for minor offenses can turn out to be the most devious and dangerous criminals." As evidence for that claim, the majority invoked 9/11. "One of the terrorists involved in the September 11 attacks was stopped and ticketed for speeding just two days before hijacking Flight 93."

King County is a corrupt shitbox and ranks with the worst municipalities whose "law enforcement" take incredible license with her citizenry. Seattle after all, is one of the epicenters of G-Summit protests having an educated, frustrated, and passionate 18-45 yr-old demographic who are very vocal and way less organized and the cops have to have some practice heads to smash-in.

These voyeur cunts with cameras in a room that can be monitored while someone disrobes?? Bunch of sick, pathetic fucks.

Sullenberger's Flight '93 meets the accused.

>> ^DrewNumberTwo:

This isn't what you'd do if you were on a flight that you knew was going to be intentionally crashed in order to kill everyone on board and everyone where it would hit? If you don't like the guy, fine. But it's been 20 years and, to me, he seems to have changed.
>> ^spoco2:

"If I was on that plane with my kids, it wouldn’t have went down like it did. There would have been a lot of blood in that first-class cabin and then me saying, ‘OK, we’re going to land somewhere safely, don’t worry.'"

@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?

Oh yeah I sifted it but it's been called a conspiracy theory and inserted into the lies channel by burdturgler already. I suppose it was just misinformation and kneejerk reporting based on rumours even though they claimed it was CONFIRMED by the justice dept. Silly reporters huh?

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
Don't fret over Sofaking Mr. or Ms. Kisses in fact you can almost take it as a sign that you're on the right track. I cancelled it out.

I had always heard that there was something fishy about OKC and bombs in the building, but didn't know it was so well substantiated in the early reports of the day. I'm sure it was retracted, just like flight 93 landing in Cleveland.

Guess I has some googling to do. Would you dare try to Sift that clip?

In reply to this comment by ButterflyKisses:
well.. the reporters in the video I attached stated that a 2nd bomb was diffused and they found a 3rd one. No it doesn't appear that they were in the truck since that had already exploded.... unless they were in the truck also and they were ejected into the basement of the murrow bldg and just happened not to explode. Highly improbable I would think considering the damage that the truck bomb had done. No, something isn't right here. Why, I wonder isn't this being discussed? Oh I also noticed that sofaking downvoted my comment as if I were asking some inappropriate question. Based on evidence from news coverage I would think that this topic is more than appropriate to inquire about and I'm quite surprized that this has been swept under the rug so to speak.

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
Whoa wait what? He said on the tapes that there was an addional bomb on the front seat he could set off with a pistol didn't he? But that wouldn't be the second larger bomb, would it? Early reporting can't generally be trusted by that's odd.
In reply to this comment by ButterflyKisses:
What about the bombs that were found inside the building? They didn't even cover that did they? How did he get those in there? I recall news coverage on this for a couple of hours that day. Story incomplete.

Don't fret over Sofaking Mr. or Ms. Kisses in fact you can almost take it as a sign that you're on the right track. I cancelled it out.

I had always heard that there was something fishy about OKC and bombs in the building, but didn't know it was so well substantiated in the early reports of the day. I'm sure it was retracted, just like flight 93 landing in Cleveland.

Guess I has some googling to do. Would you dare try to Sift that clip?

In reply to this comment by ButterflyKisses:
well.. the reporters in the video I attached stated that a 2nd bomb was diffused and they found a 3rd one. No it doesn't appear that they were in the truck since that had already exploded.... unless they were in the truck also and they were ejected into the basement of the murrow bldg and just happened not to explode. Highly improbable I would think considering the damage that the truck bomb had done. No, something isn't right here. Why, I wonder isn't this being discussed? Oh I also noticed that sofaking downvoted my comment as if I were asking some inappropriate question. Based on evidence from news coverage I would think that this topic is more than appropriate to inquire about and I'm quite surprized that this has been swept under the rug so to speak.

In reply to this comment by schmawy:
Whoa wait what? He said on the tapes that there was an addional bomb on the front seat he could set off with a pistol didn't he? But that wouldn't be the second larger bomb, would it? Early reporting can't generally be trusted by that's odd.
In reply to this comment by ButterflyKisses:
What about the bombs that were found inside the building? They didn't even cover that did they? How did he get those in there? I recall news coverage on this for a couple of hours that day. Story incomplete.

Wharrgarble! We're not "living in a different age", we're not in a "post-911" world. The TSA is a massive overreaction to one incident. That incident sucked, and there is no downplaying it. But the lesson that needed to be learned, ie that hijackers might do more with a hijacked plane that just kill everyone on board (as terrible as that alone is), has been learned.

Half the the response should be to lock cabin doors. Done. The other half should be for travelers on planes to remain alert and be willing to fight back against hijackers. Done - flight 93 accomplished that before the 9/11 attacks were even finished.

Instead, the TSA is created. Charged with the task of delaying, inconveniencing, and harassing law-abiding citizen travelers while doing absolutely nothing of any real value to prevent or limit terrorist attacks.

The shoebomber happens, all of a sudden everybody has to wait in line to take off shoes. Somebody realizes that some binary explosives are made by mixing liquids, all of a sudden you can't take a bottle of goddamn water or toothpaste on a plane. The Bush administration decides to make a massive list of names for a "no fly list", all of a sudden many completely innocent people are detained and harassed simply because they happen to share a name with someone who may have a tenuous connection to "terrorism". Not to mention the people who get put on the list out of pure spite, like reporters who question TSA practices. I shudder to think what the response to the "undies-bomber" is going to be.

Now Cheney et al are criticizing Obama for "failing to keep America safe". How about criticizing the goddamn TSA? How about remembering that you're infinitely more likely to die in a car accident, or from smoking-induced lung cancer, or even from being bitten by a snake than you are to die in an air-travel incident, terror related or not?

It bothers me these responses to Cheney running his mouth are good in that they make us remember that a lot of this crap started on the Bush administration's watch, but they don't go the bit further and point out what an obvious farce and waste of time, effort, and money the TSA is in general.

>> ^imstellar28:
I agree with all manifestations of my own opinions, regardless of the consequences.
(guh)

That seems like an uncalled for swipe based on a failure of reading comprehension.

>> ^kronosposeidon:
I generally don't have a problem with eminent domain when it's used wisely

What part of that indicates "regardless of the consequences", or for that matter what my opinion is beyond classifying a subset of possible outcomes that I don't take issue with?

I'm not in favor of an absolute, unchecked power of eminent domain. I'm not in favor of abolishing it, either.

Likewise, I'm not in favor of an absolute, unchecked right to property. I'm not in favor of abolishing it, either.

To give my $0.02 on the Flight 93 memorial story, I think it's fishy that neither party was willing to disclose what's being offered for the land. Personally, I have trouble understanding why Lambert would be making a fuss about turning that area into a monument, other than because he's holding out for more money. Beyond that, I don't think I'm qualified to make a judgment on how the court case should be decided from just a single news article clearly aimed more at entertaining than informing.

As for the Kelo case KP linked, I also don't feel qualified to say how that should have been decided either, though that's certainly a much more contentious issue, and I'm not surprised it came down to a 5-4 split. As is usual, I don't care much for the fearmongering crap the conservative justices put in their opinions, especially when the majority's opinion specifies limitations and conditions on what sort of precedent they're intending to set.

However, the Wikipedia page's postmortem makes it clear that the City had not acted in good faith. Had Justice Kennedy's criteria been thoroughly looked through, they would have either been forced to handle the situation more equitably, or just lost the case outright. To me, that seems like a pretty straightforward list of things to look at if you're part of the Kelo legal team...

All that said, I prefer for eminent domain claims to be for public infrastructure, places of historical significance, and natural preservation (i.e. parks). Doing it for economic development seems questionable to me, but in my cursory reading of the decision, there appears to be existing precedent for it, and the Kelo case didn't modify that. My only real criticism of the decision is that they didn't make Kennedy's criteria binding for lower courts, which would help to root out cases where eminent domain is being used for evil selfish capitalist gain.

I loves me a good conspiracy theory. So just because we dont understand the whole picture then it didnt happen right? The people of flight 93 didnt come home. Neither did anyone on those planes that hit the world trade center.

Imagine for a second that its even remotely possible that all of 9/11 was a huge elaborate hoax. How many people would have to know about what really happened? How many are good enough to come out in the open and tell us where all these people that vanished into thin air went?

The footage was crap any way. i know people that could throw together fake videos better than that.

Why would they keep the remains of flight 93 in Iron Mountain? *fishy.

tomorrow,replacing this embed with all the good flight 93 vids,and changing the title, just to fuck with everyone's voting,.....and please...don't discuss

I think it is certainly possibly that flight 93 was shot down. Shooting it down over an unpopulated area would certainly preferable to having it crash into a building.

if contradicting evidence surfaces you probably would.

there's another point that i think people would be foolish to ignore -
all videos confiscated of the pentagon being hit, and also, all pictures of flight 93. why?
if you weren't the least-bit suspicious you've been conditioned beyond help.
admittedly, saying it's an inside job is a paranoid hypothesis which has no evidence, but that's not what a lot of people are saying!

in case some people missed this clip, Donald Rumsfeld actually said Flight 93 was shot down :
http://www.videosift.com/video/Donald-Rumsfeld-Flight-93-was-Shot-Down

How does Flight 93 being shot down fit into the supposed 911 inside job conspiracy? It may further the fact that these men are liars, but if anything it disproves the idea that they were behind it. Why would they shoot down their own guys?