If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Breaking News - 9/11 Flight Confrimed
Since days after 9/11, there has been a story floating around
about a flight that carried a group of Saudi natives out of the US on 9/13/2001 while all air traffic was supposedly shut down. The Bush white house has denied that this flight had taken place. The FBI and FAA still maintain that this flight did not exist. One Bush staffer jokingly said that this story has achieved grassy knowl status (refering to all the JFK conspiracy stories). Well, guess what? This morning, officials from Tampa International Airport have confirmed that yes, the flight did take place. They also released the names of eye whitnesses to the flight. They further stated that at least 3 Arabs boarded the flight. One Arab was a member of the Saudi royal family. In addition, 2 US government officials boarded the flight, one of which was identified as an FBI agent. The TIA officials who released this information stated that they were not allowed to check the passenger list against the US terrorist watch list. So, why did President Bush lie? And what are they trying to cover up? -john- -- ================================================== ================== John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708 Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com ================================================== ================== |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"John A. Weeks III" wrote in message ... Since days after 9/11, there has been a story floating around about a flight that carried a group of Saudi natives out of the US on 9/13/2001 while all air traffic was supposedly shut down. No, you are getting your facts wrong. Most air traffic was shut down on the day the alleged flight took place, not all--see the St. Petersburg Times account. "Most of the aircraft allowed to fly in U.S. airspace on Sept. 13 were empty airliners being ferried from the airports where they made quick landings on Sept. 11. The reopening of the airspace included paid charter flights, but not private, nonrevenue flights." (http://www.sptimes.com/2004/06/09/Ta...ies_flig.shtml) The Bush white house has denied that this flight had taken place. The FBI and FAA still maintain that this flight did not exist. One Bush staffer jokingly said that this story has achieved grassy knowl status (refering to all the JFK conspiracy stories). But oddly enough the 9/11 commission already knows that such flights occurred: "The 9/11 Commission, which has said the flights out of the United States were handled appropriately by the FBI..." That is from the St petersburg newspaper's account. Well, guess what? This morning, officials from Tampa International Airport have confirmed that yes, the flight did take place. Odd; the airport's website does not include this "announcement" in its press releases. Maybe this was only announced on the "knowl"? They also released the names of eye whitnesses to the flight. Only whitnesses? No darknesses? How dare they! That is not at all politically correct! What were the names of those "eye whitnesses", if they were released? They further stated that at least 3 Arabs boarded the flight. One Arab was a member of the Saudi royal family. In addition, 2 US government officials boarded the flight, one of which was identified as an FBI agent. What? The flight was identified as an FBI agent? Actually, according to the same source I indicated above, only a suspicion that one of the individuals might be a member of the Saudi royal family was expressed, a suspicion that as of yet is uncorroborated. And your FBI agent was reportedly actually a *former* FBI agent. The TIA officials who released this information stated that they were not allowed to check the passenger list against the US terrorist watch list. And who might these fine upstanding folks be, by name? In fact, what the report says is, "The TIA Police Department said a check of its records indicated no member of its force screened the Lear's passengers", not that they were not allowed to perform such screening. Given that a couple of retired officers were assigned to escort the individuals on the flight, screening probably was not really required, now was it? So, why did President Bush lie? And what are they trying to cover up? "The 9/11 Commission, which has said the flights out of the United States were handled appropriately by the FBI..." Enough said. Brooks -john- |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
In article , John‰]*
They are trying to cover up the fact that this "news flash" you posted is more than two years old. http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flight.htm It has been a rumor for 2 years. It was just officially confirmed by the Tampa airport this morning, and it has been on the news on the radio all day. Why the sudden reversal? Is Bush trying to pre-emptively take some of the wind out of Michael Moore's sails? -john- -- ================================================== ================== John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708 Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com ================================================== ================== |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
John A. Weeks III wrote:
In article , John‰] They are trying to cover up the fact that this "news flash" you posted is more than two years old. http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flight.htm It has been a rumor for 2 years. It was just officially confirmed by the Tampa airport this morning, and it has been on the news on the radio all day. Why the sudden reversal? Is Bush trying to pre-emptively take some of the wind out of Michael Moore's sails? I, for one, object to the knee jerk reaction that the shrub was lying. The poor guy is so intellectually isolated by the neocons that he may well have believed what he was saying. Cheers --mike -john- |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
In article iW9yc.78545$Ly.18197@attbi_s01,
Mike Dargan wrote: I, for one, object to the knee jerk reaction that the shrub was lying. The poor guy is so intellectually isolated by the neocons that he may well have believed what he was saying. ....like parts for those outlawed long-range missiles that Iraq was supposed to have, but that we didn't find. ....until this week, in Syria. And that WMD/missile production equipment that we couldn't find, until they dug it out of a scrap pile in Europe, where it's been since last year. -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
From the Wall Street Journal, June 1:
Elements of Myth Enter Into Post-9/11 Flights by Saudis By ALAN MURRAY The secret evacuation of Saudi nationals from the U.S. after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks has achieved grassy-knoll status. Craig Unger, author of "House of Bush; House of Saud," calls it "the single most egregious security lapse related to the attacks." Every Bush hater can cite the basic details: At a time when Americans were grounded, more than 140 Saudis, including members of the bin Laden family, were spirited out of the U.S. without questioning by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. It's a myth. But like all great myths, it has such suggestive power that it will live on for years, despite its feeble connection to fact. In a recent column, I criticized Michael Moore for adopting this myth, both in his most recent book, "Dude, Where's My Country," and in his new movie, "Fahrenheit 9/11." I mentioned I hadn't seen the film -- Mr. Moore declined to make it available before the Cannes festival -- but I relied on a synopsis provided by his publicist. Mr. Moore responded, not by disputing the facts of the Saudi flights, but with a blistering attack on me for daring to "review" a synopsis. On his Web site, he said that everything I wrote about the film was "completely false." This despite the fact it all was quoted directly from his book or the synopsis, and confirmed in a telephone interview with Mr. Moore himself. But perhaps I shouldn't have picked on the hero of Cannes, who has long had a loose relationship to truth. The Saudi story has made its way into much more respectable journalism. And the flood of critical e-mail I received after writing that column convinced me the myth has considerable staying power. For what it's worth, here are the facts, as gathered by the staff of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission: Between Sept. 14 and 24, 2001, six chartered flights carrying mostly Saudi nationals among their 142 passengers departed from the U.S. The 9/11 Commission found "no credible evidence that any chartered flights of Saudi Arabian nationals" left before U.S. airspace reopened. Moreover, all six flights "were screened by law-enforcement officials, primarily the FBI" to ensure that no one of interest was allowed to leave. The most controversial flight, filled with members of the sprawling bin Laden family, left Sept. 20. Of the 26 people aboard -- 23 passengers and three private security guards -- the FBI interviewed 22 before the plane was allowed to leave. Last week, I reviewed these facts with Mr. Unger, who is now a principal proponent of the Saudi flight myth. "I think most of that is true," he replied. "I never said any flight left the U.S. while there were still restrictions on U.S. airspace." I asked Mr. Unger, what's the problem then? He pointed to an account, first reported in the Tampa Tribune, of a Lear jet with three Saudi passengers that flew from Tampa, Fla., to Lexington, Ky., on Sept. 13, 2001, as part of an effort to help prominent Saudis who feared reprisals in the U.S. While commercial airspace was open at that time, private planes still weren't allowed to fly, according to Mr. Unger. He said he believes it couldn't have flown "without a special favor from the White House." Moreover, he says, he's not sure "the FBI did their job thoroughly" in screening passengers on the Saudi flights that later left the U.S. The 9/11 Commission still is investigating the Tampa flight, but it has found no evidence that any discussion of Saudi flights rose higher than Richard Clarke, former antiterrorism czar and now a prominent critic of President Bush. Moreover, the coordinated Saudi flights turned out to be a convenience for FBI officials, who were able to screen all passengers and interview any they wished -- something they wouldn't have been able to do if the same passengers had traveled on commercial airlines. To check the FBI's work, the 9/11 Commission this year ran the names of all passengers on the Saudi flights against current terrorism-watch lists, and found no matches. As for bin Laden family members, Mr. Clarke strongly suggested in his public testimony to the commission that they had been under close surveillance by U.S. officials for some time. "The FBI was extraordinarily well aware of what they were doing in the United States," he testified. Mr. Clarke, who has shown no hesitancy to criticize the Bush White House, concludes the Saudi flight story "is a tempest in a teapot." There are plenty of reasons to question President Bush's handling of national-security matters during the past 3˝ years. But there is no reason to rely on mythology in the process. Let's have a great debate. But stick to the facts, please. all the best -- Dan Ford email: (put Cubdriver in subject line) The Warbird's Forum www.warbirdforum.com The Piper Cub Forum www.pipercubforum.com Viva Bush! www.vivabush.org |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
John A. Weeks III wrote:
on the radio all day. Why the sudden reversal? Is Bush trying to pre-emptively take some of the wind out of Michael Moore's sails? Simply not possible. Michael Moore produces way too much wind. SMH |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Stephen Harding wrote:
John A. Weeks III wrote: on the radio all day. Why the sudden reversal? Is Bush trying to pre-emptively take some of the wind out of Michael Moore's sails? Simply not possible. Michael Moore produces way too much wind. That may be, but an awful lot of people who'll see his flic some time before they enter the voting booth in November are going to believe his version of the truth and will be influenced by it. The administration hasn't yet caught on to the fact that a lot of people simply no longer believe their constantly changing rationales for entering the war against Iraq....you can't keep on changing your story without at least some of the audience figuring out that you're doing it to keep from having to tell the truth. George Z. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message ... Stephen Harding wrote: John A. Weeks III wrote: on the radio all day. Why the sudden reversal? Is Bush trying to pre-emptively take some of the wind out of Michael Moore's sails? Simply not possible. Michael Moore produces way too much wind. That may be, but an awful lot of people who'll see his flic some time before they enter the voting booth in November are going to believe his version of the truth and will be influenced by it. The administration hasn't yet caught on to the fact that a lot of people simply no longer believe their constantly changing rationales for entering the war against Iraq....you can't keep on changing your story without at least some of the audience figuring out that you're doing it to keep from having to tell the truth. Constantly changing story? In late 2002 the White House published its case against Iraq: www.cnn.com/2002/US/09/12/iraq.report/ Looks like a lot of that claimed in that report has been born out by events since; Saddam did indeed still have biological programs proceeding, he did indeed conduct mass murder and bury his victims in mass graves, and as Bush indicated yesterday when he said quite plainly that Mr. Al Zarqawi was resident in Iraq before we attacked, he was indeed providing sanctuary and support to various terrorists. That looks like a lot of the same old story to me, not a "constantly changing" one. Brooks George Z. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Chad Irby wrote:
In article iW9yc.78545$Ly.18197@attbi_s01, Mike Dargan wrote: I, for one, object to the knee jerk reaction that the shrub was lying. The poor guy is so intellectually isolated by the neocons that he may well have believed what he was saying. ...like parts for those outlawed long-range missiles that Iraq was supposed to have, but that we didn't find. ...until this week, in Syria. And that WMD/missile production equipment that we couldn't find, until they dug it out of a scrap pile in Europe, where it's been since last year. Sounds like thin gruel at best. Cheers --mike |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
new theory of flight released Sept 2004 | Mark Oliver | Aerobatics | 1 | October 5th 04 10:20 PM |
Flight Simulator 2004 pro 4CDs, Eurowings 2004, Sea Plane Adventures, Concorde, HONG KONG 2004, World Airlines, other Addons, Sky Ranch, Jumbo 747, Greece 2000 [include El.Venizelos], Polynesia 2000, Real Airports, Private Wings, FLITESTAR V8.5 - JEP | vvcd | Home Built | 0 | September 22nd 04 07:16 PM |
Sim time loggable? | [email protected] | Instrument Flight Rules | 12 | December 6th 03 07:47 AM |
CFI logging instrument time | Barry | Instrument Flight Rules | 21 | November 11th 03 12:23 AM |