DescentBB

Ford Prefect wrote:Never mind. This is as pointless as debating science with a young earth creationist.

Take it from me, a former 'young-earth' creationist, it's not entirely pointless.

Despite the resistance (mostly because of the challenge to one's assumptions), the truth does eventually win over those who are reasonable and are willing to do the necessary study.

flip wrote:Foil do me this one service before you logically deduce by your own reasoning and capacity that I'm just some poor misguided youth that can easily be led astray.

No, I don't think you're "easily led" at all. You're sticking to your guns here, which is admirable.

I just know there's more to it than what you've seen in all these videos (and I've seen a few of them), and I think you'll be able to see that with some research.

Flip, you keep asking if we saw the video. Have you looked for proof that the video is full of crap?
The best argument is made after you challenge your own position. Play devils advocate against what you believe and see if you still believe it.
Try to find a few articles that debunk the 'facts' in the video.

I agree it's a stretch. I also watched some documentaries that were made earlier that I discounted myself. This one though was made in 2008. It includes commentary from people who work at UL, metallurgy experts, nobel prize winners, physicists, people who were working there at the time, firefighters and a janitor that all report hearing explosions at ground level, several different military pilots.
Maj.General Albert Stubblibine- U.S. Army Intelligence
Barbara Honegger- Senior Journalist Dept Of Defense
Capt. Russ Wittemberg- 30 years military and civil avi.
Robin Hordon- Flight controller at Boston Center
Gore Vidal- Novelist,essayst,playwriter

Many more. These are not the ravings of a lone lunatic making a commentary, but rather well educated people who seem to know what their talking about. I found it all very compelling.

Until at least one person actually goes out of their way, just for the sake of argument and at least watches first hand to see what I'm saying, I find this all very inequitable.

flip wrote:Until at least one person actually goes out of their way, just for the sake of argument and at least watches first hand to see what I'm saying, I find this all very inequitable.

We have! Many, many times. It seems that at least once a year someone brings this up. This is nothing new. Been there, done that.

Ford Prefect wrote:Actually Krom the plane missed the yard except for a few lamp posts and a generator and ploughed directly into the building at full speed. Not at landing speed where most people see aircraft and debris from crashes but at full out flying speed. It turned into scrap in milliseconds. A pile of empty soda cans held together with bubble gum is a good description.
Nice how the missile conspiracy people skip the damaged lamp posts that take the wing span of a 757 to hit and all the debris and instead take the word of the kind of people that can't tell you the colour, make, type, speed, of a car that crashed near them.

I direct you back to this:

The video (animation) was created from KNOWN factual evidence. Case Closed!

Did anyone watch “Why the Towers Fell” a PBS documentary, it was all there…

I’m going to chalk this thread up to politics as usual due to the fact that it’s election time, and I hear the same kinds of BS every cycle. People always say that the Republicans use scare tactics to get elected, well every four years the Democrats set the bar at incredibly low levels with crap like the October Surprise and alike.

Yea, yea, yea…Republicans are going to start Armageddon, kill inocent people to get elected, etc etc well I wish they would get it over with already, so I don’t have to listen to ludicrous BS like this every election cycle!

Oh yea, and the 800 pound gorilla in the room…(why) All good crime investigation begins with motive.

What has come out of 911...the destruction of the Republican party…yea, good plan…no wait…humm…

Looks like O. Stone will get his chance to bash Bush on Oct. 29th with the release of \"W\" based on a true story.

@ flip


as Will said, challenge yourself. here's a few good links.
http://www.debunking911.com/index.html

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.asp

http://emptv.com/research/loose-change

http://emptv.com/research/loose-change-2

links 2 and 4 specifically address the pentagon issue.

AlphaDoG wrote:Looks like O. Stone will get his chance to bash Bush on Oct. 29th with the release of "W" based on a true story.

Oliver Stone and a film based on a true story but he isn't known for letting the truth get in the way...or the script.

flip,

is there anything new in this \"documentary\", or is it the same old conspiracy theories we've been dealing with since about 9/12/2001? From what you've quoted, it sounds like the same old same old. For example:

fact a 757 cannot fit through a 15x15 ft hole

Not intact it can't. But a 757 isn't going to remain intact at an impact speed of 400+ miles per hour. The majority of the energy from the impact would've gone into (1) crushing the fuselage and (2) crushing the wall the nose of the plane hit. Other things that happen in a crash at that speed against a wall of that hardness: the wings of the plane would snap off of the fuselage on impact with the wall, and virtually every part of the plane except for perhaps the densest pieces of the gear and engine assemblies would disintegrate.

The fuselage of a 757 is about 12'6\" in diameter. It's not going to make a cartoon-style airplane cutout on impact; it's going to crush a hole in the wall, all the bits sticking off the sides are going to get torn off, and there's going to be disintegrated airplane all over the place.

See here for a Feb. 2005 article with significantly more detail -- and this from a site that seems to accept many 9/11 conspiracy theories!

If you can come up with something new, original, and not already debunked, let us know. If not, stop wasting our time.

All I can say is this. It's been said that a 757 cannot travel at that speed, that close to the ground in level flight. That the air is too dense and it is aerodynamically impossible. I dunno if it is or not, but if it is then somebody's lying or mistaken. Seems to me there are enough inconsistencies and suspicious accounts to at least give these claims some validity. How anyone can just unilaterally claim that there is no way that's what happened is beyond me.

Lothar, I never asked you to post or not to. Seems if you felt this was a waste of time, well the choice to waste it by answering was all yours my friend.

flip wrote:All I can say is this. It's been said ...

by whom?

... that a 757 cannot travel at that speed, that close to the ground in level flight.

The plane was not in level flight - it was about to crash into the ground. Your own video and the simulation (and the photo evidence within the simulation) that Alphadog posted both show clearly that the plane was angled in towards the ground; not in level flight.

I dunno if it is or not, but if it is then somebody's lying or mistaken.

uh-huh .........

Seems to me there are enough inconsistencies and suspicious accounts to at least give these claims some validity.

Because lots of people use faulty information to come to incorrect conclusions does not make those conclusions more likely to be correct.

How anyone can just unilaterally claim that there is no way that's what happened is beyond me.

I don't see why it should be beyond you. The burden of proof is on the conspiracy theorist to provide conclusive evidence that controverts the accepted theory. Cherry-picked, out of context or made-up quotes and misunderstood video 'evidence' do not meet this standard. Alphadog's link , and other discussion in this thread, pretty much explain every observed feature on the ground at the Pentagon site.

As a famous thinker once said,
"We should make the world as simple as possible, but not simpler."

flip wrote:Seems if you felt this was a waste of time, well the choice to waste it by answering was all yours my friend.

I have a responsibility to this board and the people on it. Part of that responsibility is ensuring the quality of discussion doesn't drop too far. I take the time to respond to garbage, and to chastise people who post it, because I know it's effective over the long term in reducing the amount of bad arguments that get posted. Your post is a waste of my time, but letting it and other posts like it sit unchallenged will lead to a lot bigger waste of a lot more people's time. So here I am, posting a challenge to you: recognize how weak the stuff you've posted is, and come up with something better.

It's been said that a 757 cannot travel at that speed, that close to the ground in level flight. That the air is too dense and it is aerodynamically impossible. I dunno if it is or not....

You don't know, but you give the benefit of the doubt to the wacky conspiracy theory because "it's been said" by unnamed sources? Not real smart.

It's not SAFE to fly a 757 at that speed and altitude... but the hijackers weren't concerned with safety. They were doing something likely to cause a crash when they, uh, crashed.

Level flight close to the ground, in any airplane, is dangerous. Essentially what happens is the air coming off of the wings gets "backed up" as it hits the ground. After a few moments of this, there's so much air piled up behind you that you can't push enough air down to generate enough lift to keep the plane airborne. But airplanes fly close to the ground plenty, for a few seconds before landing. When landing, you don't need to generate sustained lift, you just need enough lift to keep you from hitting the ground too hard. In fact, you intentionally stall right at the end -- just at an appropriate speed and altitude to allow you to hit the ground softly. (The maneuver is called a "landing flare".)

What the hijackers did was, essentially, "landed" the plane in a very unsafe way -- not on a runway, gear up, high speed. But just like with any other landing, they put the plane exactly where they wanted it. Given the altitude of the Pentagon and some basic flight characteristics of a 757, I could do the exact same thing. It's really not that hard.

How anyone can just unilaterally claim that there is no way that's what happened is beyond me.

I can't unilaterally claim that every possible conspiracy theory is false; that's like proving that there is no God or that there are no invisible pink unicorns.

What I can claim, though, is that every conspiracy theory I've seen has failed to pass the most basic of logical, scientific, technological, or evidential rigor. Every conspiracy theory I've seen has been based upon misleadingly presented facts, improperly quoted half-sentences, downright bad science, unwarranted extrapolations, bad analysis of grainy pictures, or outright falsehoods.

And you're not even posting NEW conspiracy theories that require NEW analysis; you're posting old theories that have been debunked long ago. You claim "inconsistencies and suspicious accounts", yet seem not to have done the most basic of research into those accounts or those inconsistencies beyond listening to what the "documentary" told you. You've claimed things like "there were no engines to be found" when the first link for a google search for 9/11 pentagon engines gives a site with pictures of engine parts. You've claimed that a 757 can't fly a certain way without even the remotest bit of knowledge about flight. And you've spent post after post complaining that people aren't taking you seriously or watching the documentary you find oh-so-compelling!

I'm not asking you to become some sort of paragon of logic and perfection. But I am challenging you to put a bit more thought and effort in, to ask questions when you don't understand instead of making assumptions, and to stop assuming we're all ignorant just because we're not willing to spend the time to watch a "documentary" that seems to be filled with the same old debunked garbage as the last 40 documentaries we've been subjected to.

What I can claim, though, is that every conspiracy theory I've seen has failed to pass the most basic of logical, scientific, technological, or evidential rigor. Every conspiracy theory I've seen has been based upon misleadingly presented facts, improperly quoted half-sentences, downright bad science, unwarranted extrapolations, bad analysis of grainy pictures, or outright falsehoods.

Both sides of the argument can be accused of the same thing. 2 engines made of titanium alloy steel and all thats left is some obscure parts scattered about. I'm not convinced. I'm not saying either side is correct. What I'm saying is that neither sides \"proof\" is at all convincing and that leaves me in doubt as to what the actual truth is.

I'm not asking you to become some sort of paragon of logic and perfection. But I am challenging you to put a bit more thought and effort in, to ask questions when you don't understand instead of making assumptions, and to stop assuming we're all ignorant just because we're not willing to spend the time to watch a \"documentary\" that seems to be filled with the same old debunked garbage as the last 40 documentaries we've been subjected to.

Here's the thing. I've done just that. I've followed all the links and \"played\" devils advocate, and yet you refuse to give me the same courtesy. Seems hypocritical to me. These things are new to me. I'm not convinced that there was or wasn't a conspiracy. I follow one link that seems convincing enough, then I read something else that seems just as credible in opposition to the first. You have all made a lot of assumptions as to my motives. Maybe that it's this whole deal has exasperated you, I dunno. To me at this point , I'm still not convinced one way or the other.

Also as far as \"protecting\" the board. Name one instance, in any of my posts where I've been less than kind and respectful with anybody here. I have not even one time except for the \"put that in your pipe\" statement been even once stern or unyielding. If this is a place for open discussion then fine but somehow this begins to border on censorship. Nothing anyone has posted , myself included is remotely conclusive and there is a great deal of room for debate on this issue. However, if you feel so compelled and think it might be damaging in anyway, close it. No hard feelings.

flip wrote: Both sides of the argument can be accused of the same thing. 2 engines made of titanium alloy steel and all thats left is some obscure parts scattered about.

OMG dude debris was scattered every frickin where!


Flip, go here: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/index.htm

Ok. I'll concede that. It was a 757 as is reported. Now explain to me why these planes weren't intercepted by fighter jets. Explain to me why, in the most protected air space in America, no one scrambled planes to intercept them. Why didn't the pentagon defense systems shoot down the plane. Why, 3 months before the attacks the very protocol for these situations was changed.

Grr. I hate the internet. I look for concrete documents proving only what the protocol was before it was changed allegedly 3 months before 9/11 and then back to what it was previously on 9/12. All I get are these conspiracy pages.
Anyone with more skill than me at finding government documents proving that the protocol was changed 3 months before, what it was before it was changed and what it is now at the present? One thing for sure, by the page that you linked, that plane was in the air for one hour and 17 minutes. Does it make sense that Flight 77 was even allowed to get that close to the Pentagon? Can we argue that that is at least the most protected air space in America? That's at the very least gross negligence.

FAA protocol for hijacked planes

http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Do ... 7610_4.htm

http://www.directives.doe.gov/pdfs/doe/ ... 402bc1.pdf

As I recall the air base, in New Jersey I believe, that was the one to respond to that area had been closed down making the response time a little bit slower but more important is the problem that no one has ever told an American pilot to shoot down a commercial plane full of innocent civilians! Can you imagine on an average day a military pilot wakes up, goes to work and is ordered to go shoot down a commercial jet full of his countrymen! How many times in the chain of command would someone stop and say \"Get me confirmation on this!\" I'm not going to order this until I'm sure we have a threat! Get the frikkin general on the phone, I'm not going to shoot down an airliner full of people!!!\"

I'm guessing a lot of confusion and second guessing took place, not a cold blooded conspiracy to keep that pilot from shooting down the plane.

Your remarks are full of signs that you have a strong desire to find fault and conspiracy, you seem to have no objectivity.

I'm not going to speculate on what hit the pentagon, but here's a question: If flight 77 didn't hit the pentagon, then where is it?

You know that NORAD was down that morning?

My hypothesis on the whole thing is that Bush and his cronies were behind it. Bush is big in oil, Osamas money is in Oil. Osama works for bush, creates a tragedy which Bush uses as justification for going to war in the middle east, Afghanistan was just a diversion from the real target: Iraq, where Bush got what he wanted: control of the oil fields there. And I'm not talking about the current bush, I'm talking about Bush Sr. Bush Jr. is just his fathers puppet.

The information that I have is that no fighters were even put in the air, much less shoot them down. This being already after the towers had been hit. It may seem unreasonable to some but I find it somewhat disconcerting.

You are correct WIll. I have a huge distrust of government just as the founding fathers did seeing as they put as many checks and balances in the constitution as they could imagine. I do somewhat suspect a coverup or at the very least a HUGE dropping of the ball.

Yeah CAPM, I don't totally agree with you but going from a war on terrorism to a full fledged war in Iraq
has always left me kinda wondering. Osama is still free but we got Saddam. It all creates a reasonable doubt to me.

The whole theory of Bush did 9/11 so he could get the oil is really silly.

Think about it like this, as President he has two ways to \"get the oil\", pull off some kind of wild complex conspiracy that would involve probably close to a hundred people to pull off. People in all sorts of highly skilled positions that would all have to be willing to murder thousands of innocent people then keep their mouths shut or he'd have to kill them all off, the kind of extremely difficult and complex scheme that makes Mission Impossible look as easy as teaching a child to like candy....

Or he could have a meeting with Saddam and say:
'Look Saddam, I can have the U.N. sanctions lifted, relieve you of any cease fire restrictions, unfreeze your assets abroad and we'll come in here and unload millions of dollars of aid on you, make sure you're armed with the latest and greatest hardware, help you rebuild the infrastructure of your country in return you give the oil contracts to my boys at Haliburton and the Bush Oil Company.
Or, I'll invade your sorry assed country and kill you!

Now considering the first scenario is not really easy to accomplish, in fact most sane people would say it is truly impossible to accomplish, and consider the second scenario is practically business as usual for a U.S. President....well within his ability and scope of authority to pull off.
If Bush wanted the oil which method would he choose?

And in case you haven't noticed, if you are right, apparently even after pulling off the most insane impossible plan in the history of the world the Iraqi oil isn't flowing into Bush's control.

Seriously, just how competent and brilliant do you really think Bush is?!??

If we wanted middle east oil, then \"liberating\" Iraq is absolutely the wrong way to get it. Not only is Iraq the wrong target (Saudi Arabia anyone?), but when some population has a resource you desire but is unwilling to give it to you peacefully, your only option to get it anyway is to destroy said population entirely and take what you want.

Meaning if we want middle east oil, we would have to purge nearly everyone living in or affiliated with the middle east and its governments regardless of their involvement. Obviously this is not an acceptable option no matter how you stack it.

If you had said 9/11 was a conspiracy to make it much easier to take away our civil liberties, I might have believed that. But saying it was to get oil is simply ridiculous.

If you had said 9/11 was a conspiracy to make it much easier to take away our civil liberties, I might have believed that. But saying it was to get oil is simply ridiculous.

Thanks krom. My point exactly. IF 9/11 was an inside job, this is exactly why. The world we live in is changing at break neck speed. Our government becoming submissive to a world government is not only possible but very likely. If that is the plan, you have to start somewhere.

The main problem is this:

9/11 was an event that had immediate global impact when it happened. It was a simple event: 4 planes crashing into 4 targets. Too simple for some. So conspiracy theorists use the evidence available to seek a reason that matches the observed effects. The 20 or so must've been a tip of massive conspiracy by the US government against its citizens. They examining the facts, and taking the first excuse to reject the simple explanation and seek a more complex one. So a 15x15 hole in the side of the pentagon becomes a missing airliner. Planes become more stronger. Titanium becomes a element of mythical resilience. The Government becomes a superior version of itself that can do the impossible, but only against its own citizens from the shadows.

These conspiracy theories are coping mechanisms for their originators and their followers. They know, at the back of their minds, they are seeking a truth that never existed, but that means they can search forever doing so.

You start talking about world government, then you start talking about the antichrist, and thats a whole nother thread.

Well, truth is stranger than fiction, they say...

Well, they wouldn't go after Saudi cause they're a friendly nation. I'm sure its much more complex than we suspect, we can only speculate at their real goals, which I suspect that while control of oil is one of them, is probably not the larger overall goal. Also think about this, if they try to goto war with IRAN, Iraq would be a valuable piece of soil for us to have control over.

The reason I think its an inside job, is, well, NORAD was down. If there was one day that you would ever pick to do this, that would be it. How did they know NORAD was going to be down for a major software update? Thats just fishy to me, more than a coincidence.

like you said Cap. Truth is stranger than fiction. I'm banking on coincidence. Besides.. NORAD doesn't track air liners or at least with any suspicion or interest. That's what the general airports do. By the time it was realized that there was a REAL problem, it was too late to do anything.

The truth is no jet fighters were ever scrambled until after the Pentagon was hit. Your right Duper that was not the responsibility of NORAD. That falls on the FAA's shoulders. Protocol is, as soon as a plane veers off course or loses its transponder signal or no contact can be made, fighters are put into the air to check on it. 3 months before the attacks that was changed to require pentagon approval. No one responded and according to this new protocol their hands were tied. Protocol must be followed. It is put in place just for unforeseen incidents so that there is no wondering what to do.

\"If this ever happens, this is what we do regardless.\"

None of those flights were intercepted by jet fighters. Even after the Towers had been hit, they still did not put a plane in the air to intercept the one that hit the Pentagon. Heads should have rolled for that.

The day after they say \"we made a terrible mistake\" and changed the protocol back to what it was previously

As far as shooting down American citizens. That call would have been made. The passengers of flight 93, normal folk, made that call themselves. Here's the facts. 2 jets had already flown into the towers. All passengers killed regardless. Now here's another plane that has veered off course, turned its transponder off, AND cannot be contacted. According to protocol, any ONE of those events is enough to put escorts in the air. None were though because now, 3 months earlier, the protocol now requires pentagon approval. No one answers. It would not have been a hard call to shoot flight 77 down in that case. You know the passengers are not gonna survive no matter what the call. Why risk lives that can be saved and damage to the Pentagon?

let me get this right. the government cannot even provide us with heathcare, and you want us to believe that they are crafty enough to engineer this whole ordeal and not have 1 single person 7 years later leak 1 word how they were involved in it???

get a grip. I think your giving our government WAAAAY to much credit

No. All I'M saying is they did not put jet fighter escorts into the air, even after 2 planes had hit the trade center. You draw your own conclusions as to what that means.

flip wrote:No. All I'M saying is they did not put jet fighter escorts into the air, even after 2 planes had hit the trade center. You draw your own conclusions as to what that means.

OK, I'll draw the conclusion that no fighters were sent to shoot down civilians on a commercial plane because no one wanted to do that job without someone higher up convincing them that they better do it!

Since there was very little time to identify the threat, locate the target, get confirmation that killing the civilians was the mission and then get a fighter in position to shoot them down before the hijacked planes finished their short flight path no planes ended up chasing down the targets.

That is very easy to understand and quite plausible. Your alternative, even if we concede it could be possible, is extremely unlikely.

I feel like I'm telling you the fat man in the red suit in shopping malls around America in December is a minimum wage employee pretending to be Santa Clause and you are trying to debate the logistics of reindeer flight!!!

flip wrote:The truth is no jet fighters were ever scrambled until after the Pentagon was hit. ...

Is it?

According to this page
http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/NORAD

planes were scrambled from Otis, bound for NY, prior to 9 am.

Military Notification and Response

Boston Center did not follow the protocol in seeking military assistance through the prescribed chain of command. In addition to notifications within the FAA, Boston Center took the initiative, at 8:34, to contact the military through the FAA's Cape Cod facility. The center also tried to contact a former alert site in Atlantic City, unaware it had been phased out. At 8:37:52, Boston Center reached NEADS. This was the first notification received by the military-at any level-that American 11 had been hijacked:

FAA: Hi. Boston Center TMU [Traffic Management Unit], we have a problem here. We have a hijacked aircraft headed towards New York, and we need you guys to, we need someone to scramble some F-16s or something up there, help us out.

NEADS (Jeremy Powell): Is this real-world or exercise?

FAA: No, this is not an exercise, not a test

NEADS ordered to battle stations the two F-15 alert aircraft at Otis Air Force Base in Falmouth, Massachusetts, 153 miles away from New York City. The air defense of America began with this call.
.........

At this point, in regards to the Otis scramble of fighter jets, Nasypany was thinking "I'm not gonna stop what I initially started with scrambling Otis—getting Otis over New York City." [2]

Radar data show the Otis fighters were airborne at 8:53. Lacking a target, they were vectored toward military-controlled airspace off the Long Island coast. To avoid New York area air traffic and uncertain about what to do, the fighters were brought down to military airspace to "hold as needed. "From 9:09 to 9:13, the Otis fighters stayed in this holding pattern.

Haven't analyzed this in any great detail. Comments from others?

Will you seem to skip over key facts though. That plane was in the air for 1 hour and 17 minutes. Seems to me, that once the first plane hit the trade centers, almost all doubt would have been removed. The choice were talking about here is not to shoot it down or not , but rather to even put planes in the air !!!!!. Those planes did not veer off course, drop their transponder signals, refuse to acknowledge and hit the Pentagon in a matter of a few minutes.

flip wrote:Seems to me, that once the first plane hit the trade centers, almost all doubt would have been removed.

Ok, now I'm gonna ask. How old are you flip? Where were you and what were you doing that day? I ask because you seem to be getting all your "knowlege" of the events in question from the internet.

Most of us were glued to the TV at the time and saw the events quite clearly AS THEY WERE HAPPENING. I point out that fact becuase we all remember that after the first tower was hit, there was a BUNCH of confusion as to what was going on. The first thing the news reported was that a small commuter plane or perhaps a private plane has accidentally run into the tower. No one knew what was going on for a long while. That includes the people in charge. All they knew was that a commercial aircraft had been hijacked. Nobody was thinking terrorism at first. At the time of the attacks, our nation hadn't yet become conditioned to think terrorism everytime somthing goes wrong.

flip, let me say this again.. by the time they realised there was a serious problem, it was TOO LATE.

It takes a few minutes to jet fighters off the ground, even if they are prepped and hot. .. it takes time to taxi out, time to get clearance, and then time to locate and triangulate their target.

They (local towers) were having trouble just finding the jets that were lost. If they HAD found known where they were, do you REALLY THINK THEY WOULD HAVE SHOT DOWN A CIVILIAN JET!?!??

This isn't Hollywood. There are protocols to follow and everyone involved is human. This makes for a WIDE margin for error. Fighters do not patrol the air on a regular basis on the eastern seaboard. ...why would they???

They National Guard is always on alert with jets out on the tarmac but not flight ready. They have to be spooled up and launched. That TAKES TIME. There was only about a 5 minute window of opportunity between the time for action to be taken. BUT that was not enough time to get to the jets even IF They KNEW the jet liners' intents were hostile.

this must be too hard to understand.

LOL ok I give up. I'm 38 and as you were watching as it unfolded. There is a lot of room for doubt that's what I'm saying. Everybody go and drink kool-aid. What do I care. I hate to think that were in a war in Iraq, and at the very same time our air defenses are so weak they can't get in the air in time to actually defend our own turf. I direct you to the link that AlphaDog posted and then back to protocol for these events.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/index.htm

http://www.directives.doe.gov/pdfs/doe/ ... 402bc1.pdf

Make up your own minds by these OFFICIAL documents if they had enough time or not. I now understand just how easy it was. We only see what we want to see.

flip wrote:I now understand just how easy it was. We only see what we want to see.

Right back at you flip: You want to see a conspiracy.

black helicopter Flip wrote:I hate to think that were in a war in Iraq, and at the very same time our air defenses are so weak they can't get in the air in time to actually defend our own turf.

Flip, even today, knowing what we know now, someone could probably hijack a plane and fly it into a building...but I doubt an enemy air force could hit targets here without being shot at as they approached. That is the nature of America, our borders are watched for encroaching military forces but from within we're relatively free from instant government intervention. Go to China if you want your government to be able to swat you down in an instant...

You know, I can't help but think that if fighters had somehow been scrambled faster, and approval had somehow gotten through the chain of command to shoot down the second, third, and fourth planes... the theories out there on the internet would just be different.

Foil wrote:I don't know how many of you remember, but not long after the April 19th, 1995 bombing of the Murrah Federal Building... OKC Firemen and Policemen were accused of "getting there too fast"...

It's not too hard to imagine that in that scenario there would be even wilder claims of conspiracy. "Those planes weren't shot down because of hijackers; those people were killed by the government to cover up a larger conspiracy!"