9/11 - Controlled demolition?
- Thread starter IceBus
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Aug 2005
- Posts
- 4,534
- Location
- UK
MookJong agrees that these surface conspiracy theories ("A missile hit the Pentagon", "The government crashed empty planes into the towers", "The FBI performed a controlled demolition on <insert building here>" etc.) are a load of tosh. I respect him for that, but he is adamant that there are scandals rooted deeper into the attacks (the government neglecting to take action against warnings, "removing security" on the day of the attack" etc.)IceBus said:
I've read one or two of the links he's posted, and I think it's a load of rubbish (I remember one site just attempted to poke holes in everything they could find and failed to explain the relevance of these holes; of which, in most cases, there was none), but hey
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 9,851
- Location
- Abilene, Texas
Sleepy said:
Of course! I wish I could think 'outside the box' like everyone else
This is why I really hate getting into these debates. There is a lot more to what the theorists claim than just "The US could gain from doing X, they MUST have done it!"
err lack of evidence supporting alt theory, lack of a credible motive for alt theory. Requirement that the US is the Great Satan and that no one else can be evil. The requirement that only the US can plan such an operation.Curio said:
Al Vallario said:I've read one or two of the links he's posted, and I think it's a load of rubbish (I remember one site just attempted to poke holes in everything they could find and failed to explain the relevance of these holes; of which, in most cases, there was none), but hey
Well it's fact that NORAD stood down standard operating procedures with regards to shooting down/scrambling intercepts against the planes on 9/11
Associate
- Joined
- 23 Jul 2006
- Posts
- 944
Wardie said:
erm the one that hit the pentagon?
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 9,851
- Location
- Abilene, Texas
IceBus said:
Really? I remember seeing fighters flying over the towers after they collapsed. Also, how was NORAD supposed to identify the hyjacked jets from the hundreds of other jets in and around the capital area?
There are 3 types of people in the world.
Those who believe everything.
People in the middle, who believe some but not all (like me).
Those who don't believe anything.
People lie, it's a fact. There could have been a coverup, but there may not have been. I doubt all the facts are correct. Life isn't that simple.
Those who believe everything.
People in the middle, who believe some but not all (like me).
Those who don't believe anything.
People lie, it's a fact. There could have been a coverup, but there may not have been. I doubt all the facts are correct. Life isn't that simple.
Stiff_Cookie said:
What makes you think hundreds of people were involved? You need to do a bit more research. All the people that needed to be involved were involved without even realising it. There was a drill running at the exact same time which facilitated the attacks. This means only the minimum amount of people were in the know - the rest were unwitting participants.
Stiff_Cookie said:
There were jets AFTER the event, yet no jets were scrambled to try and stop the other planes which were off route and had turned off their transponders. Planes were scrambled something like 13 times previously in 2001 to intercept planes which went off radar - why were they not on 9/11 when two planes had been flown into the trade centres?
They could have feasibly ordered all other planes to divert to a certain heading away from the city centre and targetted planes who disobeyed that command.
Also - as for them not being able to keep it a secret, it's called compartmentalisation. It worked fine with the Manhattan Project.
To me Operation Northwoods is a stark example to those who think the USA incapable of carrying out attacks on it's own soil... As they advocated setting off plastic explosive in US cities and blaming Cuba to enable them to go to war with Castro.
Have a read here:-
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662&page=1
Curio - do you have any links to the Wargames that were going on on 9/11?
Stiff_Cookie said:
The fighters got there way after the planes hit. They could have been there in plenty of time.
And as for how to identify which plane was which....are you kidding me? This isn't the dark ages you know
Seriously, go and do some reserach (which you clearly haven't) and then come back. If you still feel the same then fair enough - I'm not trying to force my opinion on you. It's just that you seem to be lacking on some of the details.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Aug 2005
- Posts
- 4,534
- Location
- UK
As far as I'm aware that was down to a complete breakdown in communication. All the different departments didn't have protocols in place for communicating with each other, the planes passed air traffic control boundaries and the people on the ground had no idea what was going on in the air. Some thought it was a drill (wargames were indeed taking part that day), NORAD were informed too late and minutes after the first plane had hit the World Trade Center air traffic control were still instructing the fighter pilots to try and find the planes.IceBus said:
At least the Americans are now better equipped to deal with such situations now 9/11 has taken place...
Research like watching "Loose Change", reading 9/11 conspiracy websites and believing everything you read because it goes against the grain?Curio said:
Trust me, I'm the most cynical person you will ever come across. I take nothing at face value, look for the worst in everyone and naturally assume things are not as they seem. Even I believe the official story of what happened on that fateful day...
Last edited:
Curio said:The fighters got there way after the planes hit. They could have been there in plenty of time.
And as for how to identify which plane was which....are you kidding me? This isn't the dark ages you know
Seriously, go and do some reserach (which you clearly haven't) and then come back. If you still feel the same then fair enough - I'm not trying to force my opinion on you. It's just that you seem to be lacking on some of the details.
Curio - do you have any links to sites about the wargames going on on 9/11?
Al Vallario said:
That's not the case at all. It is standard operating procedure for air traffic controllers to report to their boss if a plane deviates significantly from it's plotted course, drops off radar or breaks off communication. If the plane cannot be raised on radio the ATC's boss then rings NORAD, who scramble a plane. Why was this protocol successfully followed plenty of other times in 2001, but somehow only broke down on 9/11?
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Apr 2004
- Posts
- 11,788
- Location
- Somewhere
Contradiction. Facts are, by definition, correct.neocon said:
What's your point?
On different note, I find it ironic, even amusing, that people who say stupid things like "you shouldn't believe everything you're told", are in fact, just watching lots of documentries and "believing" them.
Last edited:
Another thing to point out about the Pentagon hit is that theres been no released footage of the plane actually hitting it. All that was officially released was some low quality rubbish which made it impossible to determine what actually hit it.
Within 5 mins of the plane hitting the Pentagon a number of video tapes were confiscated from near by company's which had very clear shots of the impact area yet non of these tapes have been shown, why ? what they got to hide by giving the public clear no disputable proof that a plane really did hit it.
Within 5 mins of the plane hitting the Pentagon a number of video tapes were confiscated from near by company's which had very clear shots of the impact area yet non of these tapes have been shown, why ? what they got to hide by giving the public clear no disputable proof that a plane really did hit it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Apr 2004
- Posts
- 11,788
- Location
- Somewhere
Who knows, but this is not exactly convincing evidence is it? Maybe it was standard procedure, done for security reasons.Gman said:
Al Vallario said:
Nope, although I have seen all the documentaries. I've also watched hours of lectures and interviews with scientists, engineers and other experts - who are on both "sides", as well as forming my own opinions by looking at all the available data and evidence. So don't try and pigeon-hole me as some nutjob who watches a few things on the net and immediately starts wearing a tinfoil hat, OK?
Frankly, I'm not going over this all again. People are free to believe what they want. Personally I don't see how anybody can look at the series of "breakdowns" and "coincidences" on 9/11 and keep a straight face - they're even more bizarre than the, so called, conspiracies. Count me out of this thread.
theres also some debate about the remains that were left of the plane hitting the pentagon, the gov claim that the reason why there was near to nothing left of the plane was that a combination of the impact speed and the fuel disintegrated nearly all the plane.
Now based on what they said about the disintegration of the plane how was it possible for them to identify all bar about 5-10 of the 190 odd passengers on it? baring in mind the passengers were identified via examining body's not the plane manifest.
Also the debri that was photographed and released to the media has been analysed by Boeing experts who claim that the part identified was not part of any of there planes currently in production.
in the past with exactly the same make of plane that hit the pentagon three has been accidents involving point blank impact at full speeds into mountains yet still parts such as the engines largely remained. Yet on the pentagon hit these were among the debri that supposedly disintegrated.
Another thing is the approach of the so called plane which on inspection appeared to have hit several street lights and other objects yet in the past when planes of similar weight and size has impacted such object it caused a spinning motion or at least ripped the wings off the plane, yet non of these appears to have happened.
On a different note regarding the mobile phone calls from passengers, there were a number of calls made from passengers to families shortly after the hijackings. Now I'm no expert but from the little info I read it's only recently been announced this year that Rayanair are installing new technology that allows internet and mobile phone communication via planes now if this was already available back in 2000 why is this been touted as ground breaking technology just this year ? Chances are this is just me not understanding the tech and that mobile phone calls are possible from high altitude planes.
Now based on what they said about the disintegration of the plane how was it possible for them to identify all bar about 5-10 of the 190 odd passengers on it? baring in mind the passengers were identified via examining body's not the plane manifest.
Also the debri that was photographed and released to the media has been analysed by Boeing experts who claim that the part identified was not part of any of there planes currently in production.
in the past with exactly the same make of plane that hit the pentagon three has been accidents involving point blank impact at full speeds into mountains yet still parts such as the engines largely remained. Yet on the pentagon hit these were among the debri that supposedly disintegrated.
Another thing is the approach of the so called plane which on inspection appeared to have hit several street lights and other objects yet in the past when planes of similar weight and size has impacted such object it caused a spinning motion or at least ripped the wings off the plane, yet non of these appears to have happened.
On a different note regarding the mobile phone calls from passengers, there were a number of calls made from passengers to families shortly after the hijackings. Now I'm no expert but from the little info I read it's only recently been announced this year that Rayanair are installing new technology that allows internet and mobile phone communication via planes now if this was already available back in 2000 why is this been touted as ground breaking technology just this year ? Chances are this is just me not understanding the tech and that mobile phone calls are possible from high altitude planes.