1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

911 conspiracy

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by conundrum, Jan 29, 2006.

  1. Curio

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Mar 14, 2004

    Posts: 7,890

    Location: Brit in the USA

    I think most people agree that planes did hit the WTC, that there were no missiles involved, that a 757 did hit the Pentagon (although I'd like to see the confiscated videos...) and it all went down as we saw. The "bombs in the basement" theory is interesting as there is a lot of evidence to suggest this might have happened, although I agree it's nothing concrete.

    The real conspiracy, that of government involvement, is much more difficult to prove tho. Do you believe they played any part at all in 9/11?
     
  2. Scania

    Capodecina

    Joined: Nov 25, 2004

    Posts: 23,778

    Location: On the road....

    >>> Throwing a bit more fuel to the fire.... <<<


    - George Herbert Walker Bush, September 11th 1991 .

    More 9/11 suff to watch

    Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse? ;)
     
  3. Indy11

    Gangster

    Joined: Dec 6, 2004

    Posts: 270

    Location: New York, NY

    Professor Steven E. Jones Professor of Biomolecular Electronics, Physics and Astronomy Dept., Brigham Young University, is the author of the argument on what truly caused the collapse of the WTC towers. He also is known for his work on cold fusion and his areas of specialty is metal-catalyzed fusion, archaeometry and solar energy.

    He is in fundamental disagreement with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Civil Engineering Dept. which also published an anlysis of what caused the towers to collapse and which did not arrive at the same conclusions as Professor Jones.
     
  4. Curio

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Mar 14, 2004

    Posts: 7,890

    Location: Brit in the USA

    Ah yes, NORAD. And what happened to the commander of NORAD on 9/11 (General Ralph Eberhart) after they totally failed to do what they were supposed to do and protect American airspace? Court marshal? Demotion?

    Nah, he was promoted to the head of Northern Command :rolleyes:

    And what of the "Acting head" of the Joint Chiefs on that day, General Richard Myers? He said he was aware of the first plane hitting the WTC but had a meeting with some Senator which finished just after the Pentagon was hit. God knows what the meeting was about, but it must have been pretty important to keep the acting head of the Joint Chiefs busy while he should have been on the "front line". Sounds like he might not be the ideal man for the job. So lets promote him to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs :rolleyes:
     
  5. Indy11

    Gangster

    Joined: Dec 6, 2004

    Posts: 270

    Location: New York, NY

    Well, it is very true that NORAD was unable to recognize the threats posed by those for civil airliners. Even after they went off course. At least, I would say, with regard to the two from Boston that ended up in New York and possibly Flight 77 after it took off from Dulles and more or less did an about face. Certainly as far as flight 93 is concerned, one cannot argue that the air force was not alerted to it ... to the point where it is suggested that the plane was shot down rather than brought down by passengers fighting with the hijackers. Given the mission that NORAD had before Sept. 11, I don't know if you can fault it as much as people do. First off, it is a joint US and Canadian aerspace defense arrangement. It is meant to address external threats from space, orbital space or the air. Military threats.

    But if it is important to point out that NORAD failed to stop the attacks, I agree, NORAD failed to stop the attacks. I just don't know why they were expected to have stopped them in the first place.

    Air Force General Myers, now retired, became Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on October 1, 2001. The (retiring) Chairman at the time of the attacks was Army General Henry H. Shelton.

    I could make up a lot of suggestions of why Myers wasn't manning the war room and sending up warbirds. The same question may be addressed to the Administration as a whole. But the failure to recognize and react immediately upon information concerning the events isn't proof of a conspiracy to let it happen. To me the more immediate and most likely explanation is they were caught with their pants down.
     
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2006
  6. @if ®afiq

    Soldato

    Joined: May 3, 2003

    Posts: 6,080

    Doesn't MIT get most of it's sponsoring from the Military?
     
  7. Indy11

    Gangster

    Joined: Dec 6, 2004

    Posts: 270

    Location: New York, NY

    I don't think you can say most but it certainly gets significant money from the Dept. of Defense In the current fiscal year, it and arch-rival CalTech each have three research grants. The list of schools in the current grants year is reflective of many of the best and brightest that we have. And you would expect that the Govt. would want to select schools that are able to apply top grade thinkers to the research.
     
  8. MookJong

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Mar 20, 2006

    Posts: 7,708

    Mentioned this before but can I throw this back into the mix...

    Source
     
  9. Curio

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Mar 14, 2004

    Posts: 7,890

    Location: Brit in the USA

    I agree that's a possibility. However, as the video link posted further up shows, they're usually on the ball when much less serious incidents occur. I forget the exact number of times fighters were scrambled in the months before 9/11 - but it was quite a few. On 9/11, they may well have been caught with their pants down to some degree, but they still had more than enough time to react. Unfortunately they were bogged down with exercises which conveniently pulled fighter planes away from their usual stations, created false radar blips and generally caused confusion in the C&C structure.

    Yes, it's possible it was all just a total mess-up, but to me the evidence suggest that the systems put in place to deal with hijacked planes were deliberately "hobbled" that morning.

    Maybe I'm just being dense (happens a lot :D ) but can you explain that statement?
     
  10. Indy11

    Gangster

    Joined: Dec 6, 2004

    Posts: 270

    Location: New York, NY

    The FAA published timeline of events, I believe, explains what happened. While I cannot say with absolute certainty, the times and development of events as published tends to coincide with what I remember from that day.

    As for my comment about NORAD ... I mean to say that it needs FAA or military prompting to send the birds up unless it is able to make certain that its own information provides a case of a clear military threat for it to supersede civilian authority. And while the two attacks on the Towers had happened about an hour before Flight 77's, NORAD was following the FAA's lead and the FAA had only applied the grounding rule to flights going into the Northeast from Washington DC when 77 took off. Perhaps wishful thinking on the FAA's part (looking now with 20x20 hindsight) but it seems fairly clear that they did not see a threat after the two strikes in New York.

    It was a day of unthinkable events as I recall it and the unthinkable happened four times.
     
  11. Curio

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Mar 14, 2004

    Posts: 7,890

    Location: Brit in the USA

    That timeline leaves out quite a bit of imortant info tho...

    For example: The last known communication from Flight 11 was at 8:13. The transponder signal stopped at 8:20. NORAD weren't even notified until 8:40....6 mins before it crashes into the WTC :confused:

    So yes, I guess the blame shouldn't be on NOARD (I was generalising too much) but the FAA. I guess with all the exercises taking place (which I assume they have to be notified about) they weren't sure what was going on. And when NORAD were contacted they must have been confused because they just happened to be running an exercise of that very nature at the same time.

    Whichever way you look at it, there was an unprecedented failure of communication. Normally a small private plane goes off course or stops responding and it's dealt with in a timely manner. On 9/11 four passenger jets were hijacked and (in the case of Flight 11) allowed to fly unchallenged for 33 mins after loss of contact.
     
  12. Indy11

    Gangster

    Joined: Dec 6, 2004

    Posts: 270

    Location: New York, NY

    I have my own political fault laying arguments about this disaster but it isn't germaine to this discussion in so far as an active and willing conspiracy by the US Govt. is concerned.

    The case of Payne Stewart is rather skewed, by the way. The FAA controller in Jacksonville lost contact at about 9:33am Eastern Time. The USAF F16 from Elgin Airforce base in Florida was vectored over to the Payne Stewart jet at 9:52am Central Time or 10:52am Eastern Time.
     
  13. Curio

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Mar 14, 2004

    Posts: 7,890

    Location: Brit in the USA

    Here's that number I was looking for...

    From this page, which contains other excellent information with sources:
    http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/norad/index.html
     
  14. Fireblade2K4

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Nov 9, 2004

    Posts: 1,677

    Location: West Midlands

    It is all a conspiracy, and a MASSIVE cover up.

    Stu
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2006
  15. Indy11

    Gangster

    Joined: Dec 6, 2004

    Posts: 270

    Location: New York, NY

    The North American Aerospace Defense Command scrambles jets for reasons other than civil aeronautical issues. So simply counting NORAD scrambles doesn't real prove much. It was not "SOP" in 2001 for NORAD to scramble whenever, at its own initiative regardless of whether the situation involved known civilian aircraft or unknown and possibly military aircraft.

    If NORAD had detected an unknown aircraft, it would have scrambled after sufficient criteria were met to do so. On September 11, none of the four were unknown bogeys and until the FAA referred the passenger flights to NORAD, tragically, they were not NORAD's responsibility.

    Not mentioned is whether all 129 scrambles in 2000 were FAA prompted nor of the 67 in the time frame of September 2000 to June 2001. Total number of NORAD scrambles in the twelve months after September 11 is over 460. And, after September 11, NORAD was given open warrant to scramble on known civilian traffic regardless of FAA request.

    The so-called conveniently timed NORAD exercises were annually scheduled. So if the point of the comment is suggest that the Govt. decided to make the attack coincide with the wargames well knowing that assets at Langley AFB would be located out of reach on that fateful day, I get your point but am not persuaded.
     
  16. Curio

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Mar 14, 2004

    Posts: 7,890

    Location: Brit in the USA

    Good points. Out of interest, is there any info on how long the FAA usually takes to refer matters to NORAD in the event of a hijacking? I'm guessing it should have been much quicker than the 20 mins it took on 9/11?
     
  17. Indy11

    Gangster

    Joined: Dec 6, 2004

    Posts: 270

    Location: New York, NY

    I don't know if I can find anything but I will give it a try. The FAA is not a perfect operation but 20 minutes is not as long as you think. And, remembering that nothing like what ended up happening had happened before, just because a plane had been hijacked did not immediately suggest the need to have military aircraft up prepared to do god knows what ... threaten to shoot down the plane you mean? Before September 11, this was not an option.

    Referring to what was rather grossly misrepresented earlier involving the Payne Stewart air crash, in fact, the FAA took over an hour to get a fighter that already was in flight to vector over and take a look.

    <Edit Update>

    Well I've looked a bit and cannot find an answer to your question in so far as a compilation of response times is concerned and while not on point, here is a statistic that helps set the perspective on how people reacted on September 11.

    From February 1991 until September 11, 2001, there were no hijacks of planes in the US. (Lockerbie happened in 1988 and it was not a hijack and it happened over Scotland). The FAA's jurisdiction, of course, is over the country's airspace. Air crashes, of course occurred.
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2006
  18. crashuk

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Dec 7, 2005

    Posts: 2,691

    Last edited: Apr 27, 2006
  19. Indy11

    Gangster

    Joined: Dec 6, 2004

    Posts: 270

    Location: New York, NY

    The guy writes with a very authoritative ring to his statements but doesn't really provide much in the way of factual sourcing to support the vast majority of his assertions and a lot of his sources are not ones that I have found to be very impressive in the past. Considering that he is American, it is rather unusual that he doesn't present his academic credentials as a political scientist and philosopher of law.

    I can see how many would find hiim credible. I don't but that's just my opinion.

    I cannot comment on most of his assertions as I've not come across them before and am not in a position to spend the time to research them now. So if there are rebuttals to what he is claiming, I am not the one who will be spending the time to do it.
     
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2006
  20. dirtydog

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 47,398

    Location: Essex