|
Post by turbonium on Sept 24, 2005 1:31:01 GMT -4
Your statement to the effect: "WMDs were proven to be a lie. What makes 9/11 any more valid than that?"
Guilt by association. You disbelieve the 9/11 story not because of anything factual to do with the story, but because of who is telling the story. And it's not just against G.W. Bush and company. You rail against Apollo too, which is the supposedly evil government of 30 years ago. Your "evil government conspiracy" theme is well fleshed out.
The comparison was made because both are stories that have been based on unfounded claims, and lack of any evidence being shown to support them. I don't believe the 9/11 story because I find nothing factual being provided to support it. The "evil government" tag is your way to marginalize my argument into that of a "tin foil hatter" or such. The government, or certain elements of it, may not even be the main culprit behind 9/11 or many other previous covert or suspicious activities (Iran/Contra, Enron, etc.). Multinational Corp's, foreign groups, military and intelligence agencies or elements within them are just some of the possible figures primarily involved in 9/11 or other operations.
As I previously said, finding out what actualy happened would be the first step in finding out who was responsible for it. My own opinion is that Bush was just a stooge in the whole thing - I don't see him as particularly capable of originating or managing anything more complex than his wardrobe.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Sept 24, 2005 1:09:32 GMT -4
And their laywers are desperate for fees they aren't getting. Not to say that the victims' families are universally profit-minded, of course. But you are far too naive in believing that there aren't more interests at stake here than the ideological notions of right and wrong. Whenever there is great tragedy and suffering there are great bloated herds of unscrupulous laywers waiting to get their share of insurance money and settlements. This is a powerful force that drives a great deal of meaningless "investigation" aimed largely at stirring up mud, to keep alive the promise to their clients that someone -- anyone -- will be made to pay. The families of 9/11 victims have the opportunity to get up to millions through the Victim's Compensation Fund. The acceptance of payment would include an agreement they could not take any legal action against the airlines, gov't , etc. Many did not go this route because, as they stated, they "want to find out what really happened on 9/11". They have formed groups to demand an independent investigation into 9/11.
There are always lawyers with dollar signs in their eyes over lawsuits, but many of the victims families have purposely refused the hush money in order to seek justice for the murders of their loved ones, because they don't believe that all those responsible have truly had to answer for their crimes.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Sept 24, 2005 0:50:01 GMT -4
The SOP for destroying civilian airliners over U.S. soil, in non-restricted airspace, that had been so extensively practiced? The one that had the lines of authority and communication clearly delineated and exercised? The one that you're going to provide all the evidence for? The link below is the June 1, 2001 revision for procedures regarding hijacked aircraft... www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdfThe below link is to a pdf file for Army and Air National Guard procedures - I have posted relevant sections in italics... www.ngbpdc.ngb.army.mil/pubfiles/10/108101.pdfFile no. 108101. Military Support to Civil Authorities:
Section2.5
1. …The National Guard Bureau Operations Center…. Serves as the focal point of all state emergency reports… ANG mobilization… 24hrs. 7days a week and maintains close/immediate operational and reporting connectivity with the ANG Operations Center… at Andrews Air Force Base. 2. Whether a crisis or emergency situation is deemed to be of such a serious nature, or has the potential to escalate to such a level that it would require support or continuous monitoring… a Crisis Action Team [will be activated]. The CAT will bring to bear the entire capability of both the Army and Air national Guard.
Section 2.6
1. Emergencies or disasters will often transcend jurisdictional boundaries or a state’s capability to respond…. An Interstate Compact constitutes the legal basis for mutual assistance among member jurisdictions.
Section 2.2:
When an emergency or disaster occurs and waiting for instructions from a higher authority would preclude an effective response, a National Guard commander may do what is necessary and justified to save life…. Support will not be denied or delayed…Before 911 NORAD did not intercept jets inside the continental US with one exception. Payne Stewart's jet was intercepted after a loss in cabin pressure. Even then it took over an hour and a half to intercept the plane. Before 911 NORAD's job was to look for threats coming from outside the US and Canada. That is why there are so many radar installations in the North. They are looking at the airspace over the pole for flights coming from Russia.From this cached article (otherwise you have to pay for the article through AP) link.. www.wanttoknow.info/020812ap From Sept. 11 to June, NORAD scrambled jets or diverted combat air patrols 462 times, almost seven times as often as the 67 scrambles from September 2000 to June 2001, Martin said. (Maj. Douglas Martin, NORAD spokesman) Mary Schiavo, former inspector general for the Department of Transportation....says that in the year 2000, the Air National Guard scrambled fighter jets to intercept U.S. planes which were off course 80 to 100 times. On 9/11, when four planes were hijacked, these procedures and those of NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command) were not followed.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Sept 23, 2005 22:35:11 GMT -4
And in fact you have attempted, through irrelevant comparison or vague handwaving, to portray yourself as some kind of expert, or at least knowledgeable enough to speak competently. I've never attempted to portray myself as "some kind of expert", but I am knowledgeable enough to point out many problems with the official story of 9/11. These points are not irrelevant, they expose the flaws in the story, and the lack of any evidence being provided to support it.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Sept 23, 2005 22:27:05 GMT -4
Do you have any evidence, any at all, for any real preparation prior to 11 Sep 2001 for dealing with hijacked jetliners being used as missiles, rather than for hostage-taking? Where were the training exercises? When did the military, FAA, state and local governments, and National Command Authority participate in detailed discussions or simulations about destroying hundreds of civilians in the air, and possibly hundreds more on the ground?PENTAGON CHIEFS PLANNED FOR JET ATTACK
MILITARY chiefs were so convinced terrorists could fly a plane into the Pentagon that they planned for an attack.
Almost 11 months before the September 11 suicide mission killed 189 people at America's defence headquarters, they carried out a detailed emergency exercise.
US authorities have consistently claimed they had no idea al-Qaeda was thinking of crashing planes into buildings. President Bush insists no one ever had considered such a devastating attack.
But a report reveals that between October 24 and 26 2000, military planners held an exercise to prepare for "incidents including a passenger plane crashing into the Pentagon".www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/page.cfm?objectid=11897568&method=full&siteid=50143www.mdw.army.mil/news/Contingency_Planning.html..including one operation, planned in July 2001 and conducted later, that involved planes from airports in Utah and Washington state that were "hijacked." Those planes were escorted by U.S. and Canadian aircraft to airfields in British Columbia and Alaska.
NORAD officials have acknowledged that "scriptwriters" for the drills included the idea of hijacked aircraft being used as weapons.www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-18-norad_x.htm
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Sept 23, 2005 3:18:20 GMT -4
I'm just wondering about the conflicting names and lists. Why don't they just publish the manifests so it is clear what the names were. It is of interest because of the 19 names still listed as the hijackers by the FBI, which also has errors with the people who said the photo and name is from their lost or stolen passports (and they aren't hijackers).
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Sept 23, 2005 1:49:49 GMT -4
The whole issue about the passengers of the four flights is conflicting among different news outlets.
The 92 listed as on board by CNN actually lists only 87 names. So if five hijackers weren't listed, that makes for 92. But two names "Robin Caplin" and "Robin Kaplan" may be the same person listed twice. USA Today listed 86 names with "Robin Caplin" missing. So far, that could mean it was just one person named twice by CNN.
But there are two other names on CNN's list omitted, and two new names appear on the USA Today list.. Then the AP adds two more new names to the list, for a total of 89, but still called a "partial list".
It gets even worse, with more new or omitted names in other reports.
My point is - what's going on? It shouldn't be that at least 4 reports are so different , where are they all getting the different lists from? All 4 flights have conflicting lists like this.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Sept 23, 2005 0:54:17 GMT -4
I think you're nitpicking. There were 92 victims aboard. It's important, not nit-picking. The people on board should include everyone on the plane, hijacker or not. So should the manifests that we haven't seen.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Sept 23, 2005 0:50:56 GMT -4
some of them had been wargamed and rehearsed and might have been responded to better. That's just it - they were wargamed.
...just weren't ready to respond to airliners being hijacked over U.S. soil and deliberately crashed. Despite intercepts being performed flawlessly 129 times in 2000, and 67 times between Sept. 2000 and June 2001? They were SOP before, during and after 9/11. But the only day they didn't execute SOP was on 9/11.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Sept 23, 2005 0:33:29 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Sept 23, 2005 0:19:29 GMT -4
Thank you for demonstrating that you are totally ignorant of how jet fighters work.
Really? Let's look at the official timeline for Otis intercepts...
According to NORAD, the first jets scrambled actually left Otis AFB in Falmouth, MA, , at 8:52 AM. This is 153 miles from the WTC. 19 minutes later, at 9:11 AM, the F-15s reached the WTC. Their average speed was: 153 / 0.317 ~ 483 mph. That is around 25.8% of their top speed of 1875 mph.
Factoring in the accelleration time of around 2 minutes for F-16's to reach top speed slightly increases but still results in only a fraction of their top speed
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Sept 22, 2005 23:24:46 GMT -4
But there are rules by which those squadrons can be deployed. It's not like anyone can simply push a button and send them on an improvised mission. Certainly, there are SOP's to follow, but weren't followed on 9/11. There are still unanswered questions as to why that occurred.
The "minutes" estimate is based on the notion that the interceptors would fly at full speed for the entire trip, which they cannot do. Andrews AFB is 10 miles from the Pentagon. The F-16's have been reported as having about 6 minutes scramble time before being airborne. Let's say they putted along at 300 mph. That adds about 5 minutes, for a grand total of 11 minutes to reach the Pentagon. Minutes.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Sept 22, 2005 22:49:35 GMT -4
I know many pilots for Delta Air Lines (Salt Lake City is a hub) who are type-certified on the 757 who don't question the common account in the least. Would you care to give me the name of your friend so that I can put him in contact with my professional airline pilot friends.He knows many pilots who are his friends or associates, and is not alone in his convictions. But I will contact him and let you know. I also mentioned the symposium organized by Col. Donn de Grande Pre, who, with many experienced military and commercial pilots, came to conclude that the official story is a lie, and that the planes had been flown by remote control. The article is here www.newsmakingnews.com/911automaticpilot.htmAnd yes, there are names given in the article for some of the pilots involved.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Sept 22, 2005 22:17:36 GMT -4
You simply assume people are as competent as you wish they were. I'm looking at how the claims are not supported by the evidence of prior knowledge and pre-9/11 simulation drills for terrorist attacks using hijacked aircraft. That goes against claims of incompetence. What usually happens after incompetence is shown are reprimands for those failing in their duties. I haven't heard of any firings or demotions for key figures who would be responsible for failing to perform their duties.
|
|
|
Post by turbonium on Sept 22, 2005 22:11:54 GMT -4
Then explain why recorded excerpts were broadcast as part of a television special that aired earlier this month. I mean full transcripts and recordings. I didn't see the show you mention, but if some has been released, that is at least a step in the right direction.
I don't see that you're looking terribly hard for it. I've seen how you handle evidence. You ignore it if you can, and say how it's not available. You dismiss it if you can, on whatever trivial perception of flaw or failure you can trump up. And you thread theory after contradictory theory throught it without ever questioning any of your central beliefs. No - I haven't seen actual evidence presented, so how can I ignore it or dismiss it. I've seen theories presented, which themselves state that they are not meant to be taken as conclusive.
What you're doing is clearly the opposite of investigation. No, I'm asking for evidence, and looking for evidence. I haven't found evidence for the official account of 9/11. I have looked at the reports, and they have not provided evidence to support the account.
|
|