September 11, 2001: Interesting and Less Talked About 911 Info!

a reply to: stolencar18

If you look into the Cleveland story referenced in my previous post, it is suggested that they may have been disembarked executed and disposed of.

Having said that, the whole planes narrative is a can of worms when you look at it closely, with different contending scenarios.

a reply to: cardinalfan0596

Could you elaborate and elucidate please?

a reply to: ipsedixit

The military was just as confused that day as everyone else. They thought AA11 was still flying and heading to DC after it flew into the towers.

All their information was coming through the FAA. Between their confusion, and the flood of information coming in I'm surprised there wasn't a lot more bad information out there.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: ISawItFirst

Dodged again. Go up two posts to my earlier reply. The book you are writing isn't cutting it.

--What about Kamikazie style, 400 miles per hour, full of fuel and intent on doing as much damage as possible?


--hurricane winds at 200 mph same as 400 mph Jumbo Jets?


--Is there another speed for things to fall?

Ok. Thanks. Conceded to relieve thread drift. Kamikaze histrionic Islam fire brought down the towers.

I'm not accustomed to this discussion format, and have realized we're both being rude. I'd like to hear more about the drills going on at the time. There are drills going on every day. There are crisis actors at work as we type no doubt. It seems everyone these days lives in their own custom SCIF.

In the meantime, greater minds than ours must have grappled with these questions, I'm going to go try to learn from their experiences. Have fun, when you make the 'cuz Islam fire' thread, I'll have a lot of fun looking through intrptr lenses for a few minutes, don't be sad if I don't post, I'm of a very subtle nature.

a reply to: ISawItFirst

Simple. The ESB had interior load bearing walls that offered up a lot of resistance to the B-25. Had the Towers had a similar construction, it would have kept either of the airliners from ripping all the way through the buildings as they did.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I don't believe that. I'm not saying that every military person knew what was really going on, but the important ones did. I think this was a very carefully planned operation on the military side. At just what level information went from a military person in on the plot to one not in on the plot, I don't know.

In the Cleveland case the military were attempting to overrule the ATCs who were handling the planes and who were quite sure which airplane had been hijacked. Why would the military come back to the ATCs at all? The military appear to have been trying to shepherd the ATCs through the disaster to make sure they made all the wrong turns along the way.

Did this have something to do with the alleged landings at Cleveland airport and the confusion surrounding that incident? I suspect so.

a reply to: ipsedixit

Any researcher worth their salt, would have discovered that there are no mysteries that happened in Cleveland that day. It is just one more falsehood perpetuated by the truth movement.

a reply to: ipsedixit

And in Baltimore the Navy was trying to tell the ATC how to route the aircraft from Langley, and when the ATC told them how they wanted to do it, the Navy told them to stand by, and took a long time to get back to them. The military was responding to the hijackings, as it was originally written, when they were going to be in control of the situation once it was confirmed. The FAA had a better grasp on what was going on, so they pushed back. And confusion reigns.

It doesn't matter if they were high up or not, if they don't have the information, they don't know what is going on. The FAA controlled the information, through their radar systems, and verbally. If the FAA is confused, and giving confusing information, then guess what? The people receiving that information are going to paint a very confused picture of what's going on, and confusion will reign.

The military is just as fallible as anyone else is. That day they were working with wrong information, and confused information, and trying to paint a picture. And instead wound up with a mess.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: ISawItFirst

Simple. The ESB had interior load bearing walls that offered up a lot of resistance to the B-25. Had the Towers had a similar construction, it would have kept either of the airliners from ripping all the way through the buildings as they did.

Cool I get that. What I am wondering is what makes those inner load bearing walls different from the WTC outer load bearing walls?

a reply to: Zaphod58

I don't believe it.

The military has means of tracking the airspace over the US that is superior to that of the ATCs. I think they could have wiped the various drills off their radar screens in seconds if they wanted to. They could have scrambled jets in a timely manner. They could have sent them in the right directions.

It could be that all of the "hijacked" aircraft on the day were actually part of the drills themselves. If that were the case, and the source of military confusion, it would point to military involvement at the level of the drill planners. It would be easy to silence members of the military who were suspicious, as it was to silence the ATCs who had tapes of their post mortem meetings destroyed by a supervisor after the event.

If this event involved fallible military responses from officers who "dropped the ball" or who were "having a bad day" or who were just incompetent, people would have been fired, court marshaled or demoted. Instead some of the important "screwups" were promoted.

In the Soviet Union (the only comparable country), it would have been handled differently, and it was handled differently by Gorbachev, when Matthias Rust landed a single engine plane in Red Square after flying through the Soviet air defences.

bigstory.ap.org...

Sokolov (Air Marshal, in charge of the country's air defence) was dismissed days after 19-year-old Mathias Rust landed his Cessna light aircraft in the square in May 1987. Although Soviet radars and interceptors tracked Rust's flight from Finland, air forces took no action.

Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev was enraged over the incident and fired Sokolov along with dozens of other defense officials.

Of course that was a real incident when a real government was unpleasantly surprised, and lowered the boom on real incompetents.

originally posted by: stolencar18
I have a question...Maybe I missed the information there was a LOT). I'm not a truther - but I'm open minded. Let's say that someone did swap the planes, etc, and land the real commercial planes.
What happened to the passengers on those planes?

Better still, whats to be gained by "swapping planes"? Leaving behind live witnesses isn't a good idea, you have to kill the passengers then kill the killers, make the planes disappear, have the remote drone pilots killed, ad infinitum.

Planning plane swaps on 911 is fraught with potential problems during the operation and leaves trails of breadcrumbs.

The notion of such a stupid idea is the most telling.

a reply to: ISawItFirst

Blah, blah…

I asked you how a hurricane compares to a jet liner?

We can't 'discuss' anything if you keep dodging that question I asked you waaay back…

a reply to: intrptr

When you control law enforcement and have a population as stupid as the mainstream in America, you can try any stupid idea at all and get away with it and that was what happened on 9/11.

Stupidity is no bar to success when trying to put one over on the mass of the American public. I really believe it literally does not matter what one chooses to do to the American public, as long as it is dressed up as a security issue by the White House.

Plausibility doesn't matter, let alone probability. The intelligence agencies and military planners have a lot of ways to get things done and to keep people quiet about doing them.

originally posted by: intrptr
Better still, whats to be gained by "swapping planes"? Leaving behind live witnesses isn't a good idea, you have to kill the passengers then kill the killers, make the planes disappear, have the remote drone pilots killed, ad infinitum.

Planning plane swaps on 911 is fraught with potential problems during the operation and leaves trails of breadcrumbs.

The notion of such a stupid idea is the most telling.

"What's to be gained by swapping planes?"

1. It allowed for the drones to be used instead. These allow for precise guidance into the buildings and probably other technical advantages, such as the pods mounted on the bellies that fired something into the building right before impact.

2. And of course the even more obvious one: You don't need any suicide pilot volunteers...

Did these not occur to you? Do you have a problem with your brain? You need to think a little harder because a 1st grader could achieve your level of reasoning.

soulwaxer

a reply to: ISawItFirst

What I am wondering is what makes those inner load bearing walls different from the WTC outer load bearing walls?

ESB has a latticework of steel beams throughout.
WTC only had this in the inner core.

The exterior could not stand 110 stories tall without being braced.
The bracing came from light weight floor trusses attached to the inner core.

The inner core could not stand 110 stories tall without being braced either.
Again the floor trusses braced the inner core.

ESB steel work could stand with no bracing at all.

Check construction websites.
They all say that no sky scraper will ever be constructed using the same method as WTC again.
We learn from our mistakes.

a reply to: ipsedixit

Plausibility doesn't matter, let alone probability. The intelligence agencies and military planners have a lot of ways to get things done and to keep people quiet about doing them.

Not eeeven one whistle blower, huh? Are we going to have to wait for 50 years to get JFK style deathbed confessions?

Will the ignorant USA last that long?

I prefer ignorant to stupid for the same reason that Japanese thought Americans were going to eat them during WWII.

Propaganda machines churn non stop.

Edit to add: LOL, case in point…

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: ipsedixit
a reply to: intrptr

When you control law enforcement and have a population as stupid as the mainstream in America, you can try any stupid idea at all and get away with it and that was what happened on 9/11.

Stupidity is no bar to success when trying to put one over on the mass of the American public. I really believe it literally does not matter what one chooses to do to the American public, as long as it is dressed up as a security issue by the White House.

Plausibility doesn't matter, let alone probability. The intelligence agencies and military planners have a lot of ways to get things done and to keep people quiet about doing them.

Indeed. In fact, including implausible/improbable (to the public) scenarios into the plan actually helps keeping the public clueless.

A big lie is a propaganda technique. Here is Adolf Hitler’s take on it:

... in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.
— Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. I, ch. X

9/11 was above all a psychological operation. It takes a very open and confident mind to see through the big lie. Very few people have a mind like that. The perpetrators of the 9/11 false flag were very much aware of this, and with the MSM and other tools in their pocket, they basically had little to worry about. They knew it would succeed, even if they made mistakes.

soulwaxer

a reply to: ipsedixit

Almost all the internal radar data, except around military bases comes through the FAA radar system. Radars looking out for incoming threats are strictly military, but almost all internal coverage is through the FAA.

NORAD was set up to stop incoming waves of Soviet bombers, and watch for missiles coming in, not internal threats. Instead of spending three times the money on a dual radar system, one to look out and one to monitor internal flights, they piggybacked on the existing radar system for internal flights.

It's still setup that way today. Even after they wiped the exercises off their displays, they saw what the FAA saw.

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: ISawItFirst

What I am wondering is what makes those inner load bearing walls different from the WTC outer load bearing walls?

ESB has a latticework of steel beams throughout.
WTC only had this in the inner core.

The exterior could not stand 110 stories tall without being braced.
The bracing came from light weight floor trusses attached to the inner core.

The inner core could not stand 110 stories tall without being braced either.
Again the floor trusses braced the inner core.

ESB steel work could stand with no bracing at all.

Check construction websites.
They all say that no sky scraper will ever be constructed using the same method as WTC again.
We learn from our mistakes.

You forgot about WTC 7. What was the construction flaw in that building, and what did we learn from it?

soulwaxer

originally posted by: ipsedixit it literally does not matter what one chooses to do to the American public, as long as it is dressed up as a security issue by the White House.

absolutely. if it's to 'keep you safe' it must be ok.