It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


So the Gov. Destroyed WTC, but Why?

page: 4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 12:13 PM

Originally posted by Griff
They either partially collapse or they collapse to one side because of something called resistance.

You could also replace the word resistance with the word entropy. It is interwesting to note that I have mentioned the lack of entropy in the collapses many times and none of our resident "debunkers" will touch it.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us that the entropy of an isolated system can only increase or remain the same; it cannot decrease.

So... How does a random, offset, angled, partial impact result in the REDUCED entropy that gives us a PERFECT colapse of the entire system?

The answer is: It does not unless something else is introduced into the system to reduce the entropy. (re: symmetrically placed explosives).

I know that the 'debunkers' hate things like the second law of thermodynamics but I wish a single one of them could even comprehend these concepts.

posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 12:34 PM

Whether 9/11 was manufactured by the government or merely allowed to happen with government knowledge and inaction, it was perfect for the US economy, Halliburton, Bush Senior, Boy George and all of their cronies

You get my vote on this one. Based on the little info available about what the CIA and FBI knew, and the lapse in time before military jets were dispatched it either means they were caught with their pants down, totally incompitant [with all the tech they have at their disposal?] or they just let it happen.

At the very least this explanation would achieve the result of keeping us at war with the minimal effort. Perfect timing?

posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 12:48 PM

Originally posted by zorgon
...he lapse in time before military jets were dispatched

Yes...for me this is one of, if not THE, telling factor relted to that day. either means they were caught with their pants down, totally incompitant [with all the tech they have at their disposal?]

Seems unlikely to me. As you say 'with all the tech they have at their disposal'. Additionally, proven procedures were in place to deal with aircraft that deviated from their declared flight plans.

I wonder what the odds are that, on the very day four planes are intended to be used as weapons, a tried and tested system fails, allowing the said aircraft to be thus utiilized.

or they just let it happen.

Unfortunately, this does seem to be a valid option.

posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 01:03 PM
From Dave Ray Giffen's book 'The New Pearl Harbor'

"The official account involves perhaps the most extensive incompetence theory in history, because this story implies that incredible incompetence was manifested by FBI agents, FAA flight controllers, NMCC officials, NORAD officials, and jet fighter pilots, among others.

Indeed, of all the people who must have manifested gross incompetence if the official account be true, evidently not one was fired or even publicly reprimanded, and some of them were even promoted"

So how did 9/11 occur? Prior knowledge, mass incompetence or something else?

Whichever option it was, there is no denying Bush & Co took full advantage of the situation and the effects will be with us for a long, long time

[edit on 22/6/2006 by alienanderson]

posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 01:33 PM
David Ray Griffin also writes, in 'The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions And Distortions' -

(p.139 - 141)

According to standard operating procedures, the FAA is supposed to contact the NMCC whenever it suspects that an airplane has been hijacked. There are three major signs that a plane may have been hijacked: (1) if it deviates seriously from it's flight plan; (2) if radio contact is lost; or (3) if it's transponder goes off.'


The NMCC then tells NORAD to have jets sent up - "scrambled" - from the nearest Air Force base with jets on alert.


Interceptions evidently occur, in fact, about 100 times a year. The FAA reported, for example, that there were 67 interceptions between September 2000 and June 2001.


...a 1998 document warning pilots that any airplanes persisting in unusual behavior "will likely find two [jet fighters] on their tail within 10 or so minutes".

Note that an 'interception' is basically defined as jet fighters going up to investigate errant behaviour. An 'interception' in this case is not a shoot-down.

posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 01:55 PM
Exactly - routine safety procedure whenever a plane goes slightly off course, seemingly happens all the time

What went so badly wrong on 9/11?

Forget the demolitons, the pentagon missile and all the other red herrings for a while

How did 3 hijacked planes hit their targets without any resistance?

top topics
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in