Why am I still getting laughed at when I tell people that the 9/11 attack was questionable??

Originally posted by jfj123
"NORAD's radar system ringed the continent, looking outward for threats, not inward. The radar window was like a doughnut,. There was no coverage in the middle. Pre-9/11, flights originating in the States were not seen as threats and NORAD wasn't prepared to track them."

I don't know who to believe on this. I was watching a UFO show on the History Channel last night and they specifically said about NORAD tracking UFOs over the country. This would have been pre-9/11. So, who do we believe? The government and government agencies that are trying to cover their buts? Sorry if you can believe a word they say, I can't.

Or the hijackers may have simply asked where the spots were in class.

Plausible.

Originally posted by jfj123
There WERE at the time, NO NORAD radar windows facing INWARD. ONLY outward. That has since changed. There are NOW joint ATC and NORAD radar installations.

No offense, but unless you worked for NORAD pre-9/11, you don't know this. You've only been TOLD this.

Originally posted by jfj123

There WERE at the time, NO NORAD radar windows facing INWARD. ONLY outward. That has since changed. There are NOW joint ATC and NORAD radar installations.

You might want to do just a little more research. The Joint Suveillance System was set up during 1992-1995. I believe that makes it prior to 9/11.

www.globalsecurity.org...

The newest long-range search radar in the Joint Surveillance System (JSS) that has recently been fielded is the Air Route Surveillance Radar Model 4 (ARSR-4). Providing air defense and air traffic control for the continental United States, Guam, and Hawaii, forty joint radar sites were installed during the 1992-1995 period.

Originally posted by jfj123
Why would you say that? Of course there would be damage below where the jet impacted.

What damage would that be? The fuel to air explosions that made it all the way down 1,000 + feet. Please explain what other "damage" the core would have sustained.

A MASSIVE shift of dead load onto even undamaged support columns could easily cause CATASTROPHIC STRUCTURAL FAILURE.

You have it wrong. The official story is that creep started the collapse and impact load was what caused the catastrophic failure. Not dead load shifting. Once the plane damage was complete, there was no more dead load shifting. Please explain again.

Originally posted by Essedarius
Yeah. Very odd.

But which do you think is more likely?

(a)
Everyone froze and breached their protocol.

or

(b)
They knew they didn't have to follow normal protocol because they planned the attacks themselves.


As odd as it is, I have to say that (a) is more likely.
I would be interested to hear an argument against that logic.

So, you are saying every single person in the government that day just simply "forgot" protocol that they train for constantly? There's an arguement against that logic. These people don't just "freeze" up when something happens. That's about the worst explanation I've heard. No offense.

And for as "impossible" as those collapses were, they still make more sense than the logistical nightmare of orchestrating 9/11 as a controlled operation.

To you maybe. To me, it seams far easier than 4 airplanes getting highjacked and flying unrestricted for hours and hitting their targets. Well, at least 3 of them. The 4th was used as the "Let's Roll" propaganda IMO.

I could not agree more. But the logistical explanation behind a government-led conspiracy to perpetrate 9/11 is not just inadequate...it's non-existent.

What if it wasn't a government-led conspiracy but a few people that have infiltrated our government? And the rest are just covering their buts for incompetence. Would that make it easier for you deal with?

Originally posted by bsbray11
Common sense is a figure of speech. There's not really a point in referencing it seriously, as if it actually meant something.

My bad. Let me rephrase...

Outside of "Truth" circles there is a thing called "Common Sense."

Individuals use this so-called "Common Sense" to quickly identify overt characteristics of a situation that may benefit or harm them, allowing quick and decisive action without in-depth analysis or substantial risk.

Example A:
That chick is so hot. I want to mate with her.

Example B:
That car is traveling fast and weighs more than I do. I will not step in front of it.

Example C:
Two Government agencies worked together to accomplish something? What a total load of crap.

Originally posted by jfj123
Remember, this is the first time this has EVER happened so there is no model or frame of reference that NIST can compare it to so they must make their own model. That's a lot more difficult then copying and pasting from previous models.

I'm really sick of this argument. Yes, there have not been planes used as missles against a steel skyscraper before, but we do know how steel acts in fires, how it acts when impacted, how it etc., etc. We know how physics works. The physical laws that govern this earth didn't just up and walk away because there were planes used. Jeez.

I'm sick of the "this was unprecedented" argument.

I really don't understand why it's so hard to believe that the NIST is struggling with answers.

I do. They were given an effect and made to find a cause. That's not the scientific way. You find the cause before the effect.

Does that mean there was anything more then a plane hitting a building because of terrorists??? NO of course it doesn't.

According to you. According to me, it says alot more.

Originally posted by Griff
These people don't just "freeze" up when something happens. That's about the worst explanation I've heard. No offense.

None taken. It is a pretty bad explanation. Of course, let's not lose sight of the fact that it's your explanation too. I mean we're both saying that they froze.

I'm just saying that it was shock. You're saying that it was because the President's entire security detail was provided complete and detailed knowledge of the president's plan to murder countless civilians.

Now really...you think mine is worse? Really?

To me, it [orchestrating 9/11] seams far easier than 4 airplanes getting highjacked and flying unrestricted for hours and hitting their targets.

I think if you stack up the difficulties that 19 hijackers had to overcome and stack them up against the difficulties that would be encountered by THEM (e.g., obtaining aircraft, coordinating "unnoticed" passage for the aircraft, wiring the buildings for implosion, and removal of evidence afterward)...in the end, I like the odds of the 19 better.

I don't begrudge you your skepticism, Griff. My only annoyance is with Truthers who imply that I'm a shepherded moron for believing in an impossible story when, in reality, it's their story that makes Starship Troopers look like Saving Private Ryan.

Well, at least 3 of them. The 4th was used as the "Let's Roll" propaganda IMO.

I agree there. I believe that the Shanksville plane was shot down. (Which is actually proof that the other three were "missed", not "ignored"...isn't it?)

What if it wasn't a government-led conspiracy but a few people that have infiltrated our government? And the rest are just covering their buts for incompetence. Would that make it easier for you deal with?

It actually makes it harder. Because then you would have a ton of people that would have EVEN MORE incentive to blow the whistle on those shady few. VINDICATION is an amazing motivator...a lot of people would be able to transform from INCOMPETENT to VICTIM and, as a rule, human beings LOVE to make that transformation.

...which is why I believe it's an all or nothing prospect with this particular conspiracy.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by jfj123
There WERE at the time, NO NORAD radar windows facing INWARD. ONLY outward. That has since changed. There are NOW joint ATC and NORAD radar installations.

No offense, but unless you worked for NORAD pre-9/11, you don't know this. You've only been TOLD this.

And the knowledge you have that says the opposite, you were also told. Now I can say one additional thing that leads me to believe that what I have said is correct. I remember reading an old Discover magazine article from early mid 1990's, that featured information about NORAD's technology and within the article, it said basically what I said here. I am currently looking for that particular issue with that particular article and if or when I find it, I will post it.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by jfj123

There WERE at the time, NO NORAD radar windows facing INWARD. ONLY outward. That has since changed. There are NOW joint ATC and NORAD radar installations.

You might want to do just a little more research. The Joint Suveillance System was set up during 1992-1995. I believe that makes it prior to 9/11.

www.globalsecurity.org...

The newest long-range search radar in the Joint Surveillance System (JSS) that has recently been fielded is the Air Route Surveillance Radar Model 4 (ARSR-4). Providing air defense and air traffic control for the continental United States, Guam, and Hawaii, forty joint radar sites were installed during the 1992-1995 period.

Just so I know, what part of the about information says that I am incorrect with regard to my information?
Thanks.

Why am I still getting laughed at when I tell people that the 9/11 attack was questionable??


Its not human nature to have a tendency to beleive things which are out of the comfort level for them. I know because i have heard the laughter too.
Its taken years since the attack for most people i know to at least admit that there was something "amiss" "out of place" or "not quite right" about 9/11...but they're coming around. As time passes, the shock, denial, and narrowmindness lessens, and people do start to put two and two together and come up with the fact that this said "conspiracy", is a very possible scenario. But people do need time to come to grips with it. Of course, not everyone is going to beleive this was plotted by the government, under any circumstances. Period. But i do beleive that most people have a "knowing" deep inside that allows for them to reach the proper findings by themselves even if they dont share it with others. Its a very sad thing for an America loving person to give into the "conspiracy".

Here is a map of a NORAD/FAA Joint Surveillance System radar stations.

Notice that the JSS sites are represented in maroon.

Link

I wouldn't expect much joint radar coverage except for along the coasts and northern and southern borders.

The link is a PDF. Page 6

[edit on 11-10-2007 by Boone 870]

Originally posted by jfj123
There WERE at the time, NO NORAD radar windows facing INWARD. ONLY outward. That has since changed. There are NOW joint ATC and NORAD radar installations.

You might want to do just a little more research. The Joint Suveillance System was set up during 1992-1995. I believe that makes it prior to 9/11.

Just so I know, what part of the about information says that I am incorrect with regard to my information?
Thanks.


The part where you stated joint ATC and NORAD installations were set up after 9/11. I just posted a joint system of ATC and NORAD radar that were set up before 9/11.

Originally posted by dgtempe
Why am I still getting laughed at when I tell people that the 9/11 attack was questionable??


Its not human nature to have a tendency to beleive things which are out of the comfort level for them. I know because i have heard the laughter too.
Its taken years since the attack for most people i know to at least admit that there was something "amiss" "out of place" or "not quite right" about 9/11...but they're coming around. As time passes, the shock, denial, and narrowmindness lessens, and people do start to put two and two together and come up with the fact that this said "conspiracy", is a very possible scenario. But people do need time to come to grips with it. Of course, not everyone is going to beleive this was plotted by the government, under any circumstances. Period. But i do beleive that most people have a "knowing" deep inside that allows for them to reach the proper findings by themselves even if they dont share it with others. Its a very sad thing for an America loving person to give into the "conspiracy".

Well I can tell you I am very open minded and am willing to listen to all sides. I am not interested in taking sides. I am interested in finding the truth. I believe many people feel this way.

Now what is the truth????

Well, if the truth is 19 terrorists carried out mass killings, then I accept that. If the truth is the US government carried out the attacks, then I accept that too.
Now here's the problem....The complete lack of proof for the conspiracy. I have read about many different questions, opinions, speculation, hypothesis', etc. But not once have I seen REAL, TANGIBLE proof of this conspiracy.

Think about how difficult it would be for the government to carry this out and cover it up. It would take thousands of people to pull this off. Not one person said NO, I'm not going to do it? Not one person has come forward and said they felt guilty? Not one person has slipped up enough to leave tangible proof? This would be the most brilliant, most perfectly laid plan in the history of our planet. Does that honestly sound plausible???

Seriously, sit down and think this out step by step from the beginning to end. Who would need to be involved to devise and plot out the operation?
Who's idea was it?
Who pulled the people together to plot out the plan?
Who were the planners?
Who were the experts that gave them technical information?
-logistical?
-personnel?
-demolition?
-aviation?
-military?
-acquisitions?

etc....

That's even before getting the actual personnel to pull it off.

And nobody has talked or messed up enough to leave behind enough proof to conclusively show a conspiracy happened???

Originally posted by jfj123
Now here's the problem....The complete lack of proof for the conspiracy. I have read about many different questions, opinions, speculation, hypothesis', etc. But not once have I seen REAL, TANGIBLE proof of this conspiracy.

Talking about complete lack of proof. Where is the proof fromn the people that beleive everything happend like we were told.

I have a background in aviation and law enforcement. From my experience and mostly common sense i could something was wrong with what we were being told.

I have been doing a lot of research, filed FOIA requests, and have e-mailed companies that were at ground zero. So far i have come up with more questions then answers, we only have about a tenth of the facts and reports we should have to tell us what happened that day.

1. Out of 4 planes, we only have some evidence that only 1 got off any kind of distres call or signal.

2. No FBI or NTSB reports of the 4 crime scenes.

3. No actual photo or video of FLight 77 hitting the Pentagon even thought builidng has camera and the buildings aroiund it have cameras.

4. No reports of any aircraft parts found matching any of the 9/11 planes.

5. No reports of where these parts were taken.

Just to name a few.

Talking about complete lack of proof. Where is the proof fromn the people that beleive everything happend like we were told.

I have a background in aviation and law enforcement. From my experience and mostly common sense i could something was wrong with what we were being told.

Well first, since you have a background in law enforcement, you know the phrase "innocent until PROVEN guilty". You may suspect that something might have been wrong but that is just a feeling and feelings are wrong all the time.

I have been doing a lot of research, filed FOIA requests, and have e-mailed companies that were at ground zero. So far i have come up with more questions then answers, we only have about a tenth of the facts and reports we should have to tell us what happened that day.

Questions may point to somewhere other then the officials story but questions aren't proof of a conspiracy.

1. Out of 4 planes, we only have some evidence that only 1 got off any kind of distres call or signal.

From what I understand, the terrorists stormed the cockpits quickly so I can understand why not all four planes got off distress signals and one got lucky to get one off. We know terrorists were in the planes because passengers called loved ones.

2. No FBI or NTSB reports of the 4 crime scenes.

At this time I am not familiar with this so I can't answer this.

3. No actual photo or video of FLight 77 hitting the Pentagon even thought builidng has camera and the buildings aroiund it have cameras.

There is indeed video footage that has been around for awhile now.
Here's the link
www.youtube.com...

4. No reports of any aircraft parts found matching any of the 9/11 planes.

There were a number of photos taken at the crash sites showing plane parts.

5. No reports of where these parts were taken.

Did you ask them where they took the parts?

The supporters of the official story never like to tackle WTC 7.

The videos of the buildings collapsing are evidence to me that the official story simply cannot be true. But the collapse of WTC 7 is the "smoking gun" because it defies logic and the laws of physics.

OK, lets say there was extensive damage to the South Face of WTC 7, although that has not been proven conclusively. Even if there were severe structural damage done to the building how did all of the support columns in WTC 7 give way at the exact same moment?????

Why didn't WTC topple to the south??? You know fall in the direction of the damage??
WTC 5 & 6 were directly beneath WTC 1 and were heavily damaged yet they did not collapse.

I remember initially accepting the official story about the towers. OK sounds reasonable. Jets hit towers...towers fall down ok. Then I saw the video of WTC 7 and it finally dawned on me that it was not possible. In order for the building to collapse the way it did all of the support columns would need to give way at once (I believe there were 87 columns in WTC 7 giving way from top to bottom!!!)

It looks exactly like a controlled demolition...because it IS a controlled demolition!!

I think that is difficult part for people to get past...that initial explanation which was planted into our minds! It is truely Orwellian.

Originally posted by jfj123
Questions may point to somewhere other then the officials story but questions aren't proof of a conspiracy.

From what I understand, the terrorists stormed the cockpits quickly so I can understand why not all four planes got off distress signals and one got lucky to get one off. We know terrorists were in the planes because passengers called loved ones.


There is indeed video footage that has been around for awhile now.
Here's the link
www.youtube.com...

There were a number of photos taken at the crash sites showing plane parts.

5. No reports of where these parts were taken.

Did you ask them where they took the parts?

1. But the questions do seem to prove a lot of things are missing or left out of the official story.

2. What are the odds of out of 8 people they could not get off an emergency call or siganl. 1 second to key a mike, 2 seconds to change the code on the transpoders?

3. All i see is a blurry streak and an explosion. I do not see a boeing 757, do you? Where are all the CCTV videos?

4. Photos alone are not evidence, i could show you photos of any part and claim it was from 9/11. We need the FBI or NTSB reports that match these parts to the planes.

5. I can find no FBI and NTSB reports reguarding parts.


[edit on 11-10-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Originally posted by Leo Strauss
The supporters of the official story never like to tackle WTC 7.

The videos of the buildings collapsing are evidence to me that the official story simply cannot be true. But the collapse of WTC 7 is the "smoking gun" because it defies logic and the laws of physics.

OK, lets say there was extensive damage to the South Face of WTC 7, although that has not been proven conclusively. Even if there were severe structural damage done to the building how did all of the support columns in WTC 7 give way at the exact same moment?????

Why didn't WTC topple to the south??? You know fall in the direction of the damage??
WTC 5 & 6 were directly beneath WTC 1 and were heavily damaged yet they did not collapse.

I remember initially accepting the official story about the towers. OK sounds reasonable. Jets hit towers...towers fall down ok. Then I saw the video of WTC 7 and it finally dawned on me that it was not possible. In order for the building to collapse the way it did all of the support columns would need to give way at once (I believe there were 87 columns in WTC 7 giving way from top to bottom!!!)

It looks exactly like a controlled demolition...because it IS a controlled demolition!!

I think that is difficult part for people to get past...that initial explanation which was planted into our minds! It is truely Orwellian.

If you are familiar with the way weight is distributed across structural components, you would know that if one component is removed, the weight is shifted to the other attached components. The weight of the building doesn't change but the weight which it can hold does until enough components are removed then POOF.... instant collapse.

Also keep in mind that if the buildings were built in a similar manner, they may have had the same weaknesses leading to a similar collapse upon failure.
Another point is that buildings are supposed to be built to certain structural codes but many times they are not. Your assumptions are that there were not structural weaknesses inherent in the buildings prior to the collapse but that may not have been the case. Those building may have been built very poorly. It happens all the time.

Just some thoughts

2. What are the odds of out of 8 people they could not get off an emergency call or siganl. 1 second to key a mike, 2 seconds to change the code on the transpoders?

Have you ever been surprised by screaming terrorists from behind that were wielding box cutters? Do you think you may have been taken aback long enough to miss that opportunity?

3. All i see is a blurry streak and an explosion. I do not see a boeing 757, do you? Where are all the CCTV videos?

You are looking at a CCTV video and with a background in law enforcement, you should also know that most security tapes are pictures and not video. The pictures are taken in increments of usually 5 seconds. Running 30+fps constantly takes up way too much space so most cameras don't do that.

4. Photos alone are not evidence, i could show you photos of any part and claim it was from 9/11. We need the FBI or NTSB reports that match these parts to the planes.

Well some of the photos come from FEMA, etc.
Also, since you suspect the government of conspiring to do this, wouldn't it be pointless to get the FBI and/or NTSB reports anyway? Based on what you have already wrote, you would automatically believe everything in those reports to be suspect.