9/11: The Feds did it.

page: 10
0
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 23 2004 @ 08:57 AM
link   
I don't think we can really get any real answers.

The "official" story takes as much faith, if not more, than believing the conspiracy angle on this.

But as it is with the government, they wield great power and influence in that it is very difficult to pin anything on them.

The "proof" that we all seek so badly is hard to get. I truthfully find it hard to believe that the government had nothing to do with it.




posted on Apr, 23 2004 @ 09:25 AM
link   
NORAD is the key. If it could be logically explained why it took so long for the fighters to be scrambled and to intercept the errent aircraft, much doubt and speculation would be put to rest. Until those questions are answered specifically, the conspiracies and doubts will rage.



posted on Apr, 23 2004 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
NORAD is the key. If it could be logically explained why it took so long for the fighters to be scrambled and to intercept the errent aircraft, much doubt and speculation would be put to rest. Until those questions are answered specifically, the conspiracies and doubts will rage.


One need only look at the amount of time from when NORAD was officially informed, to when planes were in the air to answer that.

If anything the controllers lack of ability to follow established procedure should be questioned. But rather than question ordinary civilians, we would just rather go after the military guys.



posted on Apr, 23 2004 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND

Originally posted by EastCoastKid


One need only look at the amount of time from when NORAD was officially informed, to when planes were in the air to answer that.



Go study the Payne Stewart incident. You might then grasp the established protocol.

But wait, I know, you won't. and please don't waste bandwidth telling me why you don't have to.



posted on Apr, 23 2004 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Go study the Payne Stewart incident. You might then grasp the established protocol.

But wait, I know, you won't. and please don't waste bandwidth telling me why you don't have to.


I did study that, what is your point. In that case you had aircraft already in the sky that were diverted to him.

In the case of 9/11 it was over 23 minutes from when the first plane shut down it transponder and altered course, to when the FAA gave formal notification to NORAD.

Explain why the FAA took so long, when NORAD had fighters in the air not six minutes after receiving the official notification.



posted on Apr, 23 2004 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by EastCoastKid

Originally posted by Pisky
When Payne Stewart's plane left its flight trajectory, military jets were quickly scrambled to find out what was going on.

Are we therefore supposed to believe that four passenger aircraft can do the same with no military presence whatsoever (except possibly flight 93).

Bollocks.


Excellent point, Pisky. Just study Stewart's case. NORAD was stood down.

9-11 was a false flag operation.

Study Operation Northwoods. It's an excellent starting point.

April 30, 2001


In his new exposé of the National Security Agency entitled Body of Secrets, author James Bamford highlights a set of proposals on Cuba by the Joint Chiefs of Staff codenamed OPERATION NORTHWOODS. This document, titled “Justification for U.S. Military Intervention in Cuba” was provided by the JCS to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara on March 13, 1962, as the key component of Northwoods. Written in response to a request from the Chief of the Cuba Project, Col. Edward Lansdale, the Top Secret memorandum describes U.S. plans to covertly engineer various pretexts that would justify a U.S. invasion of Cuba. These proposals - part of a secret anti-Castro program known as Operation Mongoose - included staging the assassinations of Cubans living in the United States, developing a fake “Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington,” including “sink[ing] a boatload of Cuban refugees (real or simulated),” faking a Cuban airforce attack on a civilian jetliner, and concocting a “Remember the Maine” incident by blowing up a U.S. ship in Cuban waters and then blaming the incident on Cuban sabotage. Bamford himself writes that Operation Northwoods “may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government.”
www.gwu.edu...


BAD answer, Pisky. NO jets were "scrambled" immediately after ATC (Air Traffic Control) lost contact with Payne Stewarts plane. A USAF F-16 test pilot from the 40th Flight Test Squadron at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, was vectored to within 8 nm of N47BA, Stewarts aircraft, by ATC 22 minutes after contact was lost, NOT NORAD. That's not NORAD's job, and it wasn't "stood down". it never has been, and most likely never will be. It is manned 27/7/365. NORAD was, at that time, tasked with detecting and deterring the threat from OUTSIDE our boarders. The focus on aerospace threats from outside the borders of Canada and the United States now includes domestic airspace. There are a lot of people in here who claim to know what's going on, but they prove what little they know when they make such preposterous claims.

Contrary to your insinuation, prior to 9/11, there were NO aircraft on alert to scramble against hijacked airliners within our boarders. You can't just call any old base and say, "Scramble your jets!" If there aren't any already in the air or preparing for takeoff, you are screwed. The F-16 that initially intercepted Payne's aircraft happened to be in the air on a training mission, as did every other aircraft that was utilized in that situation. Also, unless they were conducting live fire exercises which are normally only done in specific ranges such as in Nevada, they would not be armed. So, even if there had been any fighters in the air on 9/11, all they could have done is watch. Here is the official story on what happened to Payne Stewart. I've posted it before, but some don't read...they just spout.

www.airsafe.com...

www.ntsb.gov...

www.norad.mil...

My father had a saying that some here should think about..."Sometimes it's better to keep your mouth closed and let people THINK you're a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."



posted on Apr, 23 2004 @ 01:54 PM
link   
I found this info at this website members.fortunecity.com...
Oct. 26, 1999 The day the chartered Lear jet carrying golfer Payne Stewart crashes and kills all on board.
The following is from the official National Transportation Safety Board crash report
9:19 am the flight departs
9:24 the Lear Jets pilot responds to an instruction from air traffic control
9:33 the controller radios another instruction. No response from the pilot. for four minutes the controller tries to establish contact.
9:38 Having failed the controller calls in the military. Note that he did not seek, nor did he require, the approval of the President of the United States, or indeed anyone. It's standard procedure, followed routinesly, to call in the Air Force when communication with a commercial passenger jet is lost, or the plane departs from its flight path.
9:54 16 minutes later, the F-16 reaches the Lear Jet at 46, 000 feet and does a visual inspection.
total elapsed time 21 minutes.
Norad had a plan in action for anytime they lost communication or a plane veered off course, it was standard operating procedure to send the jets up and if memory serves me right there are 6 military bases they use for these emergencies. If that is correct then all those bases should have had a jet fueled, pilot on alert and ready to go in the air at a moments notice. To believe that we could have 4 planes all not responding to radio contact, and veering off course, all the controllers at the airports trying to establish radio contact, some supposedly overheard the terrorists giving orders, all slacking that morning when they know what standard operating procedure is and they all just took their good old time sending the jets in. And then Norad just took their good old time, also, and then the jets that were finally given the call to go up responded at less than 30% their capable speed. (found that info at ) 911timeline.net... So we are to believe that everyone was just not capable of responding and doing their jobs on that particular day. But on Oct. 26, 1999 we did a great job of calling in the jets we just could not manage that on September 11, 2001.

[Edited on 23-4-2004 by goose]

[Edited on 23-4-2004 by goose]



posted on Apr, 23 2004 @ 07:32 PM
link   


I am not a civil engineer


That's the only anwser I need. Are you going to lecture us next in any other topic you have no experience or reliable knowledge about?



posted on Apr, 23 2004 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib



I am not a civil engineer


That's the only anwser I need. Are you going to lecture us next in any other topic you have no experience or reliable knowledge about?


You don't need to be in the field to hold an opinion. I am neither a doctor nor a woman, but I still reserve judgement on abortion. Neither of which matter.



posted on Apr, 23 2004 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib



I am not a civil engineer


That's the only anwser I need. Are you going to lecture us next in any other topic you have no experience or reliable knowledge about?


First of all I was not lecturing just giving my opinion, nor was I pretending to be an expert at any time, second, it does not take a civil engineer to know that when things are off balance they normally fall usually to one side or the other, but not implode as the WTC did. I am not a carpenter either but I built my own house over twenty years ago and its still standing.



posted on Apr, 24 2004 @ 01:45 AM
link   
911 was northwoods on steroids.
There are some that will try and 'debunk' any claims about 911, but those of us that have researched it know the truth.
It is far easier to 'debunk' the official theory than it is to 'debunk' the conspiracy theory.
Fellow believers, remain strong and spread the word.
The charade is falling apart bit by bit, and its up to you and i to keep this in the public eye, on the public tongue.
With all the glaring falsehoods about 911 it is our perfect chance to expose the global elite for what they are: evil
This isnt between christians and muslims, muslims and jews, christians and jews. This isnt about black or white, liberal or democrat, right or left. This isnt communism or capitalism, this is satanism.
Evil permeates all levels of our GOV.
Check out the elephant symbol for the republican party.
The THREE stars across the top of the elephant ARE INVERTED.
This is a sign (pentagrams) to the satanist of the world, letting them know that our current administration is 'down with the sickness' to coin a phrase.
Remain alert my fellow americans, evil abounds.



posted on Apr, 24 2004 @ 01:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyJethro

Originally posted by Muaddib



I am not a civil engineer


That's the only anwser I need. Are you going to lecture us next in any other topic you have no experience or reliable knowledge about?


You don't need to be in the field to hold an opinion. I am neither a doctor nor a woman, but I still reserve judgement on abortion. Neither of which matter.


Thank You!



posted on Apr, 24 2004 @ 03:15 AM
link   


You don't need to be in the field to hold an opinion. I am neither a doctor nor a woman, but I still reserve judgement on abortion. Neither of which matter.


You are all trying to present this information as the truth, so i have to say it does matter.

There is a difference between saying an opinion and presenting opinions/wild allegations as truth.

A skyscrapper is not like a tree, where if you cut it in one side the tree will fall sideways. The physics involved in the construction of skyscrapers make it so they only collapse mostly on themselves and not sideways.

Skyscrapers are actually designed as a net of steel beams, where if there is one part of it becomes weak, still the rest of the net will hold and if it falls, it will fall on itself, not sideways.

In order for the twin towers to have fallen sideways, because of its base, which was 208 feet at one side, the top of the tower would have to bend over 100 feet to one side to move its center of gravity, and because of the way these skyscrapers are built, before that happens it falls on itself because of buckling columns, which make skyscrapers collapse on themselves before they tip over.

I already explained about backdrafts, as the above rooms in the twin towers were burning, and consuming all of the air, when one section of the floor gives way, the fire from the top absorbs the air from the room below it and makes an explotion. Also there are bound to be janitor closets in skyscrapers, and janitor rooms have a lot of flammable chemicals that will "explode." I am not sure if there were any gas lines in the Twin towers, but those can explode pretty loud too when there is a big fire.

Here is a good site if you want to inform yourselves about this.

"NOVA: The Twin Towers collapsed essentially straight down. Was there any chance they could have tipped over?

Eagar: It's really not possible in this case. In our normal experience, we deal with small things, say, a glass of water, that might tip over, and we don't realize how far something has to tip proportional to its base. The base of the World Trade Center was 208 feet on a side, and that means it would have had to have tipped at least 100 feet to one side in order to move its center of gravity from the center of the building out beyond its base. That would have been a tremendous amount of bending. In a building that is mostly air, as the World Trade Center was, there would have been buckling columns, and it would have come straight down before it ever tipped over."

Excerpt taken from.

www.pbs.org...



posted on Apr, 24 2004 @ 10:53 AM
link   
I have yet to see any concrete, irrefutable shred of convincing evidence that the 911 attacks were beyond what they were.

Bomb blasts heard? Could have been anything.



posted on Apr, 24 2004 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Facefirst
I have yet to see any concrete, irrefutable shred of convincing evidence that the 911 attacks were beyond what they were.

Bomb blasts heard? Could have been anything.



probably just a repeating chili blast, yeah? new york gastriodemolition?



posted on Apr, 24 2004 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by billybob


probably just a repeating chili blast, yeah? new york gastriodemolition?


Please explain?


There was so much stuff collapsing and coming apart before the towers came down that those sounds could have been anything. There is no evidence of any "bombs."

[Edited on 24-4-2004 by Facefirst]



posted on Apr, 24 2004 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
You are all trying to present this information as the truth, so i have to say it does matter.

There is a difference between saying an opinion and presenting opinions/wild allegations as truth.

A skyscrapper is not like a tree, where if you cut it in one side the tree will fall sideways. The physics involved in the construction of skyscrapers make it so they only collapse mostly on themselves and not sideways.

Skyscrapers are actually designed as a net of steel beams, where if there is one part of it becomes weak, still the rest of the net will hold and if it falls, it will fall on itself, not sideways.

In order for the twin towers to have fallen sideways, because of its base, which was 208 feet at one side, the top of the tower would have to bend over 100 feet to one side to move its center of gravity, and because of the way these skyscrapers are built, before that happens it falls on itself because of buckling columns, which make skyscrapers collapse on themselves before they tip over.

I already explained about backdrafts, as the above rooms in the twin towers were burning, and consuming all of the air, when one section of the floor gives way, the fire from the top absorbs the air from the room below it and makes an explotion. Also there are bound to be janitor closets in skyscrapers, and janitor rooms have a lot of flammable chemicals that will "explode." I am not sure if there were any gas lines in the Twin towers, but those can explode pretty loud too when there is a big fire.

Here is a good site if you want to inform yourselves about this.

"NOVA: The Twin Towers collapsed essentially straight down. Was there any chance they could have tipped over?

Eagar: It's really not possible in this case. In our normal experience, we deal with small things, say, a glass of water, that might tip over, and we don't realize how far something has to tip proportional to its base. The base of the World Trade Center was 208 feet on a side, and that means it would have had to have tipped at least 100 feet to one side in order to move its center of gravity from the center of the building out beyond its base. That would have been a tremendous amount of bending. In a building that is mostly air, as the World Trade Center was, there would have been buckling columns, and it would have come straight down before it ever tipped over."

Excerpt taken from.

www.pbs.org...


Dune boy, I have not said anything. I only pointed out that you don't have to be something to have an opinion and even an educated opinion.

I AM an engineer, and I fully understand how the towers could have fallen straight down.

Strength and flexibility are inversely proportional. Concrete (Floor slabs) are used for strength, but it is brittle, and steel (verticals) are used for flexibility. If there was any real sway, the concrete would obviously crack and at least some portion could fall to the floor below creating a cascade effect straight to the bottom (which from my perspective, in NY city, it looked like).

I however do not think that the planes could have done the job by itself. From my knowledge (if I remember correctly) the steel verticals were coated in asbestos. Even should the impact have stripped the coating away and the fire have weakened them I find it unlikely that the building would sway enough to crack the floor slab causing it to fail like it did.

There is too much and too little information out there to be sure on way or the other. Historical facts can justifiably fill in the gaps though, which is where most opinions are formed, rather than by the actual facts.

I find that people form the opinion, then the relevant facts supplement that opinion.

I am still reserving judgment on the issue.



posted on Apr, 24 2004 @ 02:46 PM
link   


Sat Apr 03, 2004 Ah, finally I have a blog for all those interested people. Pretty much I will be covering my music, my political views, and my life. So let me let you in on the basics. I am a Real Estate agent in Virginia. I am married and have two boys. Connor (3) and Jack (8 months). I do ATS and write music in my spare time.


Oh really? not according to what you say here.
blogs.abovetopsecret.com...

There is a difference between being a real state agent and an Engineer.


You might know a thing or two about buildings since you sell real state, but you are not an expert, I have worked in construction and know a thing or two about buildings, but I know I am not a civil engineer, I am only a computer and electronic engineer.

As for reserving judgement on the issue, you can think what you want, but i am tired of people posting misinformation and wild allegations as if they were true.




[Edited on 24-4-2004 by Muaddib]



posted on Apr, 24 2004 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Oh really? not according to what you say here.
blogs.abovetopsecret.com...

There is a difference between being a real state agent and an Engineer.


You might know a thing or two about buildings since you sell real state, but you are not an expert, I have worked in construction and know a thing or two about buildings, but I know I am not a civil engineer, I am only a computer and electronic engineer.

As for reserving judgement on the issue, you can think what you want, but i am tired of people posting misinformation and wild allegations as if they were true.

[Edited on 24-4-2004 by Muaddib]


Being an engineer and working as one are very different. I went to school to be an engineer, and worked as one until my wife was pregnant again and couldn't take care of them by herself while I was away all the time.

So I quit, and started a new career.

Anything else?



posted on Apr, 25 2004 @ 12:00 AM
link   
First of, there are many kinds of engineers, i am one too, but not on this specific subject.

If you want us to believe you post a copy of your title along with whatever buildings you worked on.

BTW, for being an engineer you sure don't act like one...
Saying that people which have no knowledge of the physics involved in skyscrapers that they can make educated guesses...humm, it sounds fishy to me. There is a huge difference between having an opinion in "abortion", and giving a "technical opinion" in skyscrapers...


When Goose said this and I quote;



First of all I was not lecturing just giving my opinion, nor was I pretending to be an expert at any time, second, it does not take a civil engineer to know that when things are off balance they normally fall usually to one side or the other, but not implode as the WTC did.


It was strange to me that you did not explain to him how the physics in a skyscraper works in order to "tilt" and crumble it to one side.

[Edited on 25-4-2004 by Muaddib]





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 7  8  9    11  12 >>

log in

join