It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

9/11: Tired of the Blame Game

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2004 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by watcheroftheskies
well i guess your right Banshee but it doesnt prove there is no complicity between our government and the terrorists


It doesn't prove there is any, either.
I've been here a year now and have seen the same arguments over and over and over again regarding 9-11.
Nobody has been able to come up with proof that the US gov't conspired with anyone to allow or cause 9-11 to happen.
You know what I have seen?
Proof that the agencies who might have been able to prevent something like this were understaffed, under-funded, and bound by so much bureaucratic red-fecking-tape that they couldn't sneeze without filling out paperwork to say "excuse me."

If anyone in the gov't is to blame for 9-11, it's the bureaucrats who created all the flaming hoops and piles of crap that agents and the like had to jump through to get anything done.

Intelgurl has made one of the most lucid and well-thought-out posts on 9-11 that I've seen on ATS yet by starting this thread.
I have yet to see anyone disprove her.

-B.




posted on Apr, 15 2004 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by aware


17 minutes/153 miles away?
8 minutes/71 miles away?
So they were flying NINE miles an hour??
Im confused by those numbers.


17-8=9 minutes.
153-71= 82 miles

82 miles in 9 minutes is roughly 546 mph.



posted on Apr, 15 2004 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by aware
17 minutes/153 miles away?
8 minutes/71 miles away?
So they were flying NINE miles an hour??
Im confused by those numbers.


Your math is off, my friend.
That's nine miles a minute, or Mach .9.
9 miles an hour would have made a 153 mile trip take 17 HOURS.

-B.



posted on Apr, 15 2004 @ 06:29 PM
link   
forgive my math, it was never my forte. The fact remains that 500 MPH is roughly one third the top speed of an F-16. www.af.mil... NOW debunk the fact that those planes were flying at a mere 1/3 of their top speed, EVEN AFTER these had been established as suicide hijackings?



posted on Apr, 15 2004 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by aware
forgive my math, it was never my forte. The fact remains that 500 MPH is roughly one third the top speed of an F-16. www.af.mil... NOW debunk the fact that those planes were flying at a mere 1/3 of their top speed, EVEN AFTER these had been established as suicide hijackings?


They can go Mach 2 at altitude.
I'm not much on airplanes and the like. Any experts (*ahem* Intelgurl *ahem*) out there who can explain what it takes to reach "altitude?"

-B.



posted on Apr, 15 2004 @ 06:54 PM
link   
Intercept planes are not 'top' fueled?
Also, running at afterburners would consume more of that precious fuel.
Before you ask for a "debunking", I would seriously advise that one look into exactly how much fuel these intercept aircraft had onboard and then find information on consumption rates at variable/various speeds.



seekerof

[Edited on 15-4-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Apr, 15 2004 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Intercept planes are not 'top' fueled?
Also, running at afterburners would consume more of that precious fuel.
Before you ask for a "debunking", I would seriously advise that one look into exactly how much fuel these intercept aircraft had onboard and then find information on consumption rates at variable/various speeds.



seekerof

[Edited on 15-4-2004 by Seekerof]

OK, i put the link up there but perhaps i need to post some of the information-
In an air combat role, the F-16's maneuverability and combat radius (distance it can fly to enter air combat, stay, fight and return) exceed that of all potential threat fighter aircraft. It can locate targets in all weather conditions and detect low flying aircraft in radar ground clutter. In an air-to-surface role, the F-16 can fly more than 500 miles (860 kilometers), deliver its weapons with superior accuracy, defend itself against enemy aircraft, and return to its starting point.-
As far as your question as to how much fuel it had on take-off, i can only assume that the USAF doesnt keep its air defense fighters sitting on the flightline with a quarter of a tank of fuel.



posted on Apr, 15 2004 @ 07:30 PM
link   
well i believe while there is no hard core proof to link the conspiracy there is an incredible amount circumstances to make one wonder....
Didnt mean to step on anyones pro bush feelings ....i personally dont think it would have mattered who would have been in office it would have happened.

and it maybe that her political sentiments run parallel with your own Banshee .........seemingly

[Edited on 15-4-2004 by watcheroftheskies]



posted on Apr, 15 2004 @ 10:43 PM
link   
intel gurl: well done....... i agree with everything you said


you compiled a lot of different threads and ideas that were floating around.....

same as you.. im sick of this name game



posted on Apr, 15 2004 @ 11:00 PM
link   
Came across this interesting, though biased assessment, but the message is clear:
The Left's Unconscionable Blame Game


Think about it. Let's assume that the president was made aware that terrorists were going to hijack commercial airplanes and fly them into buildings at some unknown time and at an unidentified location in the country. What measures would he have had to take to make sure that such
an attack never took place? The answer is, basically, everything he's done since 9/11. Now ask yourself this, do you believe that the liberals in Congress would have gone along with enacting the president's current policies prior to that date? Before you answer that......





seekerof



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 11:09 AM
link   
i dont think the president was aware but just a manipulated pawn of the global elite....but i do think they knew something was going to happen,,,,just no specifics.............



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 01:48 PM
link   
So any theories on why the planes were flying at ONE THIRD their top speed?
It just makes no sense. Would a cop do the speed limit on his way to a violent crime in process?

Seekerof, what are you actually seeking?
Would a better name be 'spouter of'?
I have given you plenty of information to review, but i read ur post and you offered little in the way of insight or interpretations. All i saw was a link to a neo-con article. Im not political so those inflamatory articles have little if any effect on me. Its not about political parties, its about right and wrong.



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 01:53 PM
link   
I can't believe this thread is at 3 pages , oh well, nothing more to add, just wanted to point that out..

peace



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 02:20 PM
link   
They can go Mach 2 at altitude.
I'm not much on airplanes and the like. Any experts (*ahem* Intelgurl *ahem*) out there who can explain what it takes to reach "altitude?"

-B.

While I may not be intelgurl, I can speak with authority on military aircraft.

Here goes.

To get to altitiude a F-16 can do a max performance takeoff. Basically you put the throttle to max AB and do a zoom climb.

A F-16 can get to 30k in less than two mintues. Then it has to pick up its speed again.

Hope that helps.



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by aware
So any theories on why the planes were flying at ONE THIRD their top speed?

To answer that question we would need to know how much fuel and ordnance they were carrying. If you do not have a full load you are not going to burn all of your fuel by staying in AB the whole time.



posted on Apr, 16 2004 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by intelgurl
I am so sick of the ridiculous partisanship I have seen... ....You simply cannot logically lay the blame of 9/11 at the feet of the Bush administration.


Very true. The Bush administration is ultimatly not to blame for 911, being that they are just a puppet of the NWO.


Where was the intelligence during this time?
The intelligence community was grossly understaffed, underfunded and bound by bulky bureacracy....
So why the intelligence breakdown?
In a Clinton White House presidential news release dated on December 13th, 1995 it was proudly announced that;
"As a result of (Al Gore's) reforms today and others that are underway, the intelligence agencies are cutting costs and reducing bureaucracy."


But didnt you just say that 'bulky bureaucracy' was one of the problems?


So while the following incidents happened, the US intelligence services were gutted by eliminating 25% of their personnel.


Streamlined does not mean gutted. Almost every job i have ever had has been streamlined. Fewer workers more production. I will agree with you tho, the intelligence community was and IS being hindered. There are many reasons for this but one of the main ones is because the more individuals that know the actual truth, the more chance that the conspiracy will be exposed.


According to a Nov. 7, 2001 Barbara Walters interview on ABC News with Russian President Vladimir Putin, the Clinton administration could have done more in the intelligence sector to prevent 9/11 from happening.


Exactly, the warnings were coming from all directions.
Including this man in the FBI.
He knew what was coming for us. He knew too much and so had to be smeared and eventually ended up dieing in the attacks of sept 11 IRONICLY.


I could continue, but my purpose is not to show that Clinton is to fault, it is to show that the Bush administration - however and whatever you may think of them, is not solidly to blame for 9/11... nor is the Clinton administration, but there is certainly adequate documented proof as seen above to demonstrate that policies and politicization of the U.S. intelligence community over a number of years contributed to the lack of information on the gathering threat of Al Queida.

As you will see here, there was no lack of information on the gathering threat. It was merely being ignored. Notice i say IGNORED, not simply overlooked.


Stop the finger pointing and the repugnant name calling - at least on this issue - because no one administration is to blame.

I do agree, no ONE administration is to blame. Its the NWO. This foolishness with the people trying to place the blame or turn this into a political matter is only diverting the attention from the Global elite.
When i see people rally to the side of the king i cringe.
If only they would do the research and see exactly what it is they are defending.



posted on Apr, 17 2004 @ 03:54 AM
link   
We are all to blame for being fat, happy, and ignorant. We are all Homer Simpson in a nuclear reactor.
Those Republican and Democratic puppets are not responsible for anything.

Individuals in control of massive amounts of industrial power are using it. The plan was laid and set long ago
All that remained was the manipulation of those that merely wished they had power.


Good Thread,

TUT



posted on Apr, 17 2004 @ 07:37 AM
link   
There are at least 19 (so far unidentified) Airport Security agents that manned the metal detectors and X-Ray machines the morning of 9/11...THAT I BLAME.

They more than likely were doing their job around the millineum with the increased threats and subsequent FAA warnings.

They also more than likely slacked off again by that summer.

That summer Bush had a memo warning of hijackings, among other things...with no elevated alert passed on to the FAA. He had other things like Saddam and Bass fishing on his mind.

Working backwards then...

I rightfully blame Airport Security --> with good reason to look to the FAA --> with NOWHERE to look beyond that but the President of the United States at the time...BUSH.

What the hell ever happened to "THE BUCK STOPS HERE?"

This thread/issue is one big fat apology for Bush IMO... a Mecca for apologists. Considering the guy refuses to ever take responsibility or apologize for anything...it's AMAZING how many apologists he has lapping up his ever leaking crap trail.

Bush probably blames his own farts on the dog, and if he farted in some of your faces...you'd just say "bad dog" and inhale more deeply.

Like ANY of you wouldn't see my point and be using the exact same logic to blame Gore if he had been President then. HA.

Now line up and take turns saying 9/11 wouldn't have been Gore's fault if he were President, had the same intel as Bush and spent August bass fishing. I dare you.



posted on May, 2 2004 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by intelgurl
I am so sick of the ridiculous partisanship I have seen on the television and even here on ATS where 9/11 is concerned. You simply cannot logically lay the blame of 9/11 at the feet of the Bush administration.

Stop the finger pointing and the repugnant name calling - at least on this issue - because no one administration is to blame.



No, intelgurl, you cant say that.


They are starting to blame Bush, because some people think his administration have voluntary, consciently, ignored the notes launched by the CIA to prevent the 9-11 attacks.

Because of the New World Order, because of the war on Iraq, because of the terror dictature, in the USA and the "patriot act".

I'm one of these persons who think that if Bush never replied to the warnings and informations sended to the White House by the CIA, telling BinLadin plans, clearly, was because of a politic will. To build inside the USA, a police state dictature, and outside, a New world Order dominated by the USA.

I dont say, like my compatriot Thierry MEYSSAN, that there was no planes on the pentagone, and that it's the USA secret services who organized 9-11.

But I say that Bush knew the Biladin plans.
I can even tell you that the destruction of WTC was planed since more than 20 years.

But remember that Bush family and BinLadin family are associated, First in the Carlyle investement corp.
BinLadin was a CIA man when he was fighting the USSR in the Afghanistan.

Bush role in the 9-11, 2001 events is not clear, and I'm sure that a good inquiry will be necessary to better know his interests in those terror acts.



posted on May, 2 2004 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rant
Now line up and take turns saying 9/11 wouldn't have been Gore's fault if he were President, had the same intel as Bush and spent August bass fishing. I dare you.


Ok, i'll tell you that if Gore had been in office and the same thing had happened i would say it was not his fault, just the same as Bush.

It's true that president Bush seems to be arrogant at times, but how many people in here are not guilty of this same trait once in a while?

BTW, the only thing that is similar between the Bin Laden family and Osama is the last name. You cannot blame the whole family for what one black sheep does.

This has been discussed before and the Bin Laden family has condemned and renounced Osama's deeds.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join