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.
Originally posted by watcheroftheskies
well i guess your right Banshee but it doesnt prove there is no complicity between our government and the terrorists
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.
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.
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?
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]
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......
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.
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.
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."
So while the following incidents happened, the US intelligence services were gutted by eliminating 25% of their personnel.
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.
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.
Stop the finger pointing and the repugnant name calling - at least on this issue - because no one administration is to blame.
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.
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.