AE911T to Display Evidence at National AIA Convention w/multimedia presentation to 20,000 architects

reply to post by _BoneZ_


A very important note on what happened at Pearl Harbor and your comparison to the people in charge after 9/11:

The Japanese warships did not leave San Fransisco Bay to attack Pearl Harbor. On Dec. 7, 1941, we were attacked by a foreign military force using its naval and aerial war machines to sneak attack Pearl Harbor (among other targets on Oahu and in the Pacific.) The generals and admirals in charge were fired because they failed to protect our forces and our country from an external enemy attack, through blunders, lost info, and mistakes. We failed to see the Japanese fleet. Our intel was incomplete, and we were not ready. That is the point of our military. To defend us from foreign military actions.

9/11 had four aircraft hijacked from within the US borders. These were civilian aircraft. They were hijacked in the skies over the US. They were turned into kamikazes and struck our financial and military targets. NORAD is not designed to track aircraft within our borders. These were not aircraft that were hijacked overseas and flown here, or from Canada, or from Mexico, or anywhere else. They were not fighter jets nor bombers from an organized nation's military. NORAD and our air defenses are to track and target any INCOMING aircraft from outside the country's airspace, as well as any incoming missiles from space. Once the buildings were hit, it was understood as a terrorist attack. No major, or colonel, or general could have prevented it in time, simply because there were no Muslim aircraft carriers offshore, or fighters or bombers, or tanks, or whatever coming AT us from the sea or air. We do not fly recon flights over the US searching for rouge aircraft, we scramble fighters when a threat is detected. However we were not on a heightened war footing (ie DEFCON 3 or 2 or 1.) This means our fighters were not on round the clock 5 minute ready times. There is a very big difference between Pearl and 9/11.

I would appreciate that you would refrain from comparing this sort of attack with Pearl Harbor in terms of who should have gotten blame and for what reasons. If anyone is to blame, its the intelligence gathering community for not working together passing along important info and the bureaucratic red tape that slowed everything down and presented obstacles in tracking and stopping the terrorists. Not the military officials.

reply to post by GenRadek

NORAD is not designed to track aircraft within our borders.

ugh! I'll let bonez rip you a new one on the rest, but my god, that is an absurd statement, sir.

The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) is a bi-national United States and Canadian organization charged with the missions of aerospace warning and aerospace control for North America. Aerospace warning includes the monitoring of man-made objects in space, and the detection, validation, and warning of attack against North America whether by aircraft, missiles, or space vehicles, through mutual support arrangements with other commands. Aerospace control includes ensuring air sovereignty and air defense of the airspace of Canada and the United States.

www.norad.mil...

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by _BoneZ_

 

I could take a vial of dust at any construction site that is using steel framing and it would show evidence of "thermite". Thats what you continue to refuse to understand. The chemical residues he declares are thermite...arent. They are the normal residues that you would expect to find.

I thought I would lend another easily explainable reason for the "thermite" found at the scene.

Because of the field I work in I talk to agents from all different states every day. (I work in surveilance systems). I asked a DHS agent what he thought about this particular subject. He was at Ground Zero that day and said it didn't suprise him at all seeing as construction workers from all over NY showed up to help try and dig people out. Many were welders and used thermite welding tools to cut steel and such.

DENY IGNORANCE!!!!!!

reply to post by INJUNJAY


I thought that too, but I think the paper the ae911 guys submitted found more than that -- high tech, nano-tech stuff. I'm not sure exactly so I could be wrong.

Anyway. I am curious find out what the reviews say about it.

Excellent. I hope they succeed in presenting their case, and getting others to examine the evidence and ask some questions

When I watched the towers collapse on TV, the first thing I thought was they had been brought down by blowing them up, because that's exactly how the collapses and clouds of dust looked. of course, at the time, I believed that the terrorists themselves were responsible, and was rather shocked later when the media started claiming the "pancake theory".

True, I'm no demo expert, nor do I know much about building engineering. But I have read both sides of the argument, and from there, i decided the controlled demolition theory held far more weight and believability than the official one.

If more engineers and architects can be made to at least take another closer look, then that in itself is a step forward.

At the very least, they may decide that the official account makes no sense, and whether or not they believe in controlled demo, they might see that another investigation, a proper one this time, an extensive one, is warranted.

Originally posted by Smack
reply to post by GenRadek

 

NORAD is not designed to track aircraft within our borders.

ugh! I'll let bonez rip you a new one on the rest, but my god, that is an absurd statement, sir.

The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) is a bi-national United States and Canadian organization charged with the missions of aerospace warning and aerospace control for North America. Aerospace warning includes the monitoring of man-made objects in space, and the detection, validation, and warning of attack against North America whether by aircraft, missiles, or space vehicles, through mutual support arrangements with other commands. Aerospace control includes ensuring air sovereignty and air defense of the airspace of Canada and the United States.

www.norad.mil...

I guess you didnt notice something in it:

detection and warning of attack against North America whether by aircraft, missiles, or space vehicles...

Yes, from aircraft, missiles, space vehicles from OUTSIDE the US and Canadian airspaces. Missiles and enemy aircraft dont pop up from Alaska, or Texas, or Iowa. They come from outside the country's air defenses. Once they come in, then its tracked. They do not track commercial aircraft. The FAA is in charge of that. If you are going to try to make a point, at least know what you are talking about.

Their very own mission statement from the next pages:

NORAD Mission In close collaboration with homeland defense, security, and law enforcement partners, prevent air attacks against North America, safeguard the sovereign airspaces of the United States and Canada by responding to unknown, unwanted, and unauthorized air activity approaching and operating within these airspaces, and provide aerospace and maritime warning for North America.

www.norad.mil...

Usually air defense is keeping people OUT, and keeping them from entering and flying about inside our airspace.
The FAA is responsible to alert the AF to any hijackings or if they lose contact with an aircraft within our borders. However these take time, especially if there are no active aircraft in the area.

[edit on 4/29/2009 by GenRadek]

Originally posted by GenRadek
9/11 had four aircraft hijacked from within the US borders. They were hijacked in the skies over the US. NORAD is not designed to track aircraft within our borders.

Point taken, however you neglected to mention one thing. The aircraft were being tracked, maybe not by NORAD. After the two towers were struck, there should've been an air patrol over DC from Edwards. There's no way that the Vice President and others in the emergency bunker knew the plane was coming and allowed it to strike the Pentagon without so much as a single fighter jet from Edwards to be in the air after jetliners struck the towers 30 minutes earlier.

Originally posted by INJUNJAY
Many were welders and used thermite welding tools to cut steel and such.

First and foremost, using a torch that is somehow fueled by thermite wouldn't come close to leaving the amount of thermite in the WTC dust. Secondly, a welder welds, it doesn't cut:

Thermite welding is the process of igniting a mix of high energy materials, (which is also called thermite), that produce a molten metal that is poured between the working pieces of metal to form a welded joint.

en.wikipedia.org...

You use a "cutting torch" for cutting, not a welder, and there is no viable thermite cutting torch readily available that I can see. So, either you or the "DHS agent" don't know what you're talking about, or this story is a complete fabrication, i.e., yet another untruthful claim made up in an attempt to explain away real evidence.

I forgot to add that the bottom of your post should read "ACCEPT IGNORANCE" as that's what you seem to have done.

[edit on 29-4-2009 by _BoneZ_]

Originally posted by GenRadek
Yes, from aircraft, missiles, space vehicles from OUTSIDE the US and Canadian airspaces. Usually air defense is keeping people OUT, and keeping them from entering and flying about inside our airspace.

You keep saying "outside the US and Canada airspaces", but did you read what you posted? Did you miss the part that says:

operating within these airspaces

Unknown, unwanted, and unauthorized air activity approaching these air spaces

and

unknown, unwanted, and unauthorized air activity operating within these airspaces.

reply to post by GenRadek


Let's break it down... You said: NORAD is not designed to track aircraft within our borders. First part NORAD is not designed to track aircraft - obviously they are - second part - within our borders - obviously they do, so what are you talking about. You were wrong, sir and nothing you spew can change that.

And Sod the FAA - Every agency having anything to do with the airspace that day failed to do their job. [SNIP]



removed personal attack.

[edit on 29/4/09 by masqua]

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Point taken, however you neglected to mention one thing. The aircraft were being tracked, maybe not by NORAD. After the two towers were struck, there should've been an air patrol over DC from Edwards. There's no way that the Vice President and others in the emergency bunker knew the plane was coming and allowed it to strike the Pentagon without so much as a single fighter jet from Edwards to be in the air after jetliners struck the towers 30 minutes earlier.

I think you mean Andrews AFB. Edwards is near LA, clear across the country! But its ok, its an honest mistake i wont hound you for it! Well an important thing to remember, not every AFB in the US has armed fighter interceptors. Many are either refueling wings, or airlift wings (ie equipment and other transportation needs). Andrews AFB the nearest to DC is home to an airlift wing, which means it hosts cargo aircraft.
www.globalsecurity.org...

Andrews Air Force Base is the home of the 89 Airlift Wing (AMC) and Air Force One

Also home to the 459th Airlift Wing and the ANG 113th Wing, which does have F-16s. However this is the ANG and not a NORAD base.
Andrews does not have a squadron of on alert interceptors. This is a common mistake that is overlooked. Many people think AFB and think fighters ready to launch. But this is not the case!
Langley AFB in Virginia is the closest base for the Air Defense mission to launch interceptor craft. Andrews is no position to do so.
Hope this clears some of that up!

How did this thread now get derailed into the same old recycled NORAD rubbish?

Let's get back to the evidence (or lack there of) that the confused Richard Gage is going to be presenting at the AIA convention.

Originally posted by GenRadek
I think you mean Andrews AFB. Edwards is near LA, clear across the country!

But its ok, its an honest mistake i wont hound you for it!

Yes, I'm very tired. Thank you for the correction.

Originally posted by Smack
reply to post by GenRadek

 

Let's break it down... You said: NORAD is not designed to track aircraft within our borders. First part NORAD is not designed to track aircraft - obviously they are - second part - within our borders - obviously they do, so what are you talking about. You were wrong, sir and nothing you spew can change that.

And Sod the FAA - Every agency having anything to do with the airspace that day failed to do their job. [SNIP]

 

removed personal attack.
[edit on 29/4/09 by masqua]

NORAD was designed to track enemy aircraft coming at us from outside the borders. It then included missiles and satellites and then later space debris and meteors. However, it was purely for MILITARY defense, not for tracking civilian aircraft inside our airspace as part of its main mission. Of course, when requested by the FAA to check up on an aircraft it can, but it was never meant to track the thousands of aircraft within our borders AND incoming civilian traffic, AND incoming enemy aircraft, all at the same time. Hence what I stated is still true. The FAA does its job, NORAD does its job. It can track when requested, but its main mission to keep us safe from incoming aircraft/missiles/satellites. So far so good.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
You keep saying "outside the US and Canada airspaces", but did you read what you posted? Did you miss the part that says:

operating within these airspaces

Unknown, unwanted, and unauthorized air activity approaching these air spaces

and

unknown, unwanted, and unauthorized air activity operating within these airspaces.

and unauthorized air activity approaching and operating within these airspaces,

approaching and operating. sounds more like tracking an inbound aircraft/target, and once it gets in, it can continue to track. Yes this is correct. However, as was the thinking for the mission, the main fear and expectation was for attacks to originate from outside the US airspace either by enemy bombers launching cruise missiles (which can be tracked outside and into our airspace) or a hijacked overseas aircraft which may be ready for a kamikaze attack.

This was mentioned in the 9/11 Comission:

NORAD perceived the dominant threat to be from cruise missiles. Other threats were identified during the late 1990s, including terrorists' use of aircraft as weapons. Exercises were conducted to counter this threat, but they were not based on actual intelligence. In most instances, the main concern was the use of such aircraft to deliver weapons of mass destruction. Prior to 9/11, it was understood that an order to shoot down a commercial aircraft would have to be issued by the National Command Authority (a phrase used to describe the president and secretary of defense). Exercise planners also assumed that the aircraft would originate from outside the United States, allowing time to identify the target and scramble interceptors. The threat of terrorists hijacking commercial airliners within the United States -- and using them as guided missiles -- was not recognized by NORAD before 9/11.

Page 17, 9/11 Commission Report

so it is only partly true to say that it is going track aircraft inside. After 9/11 of course, its all changed! Now they are also adding aircraft within its borders as a credible threat.

note to all:
Ok enough with the little tangent we went off on. I apologize for the offtopic but I just wanted to clear up some things. Let us return to the main topic at hand!

reply to post by _BoneZ_

Um, the towers did survive both impacts. Had they both not been laced with explosives from top to bottom, they would still be standing today either repaired, or brought down. Oh wait, they DID bring them down....on 9/11.

And as of yet, there is no evidence of demolition. No explosive residue, no blasting caps, no wires, no radio receivers (I include this one for the "wireless" demolition people), nada, none, zilch. No one has stepped forward as a member of the blast team, no one has admitted knowledge, again, nada, none, zilch.

Too many people crawled over that pile of debris for anyone to have wired, triggered and then cleansed the area of the evidence of their work. Vials of dust from God knows where are not evidence. Especially when the science behind the scientist is so flawed that his peers reject him.

The Towers were doomed from the moment they were hit, no explosives necessary and WTC 7 was similarly doomed from the moment that the North Tower destroyed the support column that helped support the beams of the substation within it.

Not once during the construction of the Towers did anyone envision a collision by anything other than a low-speed, wings level impact, certainly not a high-speed angled impact.

Why would you need physical evidence of any kind of explosive to know the towers were purposely demolished?

Just watch the videos, just using my eyes and brain I can tell that the towers were not completely demolished by office fires.

If you think that's possible, and you claim to have done research, then you are either lying, or you completely fail to understand the physics involved.

I can understand average Joe who doesn't pay attention to this stuff, but for someone who claims to actively research this it's a HUGE stretch tp believe you guys are being honest.

Every single person I talk to about 9-11, and there's many, cannot refute the physics even if they still refuse to believe it was an inside job. Once they're shown the real evidence, the collapses themselves, they can't deny it. Building simply do not globally collapse, while not showing ANY evidence of the collapse method. If it really was the upper sections crushing the buildings that top section would be sitting on top of a huge rubble pile. But no, we get explosive ejections, not vertical falling of column sections.

Originally posted by CityIndian


Just watch the videos, just using my eyes and brain I can tell that the towers were not completely demolished by office fires.

A couple planes just so happen to hit those buildings. Don't forget

reply to post by CameronFox


How could anyone forget?

And you say it like it makes a difference?

The planes only damaged a few floors and caused no damage to the foundations. So how did all that steel bellow the planes impact fail?

Did that damage somehow, along with the fires, cause the towers to go against all known physics? The towers stood fine for approx an hour with no sign of any collapsing from aircraft damage. The resulting fires had no effect on those thousands of tons of steel, you'd be mad to think otherwise.

The collapses, both of them, were sudden, unexpected and global. Both towers fell the same way, yet the damage from the aircraft was different. This does not fit the expected result from such damage. If you knew anything about physics and engineering, and are not afraid to speak out, you'd see this.

If the fires really effected the steel it would not be a sudden failure. Most of the steel in the towers was not under any real stress, the way the steel is braced against itself takes the strain and spreads it throughout the structure. So no one section is under any more stress than another. So if sections of steel got hot enough to fail, all the other steel that wasn't hot enough to fail (most of it) would just take up the strain, no global collapse.

But that's irrelevant anyway because there's no way office fires get hot enough to cause steel to get anywhere close to failure.

reply to post by CityIndian


Im sorry, but your post shows just how little you have actually researched the design of the towers and how that design actually made them vulnerable for the time of impact we saw on 9/11/01.

You've been sucked in by people who boast their physics/engineering knowledge and how it relates to what happened that day, but then dont realize they are using faulty logic.

You say that you can tell explosives were used, without having any physical evidence? I suppose if you would be great on a jury cause you could tell by the looks of someone that they were guilty too huh?

Good thread S&F and a star.
I hope we get a new thread on this event and the meeting letting us know how it all went.

And I am also so done with some posters around here, 2 more ignores, guess who they are. The two resident debunkers. I think we should all put them on ignore if there voice isn't seen and reacted to then they will stop coming to this forum, and they won't get paid

Common sense says these architects, have legitimate questions that need answering. It's not just a handful of "nutjobs" anymore as the media has tried to lead the public to believe.

People from all professions from demolition to architects to people holding political office outside the USA have not been blinded to all this misinformation and emotional patriotic misplaced loyalty. They see it for what it is, it's amazing what a person can see when he/she is not blinded by pure emotional denial, that feeds a false rationalization to the brain.

It's like there is a little creature in the brain holding the synapses apart so they will never connect on this issue.