reply to post by neformore
If the truth movement is correct then the US government is complicit in the murder of 3000+ people.
Not necessarily, as there are many people in the truth movement who have not yet come to a conclusion as to what happened. We simply have too many
unanswered questions and don't believe in the official conspiracy theory. I would say that it's safe to suggest that the truth movement believes the
government is lying about what happened and covering something up regarding those events. So, if the truth movement is correct, then those in
government are complicit in only covering up the truth.
Hold that thought.
The third 9/11 angle is this... the people who were put in place to prevent, to protect, to analyse, to outhink, to defend... actually simply dropped
the ball completely?
Absolutely that could very well be the case, though we won't know until a real investigation is done and the findings are transparent, a key argument
and goal of the Truth Movement to begin with. We are being asked to take the word of government on what happened and as we all know, the government
doesn't seem to have a single issue with lying to us. As with almost anything in life, you can't simply take the word of someone without any kind of
proof or evidence, especially when the consequences are so dire. We don't simply take the word of a car salesman or realtor, so why on Earth we would
just take the word of government, even though the cost of what we are being asked to buy, is much higher than any automobile or home structure.
But... the cold war ended in 1990.
The fighters and interceptors were stood down.
That's incorrect. While many of the fighters and interceptors were stood down, we still had some on standby and the US government was still watching
the skies. Sure, a Soviet nuclear attack was no longer a viable threat, but we still do have enemies and we still bump into the Russians every now and
It's silly to think that the US government would stand down all air defenses. In fact, almost every industrialized country has the ability to
intercept potentially hostile aircraft that invade their airspace.
Were our air defenses more relaxed after the fall of the iron curtain? Absolutely, though they were still there and just as vigilant as you would
expect with the world's premier military super-power. We didn't simply abandon our air defenses once we ejected our main opposition to complete
world-dominance. After all, we did still have a country and continent to protect.
In fact, in the 9 months leading up to 9/11, from September 2000 to June 2001 (long after the collapse of the Soviet Union),
fighters were scrambled 67 times to intercept wayward aircraft
. If the US dismantled their air defenses
after the end of the Cold War, then surely these sorties wouldn't have taken place. I'd also like to mention that this figure comes from an
interception frequency report that quotes Maj. Douglas Martin, who also happens to be one of the cited experts used by Popular Mechanics to try and
discredit the truth movement.
As far as your suggestion that our interceptors weren't armed, that's simply not true. Protocol (at least until a few months prior to 9/11) was to
have a small number of interceptors on standby, locked, loaded and ready to blast. While 14 aircraft doesn't seem like a lot, just a set (two) of our
3rd Gen fighters has the ability to knock a good percentage of the most countries air forces out of the sky. This is even more accurate when the
opponents are commercial aircraft that lack defensive measures, speed and agility.
Also, if these aircraft were hijacked over Idaho and flown into buildings in Kansas, then I could understand the argument that 14 interceptors may not
have been enough, but these aircraft that were hijacked and their ultimate targets were all located extremely close to the home bases of these
stationed interceptors. In realty, if there really were only 14 interceptors available, then that means there were at least a pair of fighters for
each commercial aircraft. This is compounded by the time separation of each strike, which puts the ratio of fighter to hijacked aircraft even
We know that scrambling aircraft to intercept wayward or non-responsive aircraft prior to 9/11 was never a problem and the fighters were always where
they needed to be, when they needed to be there (more or less) so if for whatever reason they weren't on 9/11, then some serious questions need to be
asked... and answered. Simply stating that the cold war was over and so our air defenses were more relaxed is not a valid answer, as it wasn't a
problem in the 9 months leading up to 9/11.
Likewise, the professional mystique of NORAD, those steely people in the mountain that are ready to unleash armageddon if need be and make the
really difficult choices as soon as they see inbounds... dropped the ball. They simply didn't seem to know what to do. The command and control
faltered, and failed.
Again, this is false and seems to be fitting the evidence to a preconceived outcome. You have to look at the evidence and then go by what the evidence
is suggesting, not the other way around. To suggest that the highly competent professionals in the Crystal Palace simply didn't know what to do and
so dropped the ball, is fool-hearted at best. These guys train for that very situation, along with just about every other scenario that could possibly
happen and they are among the most qualified for the job. These guys are the cream of the crop and they are certainly at the top of their game for
issues such as this.
You also have to remember that these guys successfully and without error, scrambled fighters on many of different occasions leading up to 9/11. If
they were such bumbling bafoons during 9/11, why then were they extremely competent before that fateful day? Wouldn't they have done the same thing
and screwed up before 9/11 then?
That argument would be a little more plausible or probable even, if only they hadn't executed their jobs so perfectly in the months and years leading
up to the attack. This isn't a group of fly-by-night characters who just happened to walk into an office building in Colorado Springs, apply for a
job and then put on the clock where they sit around watching TV programs. While that may make a good Hollywood movie scene, it is not anywhere close
to being reality. If these guys had a task before them, then they executed it in a perfect manner along the limitations of the resources they were
allotted. After all, they are the best of the best, utilizing the best of the best equipment. It's simply a combination that doesn't fail and if by
chance it does, questions need to be asked that weren't.
Then there's the "intelligence" services who seem to have missed the whole trick completely.
Again, that assessment is inaccurate, at least to say with any plausible amount of certainty. In fact, there is evidence to suggest that
they were warned about a possible attack
. Furthermore, a certain FBI
agent, John O'Neill, was repeatedly obstructed by the Bush Admin on his efforts to
investigate Bin Laden
and ordered to back off of the Bin Ladens before 9/11 took place. This leads one to believe that there was an intentional
effort to disrupt our intelligence agencies from locking on to the plot.
Regardless, in order for us to believe that our intelligence agencies didn't get a whiff of this incident before it took place, we simply have to
take their word for it and as a potential suspect itself, our intelligence agencies or factions therein shouldn't be taken at their word. To say that
our intelligence agencies hadn't caught wind of this plot before it happened is inaccurate at best, as it implies that you know this, when neither
you or I know this to be true or not. We simply have to take the word of organizations that have perfected the art of being sneaking and lying.
Well... when you think 9/11, you think of terrorism. But maybe, just maybe you ought to think about lethargy. About false pride. About taking
things for granted.
Again, if things would have been taken for granted or if false pride or lethargy were the culprits, then surely it would have showed in the many, many
instances leading up to 9/11. Also, you have to factor in the other evidence, not just whether the planes were intercepted or not.
Take Building 7
for instance, which was not hit by a plane and which wasn't directly near the two other towers that
were, yet fell neatly into it's own foot-print (practically). Building 7 was also
reported as collapsed by the BBC, 20 minutes before it
What about the plethora of witness testimony that suggests bombs were going off in lobbies
and on floors
, etc... What about the plethora of whistle blowers that since come forward
or tried to come forward? , using the little-known [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_secrets_privilege]states secrets privilege
Why would Bush resist a 9/11 Commission
, then staff it with both industry
insiders and Bush Admin officials and personal friends as well as business partners
only reason it was finally established, is because the movement to conduct an investigation was far too popular and so there was too much political
pressure. Why would Bush and Cheney both refuse to meet this commission, then when public pressure was again too much to handle, they only
accepted on the condition that they meet together, not under oath and behind closed doors with out
? What were they trying to hide and if they had something to hide, they were obviously lying about something. If they are lying
about one thing, why would it be a stretch to assume they were lying about other things? Why did the commission
fail to address the better portion of questions
that would have given us
knowledge as to what really happened?
Questions like funding, who funded the attacks and where did the money come from? That's just a few examples of the mountain of evidence suggesting
that there may be more to the story than what we are being told, evidence that would then have to be ignored (ignore, the root word of ignorance) in
order to accept the OS and the theory that failure on part of government to do their jobs that day resulted in the devistation of that day.
The "truth" movement is founded on the fact that people simply can't believe an organised group could carry out such an attack on US soil.
No, you are wrong again, as both "truthers" and "believers" believe that an organized group conspired, then carried out an attack on US soil.
Furthermore, the truth movement is founded on the fact that there are far too many questions that are going unanswered and the government simply wants
us to take their word for what they say happened. In fact, most, if not all, people believe that an organized group conspired and then carried out
an attack on US soil. The OS'rs believe the government when they are told it was a group of Arabs or Muslims, while many truthers believers that it
may have involved a group operating within government (possibly in addition to a group of Islamic terrorists). Some truthers aren't ready to conclude
yet, though simply refuse to take the word of government without supporting evidence, especially when their story requires us to stretch common sense.
Just as I won't blindly trust the car salesman when I'm spending $40,000 as a result of a new car, I'm not going to blindly trust the government
when I'm spending human lives and natural liberties as a result of the 9/11 attacks and the apparent corporate and strategic benefits that resulted
Your making an assumption that is inherently false and frankly, insulting. You could easily make the wild and illconcieved assertion that the whole
OS is built upon the ignorance of the public to look into something past their favorite pundit on network TV, though that too does little in the
interests of furthering discussion.
That belief is based on an assumption of competancy in the system, that it simply couldn't happen to the US, because everything was in place
to prevent it.
Well not really, though maybe when only considering the notion that the aircraft weren't intercepted. If the fact that the aircraft weren't
intercepted is the only thing leading to discourse between those who believe the OS and those who don't, then that argument may be a little more
viable. However, it's not so black and white and it's not simply a question of whether aircraft weren't intercepted or not. Rather, the fact that
the aircraft weren't intercepted is just a small part of the puzzle.
If two aircraft simply slammed into the WTC buildings and those buildings simply burned and possibly collapsed and that's all there is to it, then
surely NORAD being asleep at the wheel would at the very least be enough to say that the OS has at least a small chance of being correct. However,
there are many more variables and the unanswered questions far outweigh the answered ones. In fact, in order for everything to happen that day, just
as the authorities say it happened, it isn't just a simple case of a couple NORAD workers falling asleep at the wheel or even NORAD itself being
unprepared, then there would have to have been multiple failures in a row, one after another to the point where people would at least be criminally
neglegent. In fact, so many failures had to have happened, that easily raises many questions of whether it was done intentionally.
If you walk into a bank in broad daylight, clean out all of the clerks droors then open the safe (with the keys and combinations at the right time)
and every bank employee is saying that never even knew they were robbed, you could either say that the bank fell asleep at the wheel and thousands of
things went wrong all in perfect timing
or you can seek the much more plausible theory, that the bank employees could have had something to do with the robbery.
You also have to look at this from a terrorist's perspective. If they were so good at their planning, then surely they would have known that success
would have been wholly dependent upon the systematic failure of each level of government to a point where the odds were completely against any kind of
success. Would you really invest in such a plan that counted on such long shots and improbabilities? If they knew that there would be so many
systematic failures, then how did they know, did they have insiders?
I'm not knocking the general US armed services here, because I know they are made up of men and women who do their level best for their
country - but heres the scary part - what if the people who are paid to make the really really tough decisions froze, and simply had no clue what to
do, because - in all honesty - they never thought it would happen, and never prepared themselves for the day it did?
That is simply not an accurate assessment. The US military does not "freeze" in a stressful situation. Maybe the 7-11 (corner-store here in the
states) clerk freezes when being robbed, but he also doesn't get the world;s best training to deal with that robbery. Again, the US military doesn't
just "freeze" and our ability to avoid such a vulnirable action is what has lead the US military to be the world's premier fighting and defense
force. The US military, particularly the Air Force's NORAD (which also include Canada) is the best of the best and they train for years (some even
longer) before being placed on the job. The commanders and officers in that command have a wealth of experience. In fact, when they aren;t working,
they are training for various scenarios. "Freezing" would be a reaction that is foreign is to any NORAD watchman.
The thing to realize here, is that the 9/11 debate is not as simple as the aircraft not being intercepted. Of course, if the aircraft were
intercepted, the day may not have happened nearly as bad as it had, though maybe it would have. The fact that the aircraft were not intercepted is
only a small piece of the puzzle that is full of disturbing questions about that day. So, even if by some miracle that NORAD happened to "freeze"
that day and not on any other day before that, you would still have a plethora of unanswered questions regarding the events of that day and subsequent
media and government responses.
Just the fact that you are putting out theories suggests that you accept you don't know what may have lead to the failure. You should have the right
to know what lead to that failure, especially seeing how the price to all of us is extremely high. For this reason alone, we should have a true,
thorough and transparent investigation. In fact, that is all most "truthers" are asking for. I simply want to get to the truth, which basically
means having the answers to my many questions that government seems to be ignoring or side-stepping.
On another less relevant or less serious note, I find it very odd that people seem to have no problem with believing that their government is lying to
them about little gray beings, even going so far as to planting messages in popular movies as some type of slow disclosure movement, but these same
people have a hard time believeing that elements within their government could be guilty of at least willingly allowing 9/11 to happen, then profittin
from the recourse, especially given all of the inconsistencies with their story and the odd behavior after the fact. Lol, am I missing something
NORAD scrambled jets 67 times from September 2000 to June 2001 * AP Website Requires Payment to
View Article, this link is to the same article but from a free source.
9/11: Top FBI Al Qaeda Investigator
John O'Neill Quits, Dies in WTC
9/11 Timeline, History Commons
Building 7 Prior Knowledge
Reportedly a new FOIA 2010 Video: Firefighters discuss explosions on 9/11 *There
are many, many others.
Sibel Edmonds, Wikipedia
Mysterious Deaths of 911 Witnesses
State Secret Priviledge
9/11 Commission: Opposition and Obfuscation
Philip D. Zelikow
Family Steering Committee