Conspiracy 9/11

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
21

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:

First of all you won’t show me an expert, with regard to the actual collapse of the buildings, that doesn’t in some way depend on the government for his livelihood or isn’t afraid of losing his job.
[/quote]
Ok, here. Direct links to civil engineering journals are provided. Run through them. This is just a sample, by the way.

Oh, and what Peer reviewed engineering journal did you get that from?

No, it can be explained much simpler than that. Watch the video below.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5003545088789410947%20

Look at the link above. It demonstrates the trickery you conspiracy people rely on.

[quote]
In regard to Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon, the verdict is also in:

OFFICIAL ACCOUNT OF 9/11 FLIGHT 77 CONTRADICTED BY GOVERNMENT’S OWN DATA
Pilots for 9/11 Truth, an international organization of pilots and aviation professionals, petitioned the National Transportation and Safety Board (NTSB) via the Freedom of Information Act to obtain their 2002 report, “Flight Path Study-American Airlines Flight 77”, consisting of a Comma Separated Value (CSV) file and Flight Path Animation, allegedly derived from Flight 77’s Flight Data Recorder.

The data provided by the NTSB contradict the 9/11 Commission Report in several significant ways:

  1. The NTSB Flight Path Animation approach path and altitude does not support official events.

  2. All Altitude data shows the aircraft at least 300 feet too high to have struck the light poles.

  3. The rate of descent data is in direct conflict with the aircraft being able to impact the light poles and be captured in the Dept of Defense “5 Frames” video of an object traveling nearly parallel with the Pentagon lawn.

  4. The record of data stops at least one second prior to official impact time.

  5. If data trends are continued, the aircraft altitude would have been at least 100 feet too high to have hit the Pentagon.

In August, 2006, members of Pilots for 9/11 Truth received these documents from the NTSB and began a close analysis of the data they contain. After expert review and cross check, Pilots for 9/11 Truth has concluded that the information in these NTSB documents does not support, and in some instances factually contradicts, the official government position that American Airlines Flight 77 struck the Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/

It simple terms, the actual flight data from Flight 77 proves the official version is a LIE. [/quote]

Not so fast there. Refer to this discussion concerning this.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=77910

And then check this link out.

The above ‘study’ was done on a mere working model, never used for official purposes. Never…In other words, the truthers built their study around a non-conclusive/non exact model. Why didn’t the “truthers” disclose that information up front?

22

[quote]Sloth wrote:
JustTheFacts wrote:

First of all you won’t show me an expert, with regard to the actual collapse of the buildings, that doesn’t in some way depend on the government for his livelihood or isn’t afraid of losing his job.

Ok, here. Direct links to civil engineering journals are provided. Run through them. This is just a sample, by the way.

Regardless of whether or not a beam was cut by explosives, or a torch after-the-fact, anyone who still maintains the WTC buildings collapsed by fire and “gravity” is a shill or an idiot, being that the collapses were a physical IMPOSSIBILITY barring controlled demolition…

Oh, and what Peer reviewed engineering journal did you get that from?

“Can an object fall through mass 5 times greater than itself nearly as fast as it would fall through air? (When the only force available is gravity)”
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2007/110407fall.htm

It cannot be explained ANY simpler than that.

No, it can be explained much simpler than that. Watch the video below.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5003545088789410947%20

If you say different, than you believe all three building collapses on 9/11 violated the law of physics–that the UNDAMAGED portions of the buildings below the impact zones offered the exact same resistance as if the top 1/3 of the building was just suspended IN AIR and dropped.

Link at the link above. It demonstrates the trickery you conspiracy people rely on.

In regard to Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon, the verdict is also in:

OFFICIAL ACCOUNT OF 9/11 FLIGHT 77 CONTRADICTED BY GOVERNMENT’S OWN DATA
Pilots for 9/11 Truth, an international organization of pilots and aviation professionals, petitioned the National Transportation and Safety Board (NTSB) via the Freedom of Information Act to obtain their 2002 report, “Flight Path Study-American Airlines Flight 77”, consisting of a Comma Separated Value (CSV) file and Flight Path Animation, allegedly derived from Flight 77’s Flight Data Recorder.

The data provided by the NTSB contradict the 9/11 Commission Report in several significant ways:

  1. The NTSB Flight Path Animation approach path and altitude does not support official events.

  2. All Altitude data shows the aircraft at least 300 feet too high to have struck the light poles.

  3. The rate of descent data is in direct conflict with the aircraft being able to impact the light poles and be captured in the Dept of Defense “5 Frames” video of an object traveling nearly parallel with the Pentagon lawn.

  4. The record of data stops at least one second prior to official impact time.

  5. If data trends are continued, the aircraft altitude would have been at least 100 feet too high to have hit the Pentagon.

In August, 2006, members of Pilots for 9/11 Truth received these documents from the NTSB and began a close analysis of the data they contain. After expert review and cross check, Pilots for 9/11 Truth has concluded that the information in these NTSB documents does not support, and in some instances factually contradicts, the official government position that American Airlines Flight 77 struck the Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/

It simple terms, the actual flight data from Flight 77 proves the official version is a LIE.

Not so fast there. Refer to this discussion concerning this.

And then check this link out.

The above ‘study’ was done on a mere working model, never used for official purposes. Never…In other words, the truthers built their study around a non-conclusive/non exact model. Why didn’t the “truthers” disclose that information up front?
[/quote]

You going to answer my question?

23

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:

“Al Qaeda confessions” You mean like Moussaoui?
[/quote]

Or, like Bin Laden.

Or, like this Al Qaeda statement…

"DUBAI, United Arab Emirates - A Saudi militant killed in 2004 was due to have been the 20th suicide plane hijacker in the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, al-Qaida?s media arm said in a statement on the Internet on Tuesday.

?Turki bin Fheid al-Muteiri – Fawaz al-Nashmi – may God accept him as a martyr (was) the one chosen by Sheikh Osama bin Laden to be the martyrdom-seeker number 20 in the raid on September 11, 2001,? the statement said.

?The (Sept. 11) operation was brought forward for some circumstances that brother Mohamed Atta explained to the general leadership,? it said, indicating that Muteiri could not join the other hijackers, led by Atta, in time."

Or, like how the hijackers martyrdom videos, shown on AL Jazeera, refer to their training by Al Qaeda and Bin Laden.

Or, like how Al Qaeda operatives detailed in an Al Jazeera documentary.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/12/alqaeda.911.claim/index.html

Or, like how Khalid Shaikh Mohammed described the plan to Al Jazeera
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/08/60II/main524794.shtml
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/12/alqaeda.911.claim/index.html

Or, like…ok, you get the picture.

24

[quote]Petedacook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
JustTheFacts wrote:

First of all you won’t show me an expert, with regard to the actual collapse of the buildings, that doesn’t in some way depend on the government for his livelihood or isn’t afraid of losing his job.

Ok, here. Direct links to civil engineering journals are provided. Run through them. This is just a sample, by the way.

Regardless of whether or not a beam was cut by explosives, or a torch after-the-fact, anyone who still maintains the WTC buildings collapsed by fire and “gravity” is a shill or an idiot, being that the collapses were a physical IMPOSSIBILITY barring controlled demolition…

Oh, and what Peer reviewed engineering journal did you get that from?

“Can an object fall through mass 5 times greater than itself nearly as fast as it would fall through air? (When the only force available is gravity)”
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2007/110407fall.htm

It cannot be explained ANY simpler than that.

No, it can be explained much simpler than that. Watch the video below.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5003545088789410947%20

If you say different, than you believe all three building collapses on 9/11 violated the law of physics–that the UNDAMAGED portions of the buildings below the impact zones offered the exact same resistance as if the top 1/3 of the building was just suspended IN AIR and dropped.

Link at the link above. It demonstrates the trickery you conspiracy people rely on.

In regard to Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon, the verdict is also in:

OFFICIAL ACCOUNT OF 9/11 FLIGHT 77 CONTRADICTED BY GOVERNMENT’S OWN DATA
Pilots for 9/11 Truth, an international organization of pilots and aviation professionals, petitioned the National Transportation and Safety Board (NTSB) via the Freedom of Information Act to obtain their 2002 report, “Flight Path Study-American Airlines Flight 77”, consisting of a Comma Separated Value (CSV) file and Flight Path Animation, allegedly derived from Flight 77’s Flight Data Recorder.

The data provided by the NTSB contradict the 9/11 Commission Report in several significant ways:

  1. The NTSB Flight Path Animation approach path and altitude does not support official events.

  2. All Altitude data shows the aircraft at least 300 feet too high to have struck the light poles.

  3. The rate of descent data is in direct conflict with the aircraft being able to impact the light poles and be captured in the Dept of Defense “5 Frames” video of an object traveling nearly parallel with the Pentagon lawn.

  4. The record of data stops at least one second prior to official impact time.

  5. If data trends are continued, the aircraft altitude would have been at least 100 feet too high to have hit the Pentagon.

In August, 2006, members of Pilots for 9/11 Truth received these documents from the NTSB and began a close analysis of the data they contain. After expert review and cross check, Pilots for 9/11 Truth has concluded that the information in these NTSB documents does not support, and in some instances factually contradicts, the official government position that American Airlines Flight 77 struck the Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/

It simple terms, the actual flight data from Flight 77 proves the official version is a LIE.

Not so fast there. Refer to this discussion concerning this.

And then check this link out.

The above ‘study’ was done on a mere working model, never used for official purposes. Never…In other words, the truthers built their study around a non-conclusive/non exact model. Why didn’t the “truthers” disclose that information up front?

You going to answer my question?

[/quote]

I don’t even understand what you’re trying to ask me. Everyone saw the planes strike WTC. Tons of eyewitnesses saw flight 77 strike the pentagon. Not to mention the debris at the pentagon site. What exactly are you asking? Are you pulling the “why didn’t they get intercepted routine?” Please clarify.

25

[quote]Sloth wrote:

I don’t even understand what you’re trying to ask me. Everyone saw the planes strike WTC. Tons of eyewitnesses saw flight 77 strike the pentagon. Not to mention the debris at the pentagon site. What exactly are you asking? Are you pulling the “why didn’t they get intercepted routine?” Please clarify.[/quote]

I have 2 questions.

1.How do 2 planes hit the twin towers, and 45 minutes later a plane strike the Pentagon, allegedly the most protected building in the nation, without being intercepted, while being tracked on radar the entire time by the vice president?

  1. How does that happen and no one is held accountable for the gross negligence? Not a single person.
26

[quote]Petedacook wrote:
Sloth wrote:

I don’t even understand what you’re trying to ask me. Everyone saw the planes strike WTC. Tons of eyewitnesses saw flight 77 strike the pentagon. Not to mention the debris at the pentagon site. What exactly are you asking? Are you pulling the “why didn’t they get intercepted routine?” Please clarify.

I have 2 questions.

1.How do 2 planes hit the twin towers, and 45 minutes later a plane strike the Pentagon, allegedly the most protected building in the nation, without being intercepted, while being tracked on radar the entire time by the vice president?
[/quote]

Sorry, but your question is loaded with assumptions. And, is far more complicated than I wish to tackle within a forum. Keep this is mind. We’re dealing with the reality of pre-911 stance. Not some corny hollywood action movie. Helpful links for you.

http://www.911myths.com/html/pentagon_missile_batteries.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/intercepts__norad_and_the_faa.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/intercept_time.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/stand_down.html

[quote]
2. How does that happen and no one is held accountable for the gross negligence? Not a single person. [/quote]

Read above.

27

This type of thing is disturbing:

“Homeland Security Warning: Possession of this novel may result in unlimited detention.”

http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?&isbn=0-595-38523-0

Does this make any sense? It is a book?

“Steven Earl Jones is an American physicist. For most of his career, Jones was known mainly for his work on muon-catalyzed cold fusion. In the fall of 2006, amid controversy surrounding his work on the collapse of the World Trade Center, he was relieved of his teaching duties and placed on paid leave from Brigham Young University.”

Is there really any question why people are reluctant to step forward?

cough Valerie Plame cough

28

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Petedacook wrote:
Sloth wrote:

I don’t even understand what you’re trying to ask me. Everyone saw the planes strike WTC. Tons of eyewitnesses saw flight 77 strike the pentagon. Not to mention the debris at the pentagon site. What exactly are you asking? Are you pulling the “why didn’t they get intercepted routine?” Please clarify.

I have 2 questions.

1.How do 2 planes hit the twin towers, and 45 minutes later a plane strike the Pentagon, allegedly the most protected building in the nation, without being intercepted, while being tracked on radar the entire time by the vice president?

Sorry, but your question is loaded with assumptions. And, is far more complicated than I wish to tackle within a forum. Keep this is mind. We’re dealing with the reality of pre-911 stance. Not some corny hollywood action movie. Helpful links for you.

http://www.911myths.com/html/pentagon_missile_batteries.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/intercepts__norad_and_the_faa.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/intercept_time.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/stand_down.html

  1. How does that happen and no one is held accountable for the gross negligence? Not a single person.

Read above.[/quote]

I thought so. I didn’t expect an answer, because there is no logical answer.

My question is loaded with facts.

29

[quote]Petedacook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Petedacook wrote:
Sloth wrote:

I don’t even understand what you’re trying to ask me. Everyone saw the planes strike WTC. Tons of eyewitnesses saw flight 77 strike the pentagon. Not to mention the debris at the pentagon site. What exactly are you asking? Are you pulling the “why didn’t they get intercepted routine?” Please clarify.

I have 2 questions.

1.How do 2 planes hit the twin towers, and 45 minutes later a plane strike the Pentagon, allegedly the most protected building in the nation, without being intercepted, while being tracked on radar the entire time by the vice president?

Sorry, but your question is loaded with assumptions. And, is far more complicated than I wish to tackle within a forum. Keep this is mind. We’re dealing with the reality of pre-911 stance. Not some corny hollywood action movie. Helpful links for you.

http://www.911myths.com/html/pentagon_missile_batteries.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/intercepts__norad_and_the_faa.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/intercept_time.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/stand_down.html

  1. How does that happen and no one is held accountable for the gross negligence? Not a single person.

Read above.

I thought so. I didn’t expect an answer, because there is no logical answer.

My question is loaded with facts.
[/quote]

Actually, if you’d have attempted to go to the links I provided you, and then looked at the cited link within, you’d have a better understanding. What a pathetic response.

30

Pete, at what time was Norad notified by the FAA that flight 77 was POSSIBLY heading to washington? At what time did it strike the pentagon? How much time was left in between to scramble and intercept? Pete, how many intercepts have been done within the US? How long did it take to intercept Golfer Stewart Payne’s jet? No idea for any of these?

Read the links and the directly cited sources within those, for yourself. I’m not going to try to explain that much information in my own words. That’s absolutely beyond the amount of time I want to invest into one post. Don’t be silly.

31

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Ok, I’m game. Who flew those planes into the WTC and Pentagon?
[/quote]

Maybe nobody.

The official story is that Islamic terrorists, whose piloting skills were insufficient, according to their instructors, to confidently solo pilot a single-engine Cessna, were somehow able to maneuver one Boeing 757 and two 767 airliners into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, in a breathtaking display of aeronautic expertise, furthermore impacting in such a way as to bring the Towers down with all the precision of a professional demolition job.

This is somewhat harder for me to believe than the equally outrageous “conspiracy theory” that alleges that the planes were externally controlled, perhaps by a DARPA hijack intervention system;

http://www.911-strike.com/VonBuelow.htm

…or that they were completely unmanned 727 and 737 aircraft equipped with prototype guidance and control mechanisms of the Global Hawk system.

Once mission parameters are programmed into Global Hawk, the UAV can autonomously taxi, take off, fly, remain on station capturing imagery, return and land. Ground-based operators monitor UAV health and status, and can change navigation and sensor plans during flight as necessary.

http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=175

This would explain the alleged and quite unaccountable appearance of 727 and 737 engines found among the wreckage at the Twin Towers and Pentagon sites, rather than wreckage from the 757 and 767 craft supposedly used in the attacks.

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/one-time_gop_insider.html

Naturally, I don’t buy either theory, because both raise the same ugly questions: who was controlling the planes, if either Global Hawk or the DARPA system were used? Certainly not a ragtag group of Islamic terrorists. And if the planes that struck the Towers and the Pentagon were unmanned drones, then what happened to the real planes and their real passengers and crew?

If I were a real cynic and conspiracy theorist, I suppose I would say that a government so diabolical that it would murder over three thousand civilians on its own soil in order to create a casus belli for invading two countries in order to obtain gas and petroleum rights for corporations partially controlled by the President and high-ranking members of his staff (at the same time successfully testing their UAV weapons systems) would have no qualms about killing a few hundred airline passengers and salting the crash sites with their DNA, along with a passport purportedly belonging to one of the “hijackers.”

I don’t believe that the government of the United States is so diabolical as to do such a thing.

However, I simply cannot swallow their official story.

32

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Ok, I’m game. Who flew those planes into the WTC and Pentagon?

Maybe nobody.

The official story is that Islamic terrorists, whose piloting skills were insufficient, according to their instructors, to confidently solo pilot a single-engine Cessna, were somehow able to maneuver one Boeing 757 and two 767 airliners into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, in a breathtaking display of aeronautic expertise, furthermore impacting in such a way as to bring the Towers down with all the precision of a professional demolition job.
[/quote]

Not all of the hijackers piloted the planes, obviously. I’m sure they chose the best and more experienced out of them. Here’s a link (that cites it sources) showing that a couple of the hijackers had a decent amount of training.

Of course, one can’t forget their martyrdom videos and AL Qaeda’s own statements about their responsibility.
http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_school_dropouts.html

And there’s isn’t much about the tower’s collapse that resembles a professional demolition job. One would only need to view video evidence of the building buckling in over time at the impact zones, and then finally collapsing.

Interesting, but there’s no evidence that this happened.

And this is just plain false. Here is an excellent debunking of this myth, via Aerospaceweb.org. Please take your time to go through this. By the way, any official aeronautical journals support the alleged “wrong engines?” Surely they’ve seen the same photos.

Anyways, Aerospace does a wonderful job presenting photographic and illustrated evidence in side-by-side comparisons… The ct’ers unfortunately try to either claim these parts as an entire engine, misidentify parts, or make huge gaffes in judging the size of components via the pictures.

Read the link. Study the side by photos and illustrations. Take not of the approximate scale of the engine parts found.
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml

Oh, and the planes that hit the WTC are of course featured on numerous videos…

Good thing the Islamic terrorists themselves told us and the Arab media that they did it. So no questions there. Nor is there any evidence of this Global Hawk being used. As far as the real passengers? They died in the crashes. Some of them did of course take the opportunity to call their loved ones from the planes.

That would be incredible. To salt the crash site right there in front of all those eyewitnesses that saw the planes strike the buildings. That, of course, would also have to involve all the firemen and other first responders who showed up quickly after. Glad you’re not cynical enough to believe that.

[quote]
I don’t believe that the government of the United States is so diabolical as to do such a thing.

However, I simply cannot swallow their official story.[/quote]

Well, since you don’t believe all of the above, I’m not clear what part of the official story bothers you.

33

[quote]Petedacook wrote:
This type of thing is disturbing:

“Homeland Security Warning: Possession of this novel may result in unlimited detention.”

http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?&isbn=0-595-38523-0

Does this make any sense? It is a book?

“Steven Earl Jones is an American physicist. For most of his career, Jones was known mainly for his work on muon-catalyzed cold fusion. In the fall of 2006, amid controversy surrounding his work on the collapse of the World Trade Center, he was relieved of his teaching duties and placed on paid leave from Brigham Young University.”

Is there really any question why people are reluctant to step forward?

cough Valerie Plame cough[/quote]

He was relieved because he stopped being a scientist. His ‘scientific’ article has been debunked over and over again. In fact, it was even denounced by the engineering department of his own university. Remember, this wasn’t even Jone’s field of study, while it certainly was that of the engineering department.

Since he couldn’t get any independent peer reviewed engineering journals to run his paper (yes, it couldn’t even make it into one of these journals), he simply became a part of the CT crowd. That isn’t responsible science, it’s quackery.

34

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Oh, and the planes that hit the WTC are of course featured on numerous videos…[/quote]

I know. I saw the news reports the day it happened. They must have played that footage about a hundred times in the space of two hours.

I recall that Fox News originally reported the plane as being a 737 as well, based on its appearance in the video. It was only after being given the flight number of the allegedly hijacked plane that they changed their story.

Thanks for the link, though. I’ll check it out.

35

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Well, since you don’t believe all of the above, I’m not clear what part of the official story bothers you.[/quote]

Oh, just my natural contrariness, I guess.

I tend to believe that there is a grain of truth within every myth, legend and conspiracy theory, and that there is a big fat lie festering in the heart of every “official story.”

Please don’t take it personally.

36

[quote]Petedacook wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Ok, I’m game. Who flew those planes into the WTC and Pentagon?

I got a question.

How do 2 planes hit the twin towers, and 45 minutes later a plane strike the Pentagon, allegedly the most protected building in the nation, without being intercepted, while being tracked on radar the entire time by the vice president?

How does that happen and no one is held accountable for the gross negligence?

[/quote]

How did a small plane hit the White House a few years ago? How did a teenager fly a small plane across Russia to the Kremlin?

37

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Well, since you don’t believe all of the above, I’m not clear what part of the official story bothers you.

Oh, just my natural contrariness, I guess.

I tend to believe that there is a grain of truth within every myth, legend and conspiracy theory, and that there is a big fat lie festering in the heart of every “official story.”

Please don’t take it personally.[/quote]

Moon landing?

38

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
The official story is that Islamic terrorists, whose piloting skills were insufficient, according to their instructors, to confidently solo pilot a single-engine Cessna, were somehow able to maneuver one Boeing 757 and two 767 airliners into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon,[/quote]

Anyone who has a copy of MS Flight Simulator will tell you that it’s pretty easy to fly a large Boeing around. Take off had already been taken care of, and they had no intention of landing. I don’t know how close to reality the simulator is (I haven’t flown a real Boeing) but the hardest part of hitting any building is finding it and pointing the plane towards it.

In the simulator, guiding the Boeing is made extremely easy since you can simply give the desired heading to the autopilot, who’ll dutifully turn the plane for you, no overcontrol involved (a common problem for Flight Sim newbies.)

I’m not sure the collapse of the tower was planned. Simply hitting them both was probably enough of a success for the terrorists. The collapse of both towers was probably just a nice bonus, from their point of view.

[quote]This is somewhat harder for me to believe than the equally outrageous “conspiracy theory” that alleges that the planes were externally controlled, perhaps by a DARPA hijack intervention system;

…

However, I simply cannot swallow their official story.[/quote]

If they needed a fictional cause to attack Iraq, one would think they’d manage to implicate Iraq more directly. Why invent a story involving mostly Saudi nationals? Why not a more believable plot? (Chemical weapons in a stadium maybe? Something that Saddam was suspected of having…)

39

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
I tend to believe that there is a grain of truth within every myth, legend and conspiracy theory, and that there is a big fat lie festering in the heart of every “official story.”[/quote]

Interesting. Has me wondering where you find a grain of truth in the Lizardmen conspiracy? (David Icke and his assorted nutty friends…)

Universal, uncritical skepticism strikes me as an odd position to adopt.

40

[quote]Petedacook wrote:
1.How do 2 planes hit the twin towers, and 45 minutes later a plane strike the Pentagon, allegedly the most protected building in the nation, without being intercepted, while being tracked on radar the entire time by the vice president?[/quote]

Because anticipated attacks were expected to come from overseas or from the external airspace and not from within?

Because at that point people thought the tower hits might have been accidents?

Because giving the order to shoot down a civilian plane requires you to be damn sure it’s being used for an attack?

Before 9/11, hijackings usually ended with negotiations between the hijackers and the authorities. On that day, pretty much everyone was expecting the same script to play out.

When you’re the first to try something, you can profit from the element of surprise, which I think played a big part on that day. No one knew what to expect, and, consequently, no one quite knew what the proper reaction should’ve been. In hindsight, it’s pretty easy to decide to shoot down all three (or four) planes.

Probably because it’s not blameable on one single person. It’s the failure of entire agencies for not having enough imagination; or corporations for not wanting to incur “needless” costs (El-Al planes would never have been useable in such a plot, there’s no way you would’ve gotten inside the cockpit). What blame there is can be attributed to a whole canvas of people, agencies and organizations. Prosecuting them all would be pointless and counter-productive.

Better to learn from the mistakes and not repeat them again.