Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
redhen

911 inside job - for what?

4,457 posts in this topic

Thanks guys, appreciate it.

Concerning proof.. I think there is ample evidence, if your mind is open for it. I think a lot of people just dont want to hear, or realize, the truth. It would destroy there whole paradigm, their whole 'world'.

Color me a conspiracy nut, but the mere notion some boxcutter wielding, grotto dwelling Afghans would be responsible for the scenario that unfolded on that fateful day seems absolutely idiotic to me. No matter what financial resources were alotted to them.

Essential aspects of the scenario had to have been facilitated from the inside.

I would pose the following points are, quite safely - and at the very least, indicating 'foul play':

http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/01/18/24-hard-facts-about-911-that-cannot-be-debunked/

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Phaeton80 These box cutter wielding grotto dwelling Afghans, whom by the way were all living in this country in mostly clean four walled domiciles . Didnt Fly the two Airliners into the Towers?

Please elaborate ! :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For sake of the discussion, I would suggest to focus on the anomalies of the incident.. of which there are many. Imo it isnt about who flew the aircraft, its about the truthfulness o/t official story. If one lie can be established, it opens up the door to picking it apart completely.

I think the points given in the link would be a nice start..

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks guys, appreciate it.

Concerning proof.. I think there is ample evidence, if your mind is open for it. I think a lot of people just dont want to hear, or realize, the truth. It would destroy there whole paradigm, their whole 'world'.

Color me a conspiracy nut, but the mere notion some boxcutter wielding, grotto dwelling Afghans would be responsible for the scenario that unfolded on that fateful day seems absolutely idiotic to me. No matter what financial resources were alotted to them.

Essential aspects of the scenario had to have been facilitated from the inside.

I would pose the following points are, quite safely - and at the very least, indicating 'foul play':

http://www.collectiv...ot-be-debunked/

First of all, the United States recevied warnings from around the world that Muslim terrorist, not the U.S. government, hatched plans to used airliners as weaspons. I would like to also address each of the points from your link

1) Nano Thermite was found in the dust at Ground Zero. Peer reviewed in the Bentham Open Chemical Physics Journal. ‘Niels Harrit’, ‘Thermite Bentham’, “The great thermate debate” Jon Cole, ‘Iron rich spheres’ Steven Jones, ‘Limited Metallurgical Examination (FEMA C-13, Appendix C-6)’. ‘Nano Tubes’

The basic ingredients of thermite was already present and used in the construction of the WTC buildings. For an example, aluminum was used in the construction of the B-767s which struck the WTC towers and thousands of tons of aluminum was used in the facade of the WTC buildings. Iron oxide (rust) was found during structural inspections of the WTC towers. No thermite was found at ground zero. For

2) 1700+ Engineers and Architects support a real independent 9/11 investigation.

Look at these numbers.

123,000 members of ASCE(American Society of Civil Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 80,000 members of AIA(American Institute of Architects) who do not question the NIST Report.

Richard Gage, Founder. ‘Explosive Evidence’, ‘Blueprint for Truth’, ‘AE911′, ‘Toronto Hearings’, ‘Kevin Ryan’.

Le'ts take a look here.

ARCHITECT Magazine

The Magzine of the American Institute of Architects

All of Gage’s so-called evidence has been rebutted in peer-reviewed papers, by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, by the National Institute for Standards and Technology, by the American Society of Civil Engineers, by the 9/11 Commission Report, and, perhaps most memorably, by the 110-year-old engineering journal Popular Mechanics.

3) The total collapse of WTC 7 in 6.5 seconds at free fall acceleration (NIST admits 2.25 seconds).

Let's take another look.

Larry Silverstein used the term “Pull it”.

The term; "pull it" applies to the pulling down of buildings with cables and there were no cables pulling down WTC7. Mr. Silverstein referred to the pulling out of firefighters inside WTC7, not for the demolition of WTC7. Neither Mr. Silverstein nor the FDNY, are not in the business of demolishing buildings.

Steel framed high rise buildings have NEVER totally collapsed from fire or structural damage.

On the contrary, three steel frame buildings of the Kader toy factory in Thailand collapsed due to fire. The steel structure of the Windsor building in Spain collapsed due to fire to where only the concrete core remained standing.

Builidng 7 was not hit by a plane. ‘Building 7′, ‘WTC 7′.

WTC7 did in fact suffer serious impact damage and there was a large hole of several stories on the southern side of WTC7

4) Dick Cheney was in command of NORAD on 9/11 while running war games.

War games are nothing new and in fact, there were many such exercises conducted between October 2000 and October 2001.

]‘Stand down order’. “Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary?”.

The military did not know of the whereabouts of the aircraft and in fact, was unaware of the location of United 93 nor aware that United 93 had even crashed.

Norman Minetta testimony. “Gave order to shootdown Flight 93.”, ‘NORAD Drills’.

The shootdown order was not issued until after United 93 had crashed and even then, some commanders refused to pass on that shoot down order to their pilots for fear of shooting down the wrong aircraft. How do you determine whether an airliner within our borders is a threat or not?

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For sake of the discussion, I would suggest to focus on the anomalies of the incident.. of which there are many. Imo it isnt about who flew the aircraft, its about the truthfulness o/t official story. If one lie can be established, it opens up the door to picking it apart completely.

I think the points given in the link would be a nice start..

I would like to continue from your link.

5) 6 out of the 10 Commissioners believe the 9/11 Commission report was “Setup to fail” Co-Chairs Hamilton and Kean, “It was a 30 year conspiracy”, “The whitehouse has played cover up”,

Evidence speaks louder than words, and there is no evidence of a 911 government conspiracy. In fact, the available evidence points away from a government 911 conspiracy.

6) FBI confiscated 84/85 Videos from the Pentagon. ‘Moussaoui trial’ revealed these videos. Released Pentagon Security Camera (FOIA) does not show a 757 and is clearly Missing a frame.

On the contrary, one segment does in fact, depict a B-757 and I have identified the image of a B-757 in the background. The B-757 is a favorite aircraft of mine.

, ‘Citgo”.

Damage within, and leading up to the Pentagon proved beyond a doubt that American 77 passed south of the gas station. I might add that a former Wing commander of my unit was in the Pentagon when it was struck by American 77.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For sake of the discussion, I would suggest to focus on the anomalies of the incident.. of which there are many. Imo it isnt about who flew the aircraft, its about the truthfulness o/t official story. If one lie can be established, it opens up the door to picking it apart completely.

I think the points given in the link would be a nice start..

Each of the points have been addressed and debunked by others as well. One other thing I wish to address is that at no time did the WTC towers collapse as free fall speed. That was evident by the fact that dust plumes and debris are outpacing the collapse of the buildings.

site1085-20120628-111320.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed A Grand Welcome to our newest member Phaeton80 !

Now for the real work. Proof . Show any actual proof that the Government in any way actually had a hand on the Towers Coming down !

The Thread topic is 911 inside job-for What?

THe proof is in the Pudding ! And So far nobody has ever proven any deliberate action in the Attacks. THE Insane Brought down the buildings,With Two High Jacked Airliners !

Proof of who did what, or knew what, would be - How .. not for what. I think Phaeton summed that up, (for what,) quite well. Everyone keeps talking about How.. and not , for what ... or WHY?

*

Edited by lightly
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly right, Lightly.

There were many people and groups who benefitted from the events of the day. Money, power, a political agenda, destruction of evidence--all those things came together by those events.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There were many people and groups who benefitted from the events of the day.

Definitely not the United States.

Money, power, a political agenda, destruction of evidence--all those things came together by those events.

Al-Qaeda briefly benefited from its 911 attacks upon America. An increase in support from terrorist, al-Qaeda apologist and anti-government fanatics. Countries around the world had warned the United States that Muslim terrorist, not the American government, had planned to attack the United States and some warnings indicated the terrorist would use airliners in the attacks, which they did on 9/11/2001.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[A] First of all, the United States recevied warnings from around the world that Muslim terrorist, not the U.S. government, hatched plans to used airliners as weaspons. I would like to also address each of the points from your link

Look at these numbers.

123,000 members of ASCE(American Society of Civil Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 80,000 members of AIA(American Institute of Architects) who do not question the NIST Report.

[C] Le'ts take a look here.

[D] Let's take another look.

[E] The term; "pull it" applies to the pulling down of buildings with cables and there were no cables pulling down WTC7. Mr. Silverstein referred to the pulling out of firefighters inside WTC7, not for the demolition of WTC7. Neither Mr. Silverstein nor the FDNY, are not in the business of demolishing buildings.

[F] On the contrary, three steel frame buildings of the Kader toy factory in Thailand collapsed due to fire. The steel structure of the Windsor building in Spain collapsed due to fire to where only the concrete core remained standing.

[G] WTC7 did in fact suffer serious impact damage and there was a large hole of several stories on the southern side of WTC7

[H] War games are nothing new and in fact, there were many such exercises conducted between October 2000 and October 2001.

The military did not know of the whereabouts of the aircraft and in fact, was unaware of the location of United 93 nor aware that United 93 had even crashed.

[J] The shootdown order was not issued until after United 93 had crashed and even then, some commanders refused to pass on that shoot down order to their pilots for fear of shooting down the wrong aircraft. How do you determine whether an airliner within our borders is a threat or not?

A - 'The United States' had an ongoing wargame playing the very same scenario at the very day it happened in 'real world events'. So yes, they were indeed well aware of that scenario being a possible 'threat'. And yes, the statistical chance of these two identical events, one real world and one fictitious, being fomented on the very same moment is in my mind - remarkably small - to say the least. Although this fact is not definitive on its own, it is highly suspect.

B - The number of engineers who do not question an authoritative player like NIST do not really have any bearing on the fact a relatively large number of engineers do question it. Adhering to a mainstream consensus has no risks, opposing such consenus does.

Why would so many engineers take such a risk? Is there a conspiracy against the offical report vielleicht? And if so, who is paying these people to put their career on the line?

C - I wouldnt think it wise to couple any conclusion about the legitimacy of the official story to a single individual, however impressive the statement of Architect Magazine might be. I am interested in the specifics of it though, please provide the necessary links.

D - Something went awry here I suppose, your rebuttal seems to be missing.

E - "I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

Strange that Silverstein didnt refer to 'them' instead of 'it', but, I agree. It was a strange and very unwise remark in the given context. But to conclude he meant demolish the building is premature and in all probability incorrect.

F - Although the Kader Toy factory was indeed a 'multi-story' building which collapsed - amongst other factors - 'due to fire', there are some significant differences with the WTC complex. According to official reports on the incident, the factory was poorly designed and built. The steel frame-work was weak and none of the steel was insulated. The building also lacked any sprinklers. In addition, the factory had apparently been damaged by a series of other smaller fires in the past. At the time of the May 10 fire, parts of the building were still being repaired from a fire which occurred in February of that same year. Ultimately, this structure had a completely different set of variables to that of the three WTC buildings, and therefore seems to be a very weak example to use as a comparison.

Concerning the Madrid construction; in that case the fire raged for many hours, and collapsed partially. Just like the Faculty of Architecture Building from Delft in my native country the Netherlands. Asymmetyrical damage generally does not cause a highrise building to collapse, all but in its own footprint, in a symmetrical like fashion. If this were the case, demolition crews would be out of work very fast indeed.

I must concede however that I have not checked the offered points as I should have, which brought me in a position where I need to defend statements I do not [completely] agree with my self - or are even undefendable given the broadness, non specific qualities of said statement. This does not mean I concede the official story is correct, not by a long shot.

G - Again, relatively small asymmetrical damage of the given highrise building does not explain how it collapsed completely and near symmetrically - predominantly in its own footprint. The foundation and central load bearing construction of the building needs to be undermined for this to even be plausible irt laws o/t path of least resistence. For it to fall at the speed it did [be it not completely free fall, but damn near to it], there needs to be almost zero [residual] structural resistence. And if you take a look at the vdo of the WTC7 building just as it starts collapsing, the footage underwrites the destruction of the central load bearing construction, the typical 'v' dip in the centre of the top o/t building. Compare that with demolition footage, and you will find they are absolutely identical.

Normally no fire or falling debree can result in these specific effects, which need to be meticulously planned by highly payed demolition experts.

H - Well yes, I bet they were. What I wouldnt bet anything on is that to 'stand down' during such an exercise is a normal order by any measure. Not even touching upon the unrivalled wondrous parallels with what was actually happening in real world events at the very same time. Which, by the way, is also what happened during the 2005 London bombings and the most recent Boston scenario. Coincidence? Maybe, but if that is the case, we have witnessed sheer miracles. Unless ofcourse these shrewd 'Muslims' used some sort of advanced spy network seeded in the heart o/t DoD.

I - No, they indeed did not. Long-standing operating procedures at NORAD, for dealing with aircraft that have gone off-course or gone mute, were not followed on 911. Each of the four flights involved in the 911 event should have been intercepted - jets scrambled - at the very moment they lost radio contact, deviated from their course, or turned off their transponders.

"The procedures for interception were automatic and required no special orders to implement. Through these procedures, interceptor jets had been scrambled 129 times in the year 2000 and 67 times in the year prior to June 2001. A 1994 government report stated — “Overall, during the past four years, NORAD’s alert fighters took off to intercept aircraft (referred to as scrambled) 1,518 times, or an average of 15 times per site per year. Of these incidents, the number of suspected drug smuggling aircraft averaged … less than 7 percent of all of the alert sites’ total activity. The remaining activity generally involved visually inspecting unidentified aircraft and assisting aircraft in distress.”"

J - To determine if a plane is a threat, immediately after it has either swayed off their committed paths or terminated their transponders / are unresponsive, is done by simply scrambling jets to the scene and escort them to either re- attain their alotted route or the nearest airport to land. Which has always been done pre 911, as stated above, this is - or should have been - standard procedure. Another anomaly as far as Im concerned. An anomaly that can only been facilitated from the inside, from the highest echelons even.

Your second post:

5) 6 out of the 10 Commissioners believe the 9/11 Commission report was “Setup to fail” Co-Chairs Hamilton and Kean, “It was a 30 year conspiracy”, “The whitehouse has played cover up”,

Your response:

Evidence speaks louder than words, and there is no evidence of a 911 government conspiracy. In fact, the available evidence points away from a government 911 conspiracy.

6) FBI confiscated 84/85 Videos from the Pentagon. ‘Moussaoui trial’ revealed these videos. Released Pentagon Security Camera (FOIA) does not show a 757 and is clearly Missing a frame.

Your response:

On the contrary, one segment does in fact, depict a B-757 and I have identified the image of a B-757 in the background. The B-757 is a favorite aircraft of mine.

I would be very interested in that image you speak of, please provide.

‘Citgo”

Your response:

Damage within, and leading up to the Pentagon proved beyond a doubt that American 77 passed south of the gas station. I might add that a former Wing commander of my unit was in the Pentagon when it was struck by American 77.

What damage specifically makes you so very sure?

Have you ever asked that Wing commander how it was possible that the Pentagon's highly touted missile detections systems could not locate Flight 77 in the 42 minutes it was known to be lost before it crashed into the heart of the defense system of the U.S.?

I apologise for my somewhat late reaction, Ive been enjoying the good weather.

And thanks for your good points so far. I [partially] agree with some of them.

*apologies for the edits, need to familiarise myself with the functions ;)

Edited by Phaeton80
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you ever asked that Wing commander how it was possible that the Pentagon's highly touted missile detections systems could not locate Flight 77 in the 42 minutes it was known to be lost before it crashed into the heart of the defense system of the U.S.?

What missile detection systems? References please.

I especially found the supposed "fact" interesting.

24) At least 7 of the 19 listed highjackers are still alive (BBC).

Which the BBC has since retracted as they have actually examined the evidence. The only reports of hijackers supposedly being alive came before the official list of hijackers with pictures was released on September 27th. All stories stopped afterward pointing more toward mistaken identity and similar names.

http://www.911myths....ers_still_alive

Pilots of the 4 planes never squawked the highjacking code.

Proving only that they didn't have the chance to. It isn't something that can happen immediately. It does take a few seconds and was likely not the first thing on their minds while being attacked.

Edited by frenat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see I overlooked your thermite point; in reply of which I would like to refer to the following vdo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A - 'The United States' had an ongoing wargame playing the very same scenario at the very day it happened in 'real world events'. So yes, they were indeed well aware of that scenario being a possible 'threat'. And yes, the statistical chance of these two identical events, one real world and one fictitious, being fomented on the very same moment is in my mind - remarkably small - to say the least. Although this fact is not definitive on its own, it is highly suspect.

One of the reasons for the number of anti-terrorist exercises that occurred before the 911 attacks was the result of warnings that terrorist would use aircraft as weapons to kill thousands of people. In one case, an attempt to fly an airliner into the Eiffel Tower was broken up by the French.

Air France Flight 8969

Air France Flight 8969 was an Air France flight that was hijacked on 24 December 1994 by the Armed Islamic Group (GIA) at Algiers, where they killed three passengers, with the intention to blow up the plane over the Eiffel Tower in Paris. When the aircraft reached Marseille, the GIGN, an intervention group of the French National Gendarmerie, stormed the plane and killed all four hijackers.

The GIA's plan appeared to foreshadow the September 11 attacks.[1] Thomas Sancton of TIME magazine described the event as "one of the most successful anti-terrorist operations in history.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,163487,00.html

Many people were unaware that terrorist also planned to fly an aircraft into CIA headquarters.

The Bojinka Plot: Phase Three

Phase three would have involved Murad either renting, buying, or hijacking a small airplane, preferably a Cessna. The airplane would be filled with explosives. He would then crash it into the Central Intelligence Agency headquarters in the Langley area in Fairfax County, Virginia. Murad had been trained as a pilot in North Carolina, and was slated to be a suicide pilot.

There were alternate plans to hijack a 12th commercial airliner and use that instead of the small aircraft, probably due to the Manila cell's growing frustration with explosives. Testing explosives in a house or apartment is dangerous, and it can easily give away a terrorist plot. Khalid Sheik Mohammed probably made the alternate plan.

A report from the Philippines to the United States on January 20, 1995 stated, "What the subject has in his mind is that he will board any American commercial aircraft pretending to be an ordinary passenger. Then he will hijack said aircraft, control its cockpit and dive it at the CIA headquarters."

Another plot that was considered would have involved the hijacking of more airplanes. The World Trade Center (New York City, New York), The Pentagon (Arlington, Virginia), the United States Capitol (Washington, D.C.), the White House(Washington, D.C.), the Sears Tower (Chicago, Illinois), and the U.S Bank Tower (Los Angeles, California), would have been the likely targets. Abdul Hakim Murad said that this part of the plot was dropped since the Manila cell could not recruit enough people to implement other hijackings in his confession with Filipino investigators, prior to the foiling of Operation Bojinka. This plot eventually would be the base plot for the September 11, 2001 attacks which involved hijacking commercial airliners as opposed to small aircraft loaded with explosives and crashing them into their intended targets. However, only the World Trade Center (which was destroyed) and The Pentagon (which suffered partial damage) were hit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bojinka_plot

Two plots discovered and broken up, where terrorist planned to use aircraft as weapons to kill thousands of innocent people. I might add that one of the terrorist in the Bojinka Plot was the same terrorist who detonated that huge bomb beneath WTC1 in 1993 and is the nephew of 911 mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who has admitted to his role in planning the 911 attacks.

B - The number of engineers who do not question an authoritative player like NIST do not really have any bearing on the fact a relatively large number of engineers do question it. Adhering to a mainstream consensus has no risks, opposing such consenus does.

Looking at the videos, there were no bomb explosions nor was evidence of explosives discovered in the rubble at ground zero.

Why would so many engineers take such a risk? Is there a conspiracy against the offical report vielleicht? And if so, who is paying these people to put their career on the line?

There is nothing wrong for calling for a new investigation other than it will be a waste of money, but all they had to do was to do some homework on their own. The WTC buildings were damaged and it is no secret that fire raged inside the WTC buildings at temperatures at the levels that weaken steel and remember, after the impacts, structural loads were redistributed and those additional loads were being carried by structural members that were exposed to temperatures high enough to weaken steel but below its melting point.

C - I wouldnt think it wise to couple any conclusion about the legitimacy of the official story to a single individual, however impressive the statement of Architect Magazine might be. I am interested in the specifics of it though, please provide the necessary links.

What we do know is that structural columns were damaged and destroyed and structural loads were redistributed to other columns that were exposed to temperatures high enough to weaken steel. Examining the structure of the WTC buildings, it was just a matter of time before they would collapse, which was evident when witnesses reported that the WTC buildings were bowing just before they collapsed. That was an indication that the raging fires were weakening the structures to the point of failure.

D - Something went awry here I suppose, your rebuttal seems to be missing.

Please clarify.

Concerning the Madrid construction; in that case the fire raged for many hours, and collapsed partially. Just like the Faculty of Architecture Building from Delft in my native country the Netherlands. Asymmetyrical damage generally does not cause a highrise building to collapse, all but in its own footprint, in a symmetrical like fashion. If this were the case, demolition crews would be out of work very fast indeed.

Let's take a look at the Windsor building and notice that only the concrete core is standing. Look at the state of the steel structure in the following photo.

madrid.jpg

Notice that the steel structure, which once surrounded the concrete core, has collapsed. In Oakland, CA., the steel structure of an overpass had failed and collapsed, which was due to a gasoline fire from an overturned truck.

I must concede however that I have not checked the offered points as I should have, which brought me in a position where I need to defend statements I do not [completely] agree with my self - or are even undefendable given the broadness, non specific qualities of said statement. This does not mean I concede the official story is correct, not by a long shot.

I will agree with the official report for the most part because I have worked in the aviation field for over 40 years. I have noticed that conspiracy websites were either lying or spewing disinformation and misinformation related to the 911 aircraft and I knew that from my own experience as a pilot, airframe technician and inspector while serving in the Air Force and with major defense contractors. That is another reason why I have warned people to beware of those 911 conspiracy websites because I caught them posting outright lies and again, disinformation and misinformation and yet, those who are not familiar with the way we do things in the world of aviation have taken their remarks as factual when in fact, much of their information was false or misleading to begin with.

Beware of those conspiracy websites because I have also noted that some false information was planted to discredit the 911 conspiracy movement and I have posted some very clear examples..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see I overlooked your thermite point; in reply of which I would like to refer to the following vdo.

Thermite was not capable of bringing down the WTC buildings. Apparently, there is a reason why demolition companies do not use thermite for demolition implosions. That video is just another reason why I have warned people about the disinformation and misinformation spread. There were no thermite cuts on structural steel examined at ground zero and at the Fresh Kills landfill.

No evidence of planted thermite was ever found in the rubble of the WTC buildings.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evidence of thermite was found all over the streets in the area.

You're just in denial about the preponderance of the evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A - 'The United States' had an ongoing wargame playing the very same scenario at the very day it happened in 'real world events'. So yes, they were indeed well aware of that scenario being a possible 'threat'. And yes, the statistical chance of these two identical events, one real world and one fictitious, being fomented on the very same moment is in my mind - remarkably small - to say the least. Although this fact is not definitive on its own, it is highly suspect.

That was a schedule exercise that had nothing to do with 911.

I - No, they indeed did not. Long-standing operating procedures at NORAD, for dealing with aircraft that have gone off-course or gone mute, were not followed on 911. Each of the four flights involved in the 911 event should have been intercepted - jets scrambled...

NORAD deals with aircraft approaching our borders. Additionally, I was once sent TDY to Andrews AFB, and the F-16 unit at Andrews AFB was not familiar with air defense protocols of NORAD, nor ever trained to conduct proper intercepts or ever trained to shoot down airliners. 911 conspiracist were unaware of that fact and in fact, they were not even aware of the threats that day until after the airliners struck the WTC Towers. An off-course airliner does not automatically pose a threat by any means. The threat becomes evident after a strike. Remember, we are talking of airliners within our borders, not enemy bombers approaching from outside our borders.

...- at the very moment they lost radio contact, deviated from their course, or turned off their transponders.

911 conspiracist got the wrong idea that turning off a transponder renders an aircraft invisible to radar. Turning off the transponder just makes it difficult to track the aircraft, not make it invisible because the aircraft can still be tracked by radar and remember, the B-757 and the B-767 are not stealth aircraft and even stealth aircraft are not totally invisible to radar.

"The procedures for interception were automatic and required no special orders to implement. Through these procedures, interceptor jets had been scrambled 129 times in the year 2000 and 67 times in the year prior to June 2001.

Neither NORAD nor the Air Force were aware of the threat posed by United 175 and American 11 until after they struck the WTC Towers. Communication tapes show there was much confusion within ATC circles before the military was finally notified whereas, it was too late. The F-16s scrambled from Langley AFB, had no orders to shoot down anything nor even had information needed to conduct an intercept. Check out the following information.

9/11 10th Anniversary: F-15 pilot Dan Nash recalls response

Controllers from the Northeast Air Defense Sector would spot an aircraft on their radar and ask the pilots to investigate and steer it away from Manhattan’s airspace. Over a four-hour period, Nash and Duffy repeated the process for between 50 and 100 aircraft.

When the South Tower of the trade center fell at 9:59 a.m., Nash was flying east over Kennedy, escorting a small civilian airliner to a safe landing. “When we turned around,” he recalled, “Manhattan was covered with what I thought was smoke. But it was the dust from the collapsed tower.”

The pilots were over the North Tower when it collapsed at 10:28 a.m. From an altitude of 6,000 feet, according to Vittner’s report, Duffy watched the tower implode. Nash wasn’t looking down at the time; he only saw the aftermath. The plume of smoke and ash, he estimated, rose 5,000 feet above streets below.

http://www.masslive....t_dan_nash.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The F-16 pilots from Andrews AFB were not familiar with NORAD techniques and its protocols nor were they in the communication loop of NEADS and NORAD. To further underline that point, Lt. Colonel Phil Thompson said it best when he said:

"We've never been an air defense unit. We practice scrambles, we know how to do intercepts and other things, but there's a lot of protocol in the air defense business. We obviously didn't have that expertise..."He was the chief of safety for the 113th Wing, Andrews AFB.

10:09 AM1 minute, 57 seconds

"The fighter pilots do not know if they have permission to shoot down planes. A commander tells them they do not. (Warning: profanity at the end of the clip)"

http://www.nytimes.c.../911-tapes.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**** the code words, that’s perishable information. Negative clearance to fire, ID, type, tail. (they are only to identify the type and tail number of the plane).

http://www.nytimes.c.../911-tapes.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In interviews with us, NEADS personnel expressed considerable confusion over the nature and effect of the order

The NEADS commander told us he did not pass along the order because he was unaware of its ramifications. Both the mission commander and the senior weapons director indicated they did not pass the order to the fighters circling Washington and New York because they were unsure how the pilots would, or should, proceed with this guidance.

...the Langley pilots did not know the threat they were facing, did not know where United 93 was located, and did not have shoot-down authorization before United 93 crashed.

http://www.unexplain...=229808&st=3045

A 1994 government report stated — “Overall, during the past four years, NORAD’s alert fighters took off to intercept aircraft (referred to as scrambled) 1,518 times, or an average of 15 times per site per year. Of these incidents, the number of suspected drug smuggling aircraft averaged … less than 7 percent of all of the alert sites’ total activity. The remaining activity generally involved visually inspecting unidentified aircraft and assisting aircraft in distress.”"

The military didn't have the proper information at the time to intercept American 11 and United 175 in a timely manner before the aircraft struck the WTC Towers nor even had orders to shoot down those airliners..

J - To determine if a plane is a threat, immediately after it has either swayed off their committed paths or terminated their transponders / are unresponsive, is done by simply scrambling jets to the scene and escort them to either re- attain their alotted route or the nearest airport to land. Which has always been done pre 911, as stated above, this is - or should have been - standard procedure. Another anomaly as far as Im concerned. An anomaly that can only been facilitated from the inside, from the highest echelons even.

An off-course airliner does not automatically constitute a direct threat. American 77 was observed by a National Guard C-130 crew conducting its maneuver before it struck the Pentagon. That, after the the crew was notified by ATC tracking the aircraft on radar after the terrorist tampered with the transponder which proved once again that turning off the transponder does not render an aircraft invisible to radar.

I would be very interested in that image you speak of, please provide.

757_pentagon.gif

What damage specifically makes you so very sure?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDbo1hyXsuQ&feature=player_embedded

Have you ever asked that Wing commander how it was possible that the Pentagon's highly touted missile detections systems could not locate Flight 77 in the 42 minutes it was known to be lost before it crashed into the heart of the defense system of the U.S.?

What missile detection systems are you speaking of? There were no missile strikes on the Pentagon. Here's what was left after the strike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Continue:

What damage specifically makes you so very sure?

We can go here and do a review.

The damage along the flight path of American 77 proves that American 77 passed south of the gas station.

187b.jpg

059a.jpg

actual_flight_path_no_poles_hit.jpg

f7_coopr_appch.jpg

The distribution of debris and damage within the Pentagon reconfirms the south-of-the-gas station flight path of American 77.

floorplan_757traj.png

In regards to a claim that United 93 was shot down by an F-16, we can go here.

Claims Surrounding a F-16 Pilot and United 93

Claim: In February 2004, retired Army Col. Donn de Grand-Pre said on "The Alex Jones Show," a radio talk show broadcast on 42 stations: "It [Flight 93] was taken out by the North Dakota Air Guard. I know the pilot who fired those two missiles to take down 93." LetsRoll911.org, citing de Grand-Pre, identifies the pilot: "Major Rick Gibney fired two Sidewinder missiles at the aircraft and destroyed it in midflight at precisely 0958."

FACT: Saying he was reluctant to fuel debate by responding to unsubstantiated charges, Gibney (a lieutenant colonel, not a major) declined to comment. According to Air National Guard spokesman Master Sgt. David Somdahl, Gibney flew an F-16 that morning--but nowhere near Shanksville. He took off from Fargo, N.D., and flew to Bozeman, Mont., to pick up Ed Jacoby Jr., the director of the New York State Emergency Management Office. Gibney then flew Jacoby from Montana to Albany, N.Y., so Jacoby could coordinate 17,000 rescue workers engaged in the state's response to 9/11. Jacoby confirms the day's events. "I was in Big Sky for an emergency managers meeting. Someone called to say an F-16 was landing in Bozeman. From there we flew to Albany." Jacoby is outraged by the claim that Gibney shot down Flight 93.

"I summarily dismiss that because Lt. Col. Gibney was with me at that time. It disgusts me to see this because the public is being misled. More than anything else it disgusts me because it brings up fears. It brings up hopes—it brings up all sorts of feelings, not only to the victims' families but to all the individuals throughout the country, and the world for that matter. I get angry at the misinformation out there."

Read more: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Debunking the Myths - Flight 93 - Popular Mechanics

About the claim of that little white jet over the crash site of United 93.

The White Jet Over the Crash Site of United 93

Claim: At least six eyewitnesses say they saw a small white jet flying low over the crash area almost immediately after Flight 93 went down. BlogD.com theorizes that the aircraft was downed by "either a missile fired from an Air Force jet, or via an electronic assault made by a U.S. Customs airplane reported to have been seen near the site minutes after Flight 93 crashed." WorldNetDaily.com weighs in: "Witnesses to this low-flying jet ... told their story to journalists. Shortly thereafter, the FBI began to attack the witnesses with perhaps the most inane disinformation ever—alleging the witnesses actually observed a private jet at 34,000 ft. The FBI says the jet was asked to come down to 5000 ft. and try to find the crash site. This would require about 20 minutes to descend."

FACT: There was such a jet in the vicinity—a Dassault Falcon 20 business jet owned by the VF Corp. of Greensboro, N.C., an apparel company that markets Wrangler jeans and other brands. The VF plane was flying into Johnstown-Cambria airport, 20 miles north of Shanksville. According to David Newell, VF's director of aviation and travel, the FAA's Cleveland Center contacted copilot Yates Gladwell when the Falcon was at an altitude "in the neighborhood of 3000 to 4000 ft."—not 34,000 ft. "They were in a descent already going into Johnstown," Newell adds. "The FAA asked them to investigate and they did. They got down within 1500 ft. of the ground when they circled.

They saw a hole in the ground with smoke coming out of it. They pinpointed the location and then continued on." Reached by PM, Gladwell confirmed this account but, concerned about ongoing harassment by conspiracy theorists, asked not to be quoted directly.

9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Debunking the Myths - Flight 93 - Popular Mechanics

Those are examples why I have warned to beware of the disinformation, misinformation and lies spewing out from those 911 conspiracy websites.

*apologies for the edits, need to familiarise myself with the functions ;)

No apologies needed. I have been here for a long time and still can't figure out why sometimes the text formats of my messages have changed from time to time to where I have to constantly make corrections.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evidence of thermite was found all over the streets in the area.

False! Richard Gage and Steven Jones were found to have lied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I - No, they indeed did not. Long-standing operating procedures at NORAD, for dealing with aircraft that have gone off-course or gone mute, were not followed on 911. Each of the four flights involved in the 911 event should have been intercepted - jets scrambled - at the very moment they lost radio contact, deviated from their course, or turned off their transponders.

I want to add this communication transcript to underline the confusion during the 911 attack.

Communication transcript conserning United 93

FAA (DC): Go ahead.

NEADS: United nine three, have you got information on that yet?

FAA: Yeah, he's down.

NEADS: He's down?

FAA: Yes.

NEADS: When did he land? Cause we have got confirmation...

FAA: He did not land.

NEADS: Oh, he's down? Down?

FAA: Yes. Somewhere up northeast of Camp David.

NEADS: Northeast of Camp David.

FAA: That's the last report. They don't know exactly where.

The reality of the above communication transcript shows why those 911 conspiracy websites cannot be taken seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I just watched two amazing videos. They are not new. So perhaps they have been already posted here. Nevertheless,...:

Not by you. But I take them seriously. I am not negatviely dismissive.

I want to add this communication transcript to underline the confusion during the 911 attack.

The reality of the above communication transcript shows why those 911 conspiracy websites cannot be taken seriously.

Edited by regeneratia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that is what you want us to believe, right?

False! Richard Gage and Steven Jones were found to have lied.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THe Sooner that people learn that THe Government had not a thing to do with this the sooner we can Get back to Reality ! :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just watched two amazing videos. They are not new. So perhaps they have been already posted here. Nevertheless,...:

Not by you. But I take them seriously. I am not negatviely dismissive.

Nothing there that news agencies will take seriously. In the first video, She mentioned that trucks were arriving in the early hours, but what does that have to do with the 911 attacks? What other time would be practicable to conduct heavy maintenance work? She mentioned trucks arriving from August 23, to September 3, and mentioned they were there only 2 hours each day. In other words, she is talking only 11 days at only 2 hours per day.

So much for her claim that explosives were planted.

The collapse of the WTC Towers began where the aircraft struck the towers and remember, the collisions were so violent that they knocked off fire protection insulation form the structures, which simply means that any planted explosives planted in the locations of the impacts would have either detonated or rendered ineffective and looking at the videos, there are no secondary explosions as the aircraft struck those buildings. Add to the fact that not one piece of explosive hardware was recovered from the ground zero, which simply means there no explosives of any kind was ever placed within the WTC buildings, which is underlined by the fact that no bomb explosions were heard nor seen as the WTC buildings fell. In other words, there was no evidence of explosives to begin with.

To recap, it should be of no mystery as to why I have warned 911 conspiracist to beware of those 911 conspiracy websites which are well-known for spewing disinformation, misinformation and lies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And that is what you want us to believe, right?

Considering that both have been caught lying and discredited, what more is there to say? Ask Steven Jones why his colleagues have distanced themselves from him and his papers. Here's a hint of Steven Jones lack of credibility.

Deceptive Practice of Steven Jones

The BYU physics department has also issued a statement: "The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones' hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones' department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review."

The College of Engineering and Technology department has also added, "The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones

Letter to the Editor

Refuting 9/11 Conspiracy Theory

April 09, 2006

Dear Editor,

After reading in the Daily Herald the presentations made by Professor Steven E. Jones (BYU Physics) to students at UVSC and BYU, I feel obligated to reply to his "Conspiracy Theory" relating to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (9/11/01).

I have studied the summary of the report by FEMA, The American Society of Civil Engineers and several other professional engineering organizations. These experts have given in detail the effects on the Towers by the impact of the commercial aircraft. I have also read Professor Jones' (referred to) 42 page unpublished report. In my understanding of structural design and the properties of structural steel I find Professor Jones' thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) caused the collapse of the Towers, very unreliable.

The structural design of the towers was unique in that the supporting steel structure consisted of closely spaced columns in the walls of all four sides. The resulting structure was similar to a tube. When the aircraft impacted the towers at speeds of about 500 plus mph, many steel columns were immediately severed and others rendered weak by the following fires. The fires critically damaged the floors systems. Structural steel will begin to lose strength when heated to temperatures above 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. Steel bridge girders are bent to conform to the curved roadway by spot heating flanges between 800 and 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. It is easy to comprehend the loss of carrying capacity of all the structural steel due to the raging fires fed by the jet's fuel as well as aircraft and building contents.

Before one (especially students) supports such a conspiracy theory, they should investigate all details of the theory. To me a practicing structural engineer of 57 continuous years (1941-1998), Professor Jones' presentations are very disturbing.

D. Allan Firmage

Professor Emeritus, Civil Engineering, BYU

http://www.netxnews.net/vnews/display.v/ART/2006/04/09/443801bdadd6e

In April 2009, Jones, along with Niels H. Harrit and 7 other authors published a paper in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, titled, 'Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe'. The editor of the journal, Professor Marie-Paule Pileni, an expert in explosives and nano-technology, resigned.

Let's remember that Steven Jone tried to dupe people with a doctored photo.

Steven E. Jones knowingly and deliberately included a doctored image in his 2006 9/11 report with the caption “Workers evidently peering into the hot “core” under the WTC rubble” presenting it as evidence of molten steel

9/11 shill Steven E. Jones fooled the truth movement into believing the false and inadequate thermite and molten metal theories. Jones’ molten metal evidence has been shown to be fabricated.

wtc_light.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4XXZ9G3gik&feature=player_embedded

So much for the credibility of Steven Jones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THe Sooner that people learn that THe Government had not a thing to do with this the sooner we can Get back to Reality ! :tu:

Let's take a look at the guys for whom some 911 conspiracist will say, are innocent of the 911 attacks because they blames the U.S. government. Apparently, there was unaware of the tapes the terrorist produced prior to hijacking American airliners and killing all onboard.

alghamdi.jpg

hijacker3.jpg

hijacker2.jpg

hijacker1.jpg

alshehri.jpg

attaunit.jpg

alshehhiunit.jpg

hanjourunit.jpg

jarrahunit.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.