The Conspirators were trying to nominate someone to be the Pope.
Actually, I’m surprised the Truthers HAVEN’T dragged the Pope into it in some fashion. Here’s the rub, the one glaring omission from every 9/11 truther’s argument: For 9/11 to be an inside job, it would literally take hundreds of people to keep their mouths shut about it. Those odds don’t strike me as impressive.
Ironic that the first person quoted as making fun of 9/11 conspiracy theorists is Bill Maher, who believes in a mainstream medical conspiracy.
Maher has described “western medicine” as “a complete scare tactic” and spouts all kinds of antivaccination garbage.
Surprising that he can see through the 9/11 crapola but has his own almost equally bizarre delusions.
Paging Mythbusters …
(hey, they already did the Moon landing … )
No, it indicates they haven’t decided on who will be the new Pope yet! Duh!
Which is kind of similar to what gets me. CTers are always going on about how WTC 7 must have been blown up, like after towers 1 & 2 went down all of America would have just gone ‘meh, whatever’. No, it took building seven to make us go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Conspiracy theorists think there has already been nuclear apocalypse, but the government covered it up to prevent panic.
Regards,
Shodan
Well, the Nixon thing kind of fits. There was a conspiracy theory figure involved - Martha Mitchell, the so-called “Cassandra of Watergate”, who tried to warn reporters about the role her husband John had played and was described by the administration as crazy and alcoholic, only to be vindicated when the truth came out.
Of course, that conspiracy involved far fewer people, performing far more mundane actions, and fell apart in less than three years. In comparison, 9/11 (if it is a conspiracy) involves a thousand times as many people, performing actions of superhuman stealth and dexterity, and is still a mystery after more than eight years.
My biggest problem is why didn’t jets intercept the airliners since they had numerous warnings of the hijacked airplanes.
Most people think that intercept means shoot down, and can only be accomplished by executive decision, but this is not true. Standard Interception Procedureshere are in place, and were not followed on that day.
Some will say it’s because there were milltary exercise going on that day, that just happened to involve hijacked airplanes, and that nobody knew what was real and what was part of the exercise. The powerfull US miltary was rendered impotent on the very day we needed it the most.
Very lucky for the terrorists they picked that day to attack, a little too lucky IMHO. Sounds more like a case of deliberate misdirection to me.
Have you considered reading the 9/11 commission’s report? I believe this is one of the topics they address, oddly enough.
Nonsense. The amount of time it takes to arm, fuel, and prep a jet fighter for interception, as well as the time to target was much too long. Take a look at the exhaustive comparison to the Payne Stewart case: Payne Stewart. There is a lot of detail on the times required for interception.
What specific warnings did they have? There was no reason to intercept any of the planes before they started hitting buildings; the hijackers maintained radio silence.
I have been thinking about this. At first I thought “well, that blows that out of the water then”. But even setting aside that revealing the conspiracy would put a large number (219) of Americans out of work, isn’t it conceivable* that the president a) does have this knowledge but is b) hoarding it to play as a trump card for the final element of his grand American socialismisationing project? In which case, doesn’t* the question become “what does Obama have up his sleeve that he has been willing to avoid forcing Republic acquiescence to something as large as health care?” and shouldn’t* we be preparing for that? I haven’t seen this line of reasoning advanced. Is there any overlap between 9/11 conspiracy theorists and various Obama CTers?
- No
For a number of reasons. First of all, the standard response (before 9/11) to a hijacking wasn’t ‘scramble the jets and go shoot that sucker down!’. Secondly, there is apparently a common misconception that the US has jets sitting on the tarmac, warmed up, fully loaded and fueled with warshots on board, and pilots sitting around in a ready room waiting tensely for the word to get up there and start shooting. Perhaps this was the case during the cold war (it probably was, though to a lesser degree than I think most people reared on Hollywood think), but this was a decade after the end of the Cold War. The final reason is that people looking back on those events now have a hell of a lot more information than the people who were actually involved. It’s like the recent GD thread on the helicopter attack in Iraq…people don’t seem to understand what ‘fog of war’ really MEANS, and they insist on putting themselves in the places of those involved, but with the benefits of hindsight and information complied days, weeks, months or even years after the events. The actual people who were involved, however, had fragmentary (often wrong, contradictory and always incomplete) information on what was happening. By they time they started to actually put everything together things were already winding down and it was over.
-XT
I’ll admit I have not read the report, though I should.
I have read ATC transcripts on the events of that day, and know that even the most basic standard procedures were not followed. In fact, nothing was really done. They let airliners fly hundreds of miles off their IFR flight plans unchecked
They have followed procedure in several other cases, such as Payne Stewart’s lear jet before 9/11, and the United flight a couple days ago. Many, many more are easily researched on the internet.
Somehow, when faced with a real threat on 9/11, they just could not get their act together.
I can maybe see the first plane getting through. Three out of four? I don’t think so.
…or, far more likely than “deliberate misdirection” on the part of the military, the terrorists knew about the drills and specifically chose that day to maximize their chances of success.
The first big one was that commerical aircraft were hundreds of miles off IFR flight plans. That right there is enough to send interceptors.
Second, read the transcripts. They know they are dealing with hijacked airplanes.
Did you know that most German generals were absent from Normandy on D-Day? Clearly, the NAZIs knew what was coming and were in on it.
Read my whole post. I know intercept does not mean shoot down. This is not about the fog of war.
It’s about not doing what you’ve done hundreds of times before, in a time when you need to do it the most.
So now the terrorists knew there would be drills on that day? They got information on the exact day our military would be conducting drills?
Come on.
It IS all about the fog of war. The air controllers didn’t know what was happening. Different controllers were working different planes and they weren’t all communicating together. The military was only perhiperally involved until fairly late in the game. They didn’t have air craft that were armed and ready to go on a moments notice. They have specific (and very tight) ROE over CONUS, and the politicians who could have authorized them to shoot didn’t know exactly what was happening. Eventually, they WERE given leave to engage (and they were properly armed), but by that time it was all over.
No, it’s not. It’s about not knowing what is happening, about people working on different parts of the puzzle but without knowing what other people are working on, and not having the information they have (and vice versa), about politicians not having enough information to make what could be a potentially (politically, morally, psychologically) fatal decision to FIRE ON A PLANE FULL OF US CITIZENS OVER A MAJOR US CITY. It’s ALL about the fog of war.
-XT