Here we see a good example of what I mentioned earlier. Truthers start with the assumption that the government must be lying about 911. They then start looking for “anomalies” that look strange to them, and claim them as evidence for a conspiracy, rather than ask what evidence you would expect to see if the government was behind 911. This is a particularly good example if you think about it. Explosions in the building don’t actually support the case of a government hoax, and furthermore are completely explainable under the non-conspiracy model. If the government was going to stage the attack, they would be expected to take the least-risk path to doing so, which would be to crash actual airplanes into the buildings and not increase their risk of discovery by taking unnecessary steps like also planting secret explosives. On the other hand, a modern office building actually contains many things that can cause explosions, so seeing large explosions after a massive uncontrolled fire had been burning for some time is actually not that surprising.
I’m convinced. Eisenhower caused 911.
Here we go. It’s known the buildings were shut down at night in the weeks leading up to 911 for construction. This included blackouts in the buildings.
My point about the planes was they didn’t even get close to intercept them. No body said anything about shooting them down, so what does it matter if the where armed or not?
Not that it matters, because the facts show that no less than 7 bases were on full alert, and 5 of them were in fact in range
I challenge you to show a reliable source for this.
Furthermore, you are still anomaly-hunting rather than asking what evidence you would expect to see in the case of a hoax. This is why truthers end up with bizarre theories involving large numbers of superfluous elements like thermite bombs in the buildings - it’s the desire to find as many strange facts as possible and then spin a theory that covers them.
Yeah, this along with what Der Trihs said about not having a plausibility filter seems to be a hallmark of the conspiracy theorist. Each claim is equally plausible, and it doesn’t matter if the don’t have anything to do with each other or even if they contradict each other, as long as the individual claim seems to support the theory.
Ever been on a military base? What do you consider “full alert?” Since I am in the military and “in range” I can assure you I have no idea what you are talking about.
Hit submit by mistake.
The fighters from these 5 bases would have been armed and could have easily caught up to and intercepted these airliners, but they didn’t. Records now show that they were flying at a fraction of their rated speed, some of them actually flew out to sea, away from NYC and DC even after the first plane hit the WTC, and that they didn’t even takeoff until well after it was known the planes were hijacked.
How can you explain this? I think it’s more than just a little inconstancy.
No, I’ve never worked with explosives, but that dosen’t matter either. I’m not basing my opinion on what I think buildings shoud do, although it did look to me like one of the CD we see on TV all the time. I provided my link that shows structural engineers say there is no way the buildings could collaspe the way the official story says they did.
How do you explain their findings? I remind you they are not offering any theories.
I doubt it has anything to do with language barrier and all to do with your inability to approach an issue as an objective sceptic who has even remote understanding of how US Government operates.
You should probably read some US history. Iran-Contra affair was leaked by an Iranian in Lebanese newspaper and then confirmed when an airplane was shot down in Nicaragua and CIA agents were discovered. Then, Iran confirmed the story in Lebanese newspaper.
US Congress? Where 95% of members can be made “bi-partisan” to sign a letter to Obama demanding he does not cut aid to Israel? These guys know what they’re doing?
You got to be kidding me…
/* BTW - I’m now a Canadian citizen
BTW -
I consider this to be a hijack.
I know, you are only asking questions.
I counter what they say by believing what the vast majority of engineers and scientists say. You choose to believe the fringe.
Nope still have no idea what your point is.
Please show these records. You say they exist, you should be able to show sources for them.
Fully armed and ready. Their websites boasted about this back in '01 before 911. Of course now all the links to those pages are gone, so I can’t cite it.
Ok, these records are easy. They are still in the FAA transcripts. I’ll go dig them up and link to them. We have to do a little bit of math of course, they don’t come right out and say the fighters were only going at most 500 MPH at max.
They who? The base was on full alert? A couple of aircrews? What? Things were different post Cold War.
Claims that the air force was slow to intercept the planes is still a form of anomaly-hunting, of course, since it doesn’t stem from considering what you would expect to see in the case of a government hoax, but instead is the result of looking for anything odd and then claiming it as evidence. Claiming this as evidence for government complicity is making the unstated assumption that before 9-11, fighter planes would automatically be scrambled to intercept any airplane believed to be hijacked or otherwise operating unexpectedly. This in fact was not the policy at the time, and was not what happened in practice. Consider for example the case of this learjet in 1999. The plane lost contact with the ground (the result of a pressure leak in the cabin). There were F-16 planes already in the air at the time, yet it still took over an hour for one of them to intercept the Learjet.
It may seem obvious at the moment that hijacked at the moment that a hijacked airplane would be intercepted and shot down, but that is post-9/11 experience. If you are going to claim the failure to intercept any of the planes as evidence for government complicity, you need to demonstrate that the expected result would be otherwise at the time, given what was known when it was happening. You cannot assume that everyone at the time had perfect knowledge of what was going on with those planes, where they were or where they were going.
BTW I don’t think you know how things work. The planes turned their transponders off. That means that air traffic control did not know where they were. Show me how ATC and the military knew where to send the aircraft that were available and sent them elsewhere. Or was every schlub who worked ATC and was in the Aircrews in on it too?
The Payne Stewart case as well. But that one is funny because a lot of Truthers jump on that one to say how quick they intercepted it. Without checking that the plane crossed timezones so their times are off by an hour. I put the link upthread. And in both case we are talking about plane with *transponders on. *
Still trying to figure it out. The best I can come up with is that you are giving an example of a small scale conspiracy involving a small part of the US government (mostly the CIA and some of the executive branch) which was fully exposed, used by the democrats to rake the opposition over the coals and used to score points for the democrats for decades. Somehow you use that example to prove that it is possible that both democrats and republicans in congress were in on 911. As well as the President. All branches of the US military. The FAA. The NTSB. The FBI. The CIA. The NSA. Some secret SEAL building demolition team. And probably the Girl Scouts. And yet the conspiracy remains solid and unbroken all these years later.
You got to be kidding me.
It was *unthinkable *to consider ordering an American military plane to shoot down an American airliner filled with American civilians. Seriously, that’s the type of thing we expect from Godless Communists, not the USAF.