- Jul 2, 2004
- 3,492
- 1
- 81
Its obvious that most of you didn't bother with the video. I find it pretty funny how immature most of you guys get when this topic is brought up.
If any of you falsers could answer this for me, please be my guest.
Why were these planes allowed to fly for so long off their course.....and not be intercepted by either a jet or AA missile?
This question has been asked so many times...yet no one can ever give a correct answer.
If any of you falsers could answer this for me, please be my guest.
Why were these planes allowed to fly for so long off their course.....and not be intercepted by either a jet or AA missile?
This question has been asked so many times...yet no one can ever give a correct answer.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
Well, kyle claims that he can do the math yet he repeatedly refuses to present it. The other thread has many responses by kyle with lots of blustery assertions but absolutely zero facts to support that bluster. I'm still waiting for his math and many others are as well.
btw, I'm more than willing to give people the benefit of the doubt, but kyle has long exceeded that benefit and anyone with a decent bullshit detector should recognize that his copious claims consist of blustery bullshit and nothing else.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
Answer me this. Why do these videos that you put so much faith in disregard the vast amounts of evidence that don't fit into their story?
The problem with truthers is that they always want to ask questions but consistently FAIL to answer anything asked of them. Start honestly answering questions yourselves and you may get some answers in return. That's not to mention that the questions you are currently asking have already been answered, yet truthers continue to pretend as if they haven't.
You guys are like Bozo the Clown punching bags though. Knock you down and you pop right back up with the same stupid grin on your faces as if nothing ever happened.
JEDIYoda
Lifer
- Jul 13, 2005
- 33,986
- 3,321
- 126
It's not a universal routine practice -- and it certainly wasn't back then. That practice usually only applies if the planes enter restricted airspace -- which only one of them did.
Prior to then, the standard policy of airlines was for the pilots to accomodate hijackers' demands and take the plane wherever they wanted -- until a solution could be reached. That policy was intended to save lives -- nobody imagined that planes would be used as projectile weapons.
That policy changed post-9/11 -- for obvious reasons.
or-----
Because they didn't look like they were heading to "targets" until they flew into the buildings--and field--that they flew into. It's a little easier to intercepted a missile or a MIG than it is to figure out if a commercial airliner is lost or the navigation systems aren't working, or they're going to become a bomb in a few moments. And just imagine the devastation that would have been caused in Manhattan and surrounding areas if the Air Force shot down three jetliners?
or--
We did not know the intention was to crash the planes. The standard practice was to try and talk the hi-jackers down. Can't imagine a quick approval at that time by Congress to immediately shoot down American Commercial Airlines and kill several hundred Americans and endangering many hundreds more on the ground. Of course, things have changed now and after 9/11 our actions would be far more aggressive in a similar situation.... As it is, we do not seem to be completely prepared for another such onslaught.
Because it's a stupid question that only a moron would ask.
Last week, Northwest Flight 188 was out of contact for over 90 minutes and flew 150 miles off course. Why wasn't it intercepted by either a jet or AA missile?!?!?!
- Jul 2, 2004
- 3,492
- 1
- 81
Hmmm I don't know....maybe because the plane wasn't headed directly towards our Pentagon?
As for the other planes, how about the story of Payne Stewart's death. That plane was being tracked almost immediately by NORAD.... F-16s were off the ground in no time tracking that plane. This was in 1999.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
I personally think that WTC7 is an odd kettle of fish but as hard as I try I can't defeat anything NIST has said... inarticulately at times which fuels the fires of dissent. The more I delve into WTC7 the more I conclude a vast conspiracy so far reaching that my sisters will need attorneys or NIST and the folks who worked on this got it right, albeit inconclusive and in a few material matters, left messy.
I can't buy into a far reaching conspiracy at all... and am hard pressed to accept a compartmentalized one because of the simple fact that no one could predict what would occur on 9/11 with the degree of precision for it to be carried out unnoticed as to how. I can see an opportunity to do something illegal by someone not related to 9/11's terrorist thing. But, that would be to do with fires only and using perhaps them termites and only cuz the building was already on fire.
I don't know maybe them others have more tenacity than I have. I believe that one cannot put in what god left out and I've exhausted all of what god put in me to analyze this bit.
The F-16 was already in the air, and it was only asked to track the plane an hour and a half after the loss of radio contact. That's three times longer than the longest hijacking on September 11.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
irishScott
Lifer
- Oct 10, 2006
- 21,562
- 3
- 0
The NTSB report about the incident includes a timeline:
Which thoroughly debunks the idiot's claim that F-16s were launched "in no time" to track the plane.
Anyway, I think you misinterpreted my post; read through the quotations again. We are both "falsers."
JEDIYoda
Lifer
- Jul 13, 2005
- 33,986
- 3,321
- 126
####################################################
Claim: No fighter jets were scrambled from any of the 28 Air Force bases within close range of the four hijacked flights. "On 11 September Andrews had two squadrons of fighter jets with the job of protecting the skies over Washington D.C.," says the Web site emperors-clothes.com. "They failed to do their job." "There is only one explanation for this," writes Mark R. Elsis of StandDown.net. "Our Air Force was ordered to Stand Down on 9/11."
FACT: On 9/11 there were only 14 fighter jets on alert in the contiguous 48 states. No computer network or alarm automatically alerted the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) of missing planes. "They [civilian Air Traffic Control, or ATC] had to pick up the phone and literally dial us," says Maj. Douglas Martin, public affairs officer for NORAD. Boston Center, one of 22 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regional ATC facilities, called NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) three times: at 8:37 am EST to inform NEADS that Flight 11 was hijacked; at 9:21 am to inform the agency, mistakenly, that Flight 11 was headed for Washington (the plane had hit the North Tower 35 minutes earlier); and at 9:41 am to (erroneously) identify Delta Air Lines Flight 1989 from Boston as a possible hijacking. The New York ATC called NEADS at 9:03 am to report that United Flight 175 had been hijacked ? the same time the plane slammed into the South Tower. Within minutes of that first call from Boston Center, NEADS scrambled two F-15s from Otis Air Force Base in Falmouth, Mass., and three F-16s from Langley Air National Guard Base in Hampton, Va. None of the fighters got anywhere near the pirated planes.
Why couldn't ATC find the hijacked flights? When the hijackers turned off the planes' transponders, which broadcast identifying signals, ATC had to search 4500 identical radar blips crisscrossing some of the country's busiest air corridors. And NORAD's sophisticated radar? It ringed the continent, looking outward for threats, not inward. "It was like a doughnut," Martin says. "There was no coverage in the middle." Pre-9/11, flights originating in the States were not seen as threats and NORAD wasn't prepared to track them.
GodlessAstronomer
Lifer
- Oct 27, 2007
- 17,009
- 5
- 0
Note: I am NOT a 9/11 truther, I just wanted to make a quick correction here. In the equations posted above the mass cancels and we're solving for Fr, so it doesn't make sense to plug number in for those values. However the maths makes the assumption that mg=ma, which is the conclusion it's trying to prove. In other words the reasoning is circular - the conclusion is assumed in the premises.
If we just wanted to show that the building fell at free-fall then we'd calculate the amount of time the building fell for and compare that with free fall time. If they're equal then the building fell freely. All of the equations posted in this thread are hand-waving to try to confused anyone who failed high school physics.
I'm not going to do the maths to show how long the building was in free fall because I assume it's been done a billion times and I don't give a shit about this truther movement, but abuse of mathematics pisses me off.
BeauJangles
Lifer
- Aug 26, 2001
- 13,941
- 1
- 0
No, it wasn't "tracked down by NORAD." Another complete lie.
From the NTSB accident report:
Notice that the FAA tracked the plane and subsequently was providing radar vectors to the intercept craft.
Number1
Diamond Member
- Feb 24, 2006
- 7,881
- 549
- 126
I watched part of it. All I saw was an old man with wild eyes and a permanent smile on his face (around 10:30) going on about the same old myths that have been debunked so many time before.
Same old claims:
fires not hot enough to crash the towers
no building has ever collapse due to fire ever before or after
dark somber music
inexplicable speed of collapse
steel melted
so evidence of aircraft debris at the pentagon
plane engined vaporized at the pentagon
millitary hiding facts
and on and on and on and on
It's just deception, misrepresentation and out right lies.
There is nothing new in this video. Just the same FUCKING CRAP.
Same old claims:
fires not hot enough to crash the towers
no building has ever collapse due to fire ever before or after
dark somber music
inexplicable speed of collapse
steel melted
so evidence of aircraft debris at the pentagon
plane engined vaporized at the pentagon
millitary hiding facts
and on and on and on and on
It's just deception, misrepresentation and out right lies.
There is nothing new in this video. Just the same FUCKING CRAP.
Number1
Diamond Member
- Feb 24, 2006
- 7,881
- 549
- 126
Points made in the movie
757s can't fly at 400 knots 20 ft off the ground aerodynamically impossible
how did the pilot violate most protected airspace in the world?
plane does not fit in pentagon hole
allege impact
there is no evidence of airplane impact
video of impact on pentagon prove it was not an airplane
how airplane got to pentagon is absurd
pilots would not be able to fly the way it did
757 can't turn rapidly
incompetent pilot could not fly at all
fighters pilot had the authority to shoot down airliner but were stood down
fighters protocol was changed to slow scramble in June 2001 ( presumably to enable hijacked airplanes to be able to carry out attack)
Rumsfell untraceable until 10:30
Some Millitary Officers who had something to do with 911 were promoted later on LOL
how is it possible to have found one of the hijacker's passport in the ruble of the pentagon?
=================================================
As you can see, there is not much credible "information" in the OP's movie.
757s can't fly at 400 knots 20 ft off the ground aerodynamically impossible
how did the pilot violate most protected airspace in the world?
plane does not fit in pentagon hole
allege impact
there is no evidence of airplane impact
video of impact on pentagon prove it was not an airplane
how airplane got to pentagon is absurd
pilots would not be able to fly the way it did
757 can't turn rapidly
incompetent pilot could not fly at all
fighters pilot had the authority to shoot down airliner but were stood down
fighters protocol was changed to slow scramble in June 2001 ( presumably to enable hijacked airplanes to be able to carry out attack)
Rumsfell untraceable until 10:30
Some Millitary Officers who had something to do with 911 were promoted later on LOL
how is it possible to have found one of the hijacker's passport in the ruble of the pentagon?
=================================================
As you can see, there is not much credible "information" in the OP's movie.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
Oops. Sorry. I didn't even notice that the truther actually used the already thoroughly debunked "Payne Stewart's jet" argument. Talk about dredging up an oldie but goodie.
Maybe the best thing to do is for everyone to stop responding to this thread until our resident Stupor Troofers begin providing some answers to the questions asked of them. That's always a sure way to make truthers run and hide. They love asking questions but despise having to answer them.
BeauJangles
Lifer
- Aug 26, 2001
- 13,941
- 1
- 0
They'll just declare victory. We're in a lose-lose situation. In their minds, by engaging them in this bullshit, we're validating there points because, after all, if it wasn't worth discussing there wouldn't be a discussion. If we don't engage, then they'll declare victory, claiming we have nothing to prove them wrong.
Number1 - *facepalm* I'm sorry you wasted your time watching that crap and I'm even more sorry that these guys can't even make an argument that hasn't already been fully, 100% debunked.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
I never involve myself in this debate because of the truther idiots. Their minds were already made up before they learned the first thing about 9/11. They are lost causes already. Their deep seated paranoia drives them to believe as they do, facts be damned. I do this for those sitting on the fence who, hopefully, are intelligent enough to weigh the facts of the issue and determine, as so many of us in here already have, that the truth movement are nothing but a gaggle of jackasses.
Number1
Diamond Member
- Feb 24, 2006
- 7,881
- 549
- 126
I am glad I actually watched part of it. The experience just validated my opinion of the OP.
How can he seriously tell us that many of the people in it are credible in their area of expertise or that it's not low budget like loose change. As a mater of fact, it is worst then loose change.
For the OP:
Did you watch the movie yourself Zeppelin?
Why do they talk of vaporized airplane engines in the movie when a quick Google search produces pictures of the engines in the pentagon? This is just one example.
On what basis did you form the opinion this movie was not just another whack job truther video?
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
If you start with the premise that the 'official statement' is what happened then anything that can be pointed to that does not quite fit that 'official statement' is, more or less, an anomaly.
Folks pursuing anomalous occurrences must first eliminate all unfounded, inaccurate or unrelated aspects propounded regarding that anomaly. They must deal with the anomaly as it stands. For instance; stating the hole in the Pentagon is too small for a plane to have made it is not evidence that a plane did not make the hole. It is only that the dynamics of the event seem anomalous. What is the 'official' statement regarding that. NIST provided a 45 page thingi on that entire look see. You can't say or at least you can't use the terrorist pilot skill question to provide evidence of what size hole a plane makes when running into a concrete reinforced building. They are two separate things. Saying it can't happen is not evidence without providing some computational evidence that refutes the NIST computational evidence. At the point where credible evidence differs from NIST's you now have provided an alternative to the NIST. It seems to me at that point it is not an anomaly any more.
If any anomaly can be transformed into an alternative explanation of an event the 'official statement' reports regarding that event the 'official statement' has been challenged properly and successfully.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter