IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 11th May 2020, 10:24 AM   #81
Fonebone
persona non grata
 
Fonebone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 672
Originally Posted by Elagabalus View Post
They've all feasted on the endochrome of infants?

Decide for yourself. This article is from the BBC Future site.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2...nk-human-blood
excerpt...
Needless to say, donors are hard to come by. How do you possibly ask someone to let you drink their blood? CJ! says donors are often close friends\
who understand her perceived needs; Kinesia feeds from her own husband every couple of weeks.
In other cases, it may involve some kind of payment, says Browning.
Whatever the precise nature of the donor-vampire relationship, it’s always consensual. “The utmost care is taken of the donor – making sure

they are relaxed and willing at all times,” says Kinesia.








Blood-drinker CJ!'s kit includes antiseptic to clean the skin (the cat), a squeeze ball which helps veins pop out (the mouse) and a tourniquet to tie
around the arm (Credit: CJ!) /excerpt
__________________
Truth, like the sun, allows itself to be obscured;
but, like the sun, only for a time. __Bovee
Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light. __George Washington
All great truths begin as blasphemies __Shaw
Fonebone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2020, 10:27 AM   #82
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 22,863
Originally Posted by MRC_Hans View Post
To be fair, I'd say that 19 IS 'almost 20'.

Hans
How about 18 2/3?
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2020, 12:14 PM   #83
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 4,959
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
Well, there were warnings that Al Qaeda was attempting some sort of attack on American soil, but those warnings lacked any specificity. There were no warnings at the highest levels of an attack on the World Trade Center, an attack using passenger planes, or an attack by any of the 19 individuals involved.

Chasing down such a vague lead would have required enormous resources. Ut to September 11, 2001, those kinds of investments were prohibitive and politically very foolish. The American public would want to know why so much of its money was going into some secret war that wasn't even happening.

After 9/11, of course, the American public was very much on board with the idea.
That's correct. I have pointed that out many times.

I also should have mentioned that in May, 2001, the DoD ordered all civilian access to military bases closed, and new fencing to be built do to what they believed was a credible -but-vague terrorist threat.

Nobody outside of UBL, KSM, and a handful of others which included the hijackers knew the specifics of the plan. All the CIA knew was that something was up, and ALEC Station wasn't passing along everything up their chain either. I doubt that even had we arrested to two known hijackers in July that Al Qaeda wouldn't have staged the attack on a later date. In July, 2001, there was no Patriot Act, and the hijackers would have lawyered up, and been deported because their lawyers would have correctly pointed out that neither had committed a crime other than being "affiliated" with Al Qaeda.

As I said before, once all the facts are out on the table the main story doesn't change, no matter how much the Monday Morning Quarterbacks want it to.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2020, 04:21 PM   #84
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,564
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
As I said before, once all the facts are out on the table the main story doesn't change, no matter how much the Monday Morning Quarterbacks want it to.
Exactly.

The US gaining and processing of "intelligence" was not good enough to prevent 9/11. That fact or set of facts should be the agreed starting point for debate.

Then - despite the interest in "crying over spilled milk" and "assigning blame to some scapegoats" the real issue(s) should be:

"Have we implemented optimal measures to minimise recurrence of similar acts?"
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2020, 04:58 PM   #85
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,723
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
"Have we implemented optimal measures to minimise recurrence of similar acts?"

"Optimal," by the way, should include measures that are the least burdensome on innocent civilians while still furthering that goal.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2020, 05:57 PM   #86
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,564
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
"Optimal," by the way, should include measures that are the least burdensome on innocent civilians while still furthering that goal.
Yes. Which is part of the reasoning why I said "minimise" rather than "eliminate" or "prevent". Either of which would be too costly in several dimensions including financial and "imposed social burdens".

The whole situation is about managing risk probabilities at multiple levels. From the global (in both senses) level down to technical details. e.g. the choices of steel frames for the WTC Towers was pragmatics of the day. But accepted the built in compromises resulting from vulnerability of steel to fire.

Last edited by ozeco41; 11th May 2020 at 06:00 PM.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th May 2020, 06:55 PM   #87
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 4,959
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Exactly.

The US gaining and processing of "intelligence" was not good enough to prevent 9/11. That fact or set of facts should be the agreed starting point for debate.

Then - despite the interest in "crying over spilled milk" and "assigning blame to some scapegoats" the real issue(s) should be:

"Have we implemented optimal measures to minimise recurrence of similar acts?"
The main failure was allowing Alec Station to be independent both physically, and oversight-wise from Langley. The secondary failure was the FBI's NYC office running an independent bin Laden desk separate from the FBI's Counter-Terrorism desk. Both units were run by charismatic/abrasive officers whose egos made enemies as neither unit willingly shared information. Both men were removed prior to September, 2001, but were replaced by vanilla career middle-management types.

All of this was against the backdrop of the Aldrich Ames and Waco scandals which hamstrung both the CIA and FBI across many key levels.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2020, 02:56 AM   #88
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 32,424
Originally Posted by Fonebone View Post
Decide for yourself. This article is from the BBC Future site.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2...nk-human-blood
Other than the fact that there is nothing so stupid that somebody won't try it, this seems to have little relevance to 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Dave
__________________
There is truth and there are lies.

- President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2020, 06:14 AM   #89
JSanderO
Illuminator
 
JSanderO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: nyc
Posts: 3,089
You can't stop a plot that isn't planned. So you have criminal types capable of crime but not engaged in planning or acting one out.

Intel should have been on to terrorists. All of them? Hard to know. Terrorists are cagey and don't do written plans and so on. The 9/11 plot was remarkably simple. Get a bunch of hijackers on plans on the east coast bound for the west coast laden with fuel. The scare the sh*t out of whomever, storm the cockpit and fly the play to a designated target which would be visible from 50 miles away.

Piloting skills were needed but they were quite easy to acquire. But if flight schools were being monitored learning to fly by these guys might have raised a red flag. The rest of the plan was looking at flight schedules... and weather forecasts. and sending a few txt messages or calls.

Once hijacked the USA still has no way to prevent the jerk from crashing the plane into whatever.

So the solution was clamp down on who and what gets on a plane... and into all sorts of places... like federal buildings.

Even if the feds knew a multiple hijack was a coming... they couldn't quickie install the high level of security checks needed to prevent a jerk from boarding. They couldn't afford to place sky marshals on every plane or immediately harden every cockpit. I don't think there was enough time, resources or will to take those measures.

So they lied and dodged after the fact and hoped that the jerks would get caught before they got on the planes.

Since 9/11 there have been many terrorists attacks in Europe and US because intel can't keep track of miscreants 24/7/365. How many stings have gone done since 9/11?
__________________
So many idiots and so little time.
JSanderO is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2020, 10:04 AM   #90
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,723
Originally Posted by JSanderO View Post
Once hijacked the USA still has no way to prevent the jerk from crashing the plane into whatever.

At least part of the problem in mounting an air response was that the military and civilian aviation authorities used completely different terminologies for the same things. The transcripts show the FAA being completely confused by what the military was saying and vice-versa. They also used different and incompatible communication and radar equipment equipment

I believe some of those kinks have been worked out now.

However, you're right. A one-off attack of the same nature would be very hard to stop even today.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2020, 07:21 PM   #91
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 12,881
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
At least part of the problem in mounting an air response was that the military and civilian aviation authorities used completely different terminologies for the same things. The transcripts show the FAA being completely confused by what the military was saying and vice-versa. They also used different and incompatible communication and radar equipment equipment

I believe some of those kinks have been worked out now.

However, you're right. A one-off attack of the same nature would be very hard to stop even today.
I think it might be more difficult to take control of a plane in the first place. Passengers had a false sense of security from previous hijacks where the plane was flown to some airport and demands made. The hijackers talked of demands in order to encourage the passengers to feel this.

Now I think that passengers would be more likely to tackle a hijacker in the first instance.
__________________
The non-theoretical character of metaphysics would not be in itself a defect; all arts have this non-theoretical character without thereby losing their high value for personal as well as for social life. The danger lies in the deceptive character of metaphysics; it gives the illusion of knowledge without actually giving any knowledge. This is the reason why we reject it. - Rudolf Carnap "Philosophy and Logical Syntax"
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2020, 07:24 PM   #92
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,564
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
However, you're right. A one-off attack of the same nature would be very hard to stop even today.
The same fundamental problem would still exist today as it did on 9/11. And it has been missed by most argumentation.

On 9/11 there simply was not enough of a window of opportunity in the time-line to allow for a legitimate decision to shoot down any aircraft. And that would not been different if there had been ready to launch suitably armed aircraft on full 24/7 standby.

And even that presumes a multiple aircraft attack. Of the options to prevent a similar or even up scaled 9/11 style of attack two of the suggested "solutions" are not viable. They are:
1) Make buildings strong enough to withstand aircraft impact attacks; AND
2) Shoot down any and all hijacked aircraft which are undertaking missions to cause large scale loss of life.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2020, 07:54 PM   #93
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 4,959
First off, neither the CIA nor the FBI bothered to call the NSA. The NSA doesn't initiate surveillance and data collection on its own - but it does collect communications data from almost every country in the world. After 911 the NSA did an audit, and discovered they had all the relevant phone numbers, and emails sitting in storage. This data would have nailed down a great many things in advance for both the FBI and CIA in order for some kind of action.

The next problem is that there has to be follow-through on intelligence received.

While the NSA is a formidable resource it is useless if no one acts on intelligence collected.

The 2015 Boston Marathon Bombing is an example of the FBI receiving information from the Russians about the bomber, and then the FBI performing a flaccid investigation. The Patriot Act is worthless when agents lack the will to press the situation.

In many ways the USA today is just as vulnerable to an identical 911-style attack as it was in 2001. The holes in security have just been moved.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th May 2020, 11:55 PM   #94
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,723
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
On 9/11 there simply was not enough of a window of opportunity in the time-line to allow for a legitimate decision to shoot down any aircraft.

And god help the poor airman who gets the order to shoot down a commercial passenger plane. There's no amount of training that can fix the psychological damage that would do to a person, no matter how it turned out.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th May 2020, 12:24 AM   #95
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 4,959
Ask and ye shall receive:

https://www.aol.com/article/news/202...acks/24285901/

The eeevil cabal forgot to zip its fly ... again:

Quote:
WASHINGTON — The FBI inadvertently revealed one of the U.S. government’s most sensitive secrets about the Sept. 11 terror attacks: the identity of a mysterious Saudi Embassy official in Washington who agents suspected had directed crucial support to two of the al-Qaida hijackers.

The disclosure came in a new declaration filed in federal court by a senior FBI official in response to a lawsuit brought by families of 9/11 victims that accuses the Saudi government of complicity in the terrorist attacks.

The declaration was filed last month but unsealed late last week. According to a spokesman for the 9/11 victims’ families, it represents a major breakthrough in the long-running case, providing for the first time an apparent confirmation that FBI agents investigating the attacks believed they had uncovered a link between the hijackers and the Saudi Embassy in Washington.
My favorite part:

Quote:
It’s unclear just how strong the evidence is against the former Saudi Embassy official — it’s been a subject of sharp dispute within the FBI for years. But the disclosure, which a senior U.S. government official confirmed was made in error, seems likely to revive questions about potential Saudi links to the 9/11 plot.
So right here, in a thread by a 911 Truther, yet again we get a real-time shining example of how the US Government can't keep secrets very well.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th May 2020, 01:49 AM   #96
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,564
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
And god help the poor airman who gets the order to shoot down a commercial passenger plane. There's no amount of training that can fix the psychological damage that would do to a person, no matter how it turned out.
Agreed,. I doubt that such an order could ever be "legitimate".

I did a risk management assessment a few years back and based solely on "probable lives lost" at each potential decision point in the timeline. (And I had benefit of hindsight.) From memory there was no point where "probable lives SAVED" by shoot down significantly outweighed "lives certainly lost". And for 9/11 the only time the decision could possibly be "legitimate" was AFTER the collapse of WTC2.

And I did not attempt to include the political downside of both US domestic and international outrage. From friends and foes alike. In the court of general opinion there would be no justification no matter what the numeric arguments.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th May 2020, 07:32 AM   #97
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,380
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Ask and ye shall receive:

https://www.aol.com/article/news/202...acks/24285901/

The eeevil cabal forgot to zip its fly ... again:

My favorite part:

So right here, in a thread by a 911 Truther, yet again we get a real-time shining example of how the US Government can't keep secrets very well.
Of course you aren't surprised by this revelation and only CTs believe that there are numerous secret documents that will prove the Government involvement in this attack. Poor deluded souls.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th May 2020, 10:33 AM   #98
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 17,034
Shoot-down? Stand-down?

Truthers lament that NORAD failed to intercept any of the hijacked planes, and suggest this is a clue for "inside job".

Now suppose the alternative - which has two branches:

A1) NORAD had managed to intercept at least AA77 or UA93, but decided not to shoot down either
A2) NORAD had managed to intercept AA77 or UA93, and then shot down the plane that was headed for the Pentagon, or the plane that was headed for the Capitol (or the White House, or Camp David...) and thus NORAD had saved the Pentagon or/and the Capitol (WH, CD) and their government people from harm.

How much more would Truthers cry "INSIDE JOB!!!" if A1 or A2 had played out instead of the no-intercept reality?
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th May 2020, 10:45 AM   #99
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,380
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Shoot-down? Stand-down?

Truthers lament that NORAD failed to intercept any of the hijacked planes, and suggest this is a clue for "inside job".

Now suppose the alternative - which has two branches:

A1) NORAD had managed to intercept at least AA77 or UA93, but decided not to shoot down either
A2) NORAD had managed to intercept AA77 or UA93, and then shot down the plane that was headed for the Pentagon, or the plane that was headed for the Capitol (or the White House, or Camp David...) and thus NORAD had saved the Pentagon or/and the Capitol (WH, CD) and their government people from harm.

How much more would Truthers cry "INSIDE JOB!!!" if A1 or A2 had played out instead of the no-intercept reality?
Oh I like the one where Cheney "directed" the military to stand down on that morning.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2020, 06:28 AM   #100
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 22,863
People who believe the Cheney stuff should imagine another vice president like maybe Dan Quayle ordering the Air Force to do something.
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2020, 06:43 AM   #101
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,380
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
People who believe the Cheney stuff should imagine another vice president like maybe Dan Quayle ordering the Air Force to do something.
Agree, but that doesn't stop some CTs from spouting it in videos and forums/blogs.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2020, 09:19 AM   #102
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,723
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
Oh I like the one where Cheney "directed" the military to stand down on that morning.

Cheney gave an order to shoot down a suspicious passenger jet (which, thankfully, resumed radio contact and was no longer a target). Cheney had no authority because Bush was still in command. According to Bush, he had deputized Cheney by phone to give such an order. However, there is no record in any of the transcripts, or the contemporaneous notes of his aides on Air Force One, of him ever doing that.

So, Cheney issuing a stand-down order is not only unevidenced, it's the exact opposite of what probably happened.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2020, 12:23 PM   #103
Allen773
Graduate Poster
 
Allen773's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cali Four Neea
Posts: 1,370
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Ask and ye shall receive:

https://www.aol.com/article/news/202...acks/24285901/

The eeevil cabal forgot to zip its fly ... again:



My favorite part:



So right here, in a thread by a 911 Truther, yet again we get a real-time shining example of how the US Government can't keep secrets very well.

So you're telling me that, to the extent that Osama bin Laden (Saudi) and his al-Qaeda operatives, including the 19 hijackers for the "Planes Operation (of whom 15 were Saudi)", might have had help from people in or connected to one or multiple governments, some of those people might have been in or connected to the Saudi government? You don't say!

Has anyone who endorses the "official" story of 9/11 (read: real, documented, supported by tons of facts and evidence) ever denied that there is or has been substantial financial and logistical support to al-Qaeda and other jihadists from Saudi Arabia and several other countries in the Middle East (e.g. Qatar), along with Pakistan and other Muslim-majority countries where anti-American/anti-Western Sunni Islamists have a lot of power in society, politics, the religious establishment, etc.?

No one denies that this is a problem. The question is to what extent and how substantial the support is or was, whether it was witting malice or more just rank incompetence, corruption, and non-regulation of what Saudi and other ultra-Islamist religious attaches and agents were doing throughout the world, including within the United States (considering what I know or suspect about how the Saudis operate, I believe it was more the latter - recklessness and stupidity in spreading Wahhabism all over the world for decades, as opposed to a conscious policy to assist jihadists with killing citizens of Saudi Arabia's superpower ally and protector aka the United States).

And the other question is to what extent the Saudis and others have cleaned up their act on this stuff. There's some evidence they certainly have, but again, I wouldn't count on the Saudis to be very reliable about their level of competence or rooting out corruption and problematic ultra-Islamist elements in their government and/or society.

In any event, regardless of what level of involvement some mid-to-lower level elements of the Saudi, Pakistani, and other governments or societies with influential anti-Western Islamist elements did or did not have in the 9/11 attacks, none of this changes the fact that 19 al-Qaeda hijackers, operating with the blessing and direction of Osama bin Laden and the operational command of Khalid Sheikh Mohamed, hijacked four commercial airliners on the morning of September 11, 2001 and crashed two of them into the World Trade Center, one into the Pentagon, and downed the fourth (likely intended to be crashed into the US Capitol building) in a field in Pennsylvania after the passengers and crew revolted.

Last edited by Allen773; 14th May 2020 at 12:25 PM.
Allen773 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2020, 04:45 PM   #104
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,564
Originally Posted by Allen773 View Post
No one denies that this is a problem.
But we see endless re-cycling debate questioning that base premise.

Originally Posted by Allen773 View Post
The question is to what extent and how substantial the support is or was,....
EXACTLY.

Originally Posted by Allen773 View Post
And the other question is to what extent the Saudis and others have cleaned up their act on this stuff. There's some evidence they certainly have, but again, I wouldn't count on the Saudis to be very reliable about their level of competence or rooting out corruption and problematic ultra-Islamist elements in their government and/or society.
AGREED. And the complementary question - has the US cleaned up its own act in dealing with intelligence data. Are "we" reasonably assured that effective measures are in place to minimise future risk. (And - yes, I know, strictly - that should be "optimise" not "minimise" )

Last edited by ozeco41; 14th May 2020 at 04:46 PM.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2020, 06:19 PM   #105
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,723
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
Are "we" reasonably assured that effective measures are in place to minimise future risk.

I was somewhat assured and then Trump dismantled the entire office of the National Security Advisor. Now, I'm less sure.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th May 2020, 11:45 PM   #106
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 17,034
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
Cheney gave an order to shoot down a suspicious passenger jet (which, thankfully, resumed radio contact and was no longer a target). Cheney had no authority because Bush was still in command. According to Bush, he had deputized Cheney by phone to give such an order. However, there is no record in any of the transcripts, or the contemporaneous notes of his aides on Air Force One, of him ever doing that.

So, Cheney issuing a stand-down order is not only unevidenced, it's the exact opposite of what probably happened.
And once again, Truthers find that Cheney's conduct in the matter proves he was in on the inside job, no matter what the conduct actually was:
  • Some condemn him for allegedly doing nothing, for passively just watching the news earlier in his office
  • Some condemn him for an alleged shoot-down oder
  • Some condemn him for an alleged stand-down order
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2020, 07:25 AM   #107
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,380
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
And once again, Truthers find that Cheney's conduct in the matter proves he was in on the inside job, no matter what the conduct actually was:
  • Some condemn him for allegedly doing nothing, for passively just watching the news earlier in his office
  • Some condemn him for an alleged shoot-down oder
  • Some condemn him for an alleged stand-down order
Pick your (CT) point that you wish to make, no hits no runs no errors.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2020, 08:57 AM   #108
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 18,358
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
Cheney gave an order to shoot down a suspicious passenger jet (which, thankfully, resumed radio contact and was no longer a target). Cheney had no authority because Bush was still in command. According to Bush, he had deputized Cheney by phone to give such an order. However, there is no record in any of the transcripts, or the contemporaneous notes of his aides on Air Force One, of him ever doing that.

So, Cheney issuing a stand-down order is not only unevidenced, it's the exact opposite of what probably happened.
What I always find interesting about that incident is that Cheney did not have the authority to give the shoot-down order. Most of us would agree that it was the right call to make, but the fact is that the VP is not in the military chain of command, and standing orders at the time were that US military planes were not allowed to shoot down passenger aircraft, in fact they weren't even allowed to shoot at them. Only Bush or Rumsfeld could countermand those orders. That's almost certainly why the young military man kept questioning whether the order stood, because he knew the chain of command. And I suspect that's why Cheney snapped at him as well--because he knew he was overstepping his constitutional role.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

Last edited by Brainster; 15th May 2020 at 09:00 AM.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2020, 03:56 PM   #109
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,723
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
That's almost certainly why the young military man kept questioning whether the order stood, because he knew the chain of command.

I don't think so. He was questioning the order because it was unprecedented. He didn't even know that it came from the VP until Cheney got on the mic and started yelling at him. At that point, his only assumption must have been that Cheney was actually in command. It's not like he and Bush were phone buddies.


Quote:
And I suspect that's why Cheney snapped at him as well--because he knew he was overstepping his constitutional role.

I suspect Cheney snapped at him because he was under tremendous stress and because communications with Air Force One were very spotty.. Also, he had an outsized ego.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th May 2020, 11:20 PM   #110
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,564
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Most of us would agree that it was the right call to make,.... .
You could be right with the "most of us" aspect. But I would be intersted in seeing the justifying argument. Accurately located in the timeline.

When was the order given? AND
On what basis was the order justified AT THAT TIME?
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2020, 10:31 AM   #111
Leftus
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,480
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Shoot-down? Stand-down?

Truthers lament that NORAD failed to intercept any of the hijacked planes, and suggest this is a clue for "inside job".

Now suppose the alternative - which has two branches:

A1) NORAD had managed to intercept at least AA77 or UA93, but decided not to shoot down either
A2) NORAD had managed to intercept AA77 or UA93, and then shot down the plane that was headed for the Pentagon, or the plane that was headed for the Capitol (or the White House, or Camp David...) and thus NORAD had saved the Pentagon or/and the Capitol (WH, CD) and their government people from harm.

How much more would Truthers cry "INSIDE JOB!!!" if A1 or A2 had played out instead of the no-intercept reality?
What also bothers me about this idea we can down a passenger plane inside the US, is where? Most likely you are going to have a full sized plane impact somewhere. The amount of firepower it would take to turn a 747 into metal confetti, would be overkill.

Also, do you add to the mess with missiles or do you just use cannons? I would guess that most airbases aren't putting fully decked out fighter jets out on the tarmac. Hell, my AA missile battery had live missiles, but they never touched a launcher until we were out at a shoot exercise. There would be a good 30 minute delay between "shoot them down" and being able to put a round on a target. Flight 11 was known to be hijacked at 8:26. At 8:44 in was inside a tower. You would have to have a jet armed, fueled at ready to go at a breakneck pace. And know the true intentions of the hijackers. If they did shoot down 11 or 175, that would be actual proof of an inside job.
Leftus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2020, 02:27 PM   #112
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 17,034
Originally Posted by Leftus View Post
What also bothers me about this idea we can down a passenger plane inside the US, is where? Most likely you are going to have a full sized plane impact somewhere. The amount of firepower it would take to turn a 747 into metal confetti, would be overkill.
Absolutely, plus the highly dubious ethics of deciding to kill innocent civilian with certainty for the uncertain benefit of saving other innocent civilians' lives.

Originally Posted by Leftus View Post
Also, do you add to the mess with missiles or do you just use cannons?
Cannons on a 767 are messy.

Originally Posted by Leftus View Post
I would guess that most airbases aren't putting fully decked out fighter jets out on the tarmac. Hell, my AA missile battery had live missiles, but they never touched a launcher until we were out at a shoot exercise. There would be a good 30 minute delay between "shoot them down" and being able to put a round on a target.
Correct. The only fighters armed with live air-to-air missiles were the alert fighters at the NORAD sites - 2 per site, Otis, Langley and somewhere down in Florida. Everybody else was flying either unarmed or with toy arms.
I read an account years ago about how Andrews AFB, mostly on their own accord, hustled to get missiles out of a locked and guarded bunker at the far end of the base and onto fighters on the near end of the base. I don't remember the details, but your "a good 30 minute" is the right order of magnitude. In the meantime, they even took off unarmed, with a view to potentially ramming a target (and ejecting a second early with a Hail Mary). Langley actually took off with a third, unarmed fighter to go with the two armed alert birds.

Originally Posted by Leftus View Post
Flight 11 was known to be hijacked at 8:26. At 8:44 in was inside a tower. You would have to have a jet armed, fueled at ready to go at a breakneck pace. And know the true intentions of the hijackers. If they did shoot down 11 or 175, that would be actual proof of an inside job.
They did have 2 jets armed - at Otis AFB. They were scrambled - and they took off the minute AA11 crashed. They were airborne faster than protocol required them to.
Now, when their intended target, AA11, disappeared, they waited in a holding pattern for new co-ordinates. FAA figured out too late that UA175 was a target, too.
So indeed, the Otis birds tried, but never had a chance.

Similarly, between the times AA77 and UA93 were identified as targets and their respective crashes, there was no way to vector any real existing fighter jets.
If I remember correctly, the fighters out of Langley arrived over Washington DC at quite exactly 10 a.m. and thus minutes before UA93 crashes near Shanksville. Had UA93 continued, the fighters might have had a shot at interception.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2020, 02:29 PM   #113
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 22,863
The only logical thing to do would be to put Kurt Russel on a hang glider with a rocket pack.
carlitos is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2020, 02:33 PM   #114
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 17,034
Originally Posted by carlitos View Post
The only logical thing to do would be to put Kurt Russel on a hang glider with a rocket pack.
King Kong boxing away attacking planes from the WTC, and Godzilla breathing fire from within the Pentagon court.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2020, 06:47 PM   #115
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 4,959
Arming fighters with live ordinance was a big deal in 2001. The air bases with "Alert" fighters (planes which are armed and fueled) were just a handful then. By 2001 the Cold War had been over a decade. Gone were the days of standby fighters ready to leap into the skies to intercept Soviet BEAR and BACKFIRE bombers.

To arm a fighter there had to be a requisition form, then the missiles had to be removed from storage, moved to the flight line, and mounted to the pylons of the plane(s). The ground crew had to wait around for the aircraft to return so the missiles could be removed from the aircraft, transported back to their storage bunker, and then returned to the designation storage slot. Each step required paperwork to log which missiles were mounted on which aircraft, who pulled it from inventory, who transported it, who unloaded and mounted it, the pilot, the crew chief, and I'm sure there are other forms filled out. And this is just to get the weapon onto the plane, there are separate forms to document the missile's return.

And this doesn't take into account what happens when a weapon is launched or used.

I mention this because on September 11, 2001, the USAF/ANG was not the Reagan/Cold War era entity people, and Truthers like to think it was. We were better able to intercept an attack initiated in Russia that morning than the Al Qaeda strike.

I also mention this because every once in a while some idiot will claim missiles were used in the attacks. The fact is you can't move a missile without a bunch of paperwork and manpower.

As for shooting down planes today, the problem of IFF remains. Fighters have great radar, but still need to be vectored to their target. On 911, the main problem was finding the hijacked jetliners, and tracking them. I think this problem remains the same in 2020.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th May 2020, 08:29 PM   #116
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,564
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
As for shooting down planes today, the problem of IFF remains. Fighters have great radar, but still need to be vectored to their target. On 911, the main problem was finding the hijacked jetliners, and tracking them. I think this problem remains the same in 2020.
I'm sure the big issue today would be the same as it was on 9/11. Lack of "space" in the time-line. The same three possible starting point scenarios for "shoot down" still apply viz:
(a) No armed planes ready to respond;
(b) armed planes ready to launch; OR
(c) 24/7 in-flight response waiting. (And logistic limitations make this option impractical.)

AND then do the cost benefit/risk management assessments. Against the actual 9/11 timeline. Hence my repeated comment a couple of posts back:
Quote:
But I would be interested in seeing the justifying argument. Accurately located in the timeline.

When was the order given? AND
On what basis was the order justified AT THAT TIME?
There was no point in the 9/11 timeline when a legitimate shoot-down decision could be made. (and no benefit considering illegitimate decisions in 2020 20/20 hindsight.)

9/11 was tightly compressed in time frame. Any prudent terrorist planning a similar multi-aircraft co-ordinated attack would have learned from 9/11 and would be unlikely to allow longer gaps in the time line. Should the US plan a future shoot down response assuming a less competent terrorist would give them time to respond???
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2020, 12:14 AM   #117
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 4,959
We've had successful scramble/interceptions since 911 where we put armed F-16s in the air and on target. Each time it was a private pilot who was lost and or not paying attention. and they responded to the fighters when they pulled alongside.

I don't what the strategy for shooting down a commercial airliner full of people is, but it exists on paper somewhere today. Somethings are just too awful to think about.
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha
Axxman300 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2020, 01:44 AM   #118
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,564
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
We've had successful scramble/interceptions since 911 where we put armed F-16s in the air and on target.
And with enough time in hand.

Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Each time it was a private pilot who was lost and or not paying attention. and they responded to the fighters when they pulled alongside.
The true value probably little more than a PR exercise to reassure the majority.... who wont be callously objective military tacticians.

Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
I don't what the strategy for shooting down a commercial airliner full of people is, but it exists on paper somewhere today.
I would be very surprised if the US Military had not game planned the options even before 9/11. But it is the sort of serious stuff that politicians prefer to not know about...until....

Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Somethings are just too awful to think about.
Yes in the emotive sense and comments for a politician to make to the voters. The reality is that those of us who have to operate in reality and in real time have no choice than to be cold bloodedly objective. Hence my own rationale when I did the risk assessment those 8 or 10 years back - lost on some forum or other. I based it only on "probable lives lost". Shoot down was not a viable option. And that conclusion WITHOUT factoring in the political downsides - even for the US which is not renowned for political sensitivity.

If this debate keeps circling and if there is interest I reckon re-visiting the options could a be a good topic for serious discussion.
ozeco41 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2020, 05:39 AM   #119
pgimeno
Illuminator
 
pgimeno's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Spain
Posts: 3,644
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
To arm a fighter there had to be a requisition form, then the missiles had to be removed from storage, moved to the flight line, and mounted to the pylons of the plane(s). The ground crew had to wait around for the aircraft to return so the missiles could be removed from the aircraft, transported back to their storage bunker, and then returned to the designation storage slot. Each step required paperwork to log which missiles were mounted on which aircraft, who pulled it from inventory, who transported it, who unloaded and mounted it, the pilot, the crew chief, and I'm sure there are other forms filled out. And this is just to get the weapon onto the plane, there are separate forms to document the missile's return.

And this doesn't take into account what happens when a weapon is launched or used.
The way you put it, the image that comes to mind is the pilot pulling the trigger, then immediately taking a clipboard, looking at his wrist watch and starting to make annotations in a form
pgimeno is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th May 2020, 09:43 AM   #120
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,380
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
Arming fighters with live ordinance was a big deal in 2001. The air bases with "Alert" fighters (planes which are armed and fueled) were just a handful then. By 2001 the Cold War had been over a decade. Gone were the days of standby fighters ready to leap into the skies to intercept Soviet BEAR and BACKFIRE bombers.

To arm a fighter there had to be a requisition form, then the missiles had to be removed from storage, moved to the flight line, and mounted to the pylons of the plane(s). The ground crew had to wait around for the aircraft to return so the missiles could be removed from the aircraft, transported back to their storage bunker, and then returned to the designation storage slot. Each step required paperwork to log which missiles were mounted on which aircraft, who pulled it from inventory, who transported it, who unloaded and mounted it, the pilot, the crew chief, and I'm sure there are other forms filled out. And this is just to get the weapon onto the plane, there are separate forms to document the missile's return.

And this doesn't take into account what happens when a weapon is launched or used.

I mention this because on September 11, 2001, the USAF/ANG was not the Reagan/Cold War era entity people, and Truthers like to think it was. We were better able to intercept an attack initiated in Russia that morning than the Al Qaeda strike.

I also mention this because every once in a while some idiot will claim missiles were used in the attacks. The fact is you can't move a missile without a bunch of paperwork and manpower.

As for shooting down planes today, the problem of IFF remains. Fighters have great radar, but still need to be vectored to their target. On 911, the main problem was finding the hijacked jetliners, and tracking them. I think this problem remains the same in 2020.
Since I have never been in the AF, I was wondering if you knew what timeframe that you describe to arm a plane and have it in the air? It seems to me that we should have an armed strike force on the ready just like the 50s-60s to be able to prevent another attack. Your point about not knowing where the planes were is somewhat unnerving but the transponders had been turned off and the amount of traffic may have prevented radar identification to target a suspect aircraft.
bknight is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:37 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.