9/11: 20 years later

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by AJM8125

Northwoods in 3..2..

1, oh noes

[JessicasCrime]

The source is actually aviation week and attacking the source instead of disproving the claim is another VERY common tactic here. The facts are either wrong or right and their veracity has NOTHING to do with our vacation..

I love when people accuse people of dishonesty because they used the most extensive library known to man in order to try to learn something. Once Again it doesn’t matter if your source is info wars, the Washington post, Wikipedia, Google or Harvard university. What matters is can the information be verified. Please point out where the history commons link that I provided is false in any way or retract.

I digress, let’s examine the initial claim: 41 minutes is not enough time to scramble an aircraft. This was supported by several people with a special dig at me each time for being so ignorant of the military processes. My father was the Chief of the NMCC in the 1980s and I grew up around the military and all three of my brothers are pilots. I’m no expert but I certainly know a hell of a lot more about it that most of you, q.e.d.

It was considered preposterous that planes could scramble in 41 minutes let alone 10. The two F16s scrambled within 6 minutes. Even if it were to take twice as much more time to fully arm the plane (it wouldn’t) this simple and verifiable fact proves the claim demonstrably false.

Again, look at the claim-it was not “the planes weren’t equipped to deal with the situation on 9/11” but that 41 minutes was not enough time to scramble fighters. I used an example of 9/11 where they didn’t have missiles but anyone with two brain cells could and integrity could figure out that didn’t make the claim true. The claim has still been proven embarrassingly false. I just used September 11 to keep with the themes. Here’s something more broad and concrete:

Default NATO QRA alert time is 15 minutes (in DEFCON 5), although the local CRC can lower that to ten (DEFCON 4), five (DEFCON 3) or even two minutes (DEFCON 2) depending on current state of affairs.

At 5 minutes (DEFCON 3), the engines would be running idle 24/7, at 2 minutes (DEFCON 2) there are pilots in the cockpit 24/7.

but even if it were it would only be partly true. They were not at full armor, both were armed with enough ammunition from a Gatling gun for each plane to bring down a 757.

[JessicasCrime]

Originally Posted by Leftus

6 minutes after they arrived says nothing about the prep time for the fighter. Also, in your link, it says "But Sasseville and Penney Garcia will take off from Andrews at 10:42 a.m."

Flight 93 crashed at 10:03. They launched 39 minutes AFTER the last plane went down.

"Rasmussen and Caine take off at 11:11 a.m., by which time their jets have been armed with missiles" So even if they had pilots at the ready, we are still talking a good hour to get the fighter into a combat state. Longer if you want to start the clock at 9:37 when the plane hit the pentagon.

none of this has anything to do with the claim.

You’re not really going to continue to insist 41 minutes isn’t enough time to scramble two F-16s, are you?

[beachnut]

lol, this is funny -

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by JessicasCrime

The source is actually aviation week and attacking the source instead of disproving the claim is another VERY common tactic here. ...

What? What is your point?

Originally Posted by JessicasCrime

I love when people accuse people of dishonesty because they used the most extensive library known to man in order to try to learn something. Once Again it doesn’t matter if your source is info wars, the Washington post, Wikipedia, Google or Harvard university. What matters is can the information be verified. Please point out where the history commons link that I provided is false in any way or retract.

Infor Wars? lol, that is funny (making up BS from stuff online is the problem)

Originally Posted by JessicasCrime

I digress, let’s examine the initial claim: 41 minutes is not enough time to scramble an aircraft. This was supported by several people with a special dig at me each time for being so ignorant of the military processes. My father was the Chief of the NMCC in the 1980s and I grew up around the military and all three of my brothers are pilots. I’m no expert but I certainly know a hell of a lot more about it that most of you, q.e.d.

Then you would know intercept was impossible on 9/11. If not then you failed to learn anything from your father and three pilots. Who did your brother fly for, and what aircraft did they fly? And what rank was your dad? It is amazing you can't figure out 9/11 since you "know a hell of a lot more" than "most of" us. I actually flew on 9/12 to get fuel so I could pick up my office mate in Oregon, who was stuck when civilian aircraft were grounded. Wow, since you know more than us, why can't you figured out CIT and NoC is fraud? Not a good sign.

Originally Posted by JessicasCrime

It was considered preposterous that planes could scramble in 41 minutes let alone 10. The two F16s scrambled within 6 minutes. Even if it were to take twice as much more time to fully arm the plane (it wouldn’t) this simple and verifiable fact proves the claim demonstrably false.

Which pilots scrambled in 6 minutes?

Originally Posted by JessicasCrime

Again, look at the claim-it was not “the planes weren’t equipped to deal with the situation on 9/11” but that 41 minutes was not enough time to scramble fighters. I used an example of 9/11 where they didn’t have missiles but anyone with two brain cells could and integrity could figure out that didn’t make the claim true. The claim has still been proven embarrassingly false. I just used September 11 to keep with the themes. Here’s something more broad and concrete:

So how long does it take to arm an F-16?

Originally Posted by JessicasCrime

Default NATO QRA alert time is 15 minutes (in DEFCON 5), although the local CRC can lower that to ten (DEFCON 4), five (DEFCON 3) or even two minutes (DEFCON 2) depending on current state of affairs.

So?

Originally Posted by JessicasCrime

At 5 minutes (DEFCON 3), the engines would be running idle 24/7, at 2 minutes (DEFCON 2) there are pilots in the cockpit 24/7.

So?

Originally Posted by JessicasCrime

but even if it were it would only be partly true. They were not at full armor, both were armed with enough ammunition from a Gatling gun for each plane to bring down a 757.

since you know more than most, how long does it take to load and arm the F-16 gun? And how long to load some missiles? You know more than most, so do it?

Do all three brothers have ATPs?

[Axxman300]

Originally Posted by JessicasCrime

I digress, let’s examine the initial claim: 41 minutes is not enough time to scramble an aircraft. This was supported by several people with a special dig at me each time for being so ignorant of the military processes. My father was the Chief of the NMCC in the 1980s and I grew up around the military and all three of my brothers are pilots. I’m no expert but I certainly know a hell of a lot more about it that most of you, q.e.d.

.

Clearly not.

The NMCC was gutted in the 1990s, and there was no SAC any more. On the morning of September 11, 2001 the USAF and the USANG were shadows of the military force you think you knew in the 1980s.

You have done no serious research into 911. If you had you'd know that the the ANG wasn't notified until AFTER UA93 had gone down.

From Vanity Fair: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2006/08/norad200608

Quote:

But by the time neads gets the report of a bomb on United 93, everyone on board is already dead. Following the passengers' counterattack, the plane crashed in a field in Pennsylvania at 10:03 a.m., 4 minutes before Cleveland Center notified neads, and a full 35 minutes after a Cleveland Center controller, a veteran named John Werth, first suspected something was wrong with the flight. At 9:28, Werth actually heard the guttural sounds of the cockpit struggle over the radio as the hijackers attacked the pilots.

Werth's suspicions about United 93 were passed quickly up the F.A.A.'s chain of command, so how is it that no one from the agency alerted neads for more than half an hour?

A former senior executive at the F.A.A., speaking to me on the condition that I not identify him by name, tried to explain. "Our whole procedures prior to 9/11 were that you turned everything [regarding a hijacking] over to the F.B.I.," he said, reiterating that hijackers had never actually flown airplanes; it was expected that they'd land and make demands. "There were absolutely no shootdown protocols at all. The F.A.A. had nothing to do with whether they were going to shoot anybody down. We had no protocols or rules of engagement."

Here's the best part:

Quote:

But comments such as those above were repeated by other administration and military figures in the weeks and months following 9/11, forging the notion that only the passengers' counterattack against their hijackers prevented an inevitable shootdown of United 93 (and convincing conspiracy theorists that the government did, indeed, secretly shoot it down). The recordings tell a different story, and not only because United 93 had crashed before anyone in the military chain of command even knew it had been hijacked.

Maybe with your vast knowledge of tactical air interception you can enlighten us as to how one instercepts a plane that has already crashed?

Then there is this key fact you ignore:

Quote:

He tells the Battle Cab he wants Fox to launch two more fighters from Langley Air Force Base, in Virginia, to establish a greater presence over New York, but the request is refused. The order from the Battle Cab is to put the Langley jets on battle stations only—to be ready, but not to launch.

"The problem there would have been I'd have all my fighters in the air at the same time, which means they'd all run out of gas at the same time," Marr later explained.

Incredibly, Marr has only four armed fighters at his disposal to defend about a quarter of the continental United States. Massive cutbacks at the close of the Cold War reduced norad's arsenal of fighters from some 60 battle-ready jets to just 14 across the entire country. (Under different commands, the military generally maintains several hundred unarmed fighter jets for training in the continental U.S.) Only four of norad's planes belong to neads and are thus anywhere close to Manhattan—the two from Otis, now circling above the ocean off Long Island, and the two in Virginia at Langley.

You keep referring to "The Official Story" which is a falacy because there are dozens of official reports about 911 from both state and federal sources.

This one is the USAF's account:

https://media.defense.gov/2012/Sep/0...120905-022.pdf

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by JessicasCrime

... You’re not really going to continue to insist 41 minutes isn’t enough time to scramble two F-16s, are you?

Did you post people in a briefing at 8:46, who launched at 10:42... after they got authorization to launch at 9:40... is that 41 minutes?

What is next, WTC 7? Flight 93 did not crash? Fire can't cause WTC tower collapse? Thermite was used?

Are your three brothers USAF pilots, do they have ATPs?

[Leftus]

Originally Posted by JessicasCrime

none of this has anything to do with the claim.

You’re not really going to continue to insist 41 minutes isn’t enough time to scramble two F-16s, are you?

Just using the facts you've provided. They were unable to get armed jets in the air BEFORE the last plane hit.

9:47 a plane crashes into the pentagon, the 4 pilots at Andrews suit up
10:03 Flight 93, the last hijacked plane, crashes in Shanksville
10:05 Andrews broadcasts messages about shootdown authorizations.
10:18 Shoot down Authorization is granted.
10:42 two of them take off in UNARMED F16s (training bullets aren't bullets)
11:11 Armed jets take off.

I'm not insisting on anything. I'm relying on the facts you've provided. If you are going to insist you can launch a bird in 6 minutes, you have to explain why it took a good hour to get an armed F16 in the air. I have no doubt you can get an F16, which is already fueled and ready in the air in under 6 minutes. It's getting the F16 prepped for launch that is going to take some time. From the time there was authorization to shoot anyone down, there was a good hour (53 minutes, but I'll round up) before a fighter jet was equipped to do just that.

The threat of shooting down aircraft in protected air space was not going to be done by AA missile batteries. Mostly because there are none located in the range of Andrews. Also, the air force did not operate SAMs at the time. That was the army and the Marines. The closest army missile battery (Patriot) would have been in North Carolina. Same for the Marines (HAWK), out at Cherry Point.

Also, what you ignore, is that those pilots are reservists. Which means, they were at their day jobs when this all started. So they would have to rush to their base, get into their gear, and get into their planes. Are you still sticking to 6 minutes? Why weren't they in the air at, say, 9:53? Were they not their? Was the aircraft not equipped?

Why are you wearing someone else's rank? Sure, your Dad and all your brothers were in the Military. How does that give you any insight? You weren't there, you don't know what it's like. While I, and others here, actually served. Some of us even worked with missiles. And planes. Why should we accept your, at best, second hand knowledge, gleaned over Thanksgiving dinners over our day to day experience? Do they know you are riding their coattails, using their rank and experience to push their complicity?

[bknight]

Originally Posted by JessicasCrime

oh when you put it that way I guess I would probably lean nonsense now. I’m sorry for questioning your vast 9/11 knowledge and non-conspiracy thinking panache.
oh is that right? My mistake thank you for educating me proper-like. Thems commissioners wuz dum. hmmm I don’t know. Let me have a think. I only have access to a worldwide database (I can let you borrow it if you want). Everyone here has been so astute in pointing out that I have no military qualifications. I wouldn’t bet on my figuring this one out! It’s like Chinese arithmetic!

I made no reference to the IQ of the commissioners, what I made reference to was their collative error in indicating that the planes could. Don't put words into my mouth.

Quote:

You guys ask some really, really hard questions.No way, the military always reacts they are never in a situation where they are preparedYou have a really solid point here. As long as I’ve been alive the military has been a paragon of efficiency.so correct here the military values safety above all other things.
oh cool. Then I wonder if s/he would be able to verify my final guess at how long it would take to scramble a jet.

I’ve given this a lot of thought and I think based on everyone’s valuable input, some truly skeptical skepticism, and realizing that people like BK & Potato know MUCH more about not only what I think but also my true motivation for discussing the events of 9/11, I’m ready to give the amount of time I think it would take to get a pair of planes airborne from the time the guys are notified. I’m just spitballing though so be kind in your critiques.

I know that I could say any date in particular in the late 90s up until September 11, since the military supposedly changed so much about their protocol following the epic failure of the day, so anything post 9/11 would be cheating. I’ve noticed how valued honesty here so I don’t want to do that. I know you guys would all be so very fair and generous in granting me accord were I to be accurate, but I’m going to up the difficulty a little bit and say on the morning of September 11.

SIX MINUTES.

“What?” they guffawed. “Have you not been reading your posts and just decided to make up some nonsense?”

Penney Garcia, who is a rookie pilot, will later say: “I’d never scrambled before, I’d never done this. I was screaming to the maintainers to pull the chocks, and the guys were pulling the pins to arm the guns. We were going without INS [inertial navigation system].” Sasseville and Penney Garcia are airborne about six minutes after reaching their jets.
—
MINUTES LATER, Sasseville and Lucky were in the air, roughly 6 min. after they had reached their F-16s. "I was still turning things on after I got airborne. By that time, the [Norad alert] F-16s from Langley were overhead--but I didn't know they were there," Sasseville recalled. "We all realized we were looking for an airliner--a big airplane

Rookie Pilot 'Never Scrambled Before'
——

If you guys could pm your Snapchat handle to me so I could ask you the next time I want to know what or why I think something, that would be amazing. Thanks for teaching me about the military!

The rest of the gang has dissected your false claim, so I'll leave it to them.

I asked a question which you have avoided and now I'll expand it. What do you think happened to those four passenger jets? Give us your honest opinion.

[Cosmic Yak]

Originally Posted by Axxman300

Beachnut usually reads through the entire thread before he posts...unlike you have.

I find it exasperating that so many conspiracy theorists arrive on this forum, parroting the same old stuff we've heard so many times before, whilst assuming that a), we've never heard these claims before, and, b), that these claims haven't been debunked to death years ago.
As you say, it would be nice if at least one of these people would have the humility and curiosity to read some of these threads before posting.
I think this attitude may well stem from an assumption - learned from CT websites- that 'them ol' meanie sceptics just handwave away our super-true 100% FACTS YOU CAN'T DEBUNK', as opposed to the actual situation, where every single one of them has been examined, in detail, and rejected because they are factually false.

[Axxman300]

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak

I find it exasperating that so many conspiracy theorists arrive on this forum, parroting the same old stuff we've heard so many times before, whilst assuming that a), we've never heard these claims before, and, b), that these claims haven't been debunked to death years ago.
As you say, it would be nice if at least one of these people would have the humility and curiosity to read some of these threads before posting.
I think this attitude may well stem from an assumption - learned from CT websites- that 'them ol' meanie sceptics just handwave away our super-true 100% FACTS YOU CAN'T DEBUNK', as opposed to the actual situation, where every single one of them has been examined, in detail, and rejected because they are factually false.

When I first joined this forum I didn't post for three months because I came here on a dare from some 911-Truther who told me I wouldn't last a week. I spent that time going through most of the meaty 911 threads, and over time I've figured out when and where I can add my .02, and when to shut up and let smarter people deal with the die-hards.

It's the same with the JFK Assassination CTs. Every year someone stumbles onto a JFK-CT website and then goes to Reddit to feed on the stupid, and then comes here thinking they're going to enlighten someone with "Da Troof".

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Axxman300

... Every year someone stumbles onto a JFK-CT website and then goes to Reddit to feed on the stupid, and then comes here thinking they're going to enlighten someone with "Da Troof".

9/11 truth has entered the never ending new guys discovering the "truth", like JFK.

This will continue, like the latest drive by 9/11 truth believer who can't grasp real evidence...

Classic Conspiracy theorist syndrome...

Originally Posted by beachnut

The FDR was found inside the Pentagon, it has over 24 hours of Flight 77 flights, and proves 77 hit the Pentagon, to say otherwise is insanity.

Originally Posted by JessicasCrime

a computer can do this. To say otherwise is sheer ignorance. ...

Really, you can fake the FDR data in its raw form? Exactly how can you do it?

See, you will either realize how stupid your claims are and run away, or you might join reality and see your error.

The FDR matches Radar data proving the real flight path.

You claim a computer can do this? Means you believe based on your ignornace the data was fake, the Radar data from more than 5 independent Radar sites was faked. It means the person who found the FDR planted, and the people decoding the FDR had to match the Radar data.

Which means the Radar guys were in on it, and faked the Radar data.

It means all the controllers and the tower, and the passengers were in on the fake data.

Your anomalies appear to be based on ignorance of 9/11, science, physics, engineering, FDR, FDR, Radar... and more.

How do you fake DNA, do you have OJs lawyers?

[JessicasCrime]

Originally Posted by bknight

I made no reference to the IQ of the commissioners, what I made reference to was their collative error in indicating that the planes could. Don't put words into my mouth.


The rest of the gang has dissected your false claim, so I'll leave it to them.

I asked a question which you have avoided and now I'll expand it. What do you think happened to those four passenger jets? Give us your honest opinion.

you’re not honestly sticking to the fact that 41 minutes isn’t enough time to scramble, are you?

I think two of the jets crashed into the WTC and the other two I don’t know. I’m sorry that you guys don’t understand what burden of proof means and it’s pretty amazing that the “international skeptics forum” doesn’t, but here we are.

You do not have to provide a separate theory for an event just because you point out the various holes in the accepted one.

[JessicasCrime]

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak

I find it exasperating that so many conspiracy theorists arrive on this forum, parroting the same old stuff we've heard so many times before, whilst assuming that a), we've never heard these claims before, and, b), that these claims haven't been debunked to death years ago.
As you say, it would be nice if at least one of these people would have the humility and curiosity to read some of these threads before posting.
I think this attitude may well stem from an assumption - learned from CT websites- that 'them ol' meanie sceptics just handwave away our super-true 100% FACTS YOU CAN'T DEBUNK', as opposed to the actual situation, where every single one of them has been examined, in detail, and rejected because they are factually false.

NO ONE has explained how at the very least the two pentagon police officers plus several others have independently corroborating accounts of where they saw a jet fly. The only thing I have read is “CIT are dishonest” and I don’t disagree completely. I’m not talking about CIT, I’m talking about the witnesses.

Quote:

32’00” from NSA: Ranke to Lagasse and Brooks: “What are the odds that both of you are mistaken ... and the plane came from the south side of the station?”
Lagasse at 32’ from NSA: “There’s no way that it was anywhere except where I said it was.”
Brooks: again, something of the same magnitude.

CIT: To reverse that question what are the chances that the plane was actually on the south side of the station?

Lagasse: Zero chance. Is there less than 0%? It would have been impossible for me to see through the building, over the roof to see the plane.
—
Lagasse at 33:34 with the map where he drew a NoT flight path: There’s no way the plane was over here (pointing to OGCT flight path) if anything the only indisputable (sic) fact is that the angle was different. That it was closer this way (indicating further south) but it had to be on this side (indicating the north side of Citgo).There’s no way it was on the south side.

This is pretty damn unequivocal.

I doubt I’ll get an honest response but I tried. And NO, this does not mean I am claiming the plane flew over the pentagon.

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by JessicasCrime

I doubt I’ll get an honest response but I tried. And NO, this does not mean I am claiming the plane flew over the pentagon.

So if it didn't fly over, where did it go if not in to the Pentagon?

If it didn't go in to the Pentagon, where is it now?

[JessicasCrime]

Originally Posted by Leftus

Just using the facts you've provided. They were unable to get armed jets in the air BEFORE the last plane hit.

9:47 a plane crashes into the pentagon, the 4 pilots at Andrews suit up
10:03 Flight 93, the last hijacked plane, crashes in Shanksville
10:05 Andrews broadcasts messages about shootdown authorizations.
10:18 Shoot down Authorization is granted.
10:42 two of them take off in UNARMED F16s (training bullets aren't bullets)
11:11 Armed jets take off.

I'm not insisting on anything. I'm relying on the facts you've provided. If you are going to insist you can launch a bird in 6 minutes, you have to explain why it took a good hour to get an armed F16 in the air. I have no doubt you can get an F16, which is already fueled and ready in the air in under 6 minutes. It's getting the F16 prepped for launch that is going to take some time. From the time there was authorization to shoot anyone down, there was a good hour (53 minutes, but I'll round up) before a fighter jet was equipped to do just that.

The threat of shooting down aircraft in protected air space was not going to be done by AA missile batteries. Mostly because there are none located in the range of Andrews. Also, the air force did not operate SAMs at the time. That was the army and the Marines. The closest army missile battery (Patriot) would have been in North Carolina. Same for the Marines (HAWK), out at Cherry Point.

Also, what you ignore, is that those pilots are reservists. Which means, they were at their day jobs when this all started. So they would have to rush to their base, get into their gear, and get into their planes. Are you still sticking to 6 minutes? Why weren't they in the air at, say, 9:53? Were they not their? Was the aircraft not equipped?

Why are you wearing someone else's rank? Sure, your Dad and all your brothers were in the Military. How does that give you any insight? You weren't there, you don't know what it's like. While I, and others here, actually served. Some of us even worked with missiles. And planes. Why should we accept your, at best, second hand knowledge, gleaned over Thanksgiving dinners over our day to day experience? Do they know you are riding their coattails, using their rank and experience to push their complicity?

It’s easy to debunk a claim if you make up one that no one made. Good job.

And good job on the “wearing someone else’s rank” quip. I mean you’re soooo right. There’s no way o could learn anything or gain any insight by asking people questions. That’s just common sense..picking people's brains about their expertise does nothing.

I’ve learned so much from coming here.

[JessicasCrime]

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

So if it didn't fly over, where did it go if not in to the Pentagon?

If it didn't go in to the Pentagon, where is it now?

I don’t know. Now back to the 13 witnesses who stories independently corroborate each other that show a north of Citgo path. How do you explain that? The WITNESSES, not CIT. unless you’re going to say that they manipulated the witnesses testimony which would be a lie.

[Axxman300]

Originally Posted by JessicasCrime

I don’t know. Now back to the 13 witnesses who stories independently corroborate each other that show a north of Citgo path. How do you explain that? The WITNESSES, not CIT. unless you’re going to say that they manipulated the witnesses testimony which would be a lie.

The witnesses are wrong.

[Axxman300]

Originally Posted by JessicasCrime

you’re not honestly sticking to the fact that 41 minutes isn’t enough time to scramble, are you?

I think two of the jets crashed into the WTC and the other two I don’t know. I’m sorry that you guys don’t understand what burden of proof means and it’s pretty amazing that the “international skeptics forum” doesn’t, but here we are.

You do not have to provide a separate theory for an event just because you point out the various holes in the accepted one.

Explain what the standard response was for hijacked commercial aircraft was on 9/11/2001.

Explain how the FOUR fighter aircraft available to respond to an INCOMING AIR THREAT would have been able to locate and track the hijacked aircraft without their IFR.

Explain how you intercept and shoot down a plane that has already crashed.

And for fun maybe you can list all the things your USAF father and brothers lied to the American public about and or directly covered up.

We can't wait.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by JessicasCrime

I don’t know. Now back to the 13 witnesses who stories independently corroborate each other that show a north of Citgo path. How do you explain that? The WITNESSES, not CIT. unless you’re going to say that they manipulated the witnesses testimony which would be a lie.

You have lies from CIT? The FDR proves you are wrong, and you can't figure it out.

How did you fake the FDR? Oops, the FDR proves the real flight path.

How can you ignore real evidence and use failed analysis of witnesses? Are you anti-science, or just gullible?

To confirm your failed claims, go to the conspiracy theory web forums, you will be happier. Here you are spreading failed analysis due to a massive lack of knowledge and lies about FDR, Radar, DNA, and physics.

Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, there is nothing you can make up to change reality.

All the witnesses are pointing to the real flight path... they saw it on 9/11, and are confirmed by Radar, and the FDR recovered in the Pentagon...

Oops, you lost this, and can't stop spreading failed BS 19 years after you were proved wrong... now that is classic 9/11 truth conspiracy theorist failure - and you don't know you failed...

Sad to see someone google up BS, and blindly support lies and fantasy of a flyover, and the NoC...

Was your dad the DDO, a General, or was he the ADDO, a Colonel? What did your brothers fly?

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by JessicasCrime

I don’t know. Now back to the 13 witnesses who stories independently corroborate each other that show a north of Citgo path. How do you explain that? The WITNESSES, not CIT. unless you’re going to say that they manipulated the witnesses testimony which would be a lie.

If you actually read the thread on this - which I know you do because you've posted in it - you'll see that:

(a) These 13 witnesses don't agree on what the flight path actually was.
(b) Some of them indicate flight paths consistent with the one derived from the FDR, but CIT have falsely claimed that they indicate something different.
(c) Several of them also claim to have seen AA77 strike the Pentagon.

The simple explanation for (a) is that witnesses don't recollect details as clearly as they think they do; the unreliability of witness testimony is very well known. The simple explanation for (b) is that CIT are lying scumbags pushing a fake story to look clever. The simple explanation for (c) is that the plane hit the Pentagon.

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by JessicasCrime

It’s easy to debunk a claim if you make up one that no one made.

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by JessicasCrime

you’re not honestly sticking to the fact that 41 minutes isn’t enough time to scramble, are you?

How long did it take to intercept Payne Stewart's private jet?

Dave

[Captain_Swoop]

Originally Posted by JessicasCrime

I don’t know. Now back to the 13 witnesses who stories independently corroborate each other that show a north of Citgo path. How do you explain that? The WITNESSES, not CIT. unless you’re going to say that they manipulated the witnesses testimony which would be a lie.

They were mistaken? More witnesses contradict them, they only had a few seconds to see the plane.

We know it hit the Pentagon.
Why are these thirteen important?
there are always discrepancies in eyewitness accounts.

You say yourself it didn't 'fly over' so where did it go if not in to the Pentagon?

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

How long did it take to intercept Payne Stewart's private jet?

Dave

Don't ask questions 9/11 truth believers can't answer due to the possibility of delusional claim evaporation.

Trick question based on time zones...

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by beachnut

Don't ask questions 9/11 truth believers can't answer due to the possibility of delusional claim evaporation.

Trick question based on time zones...

Awww, you're spoiling the fun.

Dave

[bknight]

Originally Posted by JessicasCrime

you’re not honestly sticking to the fact that 41 minutes isn’t enough time to scramble, are you?

I think two of the jets crashed into the WTC and the other two I don’t know. I’m sorry that you guys don’t understand what burden of proof means and it’s pretty amazing that the “international skeptics forum” doesn’t, but here we are.

You do not have to provide a separate theory for an event just because you point out the various holes in the accepted one.

If you look at the time line that you linked it is more like above an hour to get all the data into the computers and get the ordinances loaded/checked, and pilots dress/briefed. Once all that is done then maybe your 6 minutes works, but the prep time is far greater than 6 minutes.

Yes I understand what the burden of proof is and how it works. You don't know about the other two jets when you have forensic remains inside the Pentagon and in the fields in Pennsylvania. You are sorely missing the real evidence in these tow instances.

[bknight]

Originally Posted by JessicasCrime

NO ONE has explained how at the very least the two pentagon police officers plus several others have independently corroborating accounts of where they saw a jet fly. The only thing I have read is “CIT are dishonest” and I don’t disagree completely. I’m not talking about CIT, I’m talking about the witnesses.

This is pretty damn unequivocal.

I doubt I’ll get an honest response but I tried. And NO, this does not mean I am claiming the plane flew over the pentagon.

Eye witnesses are the poorest form of evidence for many reasons. People tell their honest beliefs but those beliefs need hard data to substantiate them. The hard evidence is a NoC is physically impossible to hit the building. FDR/radar and the damage track don't substantiate that course.
You've got an honest answer but you will ignore the evidence in favor of eye witness accounts.

[Leftus]

Originally Posted by JessicasCrime

It’s easy to debunk a claim if you make up one that no one made. Good job.

And good job on the “wearing someone else’s rank” quip. I mean you’re soooo right. There’s no way o could learn anything or gain any insight by asking people questions. That’s just common sense..picking people's brains about their expertise does nothing.

I’ve learned so much from coming here.

So have you finally understood the 6 minutes lie you've been spreading? The timeline you've been pushing is disputed by the facts you've provided. To the point it's laughable.

Why is it common sense to accept the stories you've been told, supposedly, over my own first hand experience?

Yes, you are most certainly trying to wear someone elses rank. You are attempting to use the experience and knowledge of others, from stories that are never embellished, as your own knowledge. It's akin to stolen valor, and equally as offensive.

[Allen773]

Almost 20 years later, and 9/11 conspiracy theories are boring. It's all the same old stuff that was debunked in 2005 at the latest.

Can't we have more interesting and - if possible - slightly more well-founded conspiracy theories? At least we'd have something new to debunk.

[Allen773]

Originally Posted by Axxman300

It's the same with the JFK Assassination CTs. Every year someone stumbles onto a JFK-CT website and then goes to Reddit to feed on the stupid, and then comes here thinking they're going to enlighten someone with "Da Troof".

"If he was shot from behind, then why did his head go back and to the left??"



Same old, same old. Poor Vincent Bugliosi has been dead for over 5 years as of this writing, yet the Saga continues. You'd think that the conspiracy theorists who are convinced of some some nefarious coverup behind the truth of the JFK assassination - and who believe that exposing said coverup is the most important thing in the world - would bother reading his book, or Gerald Posner's, or better yet, the Warren Commission itself, just to make sure that they understand the so-called "official story", and the arguments of the CT debunkers.

In other words, you would think these very concerned, obsessed conspiracy theorists would want to make sure that they aren't mistaken on little things like say, facts. Plus, you know...that thing about extraordinary claims...

[paloalto]

Originally Posted by Axxman300

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.

You wrote: "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."

No it would not have resulted in any kind of action that would have stopped the attacks on 9/11. The CIA and FBI both knew on August 22, 2001, that al Qaeda terrorists, Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al Hazmi were inside of the US, in order to take part in the huge al Qaeda terrorist attack that both agencies had been warned about since April 2001. On August 23, Tenet and many people at the CIA were told that Minneapolis FBI had had Zacharias Moussaoui arrested, thinking he was a terrorist trying to learn how to fly a B747 without even having a pilot’s license, in order to take part in a hijacking that would result in crashing the hijacked aircraft into one of the World Trade Center Towers. The FBI had asked Tenet and the CIA for help so they could get a FISA warrant for Moussaoui’s possession’s including his duffle bag. Tenet and the CIA refused to help the FBI criminal investigators in Minneapolis in any way, even they knew by this time that a huge al Qaeda terrorist attack was just about to take place inside of the US, and even knew the names of two al Qaeda terrorists who were inside of the US, in order to take part in this attack. Had the CIA just given this information they had at that time, it is inconceivable that these FBI agents would not have been able to apply for and get a FISA warrant for Moussaoui’s duffle bag, found the receipt from Ramzi bin al-Shibh, whose room-mates had been Mohammed Atta, Marwan al-Shehhi, and Zahid Jarrah, three of the pilots on 9/11.

Both the CIA and the FBI also knew exactly how to quickly get the credit card numbers for Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi. These credit cards were used to buy 10 tickets for the terrorists on 9/11. All these decisions by the CIA and FBI HQ’s were made after careful deliberation, decisions to block FBI Agent Steve Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, and to block FBI Agent Harry Samit’s investigation of Moussaoui, and were made either by the CIA or under orders from the CIA. Both the CIA, including George Tenet, Cofer Black, and Richard Blee, and John McLaughlin, and the FBI agents and managers that actually shut down these investigations, including, FBI Deputy Chief of the FBI ITOS unit, Tom Wilshere, who was secretly acting direct orders from his former managers, Tenet, Black and Blee, and FBI SA Dina Corsi and her supervisor, FBI SSA Rob Middleton, who shut down Bongardt’s investigation of Mihdhar and Hazmi, and FBI SA Michael Maltbie and FBI SSA David Frasca, who shut down Samit’s investigation of Moussaoui, all knew full well that their deliberate and direct actions would allow the al Qaeda terrorists to carry out a huge attack inside of the US, that would result in the murder of thousands of Americans.

Since both the CIA and FBI HQ's had already made the deliberate decision to allow the al Qaeda terrorists to carry out a huge al Qaeda terrorist attack inside of the US, any additional information would not have affected their decision to allow this attack in any way.

[Cosmic Yak]

Originally Posted by paloalto

Blah, blah, blah.......

Beats me why you needed to edit that post. This is the same, long-debunked, copy-and-paste crap you've been putting up for years.
Your claims are untrue. This has been shown to you more times than I can count. Just stop, OK?

[Allen773]

Originally Posted by paloalto

Since both the CIA and FBI HQ's had already made the deliberate decision to allow the al Qaeda terrorists to carry out a huge al Qaeda terrorist attack inside of the US

[citation needed]

[Allen773]

Oh that’s right, you have no citation for The Leaps (TM) you take in accusing the US government of deliberately allowing a terrorist attack in the United States that they knew would happen and they knew would kill thousands of Americans.

Here, I’ll make it easy for you:
1. Richard Clarke and Michael Scheuer hated each other
2. Bill Clinton, Sandy Berger, and George Tenet weren’t willing to take the necessary risks to kill Osama bin Laden
3. The CIA and the FBI hated each other (tale as old as time)
4. The CIA and the FBI both had deep internal divisions, both structural and personal
5. George W. Bush inherited the Osama bin Laden problem from Clinton and he and his NSC and especially, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and their neoconservative deputies were poorly informed about the al-Qaeda threat, all but dismissed it as a Clinton obsession, and in any case were too obsessed with Saddam Hussein.
6. Few were particularly interested in the ultra-sensitive issue of Saudi Arabia’s and other Gulf allies of the US, along with Pakistan and Yemen, complicity in funding of otherwise supporting Al-Qaeda and similar groups (which of course, was creating massive jihadist risks for their own regimes - classic blowback).

And most importantly:

7. Bin Laden had repeatedly telegraphed his intentions in interviews with reporters (including Western ones in TV interviews), in fatwas, and with the escalating campaign of terrorism including the East Africa embassy bombings, the failed Millennium Plot, and the USS Cole bombing. The World Trade Center had already been bombed by Al-Qaeda trained jihadists. Ramzi Yousef and his confederates - including his uncle, one Khalid Sheikh Mohammed - had plotted to blow up commercial airliners and even crash a plane into CIA headquarters. Yousef himself vowed that “we will not fail next time” regarding the attempted destruction of the WTC. Bin Laden repeatedly warned and threatened America with attacks “anywhere in the world” and that “we won’t distinguish between civilian and military targets.” He was especially interested in attacking military targets like say, the USS Cole...or the Pentagon itself.

By the summer of 2001, it didn’t take a Presidential Daily Brief to tell any informed and discerning media consumer to know that Bin Laden was determined to strike in the United States. All that was required was watching the interviews with Western journalists, remembering the World Trade Center bombing and the stories about the NYC landmarks plot, and paying attention to news reports of the trials of conspirators in the embassy bombings and the plot to bomb Los Angeles International Airport. The evidence was there. It wasn’t a question of if, but when, where, what, and how. And it didn’t take too much imagination to come up with a scenario that would be more or less identical to the 9/11 plot. Alas.

[Airfix]

Al Qaeda did it.
But unfortunately the truth is boring, the truth isn't exciting, the truth doesn't sell books, dvds or t shirts.

The truth couldn't pay Richard Gage's wage either.

Which is why an exciting lie was invented instead.
The lie is exciting, the lie tells the foolish that they can solve a conspiracy, with the internet and donations.

How many years have people been donating, where has the money gone ?

[ozeco41]

Originally Posted by Airfix

How many years have people been donating, where has the money gone ?

Well ~$330K paid for a fraudulent report. Which was 10 years too late to have any impact. And only created a fraction of the impact that Tony Szamboti's "Missing Jolt" had.

And Hulsey's project commits the same fatal error of logic that T Szamboti has exploited for years - including "Missing Jolt".

Start with a false premise or set of false premises. "Missing Jolt" took an abstract limit case scenario and pretended it literally happened >> A subset of the common error of all four AE911 technical "gurus"*** >> i.e. ignore or don't understand the actual real mechanism.

Hulsey's false starting point - the assumption that rebutting a couple of possible scenarios falsifies all possibilities. AKA claim he could prove a global negative "Fire could not cause collapse" >> wrong starting assumption again.

And surely a waste of $330K to window dress it as credible science?
.
.
*** Szamboti, Chandler, Coste, Cole possibly add Sarns. Did I miss any?

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Cosmic Yak

I find it exasperating that so many conspiracy theorists arrive on this forum, parroting the same old stuff we've heard so many times before, whilst assuming that a), we've never heard these claims before, and, b), that these claims haven't been debunked to death years ago.
As you say, it would be nice if at least one of these people would have the humility and curiosity to read some of these threads before posting.
I think this attitude may well stem from an assumption - learned from CT websites- that 'them ol' meanie sceptics just handwave away our super-true 100% FACTS YOU CAN'T DEBUNK', as opposed to the actual situation, where every single one of them has been examined, in detail, and rejected because they are factually false.

Frankly, it has gotten boring. 20 Years and the same old **** from the Truthers. Nothing really new, ever.

Edited by Agatha:

Edited for rule 10. In the public sections, type curse words out in full and let the autocensor work

[dudalb]

I am expecting some really pathetic displays from the Truthers on the next Sep 11th, though.

[Allen773]

Looking forward to developments in the post-JASTA lawsuit against Saudi Arabia.