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 19th May 2020, 01:56 PM   #121
Leftus
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,242
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
Cannons on a 767 are messy.
But I was thinking it might be quicker to load those rounds than to unpack a missile, and secure it to a jet.

Quote:
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.
I just know how long it would have taken my unit to go from training mode to shooting mode. And by know, I mean, from memory of something that never happened. Hell, it was never an exercise I remember, how long does it take the guys to put a missile on the launcher. Sure, my radars were assembled and ready to radiate, so maybe I could give the hijackers cancer in 20 years, but shoot them down? Give me some time.

Also the balls it would take to point your jet at a 767 and punch out and hope everything works out fine. Still have the problem of two airplanes coming down in a fiery mess, but someone will have a story to tell.
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 19th May 2020, 02:07 PM   #122
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 4,742
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
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
Luckily the plane's weapons system does that for him or her. Today that data includes date, time, altitude, and GPS coordinates.

I'm not too familiar with ground crew operations. I had two friends who were crew chiefs, one for the A-10, and the other for the B-52. We have a couple of USAF vets on this board who will swoop into this thread and clear this up, but I think that loading a fighter can be done quickly as long as the weapons loads are staged in advance as they are in a combat zone so they can be carted quickly to the air craft, and mounted. Otherwise the bunkers where these weapons are stored are no where near the airfield per safety regulations.
__________________
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, 02:09 PM   #123
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 4,742
Originally Posted by Leftus View Post
But I was thinking it might be quicker to load those rounds than to unpack a missile, and secure it to a jet.



I just know how long it would have taken my unit to go from training mode to shooting mode. And by know, I mean, from memory of something that never happened. Hell, it was never an exercise I remember, how long does it take the guys to put a missile on the launcher. Sure, my radars were assembled and ready to radiate, so maybe I could give the hijackers cancer in 20 years, but shoot them down? Give me some time.

Also the balls it would take to point your jet at a 767 and punch out and hope everything works out fine. Still have the problem of two airplanes coming down in a fiery mess, but someone will have a story to tell.
The passengers of UA93 waiting until the plane was over the countryside before attacking the cockpit. And yes, that took balls.
__________________
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, 02:21 PM   #124
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 4,742
Originally Posted by ozeco41 View Post
The true value probably little more than a PR exercise to reassure the majority.... who wont be callously objective military tacticians.
Not PR exercises. Just idiots in a plane.

I worked an airshow in 1986, and my job was parking private aircraft, specifically I had to stand in front of a drainage grate - marked by a post with orange streamers - and wave the incoming pilots around it to protect their planes. 1 in 5 ignored my frantic waving until they saw the marked posts, often less than three meters away - to close. The guys I was working with were all pilots too, and they told me there are a lot of folks who shouldn't have licenses to fly.

Quote:
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....
They did.

The plane was always coming from outside of the US, not launched from a domestic airport.

Quote:
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.
Nobody wants to shoot down a commercial jet exactly for those reasons.

My opinion is that if it were to happen again, a shoot-down would only happen to keep the aircraft away from sensitive targets (dams, nuclear power plants, hospitals, bridges, Manhattan, Chicago, D.C. or other large/dense cities).

The smarter move is to keep hijackers off the planes in the first place.
__________________
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 20th May 2020, 07:05 AM   #125
Leftus
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,242
Originally Posted by Axxman300 View Post
I'm not too familiar with ground crew operations. I had two friends who were crew chiefs, one for the A-10, and the other for the B-52. We have a couple of USAF vets on this board who will swoop into this thread and clear this up, but I think that loading a fighter can be done quickly as long as the weapons loads are staged in advance as they are in a combat zone so they can be carted quickly to the air craft, and mounted. Otherwise the bunkers where these weapons are stored are no where near the airfield per safety regulations.
Well, this was the late 80's early 90's but our missiles weren't under lock and key. But they were still in their shipping containers. So getting them ready for launch would have been a production.

I can't imagine why they would have missiles ready to go. Fins attached and ready to mount. Which is why I think loading the cannons would be faster. While my Browning .50 wasn't loaded in the armory, it would have taken a few seconds to slap a belt in and rock and roll. Well, a minute or two to get it assembled, and mounted, but the idea is the same.
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 20th May 2020, 08:00 AM   #126
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,320
I think the timeline of at least one of the craft on 9/11 should be included. AA 77 took off from Dulles at 08:20 and crashed into the Pentagon 09:37:46 That is ~78 minutes. But wait it was not until 08:54 that the plane deviated from flight plans. The transponder was turned off at 08:56. That left just ~41 minutes to determine if the plane was having difficulties or had been hijacked. Only then could have been the time to scramble an intercept flight, to where? That doesn't seem like enough time to arm and get airborne and vector to last know coordinates.
Even if the aircraft was ordered to destroy the passenger flight, I'm not at all sure there would have been enough time to accomplish that order.

AA 11 07:59-08:46 WTC!.
United 175 08:14-9:03 WTC2
Both of which were in the air less time than AA 77.

At 8:37 a.m.:
Bostonís air traffic control personnel alert the United States Air Forceís Northeast Air Defense Sector, which deploys jets to identify and follow Flight 11. And they didn't intercept, not enough time.

https://www.govtech.com/em/safety/Ti...t-11-2001.html
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 20th May 2020, 06:22 PM   #127
ozeco41
Philosopher
 
ozeco41's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,555
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
Even if the aircraft was ordered to destroy the passenger flight, I'm not at all sure there would have been enough time to accomplish that order.
There wasn't time. The key factors include:
1) What was the earliest time that a legitimate decision to shoot down could have been made;
2) The basis on which such a decision could possibly be made and a supported. Which has two main components which are (a) Minimise number of lives probably lost; AND (b) allow for the political downside of post event condemnation.

It is 8 or 10 years since I did a rough cost/benefit assessment based solely on lives probably lost. For the actual 9/11 timeline there was no point I could identify*** at which shoot down reduced probable lives lost. So the political aspects did not even come into play.

The terrorist planners ensured timeline compaction for the four hijacks which ensured no time for decision and response. And, as I said in previous posts, if there ever is a future similar event the planners will be well aware of the need to ensure insufficient response time.
.
.
*** I've lost those original posts so would need to redo the analysis....
BUT the earliest possible decison time IMO would be 0902 - 175 crashes into South Tower. So only two planes left for potential shoot down.

And at that time you cannot factor in the thousands who will die in the Twin Towers. So what is the basis for deciding to shoot down either of those remaining two??
Other than political grand standing??

Last edited by ozeco41; 20th May 2020 at 06:36 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 17th October 2020, 09:51 AM   #128
Allen773
Graduate Poster
 
Allen773's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cali Four Neea
Posts: 1,325
19 years on and the US government is more unconditionally supportive of Israel and the Arab dictatorships like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates than ever. I'm sure nothing bad can come of this, just as nothing bad came of it in the past.

Last edited by Allen773; 17th October 2020 at 09:54 AM.
Allen773 is online now   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 October 2020, 03:39 AM   #129
Naval Diplomat
Student
 
Join Date: Sep 2020
Location: United States
Posts: 26
Originally Posted by Allen773 View Post
19 years on and the US government is more unconditionally supportive of Israel and the Arab dictatorships like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates than ever. I'm sure nothing bad can come of this, just as nothing bad came of it in the past.
Think you forgot your sarcasm tag there, friend.
Naval Diplomat 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 29th October 2020, 03:30 PM   #130
JessicasCrime
Scholar
 
Join Date: Oct 2020
Posts: 55
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
That left just ~41 minutes to determine if the plane was having difficulties or had been hijacked. Only then could have been the time to scramble an intercept flight, to where? That doesn't seem like enough time to arm and get airborne and vector to last know coordinates.[/url]
You don’t think that 41 minutes for most powerful and technologically advanced military in history - which had been true of the USA for at least 20 years prior to 9/11 - was enough time for them to scramble and try to find a jet they could be almost certain was heading east, towards the nation’s capital?

Aside from that being ludicrous on its face, the military and the US government had been warned that Al Quaeda had plans to use commercial airplanes as weapons as early as 1999 by the British. Russia and France sent along the same warnings and Britain sent a categorical warning in August 2001 saying that the United States should expect multiple hijackings. The United States took these warnings so seriously that John Ashcroft had stopped flying commercially six weeks prior to 911. We all know about the “Obama determined to strike the US” meeting at the White House.

It would follow that it is a pretty reasonable assumption that the military was on high alert, which makes their comically inapt response to the attacks even more puzzling. The powers that be in the United States new exactly what was happening at the VERY latest by the time Flight 175 had crashed into the south tower. “Oh you know this for certain JessicasCrime?!?!. You’re probably bad at reading comprehension too!! (this latter seems to be a very popular rhetorical device in this forum).

No, I don’t know it for certain I just don’t believe the United States government and especially their military was or is comically inept, nor do I think the leaders of the CIA, FBI, DoD, etc were then or are now stupid. If you think they didn’t know what was happening by at the latest 9am, then you do think this about our Govt and Military and we’ll just be in disagreement.
JessicasCrime 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 29th October 2020, 03:57 PM   #131
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 30,208
41 minutes is OK if you have any aircraft ready to go and know where they are going and what their target is.

Aircraft ready to go before 911 were expecting an external military threat coming in over the Atlantic or Pacific.
They were not expecting to have to intercept and shoot down a civilian airliner over the USA.

What aircraft were available to do this?

You are making the claims here, it's up to you to support them with more than incredulity.
Captain_Swoop 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 29th October 2020, 06:56 PM   #132
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,778
Originally Posted by JessicasCrime View Post
You don’t think that 41 minutes for most powerful and technologically advanced military in history - which had been true of the USA for at least 20 years prior to 9/11 - was enough time for them to scramble and try to find a jet they could be almost certain was heading east, towards the nation’s capital?

Aside from that being ludicrous on its face, the military and the US government had been warned that Al Quaeda had plans to use commercial airplanes as weapons as early as 1999 by the British. Russia and France sent along the same warnings and Britain sent a categorical warning in August 2001 saying that the United States should expect multiple hijackings. The United States took these warnings so seriously that John Ashcroft had stopped flying commercially six weeks prior to 911. We all know about the “Obama determined to strike the US” meeting at the White House.

It would follow that it is a pretty reasonable assumption that the military was on high alert, which makes their comically inapt response to the attacks even more puzzling. The powers that be in the United States new exactly what was happening at the VERY latest by the time Flight 175 had crashed into the south tower. “Oh you know this for certain JessicasCrime?!?!. You’re probably bad at reading comprehension too!! (this latter seems to be a very popular rhetorical device in this forum).

No, I don’t know it for certain I just don’t believe the United States government and especially their military was or is comically inept, nor do I think the leaders of the CIA, FBI, DoD, etc were then or are now stupid. If you think they didn’t know what was happening by at the latest 9am, then you do think this about our Govt and Military and we’ll just be in disagreement.
BS, NORAD had zero plans to intercept planes over the USA, they used WARNING Areas off the coast to takeoff and track Russian Bears, etc, and intercept incoming aircraft from overseas. You don't know NORAD, or USAF...

Alert birds assigned to NORAD could takeoff immediacy into Warning Areas, over the sea. There were zero quick launch plans to put fighter into the ATC airspace shared with FAA controlled aircraft on 9/11. As it was fighters and FAA worked outside of the rules to react to the events, but that would take careful study to see FAA and the USAF did not follow protocol.

Your post is BS, based on a complete lack of knowledge of many areas. Better luck with Bigfoot.

Since you know everyone should have known, why did you fail to stop 9/11.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232

Last edited by beachnut; 29th October 2020 at 07:24 PM.
beachnut 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 29th October 2020, 08:19 PM   #133
JessicasCrime
Scholar
 
Join Date: Oct 2020
Posts: 55
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
Since you know everyone should have known, why did you fail to stop 9/11.
Are you purposely writing that I said “everyone” should know, to try to gaslight, or just to be an ass?

But wait, you’re not really saying that you believe the USG wasn’t not just warned but warned repeatedly both by internal and external sources, are you? And that the military couldn’t have stopped it after flight 175?

really?

Ok, start with Sibel Edmunds and if that’s not enough move on to Colleen Rowley. There are tons of articles about Russia, England and France warning easily searchable - I would say I’d get them for you, but I won’t. If anyone else who actually has an interest in being civil wants me to google for them, I will. The CIA meeting, well if you don’t know about that one then you probably don’t know much at all - you sure act like you do so you must. Peace, nut.

For the military capability, you could start with the 9/11 chairmen who both said in their book that the military should have stopped it.

Last edited by JessicasCrime; 29th October 2020 at 08:28 PM. Reason: Spelling fouls though there still be dragons
JessicasCrime 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 29th October 2020, 08:24 PM   #134
JessicasCrime
Scholar
 
Join Date: Oct 2020
Posts: 55
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
41 minutes is OK if you have any aircraft ready to go and know where they are going and what their target is.

Aircraft ready to go before 911 were expecting an external military threat coming in over the Atlantic or Pacific.
They were not expecting to have to intercept and shoot down a civilian airliner over the USA.

What aircraft were available to do this?

You are making the claims here, it's up to you to support them with more than incredulity.
Im sorry that for the moment all I have is incredulity Captain, but actually itís not just incredulity. I have posed many questions to the very knowledgeable Skepticeratti here for some of the things Iíve either found to be lacking in explanation or simply preposterous.

When I learned about the true fate of F93 about 6 months ago, I started telling people this story without telling them it was from 9/11. Iíve probably told 25 people and every. single. one. has responded with some variation of ďno bleeping way that happened.Ē Of course this, proves nothing except that normies do not for one second think that something like that is possible.

Do you believe the official story about F93?
JessicasCrime 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 29th October 2020, 08:30 PM   #135
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,778
Originally Posted by JessicasCrime View Post
Are yuh purposely writing that I said ďeveryoneĒ should know to try to gaslight, or just to be an ass?

But wait, youíre not really saying that you believe the USG wasnít not just warned but warned repeatedly both by internal and external sources, are you? And that the military couldnít have stopped it after flight 175?

really?

Ok, start with Sibel Edmunds and if thatís not enough move on to Colleen Rowley. There are tons of articles about Russia, England and France warning easily searchable - I would say Iíd get them for you, but I wonít. If anyone else who actually has an interest in being civil wants me to google for them, I will. The CIA meeting, well if you donít know about that one then you probably donít know much at all - you sure act like you do so you must. Peace, nut.
More BS, where do you get this stuff? Got some evidence, so far you are repeating old debunked claptrap you planarized from others.

Got anything new? No

You ignore FDR, DNA, Radar, and evidence - and pick woo from conspiracy theorists.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut 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 30th October 2020, 01:50 AM   #136
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: 31,764
Originally Posted by JessicasCrime View Post
You donít think that 41 minutes for most powerful and technologically advanced military in history - which had been true of the USA for at least 20 years prior to 9/11 - was enough time for them to scramble and try to find a jet they could be almost certain was heading east, towards the nationís capital?
Appeal to incredulity. In fact, we know what assets NORAD had available on 9/11, what response time was expected of them, and what threats they were intended to be capable of addressing; the last of these is the most important, in that their primary mission was interception of incoming bombers and their secondary of aircraft engaged in smuggling, both of which would originate outside the USA. We also know that on the one previous occasion when the USAF had been required to intercept an aircraft originating from inside the USA - Payne Stewart's private jet - it took about 1 hour 40 minutes to intercept using a training command aircraft that IIRC was unarmed anyway. The USAF simply did not have the capability you're asking everyone to believe it must have had. And this was discussed to death back when 9/11 conspiracy theories were still something a few people cared about. Waiting ten years then repeating a fallacy doesn't magically make it valid.

Originally Posted by JessicasCrime View Post
Aside from that being ludicrous on its face, the military and the US government had been warned that Al Quaeda had plans to use commercial airplanes as weapons as early as 1999 by the British. Russia and France sent along the same warnings and Britain sent a categorical warning in August 2001 saying that the United States should expect multiple hijackings. The United States took these warnings so seriously that John Ashcroft had stopped flying commercially six weeks prior to 911.
There's a difference between intelligence and actionable intelligence. Nobody knew what specifically was planned, or when. That makes it a bit difficult to respond instantly, no?

Originally Posted by JessicasCrime View Post
We all know about the ďObama determined to strike the USĒ meeting at the White House.
"Obama, Osama. Two similar names, two very different people."

- Nessa, Gavin and Stacey

Originally Posted by JessicasCrime View Post
It would follow that it is a pretty reasonable assumption that the military was on high alert, which makes their comically inapt response to the attacks even more puzzling.
And this is the process we often describe these days as fan fiction; make up a fake fact, insist that it must be true, and then state that it supports your claim.

Originally Posted by JessicasCrime View Post
No, I donít know it for certain I just donít believe the United States government and especially their military was or is comically inept, nor do I think the leaders of the CIA, FBI, DoD, etc were then or are now stupid.
Your fallacy is: Appeal to incredulity. The highlighted words may help you recognise it in future.

Dave
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel.

- Myriad
Dave Rogers is online now   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 30th October 2020, 04:48 AM   #137
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 30,208
Originally Posted by JessicasCrime View Post
Im sorry that for the moment all I have is incredulity Captain, but actually itís not just incredulity. I have posed many questions to the very knowledgeable Skepticeratti here for some of the things Iíve either found to be lacking in explanation or simply preposterous.

When I learned about the true fate of F93 about 6 months ago, I started telling people this story without telling them it was from 9/11. Iíve probably told 25 people and every. single. one. has responded with some variation of ďno bleeping way that happened.Ē Of course this, proves nothing except that normies do not for one second think that something like that is possible.

Do you believe the official story about F93?

What do you think happened to it?

Did it land somewhere else where they killed all the passengers?
Captain_Swoop 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 30th October 2020, 05:12 AM   #138
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: 31,764
Originally Posted by JessicasCrime View Post
When I learned about the true fate of F93 about 6 months ago, I started telling people this story without telling them it was from 9/11. Iíve probably told 25 people and every. single. one. has responded with some variation of ďno bleeping way that happened.Ē Of course this, proves nothing except that normies do not for one second think that something like that is possible.
No, it proves that you've found a way to relate what happened to flight 93 that casts it in a light that makes it appear implausible. If you got "this story" from the usual collection of conspiracist websites, it probably has a great deal of fiction and misinformation woven into it that's specifically designed to elicit that sort of reaction. For example, claiming an aircraft "tunnelled its way into the ground" is an approach calculated to arouse incredulity, when in fact it's by no means unknown or unexpected for aircraft crashing into sufficiently soft ground to bury themselves - here and here are a couple of examples of crashed ww2 aircraft that were found buried several metres deep.

So here's a suggestion for you. Post this story you told to these lurkers who support you in e-mail unspecified third parties, in the words that you told it to them, and maybe we can point out the errors, exaggerations or misrepresentations in it that caused them to disbelieve you. You might then find it a bit easier to believe yourself.

Dave
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel.

- Myriad
Dave Rogers is online now   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 30th October 2020, 09:13 AM   #139
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,320
Originally Posted by JessicasCrime View Post
You donít think that 41 minutes for most powerful and technologically advanced military in history - which had been true of the USA for at least 20 years prior to 9/11 - was enough time for them to scramble and try to find a jet they could be almost certain was heading east, towards the nationís capital?

Aside from that being ludicrous on its face, the military and the US government had been warned that Al Quaeda had plans to use commercial airplanes as weapons as early as 1999 by the British. Russia and France sent along the same warnings and Britain sent a categorical warning in August 2001 saying that the United States should expect multiple hijackings. The United States took these warnings so seriously that John Ashcroft had stopped flying commercially six weeks prior to 911. We all know about the ďObama determined to strike the USĒ meeting at the White House.

It would follow that it is a pretty reasonable assumption that the military was on high alert, which makes their comically inapt response to the attacks even more puzzling. The powers that be in the United States new exactly what was happening at the VERY latest by the time Flight 175 had crashed into the south tower. ďOh you know this for certain JessicasCrime?!?!. Youíre probably bad at reading comprehension too!! (this latter seems to be a very popular rhetorical device in this forum).

No, I donít know it for certain I just donít believe the United States government and especially their military was or is comically inept, nor do I think the leaders of the CIA, FBI, DoD, etc were then or are now stupid. If you think they didnít know what was happening by at the latest 9am, then you do think this about our Govt and Military and weíll just be in disagreement.
Since you responded to my post I will add my thoughts added to what others have posted.
I don't know which is greater in your beliefs willful ignorance bordering on s*******y or gullibility in believing CT theories that don't make logical sense.
This not the 50's or 60's when aircraft were on the tarmac ready to go. It takes time to get them ready more than the 40 minutes that they had.
You have not ask serious questions but copied questions that have been answered many times in the last 19 years.

You ask what about flight 93 and the people you told the story found it incredible. A quick Google search brought up this fact, not belief. "Despite the devastation, investigators were able to recover both the plane's flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder, or black box, which was found burrowed more than 25 feet below ground." Additionally DNA evidence from all the people on board were identified. So what story did you tell these people of your belief?
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 30th October 2020, 11:16 AM   #140
JessicasCrime
Scholar
 
Join Date: Oct 2020
Posts: 55
Skeptics who believe every part and parcel of the US government story about 9/11

I hate to break it to you guys but that makes you not skeptics.

The story of the plane burrowing (The same word used at the 911 museum in New York City by the way you should visit it sometime) into the ground with the whole closing up over itself is well documented by the local media I already posted one story yesterday. If you want to bury your head in the sand in the same manner that the plane did, be my guest.

Edited by zooterkin:  <SNIP>
Edited for rule 0.

Last edited by zooterkin; 10th November 2020 at 01:24 PM.
JessicasCrime 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 30th October 2020, 11:43 AM   #141
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,778
Originally Posted by JessicasCrime View Post
Skeptics who believe every part and parcel of the US government story about 9/11

I hate to break it to you guys but that makes you not skeptics.

The story of the plane burrowing (The same word used at the 911 museum in New York City by the way you should visit it sometime) into the ground with the whole closing up over itself is well documented by the local media I already posted one story yesterday. If you want to bury your head in the sand in the same manner that the plane did, be my guest.

Edited by zooterkin:  <SNIP>
Edited for rule 0.
Too bad you lack evidence for your fantasy version of 9/11. Bigfoot is a better fit for fantasy evidence. Good luck.

Skeptics, of your fantasy claims, and lack of knowledge, and inability to do physics.

I am skeptical of your claims - claims which have zero evidence.

So far you have planarized the claims based on conspiracy theories and lies.

You can't do research to see the thousands of aircraft parts all over the place for the impact of Flight 93. You have no clue how fast Flight 93 was going, or the attitude 93 hit at - thus you repeat lies, and BS you googled on the internet.

You are projecting
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232

Last edited by zooterkin; 10th November 2020 at 01:25 PM.
beachnut 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 30th October 2020, 12:40 PM   #142
JessicasCrime
Scholar
 
Join Date: Oct 2020
Posts: 55
Originally Posted by bknight View Post
Since you responded to my post I will add my thoughts added to what others have posted.
I don't know which is greater in your beliefs willful ignorance bordering on s*******y or gullibility in believing CT theories that don't make logical sense.
This not the 50's or 60's when aircraft were on the tarmac ready to go. It takes time to get them ready more than the 40 minutes that they had.
You have not ask serious questions but copied questions that have been answered many times in the last 19 years.

You ask what about flight 93 and the people you told the story found it incredible. A quick Google search brought up this fact, not belief. "Despite the devastation, investigators were able to recover both the plane's flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder, or black box, which was found burrowed more than 25 feet below ground." Additionally DNA evidence from all the people on board were identified. So what story did you tell these people of your belief?
Do you guys even read what you write Before you hit submit or believe what you write. The military was better prepared in the 50s and 60s than September 2001? Wait, what?

I would ask you to point out where I said that I believe the CIT theories but I know youíre just being dishonest like the rest of them and wonít actually do it especially since you canít. I said that I found the witnesses to be compelling and extremely credible. I know that you guys like to play this game of ďoh you donít think that happened, then what did happen?ď So Iím sorry that I canít join in with you when I say I donít know.

As for the military readiness I guess the co-chairmen of the 9/11 commission are really ******* gullible to since they wrote in their book, ďIf the military had the amount of time they said they hadĒ, they should have been able to shoot ď77Ē down.
JessicasCrime 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 30th October 2020, 12:54 PM   #143
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,778
Originally Posted by JessicasCrime View Post
...
As for the military readiness I guess the co-chairmen of the 9/11 commission are really ******* gullible to since they wrote in their book, “If the military had the amount of time they said they had”, they should have been able to shoot “77” down.
Quote mining again? Why.

It is simple you can do the time line for 9/11 yourself to see if the alert birds could catch 77 before impact.

You spent zero time investigating 9/11, which shows as you quote mine sources to support your doubt which is based on your lack of knowledge.

So you agree 77 hit the Pentagon, since you argue the military should have had time to shoot it down. Thus you believe the official story. Unless you claim there is no 77, then you made a logical error.

If 9/11 was an inside job, you can't use the commission report and books about 9/11 to support your inside job. It is not logical.

Your skepticism of 9/11 is due to your lack of knowledge in many fields.

You came pre-debunked here and other web sites, https://www.metabunk.org/forums/9-11.28/ 19 years and you discover the vast conspiracy of 9/11, and have no idea you were fooled.

19 terrorists used four planes, hit 75 percent of the targets and were beat by passengers. UBL inspired gullible people to do 9/11, the same why you are gullible for lies, BS, and fantasy conspiracy theories about 9/11. You are like the terrorists, gullible.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232

Last edited by beachnut; 30th October 2020 at 01:00 PM.
beachnut 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 30th October 2020, 01:08 PM   #144
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,778
Originally Posted by JessicasCrime View Post
Do you guys ...
Why not study what is already debunked and learn the truth instead of being "woke" to far out evidence free conspiracy theories?

Start here and read - http://www.internationalskeptics.com...s.php?catid=18

Plus you can study debunked 9/11 truth claims here... https://www.metabunk.org/forums/9-11.28/

Why not study both sides before falling for the debunked claims of 9/11 truth?
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut 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 30th October 2020, 01:15 PM   #145
bknight
Master Poster
 
bknight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 2,320
Originally Posted by JessicasCrime View Post
Do you guys even read what you write Before you hit submit or believe what you write. The military was better prepared in the 50s and 60s than September 2001? Wait, what?
Yes in the manner of getting jets off the tarmac, did you read what I posted or just assume some nonsense?
Quote:

I would ask you to point out where I said that I believe the CIT theories but I know youíre just being dishonest like the rest of them and wonít actually do it especially since you canít. I said that I found the witnesses to be compelling and extremely credible. I know that you guys like to play this game of ďoh you donít think that happened, then what did happen?ď So Iím sorry that I canít join in with you when I say I donít know.
Your ideas are in line with CT's, so whether you believe that way because you read/saw something, doesn't matter. You are spouting the same type bs that CTs do. If it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck then it must be a duck. If you don't know then why play the conspiracy angle?
Quote:

As for the military readiness I guess the co-chairmen of the 9/11 commission are really ******* gullible to since they wrote in their book, ďIf the military had the amount of time they said they hadĒ, they should have been able to shoot ď77Ē down.
The fact is whether the co-chairmen of the 9/11 commission said that the plane should have been shot down, it was because the readiness and time did not permit that from happening.
So why do you think that the time allow the target to be hit?
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 30th October 2020, 01:21 PM   #146
Leftus
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,242
Originally Posted by JessicasCrime View Post
Do you guys even read what you write Before you hit submit or believe what you write. The military was better prepared in the 50s and 60s than September 2001? Wait, what?

What were we doing in the 50's and 60's? That would be Korea and 'Nam. What were we doing in the 80's? Closing bases. Sure, we were dropping ordinance in Grenada, but most of the action was minor, nothing major. Nothing major until the first gulf war.

We really didn't have anything in place from stopping Rodan from attacking. We weren't looking internally, we were looking externally. We weren't fighting on our own soil, but mucking around in other places.


Since you must have some sort of expertise or insight, how long does it take to equip a F16, ammo and fuel, and to get a pilot dressed, briefed and ready? Do you think they are sitting in the ready room, ready to go with a plane in combat fittings at all times? This would be a waste. Also dangerous. Leaving live ordinance out on the tarmac. Just isn't done.
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 30th October 2020, 02:16 PM   #147
JessicasCrime
Scholar
 
Join Date: Oct 2020
Posts: 55
What a surprise! Instead of admitting that I’ve never said that I believe them and that I actually just said that I find the witness is compelling, you attack the CT which of course has no bearing on the integrity of two Pentagon police officers a pentagon air traffic controller or an ex marine fighter pilot. When you go on to decide that it is you who gets to determine ultimately my opinion is which means you think that I am just a pathological liar which begs the question, do you know how to mute people?

But here, I’ll play the game that so many of you are fond of playing. Sure that you will find it very honorabl.

Ok if the two Pentagon police officers, the ex marine, the pentagon ATC and 9 other witnesses who all describe more or less The exact same thing but it wasn’t a jumbo
Jet, do you think it was an invisible alien spaceship? If there are aliens why didn’t they stop 9/11?

Or how about this one:

Oh so all 13 of these people secretly colluded just to make the government look bad and convince stoops like me that there was another plane because that’s how government officers and immigrants get their rocks off? What color is the sky in your purple blue rainbow world?
JessicasCrime 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 30th October 2020, 02:26 PM   #148
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,778
Originally Posted by JessicasCrime View Post
What a surprise! Instead of admitting that I’ve never said that I believe them and that I actually just said that I find the witness is compelling, you attack the CT which of course has no bearing on the integrity of two Pentagon police officers a pentagon air traffic controller or an ex marine fighter pilot. When you go on to decide that it is you who gets to determine ultimately my opinion is which means you think that I am just a pathological liar which begs the question, do you know how to mute people?

But here, I’ll play the game that so many of you are fond of playing. Sure that you will find it very honorabl.

Ok if the two Pentagon police officers, the ex marine, the pentagon ATC and 9 other witnesses who all describe more or less The exact same thing but it wasn’t a jumbo
Jet, do you think it was an invisible alien spaceship? If there are aliens why didn’t they stop 9/11?

Or how about this one:

Oh so all 13 of these people secretly colluded just to make the government look bad and convince stoops like me that there was another plane because that’s how government officers and immigrants get their rocks off? What color is the sky in your purple blue rainbow world?
The FDR proves the real flight path, and your witnesses agree 77 hit the Pentagon... oops

Thus you have no show anyone who refutes the FDR, Radar, the real flight path.

FDR wins, and beats CIT and your interpretation of witnesses. That is fact.

DNA proves 77 impacted, and your witnesses agree 77 hit the Pentagon.

The FDR has the exact course, and that course is confirmed by the impact damage.

What hit the Pentagon in your fantasy? Is a 757 a jumbo jet?
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232

Last edited by beachnut; 30th October 2020 at 02:28 PM.
beachnut 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 30th October 2020, 02:47 PM   #149
The Common Potato
Critical Thinker
 
The Common Potato's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: The Scunthorpe Problem
Posts: 350
Originally Posted by JessicasCrime
Are you purposely writing that I said “everyone” should know, to try to gaslight, or just to be an ass?
Nitpick. 'Everyone' doesn't always really mean everyone.

Originally Posted by JessicasCrime
Skeptics who believe every part and parcel of the US government story about 9/11...
Not by a long shot. Hi from the UK, BTW. (We tend to ignore a lot of what the US government says.)

Originally Posted by JessicasCrime
I hate to break it to you guys but that makes you not skeptics.
You're not doing it right. Scepticism is not the same as denialism or going against the mainstream narrative just for the sake of it.

I mighty have heard every one of your responses before. FWIW, at least one person who has responded to you has extensive knowledge of USAF procedures.

Last edited by The Common Potato; 30th October 2020 at 02:49 PM.
The Common Potato 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 30th October 2020, 03:25 PM   #150
Captain_Swoop
Penultimate Amazing
 
Captain_Swoop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 30,208
Originally Posted by JessicasCrime View Post
Do you guys even read what you write Before you hit submit or believe what you write. The military was better prepared in the 50s and 60s than September 2001? Wait, what?
.
Because in the 50s and 60s they were expecting Nuclear war with Russia at any moment and had to get in the air to face an airborne threat coming in from the sea.

In the UK crews of the nuclear bomber force were sat in their flight suits ready to be in the air at two minutes notice 24 hours a day.

It was a different threat from a different time.

Long range ballistic missiles changed the threat.
Captain_Swoop 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 30th October 2020, 03:39 PM   #151
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,778
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Because in the 50s and 60s they were expecting Nuclear war with Russia at any moment and had to get in the air to face an airborne threat coming in from the sea.

In the UK crews of the nuclear bomber force were sat in their flight suits ready to be in the air at two minutes notice 24 hours a day.

It was a different threat from a different time.

Long range ballistic missiles changed the threat.
There were Nike sites in the hills of Pennsylvania, and along the shore near San Francisco - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._missile_sites

As usual a new truther is "born", reading BS on the internet, and show up unprepared with baseless claims. Unable, unwilling to look up NORAD operation pre 9/11, and after 9/11. Zero research truther attack alert...
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut 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 30th October 2020, 03:56 PM   #152
JessicasCrime
Scholar
 
Join Date: Oct 2020
Posts: 55
Post

Originally Posted by bknight View Post
Yes in the manner of getting jets off the tarmac, did you read what I posted or just assume some nonsense?
oh when you put it that way I guess I would probably lean nonsense now. Iím sorry for questioning your vast 9/11 knowledge and non-conspiracy thinking panache.
Quote:
The fact is whether the co-chairmen of the 9/11 commission said that the plane should have been shot down, it was because the readiness and time did not permit that from happening.
oh is that right? My mistake thank you for educating me proper-like. Thems commissioners wuz dum.
Quote:
So why do you think that the time allow the target to be hit?
hmmm I donít 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 wouldnít bet on my figuring this one out! Itís like Chinese arithmetic!
Originally Posted by Leftus View Post
Since you must have some sort of expertise or insight, how long does it take to equip a F16, ammo and fuel, and to get a pilot dressed, briefed and ready?
You guys ask some really, really hard questions.
Quote:
Do you think they are sitting in the ready room, ready to go with a plane in combat fittings at all times?
No way, the military always reacts they are never in a situation where they are prepared
Quote:
This would be a waste.
You have a really solid point here. As long as Iíve been alive the military has been a paragon of efficiency.
Quote:
Also dangerous.
so correct here the military values safety above all other things.
Originally Posted by The Common Potato View Post
FWIW, at least one person who has responded to you has extensive knowledge of USAF procedures.
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.

Iíve given this a lot of thought and I think based on everyoneís 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, Iím 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. Iím 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. Iíve noticed how valued honesty here so I donít 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 Iím going to up the difficulty a little bit and say on the morning of September 11.

SIX MINUTES.

ďWhat?Ē they guffawed. ďHave you not been reading your posts and just decided to make up some nonsense?Ē
Penney Garcia, who is a rookie pilot, will later say: ďIíd never scrambled before, Iíd 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].Ē Sasseville and Penney Garcia are airborne about six minutes after reaching their jets.
ó
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'
óó

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!
JessicasCrime 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 30th October 2020, 04:32 PM   #153
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,778
6 minutes, unarmed, and too late to be useful

Originally Posted by JessicasCrime View Post
...

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' —— ...
They took off in six minutes? Yep, guess what they did not have? Weapons. They took off unarmed ad hoc... they were not on alert, they took jets with no weapons. And they did not have time to intercept 11, 175, 77, or 93.

You have not done the work, you are doing a Gish gallop and quote mining to support claims you have not explained or made clear.

You failed again. OH, 6 minutes after they arrived? When did they takeoff?

What does SIX MINUTES mean? You don't know. Is that from the ready room to take off, or was it from aircraft to takeoff? Did they have on their speed pants (g-suit)?

Wow, you discovered HistoryCommons, where there is false misleading commentary to go with facts. It is funny HistoryCommons will post this "Pilots and officers with the District of Columbia Air National Guard (DCANG) are notified of the first plane hitting the World Trade Center, but mistakenly assume this must have been an accident and continue with a meeting they are holding." from other sources. What does "mistakenly" mean? How can anyone on 9/11 know flight 11 hitting the WTC was not an accident. Thus much of HistoryCommons is material from other sources which don't explain the nuances, like "mistakenly". No big deal, but it makes it look like we all should know 11's impact was not an accident minutes after it happened.

BTW, quote mining HistoryCommons does not mean you are an expert on the military, you can't explain in detail what SIX MINUTES is, as you try to support your version of 9/11 you failed to explain in detail.

At least you got the Gish gallop down.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232

Last edited by beachnut; 30th October 2020 at 04:46 PM.
beachnut 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 30th October 2020, 04:50 PM   #154
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 4,742
Originally Posted by JessicasCrime View Post
Are you purposely writing that I said ďeveryoneĒ should know, to try to gaslight, or just to be an ass?

But wait, youíre not really saying that you believe the USG wasnít not just warned but warned repeatedly both by internal and external sources, are you? And that the military couldnít have stopped it after flight 175?

really?
Beachnut usually reads through the entire thread before he posts...unlike you have.
__________________
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 30th October 2020, 04:54 PM   #155
Axxman300
Illuminator
 
Axxman300's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central California Coast
Posts: 4,742
__________________
Disingenuous Piranha

Last edited by Axxman300; 30th October 2020 at 05:01 PM.
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 30th October 2020, 05:08 PM   #156
JessicasCrime
Scholar
 
Join Date: Oct 2020
Posts: 55
Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop View Post
Because in the 50s and 60s they were expecting Nuclear war with Russia at any moment and had to get in the air to face an airborne threat coming in from the sea.

In the UK crews of the nuclear bomber force were sat in their flight suits ready to be in the air at two minutes notice 24 hours a day.

It was a different threat from a different time.

Long range ballistic missiles changed the threat.
wow that is fast!

How long would say it would take?
JessicasCrime 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 30th October 2020, 06:32 PM   #157
CORed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 9,856
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
I've long been aware of the cognitive deficiencies of 9/11 truthers, but I though most of them could at least count past 18 without getting it wrong.

Dave
I think many of them can only accomplish that feat with their shoes off.
CORed 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 30th October 2020, 06:38 PM   #158
CORed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 9,856
Originally Posted by beachnut View Post
They took off in six minutes? Yep, guess what they did not have? Weapons. They took off unarmed ad hoc... they were not on alert, they took jets with no weapons. And they did not have time to intercept 11, 175, 77, or 93.

You have not done the work, you are doing a Gish gallop and quote mining to support claims you have not explained or made clear.

You failed again. OH, 6 minutes after they arrived? When did they takeoff?

What does SIX MINUTES mean? You don't know. Is that from the ready room to take off, or was it from aircraft to takeoff? Did they have on their speed pants (g-suit)?

Wow, you discovered HistoryCommons, where there is false misleading commentary to go with facts. It is funny HistoryCommons will post this "Pilots and officers with the District of Columbia Air National Guard (DCANG) are notified of the first plane hitting the World Trade Center, but mistakenly assume this must have been an accident and continue with a meeting they are holding." from other sources. What does "mistakenly" mean? How can anyone on 9/11 know flight 11 hitting the WTC was not an accident. Thus much of HistoryCommons is material from other sources which don't explain the nuances, like "mistakenly". No big deal, but it makes it look like we all should know 11's impact was not an accident minutes after it happened.

BTW, quote mining HistoryCommons does not mean you are an expert on the military, you can't explain in detail what SIX MINUTES is, as you try to support your version of 9/11 you failed to explain in detail.

At least you got the Gish gallop down.
I do remember when hearing the news on the radio of the first plane hitting the tower, that I assumed it was an accident (not that I had any responsibility for doing anything about it if it wasn't), and thinking, that's terribe, I wonder how that could have happened.. I think for most everyone in the wolrd, it was not apparent that it was a terrorist attack unilt the second plane hit.
CORed 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 30th October 2020, 06:43 PM   #159
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 25,778
Originally Posted by JessicasCrime View Post
wow that is fast!

How long would say it would take?
Before the end of the cold war, we sat SIOP alert, and had to be off the ground in our KC-135 in less than 15 minutes. We had start cartridges to start the engines as fast as possible. We had access to a limited section of the Base and had a vehicle... if we were playing sports, and the horn went off, we would get in our vehicle, drive to the side of our aircraft, clear start engines with the crew chief as we climbed on to the aircraft, we started engines, and simulated takeoff for exercises. I never missed our timing, which was based on a missile attack, nukes, coming.

The timing for takeoff on 9/11 is not an issue. The fact is it took time to know terrorist took planes as weapons. No one on 9/11 had the time to intercept and stop the aircraft on 9/11, except for 93, which was taken down by passengers because the terrorists flew 93 into the ground to avoid being beat up by passengers who figured out 9/11 19 years before you failed to.
__________________
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen" - Albert Einstein
"... education as the means of developing our greatest abilities" - JFK
https://folding.stanford.edu/ fold with your computer - join team 13232
beachnut 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 30th October 2020, 07:46 PM   #160
Leftus
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,242
Originally Posted by JessicasCrime View Post
Penney Garcia, who is a rookie pilot, will later say: ďIíd never scrambled before, Iíd 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].Ē Sasseville and Penney Garcia are airborne about six minutes after reaching their jets.
ó
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'
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.
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
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 10:39 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, 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.