NOT going to Disneyland.........

[Eric5273]

Sorry, but none of these articles support your claim. In fact, the last one totally contradicts you with a timeline for when NORAD was notified by the FAA and when intercepts were ordered.

Yes...NORAD has changed their timeline and stories many times. Originally they said they were first notified about Flight 77 after 9:20. But then in the book "Among the Heroes", the pilots who were at Langley claim they were called by NORAD much earlier and told to get into their planes and they then sat on the runway for some time awaiting instructions. They also claim they were then told to fly to New York, although NORAD officials say they were ordered to fly to Washington.

Better yet, on 9/13/01 in front of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, General Myers was asked to give a detailed account of the Air Force's response that day and he never made any mention of any fighters taking off from Langley. CBS was the first to report the Langley fighters on 9/15/01 in a Dan Rather news broadcast where he said "CBS has learned....." without giving any source of the information. After that, all the other news channels reported the same. Now that has become a part of the official story.

During the 9/11 Commission hearings, the blame was thought to lay at the FAA's feet since they had waiting over a half hour before notifying NORAD, but they then changed their story and said they notified them much sooner, and NORAD went along with this and then blamed this "exercise" for the delay.

Either way you cut it, there was a 40 minute gap from the time the plane first went off course to when interceptors took off. Regulations for both NORAD and the FAA call for this to happen "immediately".

I have read the excuse that this was an unusual situation and they were not prepared for this, but this was not an unusual situation at all as interceptors are sent up very regularly when planes go off course or when they have communication problems with pilots. The Associated Press had reported that NORAD had sent up interceptors over 60 times during 2001 before 9/11, so this was not an unusual procedure. If anyone remembers the Paine Stewart flight a few years ago, you would remember that interceptors went up to make contact with the plane. The fact that this was a hijacking should make no difference as NORAD was supposed to have responded long before any hijacking was confirmed.

 

[Eric5273]

This is the ONLY mention in the transcripts of a drill, or how a drill may have affected response. NOBODY blames a drill on delays in respoonse time in these transcripts.

Who is Ms. Garvey? What I am talking about happed during the testimoney of the higher-ups, not some low-level NORAD operator. This person obviously knew nothing or just decided to say nothing. I watched some of the testimony on C-SPAN. The one general talked about how they were in a stairwell when he received a phone call alerting him that this was indeed a real attack and not part of the simulation.

 

[Eric5273]

And with that post, that's enough about 9/11........this subject has been beaten to death now on here and on plenty of other forums and I'm tired of talking about it.

Other than through in-person discussions with friends, I have never been able to convince anyone of anything on a message forum. It's like trying to tell a religious person that there's no god. I'm sure most of you will agree, that no matter what I post, you will not change your opinion. If the information I post proves my point, you will say that the information is no good.

So back to the original subject, what does everyone think about the hotel bombing in Indonesia? I posted a few links from that too.

I also notice that nobody made a single comment about the CNN sound file from the Oklahoma City bombings. Last time I posted that on a forum, I was accused of creating the file through some fancy engineering and sound production.

 

[nsxtasy]

So back to the original subject

Are you sure you want to stick to the original subject?

what does everyone think about the hotel bombing in Indonesia?

I think it's a tragedy for all the innocent individuals who were killed and injured, and for their friends and family.

It is unfortunate that it can also have a devastating effect on many, many people who depend on the tourism industry in Indonesia.

I also notice that nobody made a single comment about the CNN sound file from the Oklahoma City bombings.

I thought you wanted to stick to the original subject...

 

[dlongo]

Who is Ms. Garvey? What I am talking about happed during the testimoney of the higher-ups, not some low-level NORAD operator. This person obviously knew nothing or just decided to say nothing. I watched some of the testimony on C-SPAN. The one general talked about how they were in a stairwell when he received a phone call alerting him that this was indeed a real attack and not part of the simulation.

AAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRGHH!!!!!

You conspiracy people drive me insane!!! Posting all this nonsense and lies on the internet and it just plays with the emotions of people, do you get off on that? I hope your friend isn't feeding this crap to the 9/11 victims he supposedy works with!! YOU PROVIDED THIS TRANSCRIPT TO PROVE YOUR STATMENT, YET IT HAS NOTHING IN IT TO SUPPORT YOUR CLAIM THAT A DRILL CAUSED A HALF HOUR DELAY IN 9/11 RESPONSE AT NORAD!!!! NOBODY IN THAT TRANSCRIPT BLAMES A DRILL ON SLOW RESPONSE TIME!! EITHER PROVE WHAT YOU HAVE POSTED HERE OR ADMIT YOU ARE WRONG. YOU COULD NOT BE MORE WRONG IF YOU WERE DRIVING YOUR NSX THE WRONG WAY DOWN WRONG STREET!!!

 

[dlongo]

An interjection, if I may.

Eric is now officially Allan's replacement in NSXPrime. But instead of getting people riled up about cars, he chooses politics as his poison. Eric, this IS an honor. Believe me.

Carry on.

haha, I liked ALLAN. Eric, ever consider posting on ferarrichat?

 

[Eric5273]

Last post on the 9/11 subject:

GEN. ARNOLD: Thank you, sir, and I will try to do that to the best of my ability. And perhaps General McKinley has some data that he could shed light on, because I have been retired a little while, and do not have access to the staff for some of the very specifics on that. But I will try to do my best.

As you know from previous testimony from General Eberhardt to Congress, we were in the middle of a NORAD exercise at that particular time, which means that basically our entire staff was focused on being able to do the air operations center mission, which was our job to do. We had just come out of a video teleconference with the NORAD staff and with our folks at that particular time, when I was handed a note that we had a possible hijacking at Boston center, and it had come from the Northeast Air Defense Command, Colonel Bob Mahr (ph), who is commander up there, and he had requested that I call him immediately. And I was upstairs in our facility, immediately went downstairs, picked up the phone, asking on the way to my staff, "Is this part of the exercise?" Because quite honestly, and frankly we do do hijacking scenarios as we go through these exercises from time to time. But I realized that it was not. This was real life.

----------
I was unable to find more, but then again, I read only a small percentage of one of the transcripts and I do not feel like looking for more. By the time this call that he is referring to came, it was too late to respond. The hold-up happened before this and there was a significant delay between the FAA notification that Flight 77 was hijacked and this call that Gen. Arnold received.

By their own timeline, they waited 40 minutes from the time the plane went off course to the time they sent up interceptors!! The interceptors were at Langley which was 110 miles away (from the Pentagon) and they have a maximum speed of 1500 mph. Do the math to see how long it would take to get there.

 

[dlongo]

(sigh)

And as I have already stated, there is nothing in the transcript, including the above quote from Gen Arnold, that says the drill affected anything. In fact, it says he immediately recognized that the situation was not part of the drill.

Much less is there anything whatsoever out there that suggests the drill was part of some big conspiracy. I have concluded you are full of it.

Last post on the 9/11 subject:

Agreed

Viperdriver, apologies for pushing your thread off topic with the 9/11 stuff, this kind of internet mis-information just really irritates me.

 

[Ojas]

huh?!?

Shame on you, Ojas, for spreading such outrageous nonsense.

Ken, my friend, I was not refering to any one of those myths. In fact, until I followed your links, I was not even aware of any of them. I am, however, well aware of the difference between rumor and factual information complied by professional reporters and journalists. I'm also well aware of the exponential nature in which rumors and consipracy theories propagate on the Internet. In general, I lean more towards the skeptical side. Do a search, you'll see that my past posts reflect this.

To clarify, when I said "coincidences", I was refering observations such as:

• No ATF/FBI victims in OKC bombing of the Murrah Building: There was a 20/20 report about this a few years back and also included holes in an ATF agent's story. Sorry, I don't have it sitting in front of me right now.
• On 9/11 Pentagon stuck on the side of the building that was under renovation and not completely occupied.
• There used to be an article on MSNBC.com or CNN.com that actually investigated the urban myth of a WTC warning. They mentioned that students and other folks had some indication of the attack. Whether there was "prior knowledge" or these guys were physic, it's at least a coincidence, which is what I originally stated.

I would have only been too happy to clarify had I been given the opportunity to do so.

If I'm going to be degraded, at least be a gentleman and grant me the opportunity to dig my own grave before you [effectively] stick words in my mouth.

 

[Viper Driver]

Read this:

Flight 77 Timeline

And because I'm sure you will question the source of such infomation, since cooperativeresearch.org is probably a "conspiracy website" in your book, they have included links to each and every sources of their information, and from the look of it, all their sources seem to be major newspapers or television networks. So if you have a problem with any of the information, address specific points.

Damn straight I'm going to question this. You should, too, and you should also learn more about aviation (especially military ops) before you buy this garbage. Not suprisingly, sites like this are old hat to me, because I've been spending a lot of time on internet message boards debunking the glaring innacuracies (or LIES) that some of these sites promote. I'll refer you once again to a word that most accurately describes this kind of thing: conjecture. Look it up if you don't know the meaning of it. You can take facts from the most reliable source in the world and spin them to suit whatever agenda you'd like......as long as you omit the ones that don't fit in with your pet theories.

So, let us dive a little deeper into your "facts" from this source.

8:46 a.m. At the time of the first WTC crash, three F-16s assigned to Andrews Air Force Base 10 miles from Washington are flying an air-to-ground training mission on a range in North Carolina, 207 miles away.

Okay, there were a three-ship of F-16's loaded up with air-to-ground ordnance on an air-to-ground range. For your information, no Air Force aircraft on a training mission in the USA carries live air-to-air missiles, unless they are planning on expending them on that flight against an unmanned drone. So, you can see where I'm going with this already, and where your "source" has already begun the spin.


Eventually they are recalled to Andrews and land there at some point after Flight 77 crashes into the Pentagon. [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 9/9/02]

Eventually? Okay, so there is no timeline at all on when they were recalled from the air-to-ground range 207 miles away. Once again, I'll ask.....where did you get your "five minute" figure from?


F-16s can travel a maximum speed of 1500 mph. Traveling even at 1100 mph, the speed NORAD Major General Larry Arnold says two fighters from Massachusetts travel toward Flight 175, at least one of the F-16s could have returned to Washington within 10 minutes and started patrolling the skies well before 9:00 a.m.

BZZT. Wrong answer. An F-16's maximum airspeed in a clean (air-to-air) configuration is Mach 2.06, or 800 knots calibrated airspeed. In an air-to-ground configuration, that number further decreases to 550 knots calibrated and 0.95 mach. An F-16 CAN theoretically go 1500 knots if the pilot dumps his external stores, flies at 50,000 feet, and the pilot selects full afterburner. Calibrated airspeed at high altitude is lower and thus Mach is the more popular number to use at altitude. Mach 2.06 is about 1500 miles per hour, which is where your source got this number.

If he selects full afterburner, the fuel flow rate will go upwards of 45,000 pounds per hour. Giving them the best benefit of the doubt and saying (1) that they have 6,500 pounds of gas left after their trip up to the range and some air-to-ground passes, (2) they immediately drop their wing tanks and external stores, that means that the 207-mile trip back to Washington D.C. would take a little over 10 minutes and burn 7500 pounds fo fuel. Hmm......numbers just don't add up, do they? Nice sources you got there. Like I said, work the numbers to suit your agenda, and completely ignore reality. You work in conjecture, I work in reality and actually know severl of these "insiders" you are so quick to point your finger at. So, let's stop this witch hunt before it gets out of control. Your side is clearly misinformed or agenda-driven.


Why are they recalled so late, and then ordered back to base (and then to take off again) instead of being sent straight to Washington?

I can only guess, but it probably took a while to raise the flight on the radio since they are on an air-to-ground range and working a discrete frequency. They probably made a few calls on Guard, and it probably took a while for the pilots to knock off what they were doing and see what was going on. If I were to receive a radio call on Guard from ATC, I am usually pretty skeptical if I'm not doing something wrong.

And why were they sent straight back to Andrews? Probably because they had nothing to shoot the plane down with, and they probably didn't have the gas to do anything, anyway! Like I said, this second guessing by the fringe is really getting annoying. I present facts, while all you can come up with is crapola from ill-informed sources.

 

[Viper Driver]

The staff of the 9/11 Commission is working closely with 9/11 Citizens Watch. Thomas Kean, who is the Republican appointed head of the commmission buys into it and is taking it very seriously.

Well, they ought to re-evaluate this, especially if your 9/11 Citizens Watch are using the same bogus "facts" I just addressed above.

Apparently not because I don't even know who he is. (re: Dennis Kucinich)

Well, I'm glad to hear that. He's a Democratic candidate for the 2004 presidential election. Find out what he represents.....I'm sure you'll love him. Right up your alley.

I am saying that they claimed the reason was because of the simulation. They didn't claim to have any other answer. Picture this question being asked during the testimony:

9/11 Commission Member: Sir....according to NORAD guidelines, when a plane is hijacked or when the FAA loses communication with the pilot, or when a plane goes off course by more than 5 miles, NORAD is to send up an interceptor immediately to make contact with the plane and escort them to the nearest airport if need be.

Huh? I've been off course by five miles before, and they sure as hell didnt' scramble jets to come find me! I've also been NORDO (radio-out) before, and nobody came to get me then, either. Besides, who are you going to scramble from Albuquerque, New Mexico? Do you think that there were jets before 9/11 waiting at the beckon call all over the country to go on wild goose chases every hour when something like this happens? The only jets on alert prior to 9/11 were geared towards intercepting aircraft originating OUTSIDE of the United States. The NORAD guidelines your person is quoting above would then apply, but not to domestic flights. Payne Stewart's plane was a unique situation because they sent jets already airborne to find them. Also, Payne's plane was WAY off course and under no apparent control which was why they were a lot more proactive in sending planes up to investigate. In the case of the hijacked planes, they manevered and performed in much the same way an aircraft in an emergency situation would......fly to the nearest suitable airfield!

This has nothing to do with Congress. This is the independent 9/11 Commission that the White House commissioned to investigate.

Apparently they are being a little bit too independent in their thinking, and it is too late for Bush to get rid of them as they have had much media exposure, so instead they will be stonewalled and not given any information with which to investigate.

Whatever. It's still a witch hunt.

But I wouldn't be surprised if the USAF officials were lying. The have already changed their story so many times, changing it again does not shock me.

Did they change their story, or is it the media? There only has been one story put forth by the Pentagon on Jessica Lynch, but look at all of the dinsformation out there on her rescue! The media is to blame for this, NOT the military spokesmen.

2 at best. At worst, they were the ones engineering the plot.(re: USAF responsibility for 9/11)

Okay, so let's be crystal clear here. Do you believe that our government is responsible for organizing and carrying out the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Penatagon? From what I've read, you appear to support this theory.

My conversation with you is nearly over, so I'll spare the niceties. I think you are a sucker for thinking this, and your willingness to support this completely outlandish theory shows how big of an idiot you really are. It's also personally insulting to me because I know these folks......planning on attending any NSXCA events in the southwest any time soon?

The 9/11 Commission was given sopena power. The members of the commission have top clearance to see all relevent documents. The Pentagon and NORAD are just stonewalling them because they know the commission's funding runs out in a year and if they have to go into to court, the proceedings will never be done by then.

Once again, a leap of logic. So, you're sure that's the reason for their stonewalling, or is this your opinion? There's a big difference between the two. You only have to believe to form an opinion. There needs to be irrefutable evidence to call something a fact. And, when you make these leaps of logic to point fingers at people for organizing and carrying out 9/11, it shows how easily you will accept blatant lies to fit in with your beliefs.

 

[Eric5273]

where did you get your "five minute" figure from?

The 5 minute figure had nothing to do with those planes that you are talking about. It had to do with the planes that took off from Langley, although who knows if they ever actually did take off. Here is a brief version of the information available on this:

1) On 9/13/01, General Myers testified in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee and was asked to give a detailed account of the Air Force's response two days earlier. He gave lots of information, but never mentioned anything about any fighters taking off from Langley.

2) On 9/14/03 (Friday Night), Dan Rather on CBS News announced "CBS News has learned that...." and he went on to say that 2 fighters had taken off from Langley around 9:30, but they arrived at the Pentigon several minutes too late. Never in the broadcast did he say where CBS learned this from. Shortly after this broadcast, other news stations began to report the same thing saying that CBS News was their source.

3) That Sunday on Meet the Press, Dick Cheney was asked about response to Flight 77 and he never mentioned anything about these fighters and instead cited the planes you mention above that came from Andrews. He claimed there were no fighters in the area which were available to respond and said this was becuase they never could have anticipated this kind of attack.

4) On NORAD's website, on their official timeline, they now list these 2 fighters which they claim flew from Langley to the Pentigon and arrived several minutes too late. They claim the fighters were airborne at 9:30. They also say the fighters were 105 miles from the Pentagon when it was hit. What they don't mention is that Langley is 129 miles from the Pentagon. The Pentagon was hit sometime between 9:38 and 9:45 depending on which news source you read, so do the math. How fast were they travelling? 24 miles in 8-15 minutes. My NSX could go that fast.

5) In the best-selling book "Among the Heroes", the officer on duty at Langley tells a different story. He says that he and his men were ordered to get into their planes and await instructions quite a bit before 9:24. He says there were 3 fighters (himself and 2 men working under him), and he says they were ordered to fly to New York. He says that after passing Washington, they were told to turn around and go back because there had been an explosion at the Pentagon. He says they then turned around and flew to Washington and then provided air cover.

As you can see, their story keeps chaning, so who knows what to believe. Which version do you think is true? I really have no idea what to believe, although there are witnesses in Washington who claim there were fighters above Washington within minutes of the Pentagon being hit. I have a friend who lives in Washington and he said that when the Pentagon was hit it felt like an earthquake and that everyone in the entire city must have felt it (he was home and he does not live very close to the Pentagon)

 

[Viper Driver]

Yes...NORAD has changed their timeline and stories many times. Originally they said they were first notified about Flight 77 after 9:20. But then in the book "Among the Heroes", the pilots who were at Langley claim they were called by NORAD much earlier and told to get into their planes and they then sat on the runway for some time awaiting instructions. They also claim they were then told to fly to New York, although NORAD officials say they were ordered to fly to Washington.

Second guessing, are we again? I'll bet it took a while for NORAD and the FAA to sort out among the 1000's of aircraft on their screens (most on VFR flight plans) and for them to figure out who was doing what. Also, when an aircraft turns off it's transponder (as was the case with the hijacked aircraft,) these planes are much more difficult to track and keep tabs on. With erratic flight paths and all hell breaking loose, I'll bet it was a real challenge to figure out just what was going on and where to send the jets. Do you have any arguments to counter the points I just brought up, or are you just another sheep conspiracy follower that will swallow whatever is put in front of you?

Better yet, on 9/13/01 in front of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, General Myers was asked to give a detailed account of the Air Force's response that day and he never made any mention of any fighters taking off from Langley. CBS was the first to report the Langley fighters on 9/15/01 in a Dan Rather news broadcast where he said "CBS has learned....." without giving any source of the information. After that, all the other news channels reported the same. Now that has become a part of the official story.

Big deal! Did CBS learn that there were fighters getting airborne all over the country ASAP after the shit hit the fan? FYI, we were airborne here in New Mexico within an hour after the jets hit the Pentagon, and we're not even on an alert status. Did this make the news? No.....probably because it's not relevant. Again, making a mountain out of a molehill.

During the 9/11 Commission hearings, the blame was thought to lay at the FAA's feet since they had waiting over a half hour before notifying NORAD, but they then changed their story and said they notified them much sooner, and NORAD went along with this and then blamed this "exercise" for the delay.

This is all wrong, because the blame lays at the feet of this man, and nowhere else.........

http://www.interpol.int/public/Wanted/Notices/Data/1998/32/1998_20232.asp

Either way you cut it, there was a 40 minute gap from the time the plane first went off course to when interceptors took off. Regulations for both NORAD and the FAA call for this to happen "immediately".

See my post above. Is this "immeidately" applying to domestic flights, or flights originating outside of the USA? Another homework assignment for you.

I have read the excuse that this was an unusual situation and they were not prepared for this, but this was not an unusual situation at all as interceptors are sent up very regularly when planes go off course or when they have communication problems with pilots. The Associated Press had reported that NORAD had sent up interceptors over 60 times during 2001 before 9/11, so this was not an unusual procedure. If anyone remembers the Paine Stewart flight a few years ago, you would remember that interceptors went up to make contact with the plane. The fact that this was a hijacking should make no difference as NORAD was supposed to have responded long before any hijacking was confirmed.

How many of these "60 times" were jets actually scrambled to intercept domestic flights? Another homework assignment for you.......you really should come armed with better facts before you fly off the handle and talk about things you know little about.

Reference my post above to refute your Payne Stewart argument.

Adi-freakin'-os.

 

[GQ NSX]

Good riddens. One by one, the evil shall perish. This thread is turning out to be a good read, with eloquent rebuttals and debate.

Keep it coming guys!

*brings out the popcorn*


ravi

 

[Viper Driver]

The 5 minute figure had nothing to do with those planes that you are talking about. It had to do with the planes that took off from Langley, although who knows if they ever actually did take off. Here is a brief version of the information available on this:

So, your five-minute figure comes from planes that may not have even gotten airborne? Andrews is the only place five minutes flight time from D.C. See my F-16 ops limits discussion above which you conveniently fail to respond to.

1) On 9/13/01, General Myers testified in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee and was asked to give a detailed account of the Air Force's response two days earlier. He gave lots of information, but never mentioned anything about any fighters taking off from Langley.

Did he mention any of the other 50 bases that launched jets on 9/11 to patrol the skies? What is the point you are making here?

2) On 9/14/03 (Friday Night), Dan Rather on CBS News announced "CBS News has learned that...." and he went on to say that 2 fighters had taken off from Langley around 9:30, but they arrived at the Pentigon several minutes too late. Never in the broadcast did he say where CBS learned this from. Shortly after this broadcast, other news stations began to report the same thing saying that CBS News was their source.

Big deal! We took off shortly after 10:00!

3) That Sunday on Meet the Press, Dick Cheney was asked about response to Flight 77 and he never mentioned anything about these fighters and instead cited the planes you mention above that came from Andrews. He claimed there were no fighters in the area which were available to respond and said this was becuase they never could have anticipated this kind of attack.

That's because he's telling the truth, maybe? There were no fighters in the area. It would have been just as fast to get jets back from 207 miles away as it would be to scramble jets from 129 miles away. Pilots on that day were sitting on 15-minute alert.

4) On NORAD's website, on their official timeline, they now list these 2 fighters which they claim flew from Langley to the Pentigon and arrived several minutes too late. They claim the fighters were airborne at 9:30. They also say the fighters were 105 miles from the Pentagon when it was hit. What they don't mention is that Langley is 129 miles from the Pentagon. The Pentagon was hit sometime between 9:38 and 9:45 depending on which news source you read, so do the math. How fast were they travelling? 24 miles in 8-15 minutes. My NSX could go that fast.

Do you know where the jets went? If they were told to go to New York, then they would have went that direction! Chaos ruled on the morning of 9/11, and because the perfect decisions weren't made under these terrible circumstances, people like you decide that you can armchair quarterback this and point fingers. Go figure.......do you have any actual experience with any of these areas of expertise you're so quick to use as evidence?

5) In the best-selling book "Among the Heroes", the officer on duty at Langley tells a different story. He says that he and his men were ordered to get into their planes and await instructions quite a bit before 9:24. He says there were 3 fighters (himself and 2 men working under him), and he says they were ordered to fly to New York. He says that after passing Washington, they were told to turn around and go back because there had been an explosion at the Pentagon. He says they then turned around and flew to Washington and then provided air cover.

So what? This all sounds plausible to me. What does this have to do with the square root of f**k all?

As you can see, their story keeps chaning, so who knows what to believe. Which version do you think is true? I really have no idea what to believe, although there are witnesses in Washington who claim there were fighters above Washington within minutes of the Pentagon being hit. I have a friend who lives in Washington and he said that when the Pentagon was hit it felt like an earthquake and that everyone in the entire city must have felt it (he was home and he does not live very close to the Pentagon)

There were probably fighters there within minutes......I'm sure that time passed rather strangely for those experiencing the horrors unfolding in front of them. I still fail to see any evidence of a conspiracy or of any blame to place outside of Al Qaeda and bin Laden.

Is this the best you can do?

 

[Eric5273]

Well, they ought to re-evaluate this, especially if your 9/11 Citizens Watch are using the same bogus "facts" I just addressed above.

9/11 Citizens Watch is not providing any facts to the Commission. They are just recommending what documents they need to research and who they need to question about what.

Huh? I've been off course by five miles before, and they sure as hell didnt' scramble jets to come find me! I've also been NORDO (radio-out) before, and nobody came to get me then, either. Besides, who are you going to scramble from Albuquerque, New Mexico? Do you think that there were jets before 9/11 waiting at the beckon call all over the country to go on wild goose chases every hour when something like this happens? The only jets on alert prior to 9/11 were geared towards intercepting aircraft originating OUTSIDE of the United States.

Well, as you can see from reading that website, according to the Associated Press, fighters were scrambled by NORAD 67 times in the 9 month period preceding 9/11/01, so apparently it was not an uncommon occurance.

Did they change their story, or is it the media? There only has been one story put forth by the Pentagon on Jessica Lynch, but look at all of the dinsformation out there on her rescue!

Read my last post.

Okay, so let's be crystal clear here. Do you believe that our government is responsible for organizing and carrying out the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Penatagon?

Not sure. I don't have enough information to know that, but I do suspect it may be true. At minimum, I believe that they allowed it to happen so they could justify their Afghan war. It's no secret that UNOCAL has for years been pushing for intervention in Afghanistan so they can build their multi-billion dollar oil pipeline. Now with an oil-friendly administration in the White House, who knows what they are capable of.

My conversation with you is nearly over, so I'll spare the niceties. I think you are a sucker for thinking this, and your willingness to support this completely outlandish theory shows how big of an idiot you really are.

Please do not insult me. Why do these types of conversations always have to resort to personal attacks?

If you like to make it personal, then I can say I think you are a sucker for believing whatever the government tells you. I would rather not bring it to that level. If you can't have debate without name-calling, then please do not participate.

Once again, a leap of logic. So, you're sure that's the reason for their stonewalling, or is this your opinion?

Well, I need to go on a bit of a tangent to answer this, so bear with me....

Some of the same folks who are involved with the 9/11 Commission were also involved with the Congressional Review Board set up in the 1990s related to the JFK Act. This was the bill (passed by congress in 1992 and signed into law by Bush Sr.) that called for the releasing of all the intelligence files related to the JFK Assasination. The JFK review board had a life of 4 years.

During that time they receive wonderful cooperation from the CIA, FBI and most other government agencies and all their files are now public record and available through FOIA. However, the Office of Naval intelligence and the NSA both stonewalled the review board and refused to turn over a single document. The review board took the case to court, but both ONI & NSA kept asking for postponements and when the courts finally ruled against them, they appealed all decisions. Eventually the review board's life (and budget) ran out and as a result, those 2 agencies never had to turn over a single document.

Keep in mind, they never even gave a reason for why they could not release these documents. They simply ignored the requests. They did not release some documents while claiming they could not release others. They simply did not release a single document of many thousands requested. It's quite obvious that they had no intention of ever cooperating with the review board.

These same people are now saying they are seeing the same thing from NORAD and the Justice Department related to the 9/11 Commission's requests. Both agencies have simply ignored all requests. So Kean has begun to complain to the press, hoping that the press will put presure on them to release the documents. But the press has barely made mention of it, other than a couple back page articles.

But let me ask you a question...what would you consider "evidence" that they are stonewalling the committee? Obviously they are not going to announce that this is what they are doing.

 

[Eric5273]

This is all wrong, because the blame lays at the feet of this man, and nowhere else.........

Here's a task for you, since you are making this claim...

Please post any evidence you have to support such a claim. And confessions do not count, as they could be coaxed, or in the case of Osama, they could be fake recordings. I want to read about real physical evidence. Evidence proving that the 19 hijackers were actually who the FBI claims they were. Evidence proving that those 19 were actually on the planes. Evidence showing how they link to Osama or Al-Queda. Post away. I bet you can't come up with even a single thing.

We went to war in Afghanistan on 10/7/01 and I want to know what physical evidence drove our government to do so with the support of most of the people.

The government's claim that a bunch of Arabs armed with box-cutters pulled off this operation is the biggest and most absurd conspiracy theory of them all.

At least my theories have bits and pieces of evidence, although certainly not complete. The real evidence is sitting in those files that both NORAD and the Justice Department are refusing to release. So we may never know....

 

[Viper Driver]

9/11 Citizens Watch is not providing any facts to the Commission. They are just recommending what documents they need to research and who they need to question about what.

You mean documents like the ones that say an F-16 can go 1500 miles per hour?

Well, as you can see from reading that website, according to the Associated Press, fighters were scrambled by NORAD 67 times in the 9 month period preceding 9/11/01, so apparently it was not an uncommon occurance.

As I already said.....how many of these 67 times were to check out domestic commercial airline flights? I submit that it WAS an uncommon occurence.

Not sure. I don't have enough information to know that, but I do suspect it may be true. At minimum, I believe that they allowed it to happen so they could justify their Afghan war. It's no secret that UNOCAL has for years been pushing for intervention in Afghanistan so they can build their multi-billion dollar oil pipeline. Now with an oil-friendly administration in the White House, who knows what they are capable of.

This is complete and utter conjecture. To dignify this horseshit with a reply is something that I'm not going to do.

Please do not insult me. Why do these types of conversations always have to resort to personal attacks?

Well, it is MY thread you took off-topic! If you can't deal with what I type in a thread that I started, then go away! I certainly would have been better off than to spend my evening countering the innacuracies in YOUR posts. As I've said before, start your own thread and push your agenda there! Stay out of mine. Besides, you are personally attacking friends of mine by pointing your finger at them........I'm merely coming to their defense here.

If you like to make it personal, then I can say I think you are a sucker for believing whatever the government tells you. I would rather not bring it to that level. If you can't have debate without name-calling, then please do not participate.

It's my thread! You're the guy who took it off-topic, again. You are the one who should quit participating, of all people. Oh, wait, that would make you think that the military guy would want to censor you........catch-22, I guess. How's about you just go start your own thread and quit hijacking mine?

You can think what you want. I don't believe whatever the government tells me, and you certainly don't know much about me outside of this message board. I can say that I admire your tenacity, but you are running the wrong flag up the wrong hill. As we say in the pilot community......"all airspeed with no vector." The devil is in the details, and any critical study of your sources by knowledgable people quickly unravels these conspiracies.

Well, I need to go on a bit of a tangent to answer this, so bear with me....

........///.................

But let me ask you a question...what would you consider "evidence" that they are stonewalling the committee? Obviously they are not going to announce that this is what they are doing.

Here's what it is.......it's evidence that they are unwilling to give information out to the committee. It doesn't imply any conspiracies, concealment, or massive coverups. I've been involved on several classified projects, and you'd be suprised at some of the reasons for why some of these things are not declassified. Just because they aren't willing to give out information doesn't mean that there is something sinister afoot!

I'm leaving for the night......I've got to get some sleep so I can fly my baby-killing war machine tomorrow. Adi-freakin-os, again.

(edited for grammar and content)

 

[Viper Driver]

Here's a task for you, since you are making this claim...

No, here's a task for you, since you dodged many of my other points already-

Discuss the following things I've brought up in detail, and refute what I claim about 9/11 and all of my references to the Dulles/Pentagon incident. In particular, show me how NORAD (and NEADS in particular) deliberately let the hijacked jets hit their targets, and you need to also show me how the Andrews F-16s or the Langley F-15s could have done anything about it. Please be sure, like I've already said, to show me (1) the identification criteria on the morning of 9/11 with regards to clearing scrambled jets to shoot down domestic airliners, (2) the type of identification required by the fighters before they could shoot, (3) the type of ordnance that would be used and it's range, (4) how much fuel it would have taken for our jets to go from point A to point B at their maximum forward airspeed. Them you can tell me how many aircraft were operating in the northeastern sector that NEADS was responsible for, and how many of these weren't "squawking" with their transponders just like the hijacked airliners were and how that may have affected the whole scenario. Maybe then we can begin to establish who is and WHO ISN"T responsible for 9/11 happening.

Then, we can talk about my wacky theory that Osama bin Laden was responsible, and Saudi-born terrorists hijacked four airliners and killed thousands of people. Call me crazy, but I really think that all of this happened. Like I said, I've been down this road on other message boards with much more articulate and well-versed conspiracy theorists than yourself, and even they fail to present anything credible to back up their arguments. It's always a loosely-tied together hodgepodge of various convenient truths, while a good portion of the facts are ignored.

I've gone head-to-head with the Illumniatti/Skull & Bones/Bilderberger/Federal Reserve/TPTB people before, and their opinions sound eeriliy like yours. I wonder, though, how does someone who's clearly wealthy enough to afford a new NSX have such left-skewed opinions on things? How can a new NSX owner, someone who can make such a great decision on an automobile, be so far off-base in regards to politics and believing in these conspiracies? I won't call you ill-informed (although you defintiely know little about aviation to buy into the 9/11 finger-pointing) but I will call you mis-informed due to your reliance on spurious information.

At least my theories have bits and pieces of evidence, although certainly not complete.

No they don't! You use agencies' refusal to provide paperwork as evidence. You use inaccurate information dealing with NORAD and scrambling aircraft as evidence. You use an allegedly changing story by USAF officials as evidence (can you say hypocrite?) You try to tie together Bush business acquantances to support a theory that we organized and carried out attacks against our own people and our own buildings just for the mere purpose of creating an oil pipeline across Afghanistan.

If this was the case, then I predict the next terrorist attack will be in Alaska. After all, it's been said that ANWR has more oil than anything near Afghanistan. If oil interests truly were behind all of this, we'd be invading countries near the Caspian Sea and not invading a country that has been at war for centuries and has a history of defeating superpowers on their soil. An oil pipeline would have been great for the Taliban by the way, just as oil is great for other muslim dictatorships in the middle east. Also, it would have been much easier for Big Oil, Inc. to deal with a dictatorship than with a democratically-elected government.

The government's claim that a bunch of Arabs armed with box-cutters pulled off this operation is the biggest and most absurd conspiracy theory of them all.

Well, show me a more plausible theory! Show me who took over these aircraft and flew them into our buildings. Show me! Show me! I'll plaigarize you by saying that you won't provide one credible link to support whatever theory you can come up with outside of Al Qaeda.

The real evidence is sitting in those files that both NORAD and the Justice Department are refusing to release. So we may never know....

Conjecture at work again. You can't claim something you've never read as evidence. Sorry but in reality it doesn't work that way.

 

[Eric5273]

Discuss the following things I've brought up in detail, and refute what I claim about 9/11 and all of my references to the Dulles/Pentagon incident. In particular, show me how NORAD (and NEADS in particular) deliberately let the hijacked jets hit their targets

Can you give me an clear but hypothetical example of what kind of evidence would prove this? I wish to know what would convince you. Then I can do my best to provide this.

Maybe then we can begin to establish who is and WHO ISN"T responsible for 9/11 happening.

You don't solve a crime by exploring who ISN'T responsible. My grandmother isn't responsible either......would you like to hear proof? You solve a crime by looking at the evidence and seeing where it leads.

So far I have heard no evidence given by the government to support their claim that Osama bin Laden and Al-Queda are behind the attacks. They claim 19 arab hijackers were on these planes, but they have given no evidence as to how they know this. None of these 19 names are on the original flight manifests which were released by the airlines the afternoon of 9/11/01 (and published on CNN's website that same day), and several of these 19 arabs have turned up alive in other countries.

In answer to this, the FBI has said some of the hijackers may have used fake ID's and that is where the confusion is. Well, if this is the case, then how can they be certain all the hijackers didn't use fake ID's? In a rather well-organized operation such as this, I would think if one used fake ID then they all did.

The files that the 9/11 Commission requested from the Justice Dept. has to do with this proof, and I think the reason the Justice Dept. has ignored the requests is because no such files exist, i.e. there is no evidence. But I cannot prove this. Remember that the commission has sopena power and all members have top-clearance to classified materials, so stating that the documents are classified is not a valid excuse. Then what is the Justice Dept. worried about? Why have they repeatedly ignored the requests?

Then, we can talk about my wacky theory that Osama bin Laden was responsible, and Saudi-born terrorists hijacked four airliners and killed thousands of people. Call me crazy, but I really think that all of this happened.

Why do you think this is what happened? What is your reason for thinking so?

I wonder, though, how does someone who's clearly wealthy enough to afford a new NSX have such left-skewed opinions on things?

I'm a socialist.

although you defintiely know little about aviation

You are correct that i don't know much about aviation. The aviation stuff is not even a major part of why I think what I think about 9/11. The stuff going on in Afghanistan and Pakistan related to the Taliban and Al-Queda is much more interesting and that is what convinced me. The other stuff is just trying to explain how they pulled off the actual operation. Since you have read many of forums which have discussed this, I will just list some points and I'll assume you are familiar with them. If you are not familiar with the details of any of these points, then ask me to elaborate and I will.

1) ISI chief General Ahmed's involvement with transferring money to Mohammed Atta in the week's before 9/11

2) India's intelligence uncovering this (#1) and then the FBI ignoring the suspects and in fact cancelling economic sanctions on Pakistan

3) $123 million in State Dept. aid given to the Taliban in the first 6 months of 2001, all of which was used to buy arms from Pakistan

4) articles in various regional newspapers before 9/11/01 in which government officials of these countries claimed the US was going to invade Afghanistan in October to remove the Taliban from power.

5) UNOCAL's negotiations with the Taliban on the pipeline, and the Taliban's refusal to go along with the project unless much higher monetary amounts were offered.

6) The "Six plus two" meetings: French and Iranian intelligence officials who claim UNOCAL officials were present at negotiations in Pakistan between the State Dept. and Taliban in July 2001.

7) The claim by these officials that the State Dept. was not very interested in Osama bin Laden and was much more concerned with the pipeline.

8) The deal between UNOCAL and Enron for oil to supply the Dabhol power plant, and Enrons subsequent financial problems when power plant was never opened due to a lack of a cheap oil to purchase.

9) The various warnings from other intelligence agencies in the weeks and even days before 9/11/01

10) The FBI agents in Chicago who were fired in the summer of 2001 when they uncovered the hijacking plot, and the other botched FBI investigations in Arizona and Minnesota.

11) The offer by the Taliban to turn over Osama bin Laden to Pakistan, which was refused

If oil interests truly were behind all of this, we'd be invading countries near the Caspian Sea

Readinng this last comment of yours, you clearly do not have an understaning or knowledge of the situation. UNOCAL and Chevron already made deals with those countries in the mid-1990s and they now control most of the oil reserves there (China's oil company also controls some). Their problem is they have no way to get the oil out as these countries are landlocked. The only way was to go north through Russia (who was demanding 50% of the profit in order to use their pipelines), or to go South to the Indian Ocean. If you go South, you can take one of 3 routes:

1) go through China
2) go through Iran
3) go through Afghanistan and then through Pakistan

#3 was chosen and I'm sure I don't have to explain why. Afghanistan had a civil war going on though, so they had to delay the project until there was peace in nothern Afghanistan. So UNOCAL lobbied the Clinton Administration to get involved to make peace there. He refused and instead sent cruise missles there in 1998 which completely undermined UNOCAL's goals. So they had to wait until an oil friendly administration entered the White House. At the time, it was thought that a pipeline deal could be easily negotiated with the Taliban. In 1998, Taliban officials even travelled to Houston to meet with UNOCAL executives and they were wined and dined and expensive gifts were purchased for them. So when Bush took office in 2001, on Colon Powell's first trip to the Middle East & Central Asia, when he stopped in Pakistan, he met with the Taliban ambassador and gave them a gift of $43 million. Twice more in the next few months the State Dept. gave them gifts of $40 million, totalling $123 million for the 6 month period (January to June 2001). This money was used to buy arms from Pakistan and this clearly gave them an advantage in their civil war against the Northern Alliance. By June, the Northern Alliance was almost defeated and pushed back to within 10 miles of the border of Uzbekistan. When it appeared inevitable that they would defeat the Northern Alliance soon, negotiations for the pipeline started up again, this time lead by the State Dept. who was basically representing UNOCAL's interests. However, the Taliban sensing that UNOCAL was getting desperate for this pipeline, made outrageous monetary demands. The State Dept. was offering the Taliban full recognation by the United States and a recommedation to be accepted into the United Nations. In return, they were asking for bin Laden to be turned over and for the pipleine. They offered the Taliban some small amount like 2% of the profits from the oil and the Taliban refused. They did agree to turn over bin Laden to an international body, but the negotiations broke down because of their demands on the pipeline. Shortly after the last meeting in July is when newspaper articles showed up in a few countries claiming that the US would take military action in the fall to remove the Taliban from power.

All that sounds good and well, but here is some more coincidence for you:

In 1998, UNOCAL hired a local businessman in Kanduhar to represent them in Afghanistan in their pipeline negotiations with the Taliban. He worked for them as a consultant until late in 2000. His name is Hamid Karzai, the current president of Afghanistan. Coincidence? I think not!

 

[Spencer]

I honestly don't have time to read all of this.

But can somebody else help me with this? I'm wondering, has Eric5273 brought up the Trilateral Commission, the Bohemian Grove, or the Skull & Bones Society yet?

 

[Andrie Hartanto]

I have not read the whole thread, but the post by Eric that gave link from Jakarta Post grabbed my attention.

Let me tell you this. Indonesian media has credibility near to zero. They get info from very unreliable sources that don't mind to exagerate.

The fact is, my brother, my cousin and my aunt was there. Some were even injured, and they told me there was only 1 bomb.

 

[Eric5273]

I have not read the whole thread, but the post by Eric that gave link from Jakarta Post grabbed my attention.

Let me tell you this. Indonesian media has credibility near to zero. They get info from very unreliable sources that don't mind to exagerate.

Keep something in mind. When newspapers print something, and then they find out what they printed is false or exagerated, they usually issue a note retracting or correcting their earlier claims. This is normal everyday business.

However, when a newspaper prints a story, and then deletes the entire story from their website with no mention of why and no correction or ratracting statement, then there is something fishy.

Very similar to what I posted above about Oklahoma City. All the articles discussing the 2nd & 3rd bombs that were discovered magically dissappeared. I guess they couldn't explain how McVeigh managed to plant 2 more larger bombs in other locations in the building.

 

[dlongo]

I honestly don't have time to read all of this.

But can somebody else help me with this? I'm wondering, has Eric5273 brought up the Trilateral Commission, the Bohemian Grove, or the Skull & Bones Society yet?

I think he may have something, if he could only find a way to tie the fake moon landing into all this, I might be convinced...

But really, why even argue with this guy anymore. It has already been show he completely lied about what the 9/11 comission transcripts say, and when caught in it he just changed the subject. You can't debate with someone like this.

 

[Viper Driver]

Can you give me an clear but hypothetical example of what kind of evidence would prove this? I wish to know what would convince you. Then I can do my best to provide this.

Let's start with what I've already posted. I know a lot about aviation, and there is no evidence to indicate any conspiracy beyond or different to Al-Qaeda. Your 9/11 theory falls apart aftewr that. It doesn't matter who/what/where/when/or why, if you can't handle the HOW then the rest is irrelevant. So, here we go again......

In the hypothetical context that someone flew three jets into major U.S. landmarks, and crashed another one into a field in Pennsylvania-

(1) show me how NORAD (and NEADS in particular) deliberately let the hijacked jets hit their targets, and you need to also show me how the Andrews F-16s or the Langley F-15s could have done anything about it.

(2) Please be sure, like I've already said, to show me:
-(a) the identification criteria on the morning of 9/11 with regards to clearing scrambled jets to shoot down domestic airliners,
-(b) the type of identification required by the fighters before they could shoot,
-(c) the type of ordnance that would be used and it's range,
-(d) how much fuel it would have taken for our jets to go from point A to point B at their maximum forward airspeed.

(3) Then you can tell me how many aircraft were operating in the northeastern sector that NEADS was responsible for, and how many of these weren't "squawking" with their transponders just like the hijacked airliners were and how that may have affected the whole scenario.

You don't solve a crime by exploring who ISN'T responsible. My grandmother isn't responsible either......would you like to hear proof? You solve a crime by looking at the evidence and seeing where it leads.

You solve a crime by using the process of elimination to narrow down your choice of suspects. Evidence is what gives you an initial direction. So, you are at least partially wrong. For the record, unless your grandmother is an Islamic fundamentalist and trained in Afghanistan, I wouldn't consider her a suspect, either.

So far I have heard no evidence given by the government to support their claim that Osama bin Laden and Al-Queda are behind the attacks. They claim 19 arab hijackers were on these planes, but they have given no evidence as to how they know this. None of these 19 names are on the original flight manifests which were released by the airlines the afternoon of 9/11/01 (and published on CNN's website that same day), and several of these 19 arabs have turned up alive in other countries.

Keep in mind, that the manifests are often innacurate, because (among other things) they don't show last-minute ticket purchases. If you really think there is a grand conspiracy afoot, don't you think it would be a snap for "them" to forge these documents as well? And you mean to tell me that the hijackers didn't use their real names when they carried out this crime? They wouldn't do that, now would they?

And, finally, I'll ask you again......if it wasn't these 18 hijackers that flew these jets into the WTC and Pentagon, then WHO specifically took over four airliners and flew them? Who did the passengers of Flight 93 do battle with before the plane crashed into a field? Robots? Who else other than Muslim extremists are willing to "martyr" themselves in this situation? I don't know of any people who are so pro-Big Oil that they're going to commit suicide for the betterment of multinational corporations, do you? Have you thought these little details out? Because, when it boils down to it, these little details are the thread that either holds your theory together or makes it fall apart.

In answer to this, the FBI has said some of the hijackers may have used fake ID's and that is where the confusion is. Well, if this is the case, then how can they be certain all the hijackers didn't use fake ID's? In a rather well-organized operation such as this, I would think if one used fake ID then they all did.

Apparently, at least a few of the hijackers didn't even know that they were on a suicide mission until the very end. I don't call this operation very organized at all, just a very lucky breach of our security. The USA thwarts terrorist activity on a much more regular basis than you would probably know. We can't stop them all, and we aren't perfect. To infer that people in positions of power would infer that they are in control of everything, and ten minutes in any room of the Capitol building or the Pentagon will immediately convince you otherwise.

The files that the 9/11 Commission requested from the Justice Dept. has to do with this proof, and I think the reason the Justice Dept. has ignored the requests is because no such files exist, i.e. there is no evidence. But I cannot prove this. Remember that the commission has sopena power and all members have top-clearance to classified materials, so stating that the documents are classified is not a valid excuse. Then what is the Justice Dept. worried about? Why have they repeatedly ignored the requests?

After 9/11, there were enough leaks to prompt George Bush to bar some congressmen from daily intelligence briefings. This has been an ongoing problem since then, and there would probably be plenty of reasons not to release some of this information. Have you ever had access to classified material?

I'm a socialist.

No wonder you don't know who Kucinich is. Do you have any affilitaion with the Workers World Party?

You are correct that i don't know much about aviation. The aviation stuff is not even a major part of why I think what I think about 9/11.

Well, it should be, because I've just torn a lot of your best "HOW" evidence to shreds.

The stuff going on in Afghanistan and Pakistan related to the Taliban and Al-Queda is much more interesting and that is what convinced me. The other stuff is just trying to explain how they pulled off the actual operation.

Like I said, the devil is in the details. You ca't go from A to Z and skip every other letter.

Since you have read many of forums which have discussed this, I will just list some points and I'll assume you are familiar with them. If you are not familiar with the details of any of these points, then ask me to elaborate and I will.

It would take me much more time and patience than I have to address all of these bullets, and I really do not like coming to this forum and spending the majority of my time dicsussing non-NSX related material. I'm a member of plenty of other message boards dedicated to those ends. I am only involved in this debate because it is my thread, and you hijacked it. If you had created your own thread, I could have ignored it. I get an e-mail every time someone replies to this thread, and I'd really rather spend my day doing something other than combatting your misinformation that has little to do with what we are now discussing. And, on another level, you aren't going to get me off-track until you address my points which I brought up first.

Just because you read it on the internet doesn't mean it's true!