Inside 9/11 - Hijacking the air defense

reply to post by roboe

As opposed to.. who? Prison Planet / Alex Jones? World Nut Daily? Canada Free Press? Killclown?

These websites that you listed are not supported by people who have some real research under their belt; they know disinformation when they see it. Real Truthers avoid these sites that support the OS and are only opinionated by their authors and lack any credibility.

A successful coordinated military style precision strike against the most powerful military in the world undertaken by 19 amateur unskilled cavemen who had no way of communicating with each other. The only thing these guys could coordinate was meeting at a Florida strip joint.

Indeed, why was Rumsfeld never tried for abandoning his post during a crisis? While our nation was under attack he was out carrying stretchers and unavailable by phone,
Leaving your duty post is criminal negligence and despite the screw-ups of many no-one was held accountable for actions that on any other day would have been prosecuted,

OP - I was dumbfounded on 9/11 myself by the lack of air defense over the Pentagon, I thought for sure that even if no fighter had been able to intercept that surface to air missiles would be used. But I suppose only the Chinese and Russians have hardware that advanced
Unlike many on that day I was watching the TV coverage from minute 1. I clearly remembered all the reports of bombs. secondary explosions and the comments of Dan Rather and Peter Jennings who both stated that the collapse of the twin towers closely resembled controlled demolitions.

Rather amazing bit of good luck for the hijackers to pick a day when NORAD, NEADS, the NSA, and FEMA were all doing drills simultaneously, some even involving hijacked aircraft and crashing them intentionally into buildings. Synchronicity is a funny thing, is it not?

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
OP - I was dumbfounded on 9/11 myself by the lack of air defense over the Pentagon, I thought for sure that even if no fighter had been able to intercept that surface to air missiles would be used. But I suppose only the Chinese and Russians have hardware that advanced

It's true. As furious as I was that day the lack of fighter cover, even then, made me begin to question what we were being told.

The math makes no sense to me.

This is good video related to OP

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
I thought for sure that even if no fighter had been able to intercept that surface to air missiles would be used.

Exactly what SAM's do you think were ready to use anywhere in the USA on 911?

The USA did not have any ready to use SAM's available, and no, the pentagon did not have secret SAM's!

reply to post by SphinxMontreal

A successful coordinated military style precision strike against the most powerful military in the world undertaken by 19 amateur unskilled cavemen

Cavemen ?

In 1985, Atta entered Cairo University, where he studied engineering. As one of the highest-scoring students, Atta was admitted into the very selective architecture program during his senior year. In addition to his regular courses, Atta studied English at the American University in Cairo. In 1990, Atta graduated with a degree in architecture, and joined the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Engineers Syndicate organization. For several months after graduating, Atta worked at the Urban Development Center in Cairo, where he worked on architectural, planning, and building design. In 1990, Atta's family moved into an 11th floor apartment in Giza

The leader Mohammed Atta had advanced degrees in urban planning and spoke 3 languagues

Ziad Jarrah

In 1997, Jarrah left Greifswald and instead began studying aerospace engineering at the Fachhochschule (University of Applied Sciences) in Hamburg, while working at a Volkswagen paint shop in nearby Wolfsburg. While in Hamburg, he rented an apartment from Rosemarie Canel, who would paint a portrait of him that he would bring back as a gift for his mother that December.

Aeospace engineering ????

The leaders (pilots) had college education

Care to compare your pathetic skils against the hijackers....?

Yeah the Colonel did it with the statue in the parlor.



Yeah well, that's just fine!

Was he was part of a conspiracy? Does it really matter?

The point is there are bigger fish to fry than this guy.

Who could cover this up, withhold funding for a real investigation, and place a traitorous Philip Zelikow as the head of the 911 commission?

en.wikipedia.org...

And, who do you think used executive authority to limit the information given to all but 3 persons (Zelikow being one) on that commission?

Limit information to the commission, there I had to say it a second time. What could possibly be the rational for that maneuver I wonder?

reply to post by impressme

Fact is people searching for the truth are not scared and are opened minded. Your assumptions of me are ridiculous at best.

Not scared and open minded? But afraid to look at anything other than conspiracy theory website...lol.

reply to post by vipertech0596
*SNIP*
Mod Note: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.
Take a look at these and see if it's nothing more than your typical conspiracy theorist mumbo-jumbo. You might have to take a little time reading these papers though, which is quite a step-up from listening to what mainstream media, NIST, and FEMA tells you happened. Keep an open-mind and don't be afraid to look at anything that defies your impossible official explanation:

Destruction of the World Trade Center North Tower and Fundamental Physics

The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NIST-Bazant Collapse Hypothesis

Momentum Transfer Analysis of the Upper Storeys of WTC 1

Discussion of "What Did and Did Not Cause Collapse of World Trade Center Twin Towers in New York" by Zdenek Bazant, Zia-Liang Le, Frank Greening, and David Benson"

reply to post by TupacShakur


Yawn....almost as boring as the physics textbooks we used back in high school. And quite frankly, that was too many years ago for me to attempt to claim I am an expert in Physics like everybody in this thread seems to be.

But there are still a couple of items that stood out in each of those papers.......

1. I kept seeing the word ASSUME or a variation of it. Quite a few assumptions were made.

2. Each of the papers seem to have started out with the goal of ensuring they did not agree with the official investigations. That is flat out dishonest research.

So, what I read, was a bunch of words from some folks that seem to be carrying chips on their shoulders. Or in other terms, some half-assed attempts to find fault with the best guess investigation conducted by NIST. And yes, I mean best guess. That is all that ANY investigation into the collapses of WTC 1, 2 and 7 will be, best guesses. For there to be a 100% no kidding, this is exactly what happened investigation, each of the buildings would have had to have been wired up the kazoo with data collection equipment.

However, since there was absolutely no evidence of any demolition materials found (not talking about the supposed tippy top secret hush a boom thermite) the only other logical conclusion would be that each of the buildings collapsed from the damage/fire.

Dont kid yourselves, even IF thermite had been used, there would have still had to have been literally hundreds of feet of wiring to induce the thermite reactions........and absolutely NO evidence of it was ever found.

reply to post by vipertech0596

I dunno, he did link to something by Heiwa. Which, as anyone who has ever been anywhere near the JREF forums, would know isn't a very good idea if you want to be taken seriously.

At some point, Heiwa aka Anders Björkman went from just throwing out random ideas to downright trolling. IIRC he's been banned, but fortunately most of his antics are summed up here: sites.google.com...

ETA: Especially the comparisons he makes are a riot.

reply to post by vipertech0596
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fab5530caf1b.jpg[/atsimg]

So, what I read, was a bunch of words from some folks that seem to be carrying chips on their shoulders. Or in other terms, some half-assed attempts to find fault with the best guess investigation conducted by NIST. And yes, I mean best guess. That is all that ANY investigation into the collapses of WTC 1, 2 and 7 will be, best guesses. For there to be a 100% no kidding, this is exactly what happened investigation, each of the buildings would have had to have been wired up the kazoo with data collection equipment.

Clearly you read the first paragraph, X-ed out of it, and said "Oh yeah just like I suspected, a bunch of crazy biased truther lies". If you read all four of those papers, you would see that they took a scientific approach, looked at the evidence, used mathematical equations, graphs, data tables, concepts of basic high school physics, and calculations to back up what they say.

However, since there was absolutely no evidence of any demolition materials found (not talking about the supposed tippy top secret hush a boom thermite) the only other logical conclusion would be that each of the buildings collapsed from the damage/fire.

Yeah, residue of an explosive material which can melt steel is found as well as iron microspheres which mean the steel was molten, jet fuel is not capable of melting steel, and the logical conclusion is fire did it. Where did you take your logics courses, some through-the-mail university? And you said this: "absolutely no evidence of any demolition materials found", but we both know nano-thermite was found in the dust as well as iron microspheres, so actually, there absolutely was evidence of demolitition materials.

Dont kid yourselves, even IF thermite had been used, there would have still had to have been literally hundreds of feet of wiring to induce the thermite reactions........and absolutely NO evidence of it was ever found.

You make a good point. However, the wise Carl Sagan once said "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", and since there is physical evidence of nano-thermite in the dust, and all three towers collapsed in a manner that would be consistent with a controlled demolition, you can't just say "Nope nobody saw them wire the explosives so that erases all physical evidence". Plus, physical evidence is way more conclusive than a few witness testimonies, wouldn't you agree?

Originally posted by roboe
reply to post by TupacShakur

 

As opposed to.. who? Prison Planet / Alex Jones? World Nut Daily? Canada Free Press? Killclown?

How about the Washington Post and the New York Times?


The Washington Post: 9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon

“We to this day don't know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us," said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. "It was just so far from the truth. . . . It's one of those loose ends that never got tied.” Although the commission's landmark report made it clear that the Defense Department's early versions of events on the day of the attacks were inaccurate, the revelation that it considered criminal referrals reveals how skeptically those reports were viewed by the panel and provides a glimpse of the tension between it and the Bush administration.

my bolding

Review of senior counsel to the 9/11 Commission John Farmer’s book.
NYTimes: The Lies They Told

Farmer scrutinizes F.A.A. and Norad records to provide irrefragable evidence that a day after a Sept. 17 White House briefing, both agencies suddenly altered their chronologies to produce a coherent timeline and story that “fit together nicely with the account provided publicly by Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz and Vice President Cheney.”

my bolding


9/11 deserves a serious second look in which the conclusions are not written prior to the investigation.

reply to post by TupacShakur

You make a good point. However, the wise Carl Sagan once said "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", and since there is physical evidence of nano-thermite in the dust, and all three towers collapsed in a manner that would be consistent with a controlled demolition, you can't just say "Nope nobody saw them wire the explosives so that erases all physical evidence". Plus, physical evidence is way more conclusive than a few witness testimonies, wouldn't you agree?

And once again, where the truther movement falls on its face. Nano-thermite. It didn't exist at the WTC. The sloppy research (and outright sins of omission) used by Prof. Jones have been WELL documented in numerous places. His own former collegues at BYU...especially those in the Engineering discipline have been less than kind in their critique of his work.

reply to post by Elbereth


I notice that you neglect the fact that Mr Farmer has stated that he believes that the Commission Report is accurate.

reply to post by vipertech0596


Was I supposed to provide a complete synopsis of the articles for your convenience? Links were provided. ATS members can read.

reply to post by vipertech0596

And once again, where the truther movement falls on its face. Nano-thermite. It didn't exist at the WTC. The sloppy research (and outright sins of omission) used by Prof. Jones have been WELL documented in numerous places. His own former collegues at BYU...especially those in the Engineering discipline have been less than kind in their critique of his work.

And once again, you provide no evidence to back up your claims, you just say things. Speaking of well documented, have you read this paper published and peer reviewed in the The Open Chemical Physics Journal? Nano-Thermite coming at ya. Here are some images from the paper, and I'll save you the burdon of poorly debunking them by doing it myself:
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/59151789bd41.jpg[/atsimg] Those are primer paint chips.
Yep, just your run of the mill primer paint chips with the same chemical composition of nano-thermite.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7a11ec07a598.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d89a065aa2c5.jpg[/atsimg] Those iron microspheres weren't formed from nano-thermite, that's from the workers at ground zero using blowtorches. Yep, nothing out of the ordinary there, some clean-up workers were using blowtorches in Janette MacKinlay's apartment: [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1eb12b669cfd.jpg[/atsimg]

And for the grand finale, the eutectic steel found at ground zero (Not in his paper but I figured I'd toss it in here): [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1a17aeae0e19.jpg[/atsimg] Uh how do I know that's from ground zero? Just another truther lie I tell ya.

reply to post by Elbereth

Erhm, we DO know about the deception by the Pentagon and DoD. The timeline and testimonies submitted by both, suggested that they were tracking AA77 and UA93 prior to their respective crashes, and that they were ready to intercept at least UA93. The reality, of course, was quite different. It was a major CYA move.

reply to post by TupacShakur


And again, the vanity journal pops up.

Their work was predestined to come up with one result and ignores any other possible reasons. They take great pains to mention that the one dust sample was collected prior to any clean up operations so that it could not be contaminated by cutting torches or welding operations. Here's a hint.......the Towers were "contaminated" by welding (and some cutting) operations from the day they were built. Ever time a welder was used, it left iron spheres......and I have yet to meet an ironworker that worries about cleaning up the welds, unless they are going to be visible after completion. Now, how many welds on the trusses and columns do you think were somewhere where they worried about cleaning up? Very few. In other words for over thirty years, you had iron spheres throughout those buildings.

Is that the only explanation for what they think they found? Probably not. But, just shows that Prof Jones had his "answer" in mind before he started.

So it gets back to...no det wire, no blasting caps, no radio receivers, no evidence of any kind of equipment necessary for a demolition, in other words, NO demolition. Rules out the use of explosives.