skinnyflyer 0 #351 December 30, 2006 one of the first poster posted a link to the popular mechanics article; 9/11 debunking the myths. one of their debunks was; "In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America..." this has been refuted by multiple sources. other articles say many thousands of intercepts have taken place. here is one example; In an Associated Press article a NORAD spokesman, Maj. Douglas Martin, is reported as saying that from September 2000 to June 2001 (just ten months) NORAD scrambled jets (or diverted combat air patrols) 67 times to investigate aircraft going off-course or other suspicious events, and presumably many of these resulted in intercepts. here is a letter from a wtc tenant; John: I was a tenant at WTC1 in 1979-81. The only concern anyone had 20 years ago was a hijacked plane being flown into the towers. Here is the "Key" to unlock the door: The extensive flight logs for 20 years from the 3 military bases in the area and Port Authority responding to air threats is exemplary. Thousands of sorties run in response to threats, practice runs, false alarms, done weekly or daily over 20 years. Back in the late seventies the NY Post ran an article about the Port Authority bragging how their manned 24/7 response helicopter would be in the air within 4 minutes of an alert call going out per possible air threat to the WTC towers. There is [only] one occasion that I am aware of, or in most probabilities that any one else is aware of, in this exemplary record of response to air threats covering a period of over twenty years that the intercepts did not launch and were told to stand down, after going on high alert within a minute or two of the threat, not from just one threat but then two. That date was 9/11/01. This in itself is the most condemning fact of them all when that 20 year record is brought to light. The motive then becomes crystal clear in review of that exemplary response record to threats from the air against the WTC towers. No off course or negligent air craft came close. They were always intercepted and told to change their course or they would be blown out of the sky. It was a no fly zone and this happened to many pilots that intentionally or unintentionally flew too close to the WTC towers over those 20 years. somebody else mentioned that there are three criteria for scrambling jets; -off course -transponder off -no radio response each one individually meriting intercept. yet on 9/11 the official story tells us that the air force stood down in response to four hijacked jet liners that all met all 3 criteria and for well over an hour when normal intercepts only take 10-20 min. we are also told that flight 77 flew over the white house unimpeded, which you might expect to be the best protected air space in the world."Death is more universal than life; everyone dies but not everyone lives." A. Sachs Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #353 December 30, 2006 Applying the same skepticism to the conspiracy advocates as you do to the official report would keep you from posting crap that isn't true. There were indeed firefighters in WTC 7, there was indeed a much greater fire than you've portrayed, it was indeed hit very hard by the collapse of the main towers. http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htmPeople are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #354 December 30, 2006 QuoteAnother little “coincidence” -- Mr. Silversten, who made a down-payment of $124 million on this $3.2 billion complex, promptly insured it for $7 Billion. Not only that, he covered the complex against “terrorist attacks”. Following the attacks, Silverstein filed TWO insurance claims for the maximum amount of the policy ($7B), based on the two -- in Silverstein's view -- separate attacks. The insurance company, Swiss Re, paid Mr. Silverstein $4.6 Billion — a princely return on a relatively paltry investment of $124 million. QuoteOne thing is for sure, the decision to 'pull' WTC 7 would have delighted many people. Especially because it has been reported that thousands of sensitive files relating to some of the biggest financial scams in history — including Enron and WorldCom -- were stored in the offices of some of the building’s tenants QuoteThere is [only] one occasion that I am aware of, or in most probabilities that any one else is aware of, in this exemplary record of response to air threats covering a period of over twenty years that the intercepts did not launch and were told to stand down, after going on high alert within a minute or two of the threat, not from just one threat but then two. That date was 9/11/01. This in itself is the most condemning fact of them all when that 20 year record is brought to light. The motive then becomes crystal clear in review of that exemplary response record to threats from the air against the WTC towers. These two posts are excellent examples of the biggest thing wrong with the 9/11 conspiracy theory. That is to say, there isn't one conspiracy theory. They seem to be countless, and even though the implications of more than one are often used to paint a rather grandiose picture of "what really happened" behind the scenes, the assumptions made to drive them all are either orthogonal or at odds. Did people make money off of what happened on 9/11? Certainly. For example, a guy I work with bought a house the week after it happened when housing prices took a dip. He probably paid half of what the property was actually worth. Did many security layers in place that day that should have caught the events according to their own chest-thumping declarations of capability fail to prevent the attacks? Evidently. Drills and responses to minor false alarms are one thing, but until you're really under fire, you don't know how your system is going to perform. We know today, better than we ever did before, just how silly and misguided things like airport security can be. Did certain people have both the knowledge and capability to stop the attacks, but choose not to because of a political or financial agenda? Hmm, that's a good question. I personally tend to doubt it, but that's my gut talking. However I think a discussion that actually maintained focus on this particular topic rather than devolving into ridiculous and ignorant conjecture about cruise missiles, material science, and civil engineering would be much more fruitful than what these conspiracy theory threads always produce. Did the line of people who wanted the buildings destroyed grow so long (to include, but apparently not limited to, islamic fundamentalists, enron and worldcom execs, oil companies, property tycoons, and [withholding laughter] people trying to avoid asbestos removal costs and regulations) that one or more of these groups actively coordinated their efforts and employed both demolition charges and hijacked aircraft in a redundant fashion to destroy the buildings? Utterly and completely absurd. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,489 #355 December 30, 2006 Quote"In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America..." this has been refuted by multiple sources. other articles say many thousands of intercepts have taken place. Prove it. QuoteIn an Associated Press article a NORAD spokesman, Maj. Douglas Martin, is reported as saying that from September 2000 to June 2001 (just ten months) NORAD scrambled jets (or diverted combat air patrols) 67 times to investigate aircraft going off-course or other suspicious events, and presumably many of these resulted in intercepts. Where's the article? QuoteJohn: I was a tenant at WTC1 in 1979-81. The only concern anyone had 20 years ago was a hijacked plane being flown into the towers. Here is the "Key" to unlock the door: The extensive flight logs for 20 years from the 3 military bases in the area and Port Authority responding to air threats is exemplary. Why does an ex tenant of the WTC have access to military flight logs? QuoteBack in the late seventies the NY Post ran an article about the Port Authority bragging how their manned 24/7 response helicopter would be in the air within 4 minutes of an alert call going out per possible air threat to the WTC towers. What has that got to do with interceptions? Is this anonymous 'tenant' supposed to have credibility?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skinnyflyer 0 #356 December 30, 2006 "Why does an ex tenant of the WTC have access to military flight logs?" he doesn't, he's saying that if we had these flight logs it would be a smoking gun. "Prove it." "Where's the article? " i'll try to find to find it but feel free to search for info yourself."Death is more universal than life; everyone dies but not everyone lives." A. Sachs Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skinnyflyer 0 #357 December 30, 2006 here are the two pictures of structural damage from the NIST report; http://www.wtc7.net/damageclaims.html common sense, intuition, known science would all suggest that in the unprecedented, unlikely and unheard of event of collapse that it would not be a complete symmetrical collapse. -steel framed highrises have never collapsed from fire. -tall buildings that collapse from earthquake look like this; http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/collapsecases.html watch this video of a botched controlled demolition; http://www.argusleader.com/assets/mov/DF13214123.MOV here is a summary of the official story; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#7_World_Trade_Center there has never been a building that collapsed exactly like a controlled demolition, had all the features of a controlled demolition and yet wasn't a controlled demolition. so there are two choices concerning wtc7; one is the official story or more accurately lack of story. an impossible hypothesis in the works. or controlled demolition which explains everything observed perfectly, matches all the data and is intuitive.(seeing as most people have never seen the video of wtc7 a good experiment would be to take the video to a demolition expert or structural engineer who is unaware of wtc7s collapse and ask them what they think)"Death is more universal than life; everyone dies but not everyone lives." A. Sachs Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #358 December 30, 2006 holy crap conspiracy theorists value politics over ewverything. Anyway, the ABSOLUTE proof that the USA was not behind the 9/11 attax is this: Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #359 December 30, 2006 ARE YOU READY? Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #360 December 30, 2006 OK HERE IT IS: not a single one of the hijackers was an Iraqi or in any way associatedwith Saddam Hussein. all the shit they've received, it is pretty clear that they would have don something about that. Or maybe they slipped up and all that other crap on the tin foil hat web sites slipped through. Oooooh. suddenly your life has some importance. with Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skinnyflyer 0 #361 December 30, 2006 here i found a couple of jet scramble articles with references; "Jets were scrambled 129 times."(2000) http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/analysis/norad/calgaryherald101301_scrables.html "the 67 scrambles from September 2000 to June 2001, Martin said. " http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/analysis/norad/020812ap.html thats funny i thought that the dunbunking 9/11 article from popular mechanics said there was only 1 intercept in the last decade."Death is more universal than life; everyone dies but not everyone lives." A. Sachs Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #362 December 30, 2006 scramble != interceptMike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #363 December 30, 2006 Quotescramble != intercept No, scramble = get airborne, the beginning of the process of intercepting.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #364 December 30, 2006 QuoteQuotescramble != intercept No, scramble = get airborne, the beginning of the process of intercepting. "!" means "not", so he was correct.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #365 December 30, 2006 Quotecommon sense, intuition, known science would all suggest that in the unprecedented, unlikely and unheard of event of collapse that it would not be a complete symmetrical collapse. It wasn't. Quote-steel framed highrises have never collapsed from fire. Not true. And it didn't collapse just from fire which was left to burn for hours, it had major damage done to it before the fire Quotethere has never been a building that collapsed exactly like a controlled demolition, had all the features of a controlled demolition and yet wasn't a controlled demolition. There was severe structural damage to the building, including critical support columns. The walls of the building were bowing for all to see long before it collapsed. Quoteso there are two choices concerning wtc7; one is the official story or more accurately lack of story. an impossible hypothesis in the works. or controlled demolition which explains everything observed perfectly, matches all the data and is intuitive. Now you rely on "intuition" to make your case! People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skinnyflyer 0 #366 December 30, 2006 scramble != intercept you're right i guess the fighter jets give up when they can't find off course flights."Death is more universal than life; everyone dies but not everyone lives." A. Sachs Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #367 December 30, 2006 Quotescramble != intercept you're right i guess the fighter jets give up when they can't find off course flights. Or the flight turns back on course...or whatever they scrambled for... congrats on figuring it out!Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skinnyflyer 0 #368 December 30, 2006 sundevil777 "...not be a complete symmetrical collapse." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "It wasn't." -how is straight down right into its own footprint not symmetrical. "-steel framed highrises have never collapsed from fire. " -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Not true"-please provide just one example to back up your statement oh wait there are none. "There was severe structural damage to the building"-in my last post i gave a link to the official NIST report pictures which show minor damage."Death is more universal than life; everyone dies but not everyone lives." A. Sachs Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #369 December 30, 2006 Quotesundevil777 "...not be a complete symmetrical collapse." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "It wasn't." -how is straight down right into its own footprint not symmetrical. "-steel framed highrises have never collapsed from fire. " -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Not true"-please provide just one example to back up your statement oh wait there are none. "There was severe structural damage to the building"-in my last post i gave a link to the official NIST report pictures which show minor damage. I've seen clear video/pics where one of the towers' upper floors were off the vertical axis perhaps 30 degrees. Steel structures have collapsed due to fire in the past: http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm You got nothing. Every little point that the conspiracy advocates bring up is easily shown to be an outright lie, half truth, etc. Have you got anything new, that hasn't already been debunked?People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #370 December 30, 2006 Debunking or not, the conspiracy theorists will not give up. Conspiracy theorists are really fulfilling a predominantly political & psychological need. Taking apart all their points one by one will therefore never work. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skinnyflyer 0 #371 December 31, 2006 sundevil777 "Steel structures have collapsed due to fire in the past:" your link doesn't have any examples of steel highrises collapsing due to fire. this debunking site is a joke, it doesn't debunk anything. -just relax, calm down and go back to the talking heads on your tv, they'll tell you what to do."Death is more universal than life; everyone dies but not everyone lives." A. Sachs Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 102 #372 December 31, 2006 Quotesundevil777 "Steel structures have collapsed due to fire in the past:" your link doesn't have any examples of steel highrises collapsing due to fire. this debunking site is a joke, it doesn't debunk anything. -just relax, calm down and go back to the talking heads on your tv, they'll tell you what to do. It has lots of examples of steel structures collapsing from fires, including some large buildings, but not strictly speaking "high rises". The WTC collapsed not just due to the fire, it also had a wide body plane hit it at very high speed, which also knocked off the fireproofing from the steel. No other previous high rise fires have faced that. The fact that no steel high rise buildings have collapsed due to fire does not provide you with the basis to make any conclusions at all about the WTC. Very weak basis for a conspiracy theory. I think you are not capable of being skeptical regarding the conspiracy advocate's claims.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skinnyflyer 0 #373 December 31, 2006 "but not strictly speaking "high rises". " exactly, hence my previous statement-"your link doesn't have any examples of steel highrises collapsing due to fire. this debunking site is a joke, it doesn't debunk anything. " "The WTC collapsed not just due to the fire, it also had a wide body plane hit it at very high speed, which also knocked off the fireproofing from the steel. No other previous high rise fires have faced that. " -building 7 had no plane hit it and the fireproofing was not knocked off. did you look at the official damage pictures of building 7? the damage is only on one corner."Death is more universal than life; everyone dies but not everyone lives." A. Sachs Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skinnyflyer 0 #374 December 31, 2006 here is what the final official NIST investigation concluded; "The towers likely would not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact damage and the extensive, multi-floor fires if the thermal insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact." – NIST, p. xxxviii thats funny then how did wtc7 collapse? they then went on to disprove their own fireproof theory with a shotgun blast test which showed that the fireproofing was only removed directly where the blast occured."Death is more universal than life; everyone dies but not everyone lives." A. Sachs Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skinnyflyer 0 #375 December 31, 2006 ""The focus of the investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the 'probable collapse sequence,' although it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable." – NIST, p. 82" so NIST just invented a new phenomenon-global collapse- but doesn't even try to explain it."Death is more universal than life; everyone dies but not everyone lives." A. Sachs Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
