http://www.prisonplanet.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyKR2-A0KPU
Read PP, watch the video, post thoughts. This is like the only forum that I trust to keep this debate sensible.
Printable View
http://www.prisonplanet.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyKR2-A0KPU
Read PP, watch the video, post thoughts. This is like the only forum that I trust to keep this debate sensible.
Can there be another option?
[ ] Patriot
[ ] Pratt
[x] Great in Platoon
Also...what's a Pratt?
I was going for something alliterative... Pratt means idiot.
And yeah, option 3 ftw rofl
Patriots are pratts.
And posing a lot of questions in lieu of information isnt a substitute for actual substance.
If even some of these theories are true, and you know that some are, is America ready to hear this kind of information as truth and not a conspiracy? Being from outside the US and seeing and hearing things in a completely different light makes this much easier for us, but I am not sure many are ready to hear what th government did or is capable of doing.
Akin to saying, If any piece of this buckshot hits the target, and you know some will, then I'll start giving marksmanship lessons. Of course, as with these theories, im sure ill still miss the target.Quote:
Originally Posted by jyms
Oh and I mainly say that because people cant wrap their brains around terrorists actually being behind the attacks. Why would people just hate our freedom so much that they'd do this?!
They don't hate our freedom, that hate our international policy of being an enourmous douchebag to them, their families and their countries.
Of course, sympathizing with the point of view of the cave-crawling sand-niggers is not patriotic.
Honestly, once we do away with racism, sexism and all other discriminating isms, we should really drop patriotism. Or acid. Scratch that. We should all drop acid.
Option 3 wins hands down. Platoon is his only venue where he should be, acting, not activism.
Charlie Sheen should stick to banging hot chicks. And Acting. And that is all.
I agree with you rilla but the ism's (including religion) have unfortunately been evolutionarily favorable. They create a group unity and strength and justify the exploitation and eradication of other groups, which, however douchey, has been advantageous to the conquerors and their progeny. Idk whether or not these behaviors are wired into our brains or are a part of behavioral evolution (what we teach our kids, they will teach their kids) but I sincerely hope it's the latter.
It's seems like it's something that would be nearly impossible to change though because aggression and douchebaggery get rewarded more often than not.
Have never seen these two used in a single sentence together before. But I agree. Just look at all the douchebags with hot chicks...Quote:
Originally Posted by Parasurama
Not surprised that Charlie Sheen would be taken in by a conspiracy theory. He is weak minded, impulsive drug/sex addict whose views can easily be swayed on way or the other. If he keeps after this he will be vilified like Tom Cruise with his Scientology.
BTW this is one of the dumbest conspiracy theories out there. It severely lacks evidence and is what it claims to be evidence is highly speculative. What makes more sense, that terrorists (who do this kind of stuff all the time, all over the world) did it, or that our own government did it (which would be nearly impossible to organize, approve, and contain) for money and/or to start a war.
Occam's razor folks.
Alex Jones is an attention whoring nutbar.
Firstly, this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7E3oIbO0AWE
Why is it that most Americans are afraid to speak out against 9/11? Why is it that most Americans SERIOUSLY believe that their government (a man-made institution) isn't hiding anything from them?
And why is that patriotism means saying everybody in American should speak English (when, in fact, America does not have a national language)? Why do most Americans not understand that most of the money in this country is falling in the hands of only a few people? Why are Americans fucking idiots?
Oh, and I'd like to throw in a quote from George W. Bush (in Harold & Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay):
Trust the government? Heck, I'm in the government and I don't even trust it. You don't have to believe in your government to be a good American. You just have to believe in your country.
It's too bad this country is turning to shit.
The U.S. of A. is the greatest nation on earth. <--Remember that son
We are freedom.
We are pride.
We are Awesome.
We are thee Global Warmers.
It's going to be interesting to see what will be said/known about 9/11 over the next few decades. That's all I'm going to say.
Both Loose Change and Zeitgiest are two really influential films. I still have my doubts with trusting them completely. But they make their cases really well. All I know is that I haven't done *any* real looking-into into any of that shit, so I abstain from drawing conclusions. I treat shiny documentaries like Fox News political banter.
I think Loose Change has many details wrong and the makers of Zeitgeist themselves have admitted that a lot of the movie is fabricated or speculation, merely meant to push people to question things they normally take for granted. I've seen and read convincing arguments both for and against the conspiracy theories, hard to say exactly where I stand now. That said, it's quite clear that the official 9/11 story is bollocks and way way too many questions have not been answered. The government clearly was aware of the exact threat, and their handling of the situation shows a complete lack of competence and/or malevolence.
:clap:Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
good post.
Because when you start, where do you stop?Quote:
Originally Posted by BooG690
It's far, far easier to believe the official version of events because anything else will rock you to the core. If you don't believe the official account of 9/11, what does that say about the government? What else have they lied about? Are they controlling the mainstream media? What else are they controlling?
It's simpler to accept what you're told that open up a can of worms and digest them one by one. I think that's why I refused to believe the 9/11 theories for so long. It's a revelation that the human mind can struggle to overcome.
I think you struck the nail in the head. It's another step on the road that I suppose usually starts from realizing Santa isn't real. Then at some point you figure out that your parents and adults in general are not these omniscient beings you always thought they were, having answers to every imaginable question and knowing everything best. For some at some point might come the realization that God isn't real and most of the planet's population is just enthralled to this mass illusion. All the government offices, the police, firemen, scientists etc. are all just fairly regular people with their faults and personal agendas, and many of them are not as organized and as on top of things you thought they were. It's scary shit to realize the society is not this well-tuned and highly sophisticated machine it might seem like, not everything is based on careful planning and weighing all the options for the general good, in the end, it's all just humans. Humans that are greedy, petty, selfish, vengeful liars. There are some good traits too, granted, but anyone who disagrees with all of the above being intrinsic human characteristics is delusional. Think about it, how many truly and wholly "good" humans can you name from the history of humankind? Mother Teresa, Gandhi, Jesus and your grandma, who else? Doesn't it say something about us, that a person whose only achievement in life was being a pretty nice guy once (the good samaritan) is remembered and talked about for thousands of years?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucothefish
I was caught up in the excitement of the conspiracy theories before, and I will not say that I have dismissed them, but now Im just sorta in the position rilla is in. Sensationalism is sensationalism and should be treated with skepticism at all times, whether its from the far right, the far left, or anywhere else.
Charlie Sheen being involved in this video is lol though. Like.. much better productions have been put together. Does Charlie think he really pulls that much weight? Does he think Obama is gonna drop everything and set up a new investigatory panel?
I know I get involved in just about every elaborate subject on this forum, but I just don't care about this, and I'll try to keep this short.
It's because conspiracy theories are a gigantic joke. Everything about 9/11 has been explained (like physicists explaining standard physics of how the buildings fell), and we even know how the intel fell through the cracks (NSA and FBI territorial issues), but the main thing that we do not know is the nuances of the Bush administration's anti-terrorism policies, and those could have played substantial roles while being completely legal.
It's foolish to think they had anything to do with this. Clinton was fighting al Qaeda and Osama a ton in the 90s, and if Bush admin had anything to do with it then it would have come out because that's what happens (like how the truth of the Iraq war came out). The most the Bush admin possibly did was be purposefully neglectful because they wanted an excuse for war (I consider unlikely). Or they were just standard Republicans and cut important budget to pay for unimportant budget, or nothing out of the ordinary was done, and it really boiled down to the FBI/NSA issue
More on that: we know that the NSA knew all about these terrorists coming into the country, but we also know that they couldn't survey the US (until the Patriot Act), and they didn't tell the FBI due to jurisdiction. An NSA agent is even on record as saying that he was super close to telling the FBI once these guys entered the country (and that would prevented 9/11), but he knew he would lose his job over it, so he didn't say anything.
It could be as simple as that. In fact, it probably IS as simple as that. At least it's WAY more likely than some wacky conspiracy theory. While conspiracy theories have a greater than zero probability of being true, so does a lot of garbage that nobody takes seriously
If you want to harp on people falsely believing things, then look no further than conspiracy theorists. They have no more evidence than xtians do for their space messiah. The truth has a habit of coming out (just look at Iraq), and when it doesn't come out it's because it's usually not true
I think we're missing the point to this whole Charlie Sheen thing. The point is that we want the TRUTH and we simply don't have that right now.
I for one am glad the Chuck is voicing his opinion on the subject. Sadly, an entertainer's opinion on this subject carries more weight and is of more interest to the public than say, umm, idk, a thousand or so architectural and engineering professionals that have organized and been saying this for several years now. While Chuck's opinion is of no more value than anyone else, I respect him for putting his career on the line for trying to wake people up and ask questions. That took guts. So, patriot or pratt, I vote patriot.
Too bad he has to deal with nutz like Alex Jones. That guy hurts the movement as much as he helps. He's like Tom Arnold on shrooms. His wild allegations are what turns the average undecided away from the "truth". The truth is we don't know who was responsible, and we don't know why they did it. Stick to what we do know. Focus on the building that was left out of the 9/11 Commission report. Focus on the bldg that wasn't hit by aircraft and wasn't drenched in jet fuel. Force the public to accept the fact that fire does not cause a skyscraper to fall like this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A
Who are these professionals and why should I believe them?Quote:
Originally Posted by nibbles
U don't have to believe them 500G. But we should at least listen to what independent professionals have to say on the matter. We should try to understand why hundreds of thousands of $$$ are paid to demolition engineers to make old bldgs collapse the way the WTC bldgs did on 9/11. We also need to understand how unlikely it was for 3 buildings to collapse the way they did. It is comparable to the "magic bullet" theory in the Kennedy assassination.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archite...for_9/11_Truth
You're such a tease. "We should try to understand..." Just give me the suspicious info.
Always be very skeptical of lists of professionals. There are an assload of illegitimate lists out there, yet they seem good. Real science is almost never done by gathering a list of people who agree with it.
Here's a video that debunks a rather popular list about creationism/evolution put out by the Discovery Institute. The factors involved here are relevant to all other lists.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty1Bo...5BED77&index=6
You know what? I'm a 'truther' and yet I DONT believe that the WTC buildings were brought down by controlled demolition. I do believe the government had some prior warning of the attacks and I do believe they are hiding a hell of a lot of what happened that day (half the data recorders from the flights, pentagon crash footage, explanation for the complete and total air defense failure etc etc). But the only C.D. theories out there right now are Thermite, Laser beams, and Laser Printers. Thermite burns straight down, not across and you'd need to get hundreds of pounds of the stuff in unnoticed to bring down the building.
The biggest problem at the moment is that there's hundreds of questions and barely any satisfactory answers.
Who here thinks that the gov't is hiding something so potentially damning, that it can never see the light of day?
http://remote.lohudblogs.com/files/2...hevy-chase.jpg
Already leaked...
Wow! So the fact that fire has NEVER brought down a steel framed building until 9/11 (when it brought down 3 buildings) means nothing. The fact that building 7 was NOT stuck by aircraft or doused in jetfuel but still collapsed into dust in 6 seconds means nothing. The fact that the 9/11 Commission report just left building 7 out of the report like it didn't collapse means nothing.
Q: Why did WTC towers 1 and 2 collapse?
A: It was a combination of the structural damage caused by the impact of the planes plus the high temperatures of the fire from the jet fuel that caused towers 1 and 2 to collapse into dust.
Q: What caused building 7 to collapse? It wasn't hit by a plane or doused in fuel.
A:Err, umm, huh? Well since bldg 7 wasn't hit by a plane we just left it out of the report. No biggie. You don't need a complete report, do you?
Again, I don't know who or why, but you'd have to be pretty gullible to swallow the gov't explanation for the complete destruction of those buildings.
Luco, You believe the gov't had advanced knowledge, but why? What suggests that? U feel the gov't is hiding things? What suggests that? I am not a conspiracy theorist, I'm just throwing the bullsh*t flag on the ridiculous explanation for buildings 7's collapse. I sometimes wonder if you people have actually seen the footage. Lemme post it again. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A And if they r lying about that, what else? Luco, I'm not saying it was thermite or laser beams or whatever. I'm saying it wasn't just a fire.
Wufwugy, I am not just agreeing with a bunch of names and job titles on a piece of paper. Their claims and questions make alot of sense and the gov't needs to answer. This group is using science to refute absurd scientific claims. Not at all like a debate between science and religion where there is a difference in methodology.
I'm not trying to convince anyone that Bush and Bin Laden are buddies. I'm just letting you know that the gov't explanations for these horrific events are absurd, even to laymen. Please check out this video and the related videos as well. There are still alot of questions needing answers. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwayjX4ipFc
That's because almost the only people who do care about it are uneducated losers with minimum wage jobs (if that) who live in their parents' basement. Believing they sniffed out the governments' lies is how they make themselves feel important. I suggest making fun of them until you get bored and move on.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
But i mean, this is why you're way behind the 8-ball. Everything you say ends in a question mark. I tend to question what i seek to humble or destroy. I just am not going to believe someone who knows as little as I do, phrasing everything as "Why don't!" "How was!" "Do you really accept!"Quote:
Originally Posted by nibbles
No they aren't. Science is published in peer-reviewed journals, not marketed to the lunatic fringe. Whether nibbles thinks something makes sense does not qualify it as science.Quote:
Originally Posted by nibbles
FYPQuote:
Originally Posted by nibbles
I'm not going to get into it at allQuote:
Originally Posted by nibbles
I will just point out that you're engaging in numerous logical fallacies like appeal to ignorance, false dichotomy, and negative proof fallacy. You're suggesting that if we don't know how building 7 collapsed* then it means that there was some foul play. Also, why would there even be foul play with building 7? What is more logical: an entirely irrelevant building was targeted by a mass secret conspiracy or the building was collateral damage?
Also, don't make light of the fact that if there really were all these unknowns then there would be sooooooooooooooo many journalists and scientist leaping all the fuck over it because they would literally make millions of dollars if they broke such an epic story or revamped scientific theory.
*We probably do know exactly how it collapsed because if we didn't then scientists would make ASSLOADS of money by figuring out why. And I say 'probably' because I don't care to research this enough to be able to explain it. But what I do know is the scientific method, logic, and reality, and it is silly to think that physicists can't explain the collapse of building 7, yet the vast majority of them are not saying boo. Like I said before, if that was the case, then every single fucking one of them would be clamoring over figuring it out. These guys are trying to develop the unified field theory of all physics and win the Nobel for that and make millions, but if something like this came along that they couldn't explain then they would fucking jump at the opportunity to figure out why it happened so they could rework physical theory and make shitloads of dough in a way substantially easier than trying to unify quantum mechanics, relativity, and the fundamental forces
wufwugy, I like how you followed up "logical fallacies" and "false dichotomy" with "We probably do know exactly how it collapsed because if we didn't then scientists would make ASSLOADS of money by figuring out why... but if something like this came along that they couldn't explain then they would fucking jump at the opportunity to figure out why it happened so they could rework physical theory and make shitloads of dough".
Since scientists aren't making assloads of moneyby investigating, then the collapse was legit.
I'm not gonna start a whole scientist vs engineer discussion, but engineers apply established scientific principles in inventions and designs and their opinions on this matter carry weight. Also, bldg 7 was far from an irrelevant bldg. It was more of a legitimate target than towers 1 and 2. It housed offices of the FBI, DoD, Secret Service, and IRS (L.A. Times estimated tax records of 3 - 4 thousand case files being investigated were destroyed, like Enron).
Benny, building 7 being hit by DEBRIS from another building and a few fires on a couple of floors could not cause a perfect synchronous collapse. It could not cause all of the steel support beams to fail and collapse at the EXACT same time. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A You don't have to be a scientist to see that. Since 9/11, there have been fires to other high rises that burned for up to 18 hours and they didn't collapse. The steel support beams remained (and don't say they weren't hit by planes cos neither was bldg 7).
Mcatdog. :-) Some truthers are exactly like that. Just like some poker players are degenerates that suffer from addiction. Why not lump them all together?
I'm just putting this stuff out there hoping you all wont be so dismissive. Oh well. No need for hostility.
I have to agree that nibbles has you there wuf.. Also I dont really see how anyone aside from journalist stand to make millions off figuring out what was the cause of 7's collapse.
I wasn't suggesting this as evidence, but as a side point in an attempt to make sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by nibbles
http://911myths.com/html/wtc7___silverstein.htmlQuote:
I'm not gonna start a whole scientist vs engineer discussion, but engineers apply established scientific principles in inventions and designs and their opinions on this matter carry weight. Also, bldg 7 was far from an irrelevant bldg. It was more of a legitimate target than towers 1 and 2. It housed offices of the FBI, DoD, Secret Service, and IRS (L.A. Times estimated tax records of 3 - 4 thousand case files being investigated were destroyed, like Enron).
Benny, building 7 being hit by DEBRIS from another building and a few fires on a couple of floors could not cause a perfect synchronous collapse. It could not cause all of the steel support beams to fail and collapse at the EXACT same time. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A You don't have to be a scientist to see that. Since 9/11, there have been fires to other high rises that burned for up to 18 hours and they didn't collapse. The steel support beams remained (and don't say they weren't hit by planes cos neither was bldg 7).
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
I believe they call this a headshot
You mean that when you watch the entire footage you see how it's not what cherry pickers claim omgwtfbbq??????
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLHwv...layer_embedded
And boost, it depends on what area it falls into, but if scientists find themselves baffled at explaining how these buildings went down then they could easily find themselves having to rework physical theory.
I can't find the video, but one of the leading physics professors in the country stated during one of his lectures that immediately after seeing the towers collapse he could explain why the data presented was enough to make them collapse. My point is that if everybody like him were shaking their heads then there would likely be a lot of attention paid to the science behind it
Riddle me this: Why? Seriously. Why?
Was the government so smart that they could keep this monumentally elaborate conspiracy a secret, yet they couldn't set it up to where we didn't have to invade worthless Afghanistan, and instead just went straight to Iraq? Why is it that whenever shit goes wrong and the government's behind it, we find out about it, yet we haven't found that here?
Yes you do. A lot of things seem like common sense but turn out to be wrong in reality (poker strategy being a good example). There's not exactly precedent for a building both catching on fire and having one face gouged out by steel and cement falling from a quarter of a mile high. I wouldn't trust anyone's common sense to produce valid conclusions on the unusual dynamics that were in play. Especially not from someone of likely well below average intelligence just judging by the fact that you're a 9/11 truther.Quote:
Originally Posted by nibbles
And I do think there's a need for hostility toward lunatics on both ends of the spectrum, whether it be 9/11 truthers, racist hate groups, or anti-abortion or animal rights militants who advocate violence against abortion clinics or animal testing laboratories. When we indulge lunatics by engaging in civil debate, it makes them feel it's acceptable to be lunatics. If your parents kicked you guys out of their basements, the welfare system cut you off, and people made fun of you mercilessly then some of you might be forced to become functioning members of society.
hahaha, noQuote:
Originally Posted by BennyLaRue
jesus did it
/threadQuote:
Originally Posted by flomo
This wasn't just any debris. This was large chunks of debris that fell from a significant height, ripping a hole from 10 stories up to the bottom on the south face and other multi-story gashes. These facts are backed up by pictures and witnesses. Has that happened to other high rises before? Even if this damage didn't cause the collapse on its own, is it not plausible it took out some supports at the bottom of the building and contributed to the collapse?Quote:
Originally Posted by nibbles
This wasn't just a few fires. Fires on 13 of 47 floors were seen (potentially more unseen) with an insufficient water supply to combat them so they burned without an able force trying to put them out. Has that happened to other high rises before? The fires were heavily concentrated on the bottom floors where there were diesel generators and fuel tanks present. Again, this amount of diesel likely wasn't significant enough to cause the building to collapse on its own but certainly can be heaped on to the pile of contributors. Is it not plausible that the fires burned hot enough to weaken the now fewer key columns holding the building up? Steel doesn't have to melt to make a building fall, it just needs to weaken and some of the columns likely had...firefighters witnessed a bulge hours before the building collapsed, an indicator of potential collapse.
As mcatdog said, this was a precedent setting situation. You cannot compare the series of events to any other building in history. The fact is I was not there and even if I was, I am not a structural engineer so I admit I can't tell you exactly how it fell down, just as you can't. However, it seems reasonable for ANYONE to see that the WTC7 took a significant amount of damage that day. To essentially assert that the building was basically in fine condition and then OMGWTF just fell down perfectly is just wrong. If they did blow up the building, and clearly I don't think they did, but if they did, they blew up a building in terrible shape that was very likely to fall down or be demolished after anyway.
And that's without even getting into the whys of it...
Lastly, after Katrina, I'm not sure that you can consider anything published by FEMA to be quality material.
Because of the gays, I heard.Quote:
Originally Posted by flomo
Right after he blessed the first Smith&Wesson
and the liberals.Quote:
Originally Posted by BennyLaRue
Let's assume they did it, and they got caught. What would happen? Would the guys who found out about it be called conspiracy theorists?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bbickes
theres a difference?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bbickes
Has anyone seen the special on History channel regarding this where they debunk all the conspiracy stuff?? Sorry if that was already mentioned, did not have time to read all the posts.
Interested to hear what people thought of that show if anyone saw it.
FWIW I have seen Loose Change and read up on all the conspiracy stuff but ALSO read up on that debunking 911 site someone posted and seen the history channel special. I kept an open mind and heard all the "evidence" from both sides.
Verdict: Terrorists do not like us and did what they do best.
What's the difference?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bbickes
They really need to have a show that continually does this. You could say they bust myths...hmmmm what to call it...Quote:
Originally Posted by sinister1
two posts above yours. You fail, gg.Quote:
Originally Posted by d0zer
On top of that, there is ample footage and audio of firefighters evacuating the building because they think it's going to collapse. Also, when you don't cherry pick photos, you see assloads of smoke coming from the entire building on the other side. This suggests assloads of fires, and the firefighters actions and comments do as wellQuote:
Originally Posted by BennyLaRue
People who watch Fox and listen to Savage and Limbaugh probably would, but for the rest of the world it would likely be just like the Iraq War thingQuote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
That was a conspiracy, but it got cracked by journalists
Yeah, there's a lot of that going around.Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
What would in your view be a credible source to "announce" a government conspiracy? When would it change from being a conspiracy theory to a proven fact?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Also, what about Iraq War, have I missed some memo?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
yeah, this.
uhh have you guys paid attention to the last decade at all? There were never WMDs and we were bamboozled into going into a possibly endless war..
Oh. I guess that was news in the US. Btw wasn't the first excuse the alleged ties between Saddam and Bin Laden?Quote:
Originally Posted by boost
that is all the past. Who should we bomb next?
The situations in Iran, Georgia and Venezuela* have all diffused a bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by flomo
How about Libya again?
* - I'm making that up...I just wanted to bring up Libya. I hate that Qghadaffi dude and his personal army of women bodyguards.
i can't believe people still talk about this.
I'm not exactly sure what you mean in the first sentence. Generally, though, assertions need to align with facts and the principles which determine facts. The thing about conspiracy theories is that they're extremely unfalsifiable. This then puts them into realms with many other ridiculous things that nobody takes seriously that are equally unfalsifiable. That's the problem. Present testable data that meets up to peer scrutiny, and you no longer have a conspiracy theory, but a working hypothesis.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoccoBill
As stated, the whole WMD thing and fabricating ties between 9/11 and Iraq. I honestly do not remember the specifics, but US journalists very succinctly have broken the data behind the lies of the Bush administration as well as their polar shift in rhetoric.Quote:
Also, what about Iraq War, have I missed some memo?
Every single one of the "truthers" claims has been rebutt by actual science.
Furthermore, a conspiracy like this would require thousands and thousands of people to take part. The president gets a BJ and everyone finds out; yet people believe all of these people can keep their mouths shut?
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/911_su...y_No_1217.html
Quote:
It is evident, particularly with respect to the attack on the Pentagon in which the plaintiff and her baby were injured, that, if the building was hit by a plane that morning, or if, as appears more likely, a plane flew low over the building at the time the bomb(s) went off inside and/or the missile hit, to give the (false) impression of a crash, some form of order or restriction was in force which suspended normal operation of the building's defenses. In particular, it is indisputable that the expected response of the fighter-interceptors failed completely; and plaintiff avers this resulted from orders or authorization from within the defendant circle of Rumsfeld and Myers and their helpers, restraining normal operation of the protections system and armaments at the Pentagon — including but not limited to jets available at various bases near the capital.
28. Plaintiff alleges further that such “standdown” orders, in whatever manner or form they had been prepared or issued, were maintained and affirmed by defendants up to and through that morning, and that defendant Cheney in particular, operating in the underground command bunker (Presidential Emergency Operations Center, or PEOC) beneath the White House, personally affirmed such an order. His word kept the order in force during the period between 9:20 a.m., when he was observed in the Bunker and the moment the Pentagon was hit.
29. In this connection, plaintiff refers the Court to the testimony of then-U.S. Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta to the 9/11 Commission. Mineta testified that when he arrived at the White House, he was sent to the PEOC, and arrived at around 9:20 a.m., to find Cheney there, and in charge. He said he sat at a table with Cheney for the next period of time, during which a young man came in the room, three times, and informed the Vice President that an “unidentified plane” was approaching Washington, D.C., first at 50, then 30, and then 10 “miles out”; and that, when he reported the distance as 10 miles, the young man asked the vice president, “Do the orders still stand?” Secretary Mineta testified that defendant Cheney responded sharply, “Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?” Whereupon the young man left the room; and a few minutes later, the hit on the Pentagon was announced. This testimony by the Secretary has never been contested, discredited or explained away by any U.S. official.
It appears to be a myth that the Defense Department was even capable of shooting down that plane, let alone that they issued a "stand down" order not to do it. Do you have any credible evidence that they could have pulled that off?
LINKQuote:
At the time of the attacks, only seven locations-around the perimeter of the United States-were engaged in the air defense mission. Each was assigned a pair of Air National Guard fighter aircraft ready to scramble if US airspace were threatened.
These alert locations had F-15 or F-16 fighters on the runways, fueled, and ready to take off in fewer than 15 minutes.
It was, however, a greatly diminished presence, said Maj. Gen. Paul A. Weaver Jr., now retired, who was at the time the director of the Air National Guard. He said that, during the Cold War, the air defense force structure was much more robust. Fighters sat fueled and ready to take off, if directed by NORAD, at "well over 100 alert sites."
...
The first notification that something was wrong came in at 8:40 a.m., and at 8:46 a.m. a fighter scramble order was sent to Otis. Only seconds after the scramble order, American Airlines Flight 11 out of Boston slammed into the World Trade Center's north tower. The two Otis F-15s did not take to the air until six minutes later.
Next, at 9:02 a.m., United Airlines Flight 175 from Boston crashed into the WTC south tower. At the time of this impact the Otis-based F-15s were still 71 miles outside of New York City, meaning they were about eight minutes away.
Shortly thereafter, at 9:24 a.m., NORAD got reports of additional hijackings and immediately scrambled two F-16s of the 119th Fighter Wing, a North Dakota ANG unit that keeps a permanent detachment at Langley. The Langley fighters took off at 9:30 a.m., but once again the Air Force lacked enough time to avert catastrophe. American Flight 77 out of Dulles Airport hit the Pentagon at 9:37 a.m. The Langley fighters were still 12 minutes and 105 miles away from Washington, D.C.
'Mishandling' of the crisis by the government is actually what one would predict even. Not because it's the government, but because it's a brand new scenario in which calls are tough and rapid and everybody was literally caught with their pants down. There's a reason why people train over and over and over, and this is likely a scenario in which there was next to zero training
This isn't meant to excuse any evidence of foul play if there is any, but the problem is that conspiracy theorists point to what would usually be a normal thing and say omgomgomg lookit lookit lookit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bojinka_plotQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
http://www.historycommons.org/essay....ssayairdefense
I just find it odd that Bush, Cheney and Rice can stand there and say "we just never imagined it could happen" despite repeated NORAD exercises to the contrary going back years.
Also, I found this interesting, if slightly off topic: http://www.larouchepac.com/news/2007...t-unfolds.html
the go-getter spirit of a true american patriotQuote:
Originally Posted by flomo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project...erican_Century
"Section V of Rebuilding America's Defenses [published September 2000], entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", includes the sentence: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor""
"On September 20, 2001 (nine days after the September 11, 2001 attacks), the PNAC sent a letter to President George W. Bush, advocating "a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq," or regime change:
...even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism."
So a neo-repub group of egg-heads and party leaders got together and suggested to the president that America needs to be A) the biggest military around and B) the moral authority of the world?
Whatever, let the kids have their fun.
Assuming that the president listens, swallowing it is just too much. I'd rather just joke about it and move to Singapore.
I did actually read a surprising amount of the wiki article because it was a cocco bill link.
Well I'm not saying anything, just that there seem to be too many odd coincidences in this whole thing to my liking.Quote:
Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla
Did you read enough tho to see who these group of egg-heads included? Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Libby...I'd imagine they had "some" pull in the government.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/st...principles.htm
And they do have one awesome card in their hand, every wants America to be the military and moral leader of the world. Even if this place is filled with people who believe Sean Hannity and co., trust the enemy you know, right? Better us running the world than China.
I would personally, at least on a theoretical level, welcome a world government, it would take care of a lot of useless patriotism and drama. Then again, the governance model is not important, the way, by whom and towards what goals it's run is. A benevolent wise dictatorship is probably the optimum.
It's little secret that Cheney was gung ho about invading Iraq, and that he deliberately used false data to persuade many officials and the populous
Could have something to do with Halliburton and KBR and Blackwater and other mercenaries. The Iraq War was largely privatized, and they've made about an assload more than an assload of money. Around half of the US military personnel in the Middle East are super expensive contractors.