Terrorism = America

[spot]

anastrophe wrote: 8:38am first report of the hijacking

8:38am president contacted, orders airliners to be shot down

8:38am fighter jets launch

8:51am first plane hits towers, while jets enroute to intercept, because they could not have reached the airliners - even if they knew exactly where they were - in timeCome on then, mister make-it-up-as-you-go-along, show me a respectable source for "8:38am president contacted, orders airliners to be shot down".

[anastrophe]

spot wrote: Come on then, mister make-it-up-as-you-go-along, show me a respectable source for "8:38am president contacted, orders airliners to be shot down".


you don't seem to understand the nature of an example created for the purpose of demonstrating just how absurd your take on all this is?



compare and contrast the two version in my post. pause for a few minutes to mull them over. think about the absurdity of suggesting that the latter is other-than a fictional example, when juxtaposed with the first.



then perhaps, after you've sorted all that difficult stuff out, you can address the other points i raised.

[spot]

anastrophe wrote: you don't seem to understand the nature of an example created for the purpose of demonstrating just how absurd your take on all this is?I can think of few things more foolish than to invent fictitious timelines for a day like that.

[anastrophe]

spot wrote: I can think of few things more foolish than to invent fictitious timelines for a day like that.


this is a case of poor reading comprehension on your part, spot, no more, no less. any fool can try to deflect that point to avoid embarrassment.



it is patently obvious it was a fictitious timeline, merely reading the timestamps created shows that.



nice try at derailing the discussion though - beautifully executed in fact. distract from the implausibility of your own perception of the events.

[anastrophe]

again here it is. you're telling me you don't understand what a colon at the end of the line preceding that section means?



8:38am first report of the hijacking.

8:39am (approx) fighter jets sent to battle stations off cape cod

8:45am fighter jets launch

8:51am report of first plane hitting the towers.

even had the jets been launched at precisely the moment of the first report of the hijacking, they could not have intercepted them. nor could they have brought them down without receiving direct order from the president.

heck, wouldn't that have been the 'better' conspiracy path, even though it's even more implausible?:

8:38am first report of the hijacking

8:38am president contacted, orders airliners to be shot down

8:38am fighter jets launch

8:51am first plane hits towers, while jets enroute to intercept, because they could not have reached the airliners - even if they knew exactly where they were - in time



but again - good show on distracting from the actual salient issues.

[spot]

By all means invoke physics. Do check the average speeds of the planes that did get into the air, too. It seems to have been difficult to actually stay at a distance from the rogue flights but they managed it in the end.

You need to timeline from: the first moment when scrambles should have been requested - and bear in mind that they'd always been promptly provided in the past when deviations from flightpaths had arisen - which was at 8:14 "first American Airlines Flight 11 flightpath deviation and lack of response to Air Traffic Control" - standing orders should cut in at this point, scrambling an intercept; to: 10:06:05 a.m. "According to seismic data, United Airlines Flight 93 crashes near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, in Somerset county, about 80 miles southeast of Pittsburgh"



I make that an hour and forty six minutes of coherent hands-off non-interference. I think a lot of people must know what held things back. I'm quite sure it will come out sooner rather than later. This is the age of the whistleblower.

Would you like a genuine timeline URL adding to the thread?

[anastrophe]

oh please do provide. of course, the source would be appreciated.



i mean, i won't pretend that i don't think this is batshit lunacy. the credulity involved truly impresses me. but again, you've previously said very clearly that you believe it was all a conspiracy, that the planes were allowed to hit the towers purposely, the intent to create a new pearl harbor, as outlined on the PNAC site (how stupid would it be to detail what needs to be done on a website before it happens? if they have the guile to conspire to create this incredible catastrophe, then where was it when they "oops!" left that little detail on the pnac website?).



anything - anything at all - to absolve the insane, radical fundamentalist extremists who did it.

[spot]

anastrophe wrote: anything - anything at all - to absolve the insane, radical fundamentalist extremists who did it.Radical fundamentalist extremists is a fine description of who did it, I've no problem with that. I want them in a court being tried by their peers for treason.

http://911timeline.net/ is fine by me, start at 8:20 and read diligently. Do tell me where any errors occur, the authors are keen to hear. An hour and forty six minutes, remember? No interception over a known crisis period of an hour and forty six minutes, using an authentic timeline rather than a self-invented one. This in a country that always intercepted with scrambles up until the day the "terrorists" took charge.

Why, out of interest, is nobody prepared to discuss the utter impossibility of cellphone (as opposed to airphone) calls from the hijacked planes, despite their alleged use for several of the calls (including one claimed to have been maintained for 20 minutes!). Just one detail like that is sufficient in its own right to demonstrate the involvement of US institutions. http://www.sianews.com/modules.php?name ... cle&sid=48 discusses cellphone technology and the folly of thinking it might have been possible.

[anastrophe]

spot wrote: Radical fundamentalist extremists is a fine description of who did it, I've no problem with that. I want them in a court being tried by their peers for treason.


ah. i see. so it was the "christian right" that was behind this? christofascists?



of course, the islamic radical fundamentalist extremists who state outright that they will do anything to destroy the western way of life - they're not in any way culpable at all, right?



madness.





http://911timeline.net/ is fine by me,




i'm afraid it's not by me. whether or not their timeline is accurate - i really don't know. but i don't take as a reliable source a site that is cluttered with ads and rhetoric that approaches the events all from the conspiracy angle. if it were presented without the relentless commentary, i might give it a moment of my time.



i'll look for a less biased representation of the events.





Why, out of interest, is nobody prepared to discuss the utter impossibility of cellphone (as opposed to airphone) calls from the hijacked planes, despite their alleged use for several of the calls (including one claimed to have been maintained for 20 minutes!). Just one detail like that is sufficient in its own right to demonstrate the involvement of US institutions. http://www.sianews.com/modules.php?name ... cle&sid=48 discusses cellphone technology and the folly of thinking it might have been possible.


what is folly is that article you linked to. it's full of utter hogwash. pure and unadulterated - quite ridiculous in fact.



just for starters - the boeing 757 and 767 are absolutely *not* capable of fully autonomous flight, and neither will they prevent the pilot from overriding any of its flight characteristics - there isn't a pilot alive who would fly a plane that would refuse to perform a maneuver at his command.



secondly, the explanation regarding cellphones is laughable. the contention that in 2001 a cellphone could not maintain a connection handshaking across cells at 500mph is ridiculous. it's not even worth going into any further.



choose better sources than raving lunatics posting anonymously, and using a deliciously made up title. do a search on "MOS33Q10". the only references are links back to that article. self-referential creation of conspiracy - i know someone here who would take the fact that all the search results yield the same article as absolute iron-clad proof that it's a fact.

[spot]

anastrophe wrote: i'll look for a less biased representation of the events.Perfect. Now we're getting somewhere.

[anastrophe]

spot wrote: Perfect. Now we're getting somewhere.


i do hope you'll address the minor problems with your sources. or did you post biased, batshit crazy sites purposely?

[koan]

That timeline is the most detailed I've ever seen and they say they have the documentation.

There was also a blurb about the NORAD press release at the beginning.

[anastrophe]

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/c ... eline.html



largely drawn from the 9/11 commission report, and reasonably free of editorial comment.



you claim "An hour and forty six minutes, remember? No interception over a known crisis period of an hour and forty six minutes,".



which is of course just plain silly. the earliest at which it could have been known that flight 93 had been hijacked was at 9:32am by the timeline. possibly four minutes earlier based on the vanity fair article report that a controller heard struggling in the cockpit. 9:35am is when it formally deviated from its course. suggesting that there was failure to intercept the plane before it had even been hijacked is, well, silly. there were still thousands of planes in the air. are you suggesting that somehow, magically, every jet in the air was to have been intercepted by a handful of fighter jets?

[spot]

anastrophe wrote: using a deliciously made up title. do a search on "MOS33Q10". the only references are links back to that article. self-referential creation of conspiracy - i know someone here who would take the fact that all the search results yield the same article as absolute iron-clad proof that it's a fact.The title looks reasonably relevant to me - check the Rand Organization www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR9 ... 7.appa.pdf Page 46, Military Occupations, Change of Occupation, New Title 33Q = Electronic Warfare / Intercept P/S Strategic Equipment Repairer. The bit after 33Q is a rank designator, as far as I can tell. I know little of your military designations.

As for the flight controls being capable of remote landings, http://www.rockwellcollins.com/ecat/at/ ... ?smenu=106 "The FCS-700A is a development of the FCS-700 autopilot flight director system (currently provided as standard equipment on all versions of the Boeing 757 and 767 aircraft) and shares many LRUs in common with the FCS-700. This feature promotes cost effective fleet support for 757, 767, and 747-400 fleet operators" is the equipment which was the basis of a major refit at Lufthansa in 1999. To quote Der Spiegel of 14 Oktober 2002:

"Ich stelle nur Fragen", sagt Andreas von Bülow, 65, Ex-Staatssekretär, Ex-Minister, 25 Jahre war er Abgeordneter der SPD im Bundestag, "ich würde mich nie aufschwingen zu sagen, wer es war."

Goldener Oktober, draußen Bonn-Bad-Godesberg, vor den Fenstern des Hotels "Dreesen" geht der Rhein, darüber ein Himmel, so klar, wie der am 11. September. Viele Interviews hat Bülow im ablaufenden Jahr gegeben, hat sich ins Fernsehen gesetzt, an Radiomikrofone, hat in "Konkret" und "Tagesspiegel" über die "wahren Hintergründe" des 11. September geredet, hat die "amtliche Verschwörungstheorie" hinterfragt, bezweifelt, abgetan. Jedes Mal klang er dabei wie einer, der mehr weiß, als er verrät. Der einen Trumpf hat, der erst noch kommt.

"Die offizielle Version ist eine Lüge aus Tausendundeiner Nacht, das ist klar", sagt Andreas von Bülow, als wären die Drahtzieher der Qaida nicht identifiziert und festgenommen worden, als ginge mittlerweile die arabische Welt nicht selbst davon aus, dass am 11. September Bin Laden aktiv wurde im geschundenen Namen Allahs. Nein, mit Bin Laden sei eine "Fehlspur" gelegt worden, "breit wie von einer trampelnden Elefantenherde. Gegen den gleichgerichteten Strom der Medienberichterstattung kommt man jetzt natürlich nicht mehr an". Bülow ist mit dem Fahrrad zum Treffen gekommen, es gefällt ihm, gefragt zu sein, er wirkt wie ein zu junger Pensionär.

Er sagt, egal, wer auch immer dahinter stecke, in Wahrheit gehe es darum, die globale Tagesordnung der nächsten 50 Jahre festzuklopfen, um den Zugriff der einzig übrig gebliebenen Supermacht auf Öl, Gas und andere Bodenschätze sicherzustellen. Deshalb werde der islamische Terrorismus und jetzt der ölreiche Irak ohne hinreichenden Beweis zur globalen Bedrohung "hochgefälscht, und ich", sagt Bülow, "tue, was in meinen Kräften steht, um gegen dieses Hochkitzeln einer neuen Feindschaft mit dem Islam Front zu machen".

Aber was geschah am 11. September? Wer war es? "Das fragen mich viele", sagt Bülow. Dann greift er wahllos in die Kiste mit den üblichen Verdächtigen. CIA, sagt er, als wäre das Kürzel allein schon ein Skandal. Mossad, sagt er, echauffiert. Mafia. Machtzirkel. Finanzelite. Imperium USA. Andreas von Bülow sitzt im Bonner Hotel "Dreesen" vor einem Salat von Tafelspitz, hat keinen Trumpf mehr und sagt ernst: "Ich verlange eine Untersuchung."

Als hätte es nie eine gegeben. Ende September erstattete in Washington ein Team von Ermittlern Bericht über Wissen und Vorwissen der US-Geheimdienste in Sachen 11. September. 24 Polizisten, Juristen, Innenrevisoren hatten daran ein Jahr lang gearbeitet, im Auftrag des Kongresses, ein Jahr lang hatten sie Menschen und Dokumente befragt, Aktentürme bewegt, Datenbanken, und sie kamen, angeführt von Eleanor Hill, einer Top-Anwältin aus Washington, zweifelsfrei zu dem Schluss, dass die Geheimdienste fürchterlich versagt hatten.

CIA, FBI, all die anderen, laut Bericht hatten sie deutlich vor dem 11. September alle Elemente der heraufziehenden Katastrophe zusammen. Es gab, verstreut in den Apparaten, das Wissen über Terrorplots mit Zivilflugzeugen; man hatte gehört, in fehlgehenden Memos, von einer auffälligen Präsenz junger Araber an US-Flugschulen; man war, ahnungslos, dem Terrorpiloten Hani Hanjour schon fast auf den Fersen; man konnte rechnen, diffus, mit Gefahren für Wolkenkratzer; und alle Beteiligten kannten, seit Jahren, Osama Bin Laden, seine Helfer, seinen Terrorapparat, seine Kriegserklärungen - nur: Am Ende sahen sie alle das Muster nicht, nicht den Wald vor Bäumen. Am Ende konnten sie nur, nach dem Schlag, der Welt sehr schnell mitteilen, wer mutmaßlich das Massaker angerichtet hatte.

[anastrophe]

spot wrote: The title looks reasonably relevant to me - check the Rand Organization www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR9 ... 7.appa.pdf Page 46, Military Occupations, Change of Occupation, New Title 33Q = Electronic Warfare / Intercept P/S Strategic Equipment Repairer. The bit after 33Q is a rank designator, as far as I can tell. I know little of your military designations.



As for the flight controls being capable of remote landings, http://www.rockwellcollins.com/ecat/at/ ... ?smenu=106 "The FCS-700A is a development of the FCS-700 autopilot flight director system (currently provided as standard equipment on all versions of the Boeing 757 and 767 aircraft) and shares many LRUs in common with the FCS-700. This feature promotes cost effective fleet support for 757, 767, and 747-400 fleet operators" is the equipment which was the basis of a major refit at Lufthansa in 1999. To quote Der Spiegel of 14 Oktober 2002:

"Ich stelle nur Fragen", sagt Andreas von Bülow, 65, Ex-Staatssekretär, Ex-Minister, 25 Jahre war er Abgeordneter der SPD im Bundestag, "ich würde mich nie aufschwingen zu sagen, wer es war."



Goldener Oktober, draußen Bonn-Bad-Godesberg, vor den Fenstern des Hotels "Dreesen" geht der Rhein, darüber ein Himmel, so klar, wie der am 11. September. Viele Interviews hat Bülow im ablaufenden Jahr gegeben, hat sich ins Fernsehen gesetzt, an Radiomikrofone, hat in "Konkret" und "Tagesspiegel" über die "wahren Hintergründe" des 11. September geredet, hat die "amtliche Verschwörungstheorie" hinterfragt, bezweifelt, abgetan. Jedes Mal klang er dabei wie einer, der mehr weiß, als er verrät. Der einen Trumpf hat, der erst noch kommt.



"Die offizielle Version ist eine Lüge aus Tausendundeiner Nacht, das ist klar", sagt Andreas von Bülow, als wären die Drahtzieher der Qaida nicht identifiziert und festgenommen worden, als ginge mittlerweile die arabische Welt nicht selbst davon aus, dass am 11. September Bin Laden aktiv wurde im geschundenen Namen Allahs. Nein, mit Bin Laden sei eine "Fehlspur" gelegt worden, "breit wie von einer trampelnden Elefantenherde. Gegen den gleichgerichteten Strom der Medienberichterstattung kommt man jetzt natürlich nicht mehr an". Bülow ist mit dem Fahrrad zum Treffen gekommen, es gefällt ihm, gefragt zu sein, er wirkt wie ein zu junger Pensionär.



Er sagt, egal, wer auch immer dahinter stecke, in Wahrheit gehe es darum, die globale Tagesordnung der nächsten 50 Jahre festzuklopfen, um den Zugriff der einzig übrig gebliebenen Supermacht auf Öl, Gas und andere Bodenschätze sicherzustellen. Deshalb werde der islamische Terrorismus und jetzt der ölreiche Irak ohne hinreichenden Beweis zur globalen Bedrohung "hochgefälscht, und ich", sagt Bülow, "tue, was in meinen Kräften steht, um gegen dieses Hochkitzeln einer neuen Feindschaft mit dem Islam Front zu machen".



Aber was geschah am 11. September? Wer war es? "Das fragen mich viele", sagt Bülow. Dann greift er wahllos in die Kiste mit den üblichen Verdächtigen. CIA, sagt er, als wäre das Kürzel allein schon ein Skandal. Mossad, sagt er, echauffiert. Mafia. Machtzirkel. Finanzelite. Imperium USA. Andreas von Bülow sitzt im Bonner Hotel "Dreesen" vor einem Salat von Tafelspitz, hat keinen Trumpf mehr und sagt ernst: "Ich verlange eine Untersuchung."



Als hätte es nie eine gegeben. Ende September erstattete in Washington ein Team von Ermittlern Bericht über Wissen und Vorwissen der US-Geheimdienste in Sachen 11. September. 24 Polizisten, Juristen, Innenrevisoren hatten daran ein Jahr lang gearbeitet, im Auftrag des Kongresses, ein Jahr lang hatten sie Menschen und Dokumente befragt, Aktentürme bewegt, Datenbanken, und sie kamen, angeführt von Eleanor Hill, einer Top-Anwältin aus Washington, zweifelsfrei zu dem Schluss, dass die Geheimdienste fürchterlich versagt hatten.



CIA, FBI, all die anderen, laut Bericht hatten sie deutlich vor dem 11. September alle Elemente der heraufziehenden Katastrophe zusammen. Es gab, verstreut in den Apparaten, das Wissen über Terrorplots mit Zivilflugzeugen; man hatte gehört, in fehlgehenden Memos, von einer auffälligen Präsenz junger Araber an US-Flugschulen; man war, ahnungslos, dem Terrorpiloten Hani Hanjour schon fast auf den Fersen; man konnte rechnen, diffus, mit Gefahren für Wolkenkratzer; und alle Beteiligten kannten, seit Jahren, Osama Bin Laden, seine Helfer, seinen Terrorapparat, seine Kriegserklärungen - nur: Am Ende sahen sie alle das Muster nicht, nicht den Wald vor Bäumen. Am Ende konnten sie nur, nach dem Schlag, der Welt sehr schnell mitteilen, wer mutmaßlich das Massaker angerichtet hatte.




thanks for posting the german. sadly, i can't read german, so it's just a useless mishmash of unintelligible gibberish.



autopilot != autonomous flight



neither plane can take off, fly, and land with no human intervention. period. end of story. your source claims they can. primarily because it's fictional nonsense written by a lunatic.

[spot]

anastrophe wrote: secondly, the explanation regarding cellphones is laughable. the contention that in 2001 a cellphone could not maintain a connection handshaking across cells at 500mph is ridiculous. it's not even worth going into any further.Perhaps you fail to appreciate the problem. The speed doesn't stop the handshake. The distance from the cell towers, the range of the cell-mast reception, the patchy nature of cell coverage across rural spaces, the height of the plane - you do know that cells tend not to talk to cell-masts when they're more than a couple of kilometers distant, don't you? The point of 500mph is the speed you transition from one cell-mast to the next (if there is a next). Switching towers every 15 seconds and maintaining a continuous call isn't an option if you're at ground level, much less 8 to 10 kilometers in the air. At aircraft height you can't punch a signal through even occasionally, much less hard enough to see the next mast in time to handshake and cross to it before the previous one falls out of range behind you. It can't be done.

[spot]

anastrophe wrote: thanks for posting the german. sadly, i can't read german, so it's just a useless mishmash of unintelligible gibberish.



autopilot != autonomous flight



neither plane can take off, fly, and land with no human intervention. period. end of story. your source claims they can. primarily because it's fictional nonsense written by a lunatic.Actually no, the relevant claim is that it can be manoevered once in the air with no on-board intervention. The bit about take-off and landing are what http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=175 discusses. Why you should think it's fantasy is beyond me.

I'm sorry you don't have a second language. Fortunately Google has a built-in translator for people in your position. Again, the article stands as evidence for the majority of people reading it.

[koan]

damn email notifications. are we to believe that the 9/11 commission report is not a controversial source?

:yh_doh

[spot]

anastrophe wrote: http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/c ... eline.html



largely drawn from the 9/11 commission report, and reasonably free of editorial comment.



you claim "An hour and forty six minutes, remember? No interception over a known crisis period of an hour and forty six minutes,".



which is of course just plain silly. the earliest at which it could have been known that flight 93 had been hijacked was at 9:32am by the timeline. possibly four minutes earlier based on the vanity fair article report that a controller heard struggling in the cockpit. 9:35am is when it formally deviated from its course. suggesting that there was failure to intercept the plane before it had even been hijacked is, well, silly. there were still thousands of planes in the air. are you suggesting that somehow, magically, every jet in the air was to have been intercepted by a handful of fighter jets?I took my time as 8:20 for the latest - not the earliest - that Flight 11 was known to have fulfilled the requirements for a scramble intercept.

The Commission report says "Just before 8:14, it had climbed to 26, 000 feet, not quite its initial assigned cruising altitude of 29, 000 feet. All communications and flight profile data were normal. About this time the "Fasten Seatbelt" sign would usually have been turned off and the flight attendants would have begun preparing for cabin service. At that same time, American 11 had its last routine communication with the ground when it acknowledged navigational instructions from the FAA's air traffic control (ATC) center in Boston. Sixteen seconds after that transmission, ATC instructed the aircraft's pilots to climb to 35, 000 feet. That message and all subsequent attempts to contact the flight were not acknowledged. From this and other evidence, we believe the hijacking began at 8:14 or shortly thereafter. "

8:20 as the latest gives me my one hour and forty six minutes. I didn't ask for the extra six minutes that the commission wording might have warranted.

[anastrophe]

spot wrote: Actually no, the relevant claim is that it can be manoevered once in the air with no on-board intervention. The bit about take-off and landing are what http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=175 discusses. Why you should think it's fantasy is beyond me.


i'm afraid i'm not following you. what does a factsheet about a military aircraft have to do with the 757/767? let me see if i can follow the craziness here, it takes some effort. you're suggesting that the planes were *not* hijacked? that they were simply flown by remote control?





I'm sorry you don't have a second language. Fortunately Google has a built-in translator for people in your position. Again, the article stands as evidence for the majority of people reading it.


well thanks anyway. i'm not going to waste my time with your obscurantism.

[anastrophe]

spot wrote: I took my time as 8:20 for the latest - not the earliest - that Flight 11 was known to have fulfilled the requirements for a scramble intercept.



The Commission report says "Just before 8:14, it had climbed to 26, 000 feet, not quite its initial assigned cruising altitude of 29, 000 feet. All communications and flight profile data were normal. About this time the "Fasten Seatbelt" sign would usually have been turned off and the flight attendants would have begun preparing for cabin service. At that same time, American 11 had its last routine communication with the ground when it acknowledged navigational instructions from the FAA's air traffic control (ATC) center in Boston. Sixteen seconds after that transmission, ATC instructed the aircraft's pilots to climb to 35, 000 feet. That message and all subsequent attempts to contact the flight were not acknowledged. From this and other evidence, we believe the hijacking began at 8:14 or shortly thereafter. "



8:20 as the latest gives me my one hour and forty six minutes. I didn't ask for the extra six minutes that the commission wording might have warranted.


you keep bringing up this stuff about american 11. american 11 is not united 93. which the hell plane are you talking about? i've got to assume you're being purposefully obscure and misleading. american 11 hit the tower at 8:46am.



8:20 to 8:46. an hour and forty six minutes?



wtf are you trying to say, man?

[spot]

anastrophe wrote: you keep bringing up this stuff about american 11. american 11 is not united 93. which the hell plane are you talking about? i've got to assume you're being purposefully obscure and misleading. american 11 hit the tower at 8:46am.



8:20 to 8:46. an hour and forty six minutes?



wtf are you trying to say, man?The time between the crisis being apparent and the crash of the fourth plane. You think there's a succession of crises that morning? You're wrong. There isn't a single moment, from the time that the first plane (Flight 11) goes off course and quiet, when there isn't at least one plane known to be still flying around off course and (in the developing context) manifestly hijacked, until the fourth plane crashed an hour and forty six minutes later. Why should the need to scramble planes and intercept be turned off at any stage during that period?

As for your "there were still thousands of planes in the air. are you suggesting that somehow, magically, every jet in the air was to have been intercepted by a handful of fighter jets?" - of course not. The location of all the planes was known continuously. Norad, of all people, claimed to have lost sight of which was which at one point. ATC certainly hadn't. Getting planes over Washington and New York definitely didn't need any knowledge of the four planes' whereabouts anyway, they having been identified in previous exercises as the most obvious targets (along with a triple nuclear power station just outside of New York).

At what point after 8:20 and before 10:06 do you think launching interceptors should have been cancelled?

As an aside, why did the missile battery on the White House not do the job it was designed for, when the Pentagon plane overflew restricted Washington airspace long after the two WTC crashes had become world news? It certainly didn't need presidential approval to launch, it had standing orders to do just that in those circumstances.

[anastrophe]

spot wrote: The time between the crisis being apparent and the crash of the fourth plane. You think there's a succession of crises that morning? You're wrong. There isn't a single moment, from the time that the first plane (Flight 11) goes off course and quiet, when there isn't at least one plane known to be still flying around off course and (in the developing context) manifestly hijacked, until the fourth plane crashed an hour and forty six minutes later. Why should the need to scramble planes and intercept be turned off at any stage during that period?



As for your "there were still thousands of planes in the air. are you suggesting that somehow, magically, every jet in the air was to have been intercepted by a handful of fighter jets?" - of course not. The location of all the planes was known continuously. Norad, of all people, claimed to have lost sight of which was which at one point. ATC certainly hadn't. Getting planes over Washington and New York definitely didn't need any knowledge of the four planes' whereabouts anyway, they having been identified in previous exercises as the most obvious targets (along with a triple nuclear power station just outside of New York).



At what point after 8:20 and before 10:06 do you think launching interceptors should have been cancelled?



As an aside, why did the missile battery on the White House not do the job it was designed for, when the Pentagon plane overflew restricted Washington airspace long after the two WTC crashes had become world news? It certainly didn't need presidential approval to launch, it had standing orders to do just that in those circumstances.


let me repeat what i wrote before:

the earliest at which it could have been known that flight 93 had been hijacked was at 9:32am by the timeline. possibly four minutes earlier based on the vanity fair article report that a controller heard struggling in the cockpit. 9:35am is when it formally deviated from its course. suggesting that there was failure to intercept the plane before it had even been hijacked is, well, silly.



what you seem to be suggesting is that, because american 11 was hijacked at 8:20am, the jets should have been on intercept of united 93 well before it crashed. but again, you're suggesting that they'd have begun intercepting it before it was known it was hijacked. you're twisting things as they suit you. they could not begin any form of intercept on united 93 until they knew it was hijacked. suggesting that the fighter jets were carefully avoiding united 93 for an hour and 46 minutes is a distortion.



and again, this is all the magic of hindsight.



let's boil it all down. you believe the pnac cabal arranged the hijackings, or at best arranged for the hijackings to be unimpeded, in order to create the new pearl harbor.



your loathing for your fellow man - when it suits you - is amazing. you genuinely believe that bush-cheney-rice-rove-rumsfeld-wolfowitz are are so monstrous and devoid of humanity as to engineer the murder of some 3000 american civilians in order to put in place their evil empire.



i don't.



oh, i don't think they're inherently the finest humans on earth either. but i don't believe that either individually or collectively they are that inherently evil to commit an atrocity of that magnitude.



sorry. continue spinning down these long twisty tunnels of conspiracy theories. paranoia is often characterized as an extreme willingness to give preference to the unbelievable over the believable. i think the readiness to soak up these conspiracy theories is little more than the mark of gullibility.

[spot]

anastrophe wrote: you're suggesting that they'd have begun intercepting it before it was known it was hijacked. you're twisting things as they suit you. they could not begin any form of intercept on united 93 until they knew it was hijacked. suggesting that the fighter jets were carefully avoiding united 93 for an hour and 46 minutes is a distortion.The interception system was carefully avoiding intercepting anything for an hour and 46 minutes, initially flight 11, subsequently and eventually only united 93. At no stage should they have been stood down while the crisis was unfolding. They should have been triggered into action at 8:20. They should have been in the air dealing with matters until 10:06 - and, of course, defensively for weeks after too - had they been behaving in an unobstructed fashion.

anastrophe wrote: your loathing for your fellow man - when it suits you - is amazing. you genuinely believe that bush-cheney-rice-rove-rumsfeld-wolfowitz are are so monstrous and devoid of humanity as to engineer the murder of some 3000 american civilians in order to put in place their evil empire.



i don't. well there you go. Who's surprised at either position? I'm sure they sleep at night. I'm sure they believe they acted in their nation's interest. I'm also sure they had a change in the internal affairs of the US more in mind as an objective than merely profiting by adventurism abroad, your civil liberties have been royally and permanently screwed with malice aforethought. You - collectively - dreamed them up from your own nightmares. You deal with them. Just keep your borders shut until you're clean again, and remember to apologize when you've finished.

[koan]

sixyearsleft wrote: Tombstone are you responsible for this, who's posting these posts, they seem designed for discussion, whats going on with these new posters, is this some new technic to get members chatting?


You want a poster boy? Found this headline.

The unfortunate poster boy

The U.S. military airlifted 12-year-old Iraqi orphan Ali Abbas to Kuwait for better medical care. But he's still angry that we killed his family. What's his problem?

Attached files

[spot]

For completeness and subsequent reference, http://complete911timeline.org/timeline ... 1=dayOf911 not only timelines the events - including the contiguous one hour and forty six minutes during which hostile planes were known at the time to be in the air but none were intercepted or brought down by authorized in-range missiles - but also gives contemporary and subsequent news report URLs to its information sources as it goes along.