9/11: FDNY Member Says "Definitely" Bombs in Towers?

So is Chris the wacky troll coming back? I'm looking forward to his next piece of incontravertible evidence.
I'd like to know why he was warning people about 9/11 in 1999. Who? Where? How? etc.
 
Gravy said:
Please use the forum search function. This has all been covered ad nauseum. You are wrong again. If you're going to continue debating these issues, please start taking the subjects seriously and do at least some research. Your posts are not improving.
Click to expand...

I'll make it easier for him.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=60315

And Christopher7, this thread is a perfect example of how to be an abusive jack ass, thanks to Mutton-head who surprisingly, when he started to post on this board, was the perfect gentleman. So please Christopher7, restrain yourself.

Have a nice read.

ETA: and what happened to your controlled demolition theory? Why do you change the subject? Have you now reconsidered your position?
 
Last edited:
Gravy said:
Please use the forum search function. This has all been covered ad nauseum. You are wrong again. If you're going to continue debating these issues, please start taking the subjects seriously and do at least some research. Your posts are not improving.
Click to expand...

I take this very seriously.
I'm asking a simple question.
Do you believe Washington D.C was defenceless on 911 ? (no anti aircraft misles)
 
Christopher7 said:
I take this very seriously.
I'm asking a simple question.
Do you believe Washington D.C was defenceless on 911 ? (no anti aircraft misles)
Click to expand...


You might of missed my response a couple of pages ago, so I'll post it again.

This one is easy.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=...8.865575,-77.046304&spn=0.014469,0.030727&t=k

It would of been a little too easy to accidentally shoot down a plane headed for Reagan National Airport if the Pentagon had AA capabilities.
 
I believe that the pentagon, apart from scrambling nearby jets, on 9/11, was not protected by any form of short range ground to air missile launching units or Gun units. I am sure it had some military personnel inside who might have acted in a defensive way.

So now that I have said that, where is your conclusive, factual based solid proof to prove otherwise...

(this should be good).

TAM
 
T.A.M. said:
I believe that the pentagon, apart from scrambling nearby jets, on 9/11, was not protected by any form of short range ground to air missile launching units or Gun units. I am sure it had some military personnel inside who might have acted in a defensive way.

So now that I have said that, where is your conclusive, factual based solid proof to prove otherwise...

(this should be good).

TAM
Click to expand...

Thank you. You are the only one here who will answer the question directly.
That information would be classified. So your question is retorical.

What about the White House? Did you read the part about the plane landing on the White House lawn? Do you think they would leave it unprotected? (no stingers no air cover) Forget about Meneta, the whole country knew at 9;03 that we were under attack.
 
Christopher7 said:
Thank you. You are the only one here who will answer the question directly.
That information would be classified. So your question is retorical.

What about the White House? Did you read the part about the plane landing on the White House lawn? Do you think they would leave it unprotected? (no stingers no air cover) Forget about Meneta, the whole
country knew at 9;03 that we were under attack.
Click to expand...

If the information would be classified how do you know the white house was undefended? Since there was no attack on the white house the lack of a anti-aircraft or missle firings from the white house are not proof that they were undefended.

Furthermore, the president wasn't in the white house, jets had been scrambled, and the path of the plane could point to many possible targets (DC would be known as a target rich environment).

If the plane had decided to fly further on would the jets have had time to catch the plane and shoot it down? We don't know because that didn't happen.

anti-aircraft measures tend to be aimed up, the plane hit the building from the side. In the pictures of the Pentagon I've seen there are no port holes in the side to point cannon out of.
 
Christopher7 said:
I take this very seriously. I'm asking a simple question.
Click to expand...
No, you don't take this seriously at all. You refuse to face facts. You're here for an argument, not to learn, and you can't be bothered to do the slightest bit of research beyond surfing idiotic CT websites. You can't even be bothered to use the forum search function as I asked you to do.

The following quote has been posted many times here.

Richard Clarke, from Against All Enemies:
The Secret Service and Customs had teamed up in Atlanta to provide some rudimentary air defense against an aircraft flying into the Olympic Stadium. They did so again during the subsequent National Security Special Events and they agreed to create a permanent air defense unit to protect Washington.

Unfortunately, those two federal law enforcement agencies were housed in the Treasury Department and its leadership did not want to pay for such a mission or run the liability risks of shooting down the wrong aircraft. Treasury nixed the air defense unit, and my attempts within the White House to overfule them came to naught. The idea of aircraft attacking in Washington seemed remote to many people and the risks of shooting down aircraft in a city were thought to be far too high. Moreover, the opponents of our plan argued, the Air Force could always scramble fighter aircraft to protect Washington if there were a problem.

On occasions when aircraft were hijacked (and in one case when we erroneously believed a Northwest flight had been seized), the Air Force did intercept the airliners with fighter jets. We succeeded only in getting Secret Service the permission to continue to examine air defense options, including the possibility of placing missile units near the White House. Most people who heard about our efforts to create some air defense system in case terrorists tried to fly aircraft into the Capitol, the White House, or the Pentagon simply thought we were nuts.
Click to expand...
Portable missile batteries were placed near the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2002, in anticipation of an "anniversary attack." The regular missile batteries were at the cleaners.
 
Christopher7 said:
It was a Cesna, The point is, the incident made it clear that the White House was vunerable to a terrorist attack by air, be it a small plane, a corperate jet or whatever.
Click to expand...

Would you prefer having batteries of missile launchers at every strategic site in the US, like in a real police state?
 
kevin said:
If the information would be classified how do you know the white house was undefended? Since there was no attack on the white house the lack of a anti-aircraft or missle firings from the white house are not proof that they were undefended.

Furthermore, the president wasn't in the white house, jets had been scrambled, and the path of the plane could point to many possible targets (DC would be known as a target rich environment).

If the plane had decided to fly further on would the jets have had time to catch the plane and shoot it down? We don't know because that didn't happen.

anti-aircraft measures tend to be aimed up, the plane hit the building from the side. In the pictures of the Pentagon I've seen there are no port holes in the side to point cannon out of.
Click to expand...

The plane approached D.C at 7,000 ft. and made a 330 degree turn.
A stinger misle team (or other system) stationed at the White House would have had plenty of thim to bring it down.
 
Christopher7, does this mean that you have reconsidered your controlled demolition theory?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom