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

The White House and the Capitol are no-fly zones, not the entire Washington DC airspace.
 
Christopher7 said:
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.
Click to expand...

and at what part of the path of the plane were they visible from white house? at what time did that occur and at what time was approval for shooting down civilian planes given and would it have propagated to classified missile batteries immediately?
 
Pardalis said:
So you acknowledge you have nothing to prove the CD theory?
Click to expand...

And you have nothing to prove your debris damage/fire Hypothesis.

Nor is anyone other than T.A.M. willing to say that our military leaders are so stupid that they didn't provide a last line of defence (stinger misels or whatever) to protect the White House, even after the Cesna incident so dramaticly pointed out this vulnerability.
 
Hey...I am one of the first to point out USG incompetence. I personally am a LIHOS/LIHOI, not an LIHOP/MIHOP.
 
Christopher7 said:
And you have nothing to prove your debris damage/fire Hypothesis.
Click to expand...

I can't prove it better than Gravy's post you keep avoiding:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1857649&postcount=83

Nor is anyone other than T.A.M. willing to say that our military leaders are so stupid that they didn't provide a last line of defence (stinger misels or whatever) to protect the White House, even after the Cesna incident so dramaticly pointed out this vulnerability.
Click to expand...

Why would this imply an inside job?
 
Chris:

Sorry...LIHOS (Let It Happen Out of Stupidity)...LIHOI (Let It Happen Out of Incompetence)...
 
For what it's worth, I'm a LIHOI (or its British version, LIHBOI). As a wise man said, never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity and ignorance.
 
Welcome Architect, to the JREF Skeptics Forum on Conspiracy Theories. From my experience here, all views, yours included, are allowed, but not neccesarily accepted. If you bring up a contentious issue, be prepared for a vigorous debate, and be prepared to have your evidence.

TAM (unofficial welcoming committee):)
 
Christopher7 said:
And you have nothing to prove your debris damage/fire Hypothesis.

Nor is anyone other than T.A.M. willing to say that our military leaders are so stupid that they didn't provide a last line of defence (stinger misels or whatever) to protect the White House, even after the Cesna incident so dramaticly pointed out this vulnerability.
Click to expand...

Do you even read the replies people make?

Or have you already started putting people on ignore?

Myself and Darth Rotor both replied, and told you that no, the Pentagon did NOT have AA capabilities.

Among others.

Yet here you admit that you haven't even read the replies that we've taken the time to type.

Yet, you're here for truth. You're hear to ionvestigate. Yo're here to discuss. But you can't spend 45 seconds to read replies to your questions?

Troll.
 
T.A.M. said:
Welcome Architect, to the JREF Skeptics Forum on Conspiracy Theories. From my experience here, all views, yours included, are allowed, but not neccesarily accepted. If you bring up a contentious issue, be prepared for a vigorous debate, and be prepared to have your evidence.

TAM (unofficial welcoming committee):)
Click to expand...

S'okay, Bautforum regular and member of that awkward crowd that are qualified to tell the CT brigage they know nothing about (say) structures
 
Is the White House protected? Probably.

How is it protected? Don't know.

Does it have missles? Don't know.

What are the range, tracking, and radar capabilities of any such defences? Don't know.

Are any such defences only in place during times of increased alert? Don't know.

What are the firing protocols, given that Washinton is an inhabited area? Don't know.

See Chris, unless you know the answers to these, your arguments are meaningless. All you've said is (effectively) "I think that there are missiles, and they should be able to protect the Pentagon too".

That's not an argument. It barely counts as a hypothesis.
 
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...
Christopher7, you already know the answer to this, but I'll explain anyway.

You can't put guns or missiles into the center of an urban area, literally seconds away from a major airport, and expect to actually use them. Maybe if you have advance warning, say an hour, along with a good idea of your target's bearing, aspect, speed, and composition.

You would have us believe the Pentagon etc. "must" have had anti-aircraft defenses standing by since 1994. Yet you expect this system to react within, literally, seconds the first time it is tested, with no false alarms. And I'll bet you more than one aircraft accidentally strayed into any useful no-fly zone entirely by accident. As evidence, consider this example of a civilian who breached this zone-of-exclusion, even years after being aware of its existence. There are others. Your claim would have us shoot these planes down.

Ain't going to happen.

So the Pentagon couldn't use active anti-aircraft defenses because it's unrealistic. Does that mean they take no defensive measures?

Wrong. They go to passive defenses. Partly motivated by the Oklahoma City Bombing, the Pentagon Renovation was done, in part, to do exactly what you claim they must have done, and that is to add defenses. Defenses that have no risk of wiping out civilian aircraft, defenses that are fail-safe, and defenses more in-line with the expected attack mode pre-September 11th.

In summary, the Pentagon wasn't defenseless at all. So what is your complaint, exactly?
 
Last edited:
gumboot said:
I assume you're referring to UA175's 10,000 feet per minute descent towards New York? 10,000fpm is certainly a very uncomfortable descent for passengers, but not especially so for the aircraft. Bear in mind the limitations of turning and climb/descent for airliners are not for the safety of the aircraft - they are for the comfort of the passengers. Obviously the hijackers on 9/11 weren't overly concerned with passenger comfort.

-Andrew
Click to expand...

Not to mention that most of the stress in that situation would occur when you try to bring the aircraft out of the dive. The pilots were planning on ending the dive by crashing into the building. The long term condition of the plane was not an issue to them
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom