Split Thread The 9/11 Conspiracy Team

[Justin39640]

Maybe you should have been more clear what your intent was.

So, because there had not been a sucessful hijacking in the US in 20 years, it means it couldn't happen?

In 2004, the Red Sox had not won the World Series in 86 years. Yet, in October of 2004, we did exactly that. Does that mean it was a conspiracy?

YES!!!!!!!!!!!! IT WAS!!!!!!! (disgruntled grumblings)

 

[The Doc]

Yes, The 9/11 Conspiracy Team had no right to kill these innocent, unarmed people on 9/11 for their agenda and profits. Bin Laden was just the fall guy, bumped off to protect The Team.

The 9/11 Conspiracy Team (according to a recent theory)
* Bin Laden provided the hijackers, and told them to hijack 4 planes, land, and demand the USA get out of Arabia in return for the hostages.
* Mueller made sure no FBI agents arrested the hijackers, taking pilot training in the USA (not in other countries with flight schools) to create a plausible cover story.
* Airline baggage men (agents) put the bags with remote controlled cyanide gas tanks in the planes, to knock out the crew, passengers, and hijackers (who were duped, and died too).
* Airline maintenance (agents) installed enhanced remote control in the passenger jets.
* ACE Elevator workers (agents) placed the nano-thermite and other explosives in the WTC elevators by day, and above ceilings panels by night
* Cheney made sure no fighter jets intercepted the planes
* Rumsfeld had workers strengthen the Pentagon Wing wall for the impact.
* Bremer arranged homing beacons installed in WTCs, and first blamed Bin Laden on TV
* Gen. Myers provided the NORAD stand down and timelines
* Bush leveraged the attacks into a reason to invade Afghanistan and Iraq.

This is why we shouldn't encourage children to use their imagination.

 

[ladmo]

[facepalm]

Arguments from ignorance and incredulity rock. Just keep on living in your bubble, boy.

I work and LIVE in the middle east. I am surrounded by peaceful muslims. Many of them were shocked about the events that led to UBL's death. Many of them were afraid the US was pissing on his body or desecrating it. Many of them felt he was a 'robin hood' type of figure. So yes, it is very important once you have his body to treat it with some modicum of respect. Once we had his body in OUR hands, what WE do with it becomes VERY important.

The fact that it wouldn't bother YOU doesn't mean it wouldn't bother THEM. If you don't understand that simple concept, you should look up what happened in europe when someone drew a cartoon of the prophet.... gee... how many folks died because of that? A *********** cartoon, really?

These people aren't like europeans nor westerners. When you get that through your ignorant and incredulous head, it will help you see how they think.

I agree that there are many peaceful Muslims... no issue there. Ignorance is not a part of my decision making process, you have no idea what I do for a living and it is levels beyond living in the Middle East... so let's leave it with that.

Bottom line... we may disagree but when you attack me without any foundation, I will call you on it. If you think that a paragraph can sum up a complete thinking process, then go on thinking that but it would be premature to be sarcastic and presumptuous. Others may choose to under fear but I will not live under the fear of Terrorist.

 

[triforcharity]

YES!!!!!!!!!!!! IT WAS!!!!!!! (disgruntled grumblings)

Nobody asked you, you big crybaby.

 

[Triterope]

The most ludicrous theory is the establishment's theory that every level of American defense/protection from the/an 9/11 event freaking failed.

Like I said earlier:

Clayton Moore's "how could they possibly avoid US technology" comment betrays what really drives a lot of conspiracy believers: their inability to accept that their country is not infallible. So they find comfort in a belief that any apparent failure must be intentional (and flawlessly executed, of course).

 

[Oz1976]

The most ludicrous theory is the establishment's theory that every level of American defense/protection from the/an 9/11 event freaking failed. In an America when a misspeak is a firing/media humiliating/career ending event where was the inquisition?

Right...because ya know...those defenses prior to 9/11 had always been targeted INWARDLY to threats originating from 3 of the Eastern Seaboards most travelled airports. Oh, and tell me when previously any aircraft had been ever used in this manor prior to 9/11? When had hijackers ever not asked for the release of some political prisoner or money, etc?

Please tell me the intercept time for NORAD scrambles is 10 minutes, I love that one.

 

[Oz1976]

Maybe you should have been more clear what your intent was.

So, because there had not been a sucessful hijacking in the US in 20 years, it means it couldn't happen?

In 2004, the Red Sox had not won the World Series in 86 years. Yet, in October of 2004, we did exactly that. Does that mean it was a conspiracy?

YES IT WAS DANG IT!!!!! HOW ELSE DO YOU ACCOUNT FOR YOUR DANG BOSOX COMING BACK FROM DOWN 3 TO 0 TO MY PRECIOUS YANKS!!!!!!!?????? IT WAS FIXED I TELL YA, IT WAS FIXED!!!!!

capslock for emphasis!

 

[A W Smith]

http://www.911reality.com/interceptingjets.html

 

[triforcharity]

YES IT WAS DANG IT!!!!! HOW ELSE DO YOU ACCOUNT FOR YOUR DANG BOSOX COMING BACK FROM DOWN 3 TO 0 TO MY PRECIOUS YANKS!!!!!!!?????? IT WAS FIXED I TELL YA, IT WAS FIXED!!!!!

capslock for emphasis!

We'll just chalk it up to a ****** team!

/OT

 

[TruthersLie]

I agree that there are many peaceful Muslims... no issue there. Ignorance is not a part of my decision making process, you have no idea what I do for a living and it is levels beyond living in the Middle East... so let's leave it with that.

Bottom line... we may disagree but when you attack me without any foundation, I will call you on it. If you think that a paragraph can sum up a complete thinking process, then go on thinking that but it would be premature to be sarcastic and presumptuous. Others may choose to under fear but I will not live under the fear of Terrorist.

Woo Hoo.. Ignorance and incredulity wrapped up in anger and contempt (ad hom much?).

you missed the ENTIRE POINT of my reply... reading for comprehension isn't a strong suit is it? The main point was that even MODERATE and PEACEFUL muslims were concerned with how his body was handled.

Ignorance and incredulity on the FDR.
Ignorance and incredulity on why UBL's body was disposed of the way it was.
Ignorance, incredulity and Ad Hom when confronted with your own ignorance.

Keep on rockin out.

p.s. It should be "I will not live under the fear of Terrorism." Not "under fear of Terrorist" which is grammatical garbage... Now if you added in an article "the" or "a" or even "some" that would work better. Of course the capitalization of Terrorist... is there only one?

 

[ladmo]

There's a difference between "failing" and "being inadequate to an unprecedented attack", which was admitted over and over.

For example, America's air defenses were not geared to deal with threats inside it's borders. Sure, it would be capable of properly responding to such threats given enough time, but all the guns were pointing out, so to speak. Just hijacking over US airspace got them past the most formidable defenses.

... this is interesting. Can you provide some citation about our defenses not geared to deal with threats inside its borders? thx

 

[beachnut]

... this is interesting. Can you provide some citation about our defenses not geared to deal with threats inside its borders? thx

Study NORAD. Our Sky's are for commercial traffic, not combat air patrols. NORAD was intercepting aircraft coming from overseas, and they did it is airspace designed for them to be clear of traffic.

Please show us were there were rules to shoot down hijacked aircraft before 911, or tactics, or procedures.

The best you will find, the USAF would be called up to follow jets that were not responding, after an hour or two, and maybe shoot down derelict objects which endangered people or property.

The military is for war, not peace time domestic problems; the military is restricted from doing domestic police work, it is due to our heritage about not wanting troops in the street. Military for war, not domestic junk.

You are in the wrong thread... There is a lot of information on NORAD and 911 truth delusions. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=104587 Search Google for norad etc, site:randi.org, if you can't use the search function here at JREF

 

[beachnut]

... this is interesting. Can you provide some citation about our defenses not geared to deal with threats inside its borders? thx

You posted the above, and then claim knowledge? Why?

I have studied NORAD a lot more than most. You are not entirely correct in your description. There is a very defined engagement procedure that is initiated by the FAA which engages NORAD immediately. You are being disingenuous if you fail to mention the elements involved with straying from the flight plan, altitude and other sundry compliances within lane assignments for commercial aircraft.

FALSE, there is no immediate procedure for intercept when we go off flight path over the USA ground. Example; Payne Stewart's aircraft, intercept after 80 minutes by a standard USAF flight, NOT NORAD. Your research is not a lot more, it is nil.

Not sure what you mean by "domestic police work" but NORAD is bound by charter within the rules of engagement to intercept aircraft after notification from the FAA... plain and simple.

Hijacking was domestic law enforcement! NOT war, not a military shoot them up affair. We are a nation of civilians, our military is under civilian control, military is not to be used for domestic police/FBI work. 911 was a hijacking of planes until the second impact, then it was war. The time to figure out 911 is the time the Passengers on Flight 93 stood up and attacked the moron terrorists. There were no provision for intercepts over the USA ground before 911, to shoot down aircraft.
But go ahead cite the regulation on me.

Who said shoot down the aircraft? Do not create a false choice... I never said shoot down, if I said that... point it out to me and I will admit that the statement would be incorrect. If you are not familiar with interception (which I know that you know like the back of your hand) then look it up. I am quite familiar with CJCSI 3610.01A as I assume you are too... refer to 4. Policy section "a" it details the chain of enforcement and procedures... it was on page 1 in my copy.

Military personnel will provide the following types of support: intercept, surveillance, lift, equipment, and communications. Military personnel may not participate in a search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity. This restriction would include the apprehension of aircraft hijackers or use of military aircraft (fixed-wing or helicopter) or other vehicles as platforms for gunfire or the use of other weapons against suspected hijackers. In addition, assistance may not be provided under this enclosure if it could adversely affect national security or military preparedness.

You said this and claim to be up to speed on NORAD, but you said this.

... this is interesting. Can you provide some citation about our defenses not geared to deal with threats inside its borders? thx

We were not allowed to shoot, we could watch, and it was usually after an hour or hours, to track hijacked aircraft. We were not prepared to deal with threats like terrorists flying planes into buildings on 911. You claim you are up to speed, you are not.
SEE...

... this is interesting. Can you provide some citation about our defenses not geared to deal with threats inside its borders? thx

Derelict objects normally refer to unmanned or ROV aircraft is that what you mean?

Balloons, aircraft with dead crew, etc. READ the instruction, read the regulation it spells it out clearly, since you studied NORAD and US air defense you should know what I mean. A plane with dead people on board is, a UAV, you have the instruction, it is in

ENCLOSURE C

BINGO

 

[ladmo]

You posted the above, and then claim knowledge? Why?
FALSE, there is no immediate procedure for intercept when we go off flight path over the USA ground. Example; Payne Stewart's aircraft, intercept after 80 minutes by a standard USAF flight, NOT NORAD. Your research is not a lot more, it is nil.

Hijacking was domestic law enforcement! NOT war, not a military shoot them up affair. We are a nation of civilians, our military is under civilian control, military is not to be used for domestic police/FBI work. 911 was a hijacking of planes until the second impact, then it was war. The time to figure out 911 is the time the Passengers on Flight 93 stood up and attacked the moron terrorists. There were no provision for intercepts over the USA ground before 911, to shoot down aircraft.
But go ahead cite the regulation on me.





You said this and claim to be up to speed on NORAD, but you said this.

We were not allowed to shoot, we could watch, and it was usually after an hour or hours, to track hijacked aircraft. We were not prepared to deal with threats like terrorists flying planes into buildings on 911. You claim you are up to speed, you are not.
SEE...


Balloons, aircraft with dead crew, etc. READ the instruction, read the regulation it spells it out clearly, since you studied NORAD and US air defense you should know what I mean. A plane with dead people on board is, a UAV, you have the instruction, it is in BINGO

You are completely wrong and you never read the cited document. Re-read what I wrote...You are a fake Beachnut!!

 

[TruthersLie]

... this is interesting. Can you provide some citation about our defenses not geared to deal with threats inside its borders? thx

Wow...

twoofie talking again. Absolutely amazing.

Ya know for someone who isn't a "truther" you sure seem to play one on the interwebz...

Maybe you could look up the job of NORAD and see where their defenses are focused. It would only take a minute or two. You could use the search function for NORAD, and if you add in the name Gumboot you could even find several GREAT posts on NORAD's mission and the parameters of the air defenses.

maybe you could then do a search and find out that there were only 14 jets on alert across the ENTIRE US.

Afterwards, you could try to look up where they were stationed and then do a simple time/distance problem to see if any could intercept a single hijacked jet. Very simple to do.

of course, if you really have the integrity you could then look up how long it takes for NON alert jets to get airborne.

But for some reason I doubt you will even bother with any of that. You want to be spoon fed the information.

Twoofie much?

 

[ladmo]

Wow...

twoofie talking again. Absolutely amazing.

Ya know for someone who isn't a "truther" you sure seem to play one on the interwebz...

Maybe you could look up the job of NORAD and see where their defenses are focused. It would only take a minute or two. You could use the search function for NORAD, and if you add in the name Gumboot you could even find several GREAT posts on NORAD's mission and the parameters of the air defenses.

maybe you could then do a search and find out that there were only 14 jets on alert across the ENTIRE US.

Afterwards, you could try to look up where they were stationed and then do a simple time/distance problem to see if any could intercept a single hijacked jet. Very simple to do.

of course, if you really have the integrity you could then look up how long it takes for NON alert jets to get airborne.

But for some reason I doubt you will even bother with any of that. You want to be spoon fed the information.

Twoofie much?

You have no clue... and you can call me any name you wish but it still does not make me a "Twoofie". Just because someone disagrees with you, you go out and dress them up as a "Twoofie".

Try and read the document that I listed but if that is too much reading just read NORAD Regulation 55-7 published July 6, 1990.

This regulation is a short 6 pages... Since Beachnut feels that NORAD has no responsibility for skies inside the USA, this dispels that notion.

I completely understand that our defense was reduced but that does not have a bearing on what Beachnut said... he is flat out wrong.

Your assumptions are unfounded when you speak to being spoon fed... I read all referenced materials when directed to them... you listed zero. Yet if you read this post and the one I posted to Beachnut... I gave 2. Read those and come back and say that NORAD has no involvement or responsibility in American air space.

You keep adding points that have nothing to do with the issue at hand...

"of course, if you really have the integrity you could then look up how long it takes for NON alert jets to get airborne."

That has nothing to do with anything about NORAD's USA air space responsibility. Keep on task.

 

[Justin39640]

You have no clue... and you can call me any name you wish but it still does not make me a "Twoofie". Just because someone disagrees with you, you go out and dress them up as a "Twoofie".

Try and read the document that I listed but if that is too much reading just read NORAD Regulation 55-7 published July 6, 1990.

This regulation is a short 6 pages... Since Beachnut feels that NORAD has no responsibility for skies inside the USA, this dispels that notion.

I completely understand that our defense was reduced but that does not have a bearing on what Beachnut said... he is flat out wrong.

Your assumptions are unfounded when you speak to being spoon fed... I read all referenced materials when directed to them... you listed zero. Yet if you read this post and the one I posted to Beachnut... I gave 2. Read those and come back and say that NORAD has no involvement or responsibility in American air space.

You keep adding points that have nothing to do with the issue at hand...

"of course, if you really have the integrity you could then look up how long it takes for NON alert jets to get airborne."

That has nothing to do with anything about NORAD's USA air space responsibility. Keep on task.

You do realize that NORAD was created to guard against Soviet ICBM and/or long range bomber attacks, correct? Since those types of attacks don't typically originate from within our own borders, WHY would NORAD be looking inwards while searching for threats? Now if a flight of bear bombers had got past the net and entered US airspace, then yes, NORAD's gaze would shift inwards.

 

[beachnut]

You are completely wrong and you never read the cited document. Re-read what I wrote...You are a fake Beachnut!!

... this is interesting. Can you provide some citation about our defenses not geared to deal with threats inside its borders? thx

.... I am quite familiar with CJCSI 3610.01A ...?

From CJCSI...

Military personnel will provide the following types of support: intercept, surveillance, lift, equipment, and communications. Military personnel may not participate in a search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity. This restriction would include the apprehension of aircraft hijackers or use of military aircraft (fixed-wing or helicopter) or other vehicles as platforms for gunfire or the use of other weapons against suspected hijackers. In addition, assistance may not be provided under this enclosure if it could adversely affect national security or military preparedness. CJCSI 3610.01A 1 June 2001

For 911 issues this is why fighters did not launch and crash through controlled airspace and intercept hijacked planes willy nilly. This is why initially on 911 fighters went to obits in airspace that was clean, off the coast where they don't crash into commercial air-traffic.

If we want to know how an aircraft off flight plan would be treated before 911 we have Payne Stewart. Initial inspect by a USAF aircraft, 80 minutes after no contact, not NORAD assigned aircraft because they are on alert to stop bomber from coming through the ADIZ. The rest of the fighters who intercepted Stewart's plane were an ad hoc set of planes which followed Stewart's plane. The safe way to do it is watch, you could get next to the plane and tip the wing to move the plane to a new course.

... Can you provide some citation about our defenses not geared to deal with threats inside its borders? thx

Before 911...
Military personnel will provide the following types of support: intercept, surveillance, lift, equipment, and communications.

Military personnel may not participate in a search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity. CJCSI 3610.01A 1 June 2001

This restriction would include the apprehension of aircraft hijackers or use of military aircraft (fixed-wing or helicopter) or other vehicles as platforms for gunfire or the use of other weapons against suspected hijackers. CJCSI 3610.01A 1 June 2001

In addition, assistance may not be provided under this enclosure if it could adversely affect national security or military preparedness. CJCSI 3610.01A 1 June 2001

What is cool about instructions and rules, the military is allowed to use, Judgment, and we can take action. On 911 the response was quicker than normal because controllers figured out things and alerted NORAD directly, not going by the rules.

 

[ladmo]

You posted the above, and then claim knowledge? Why?
FALSE, there is no immediate procedure for intercept when we go off flight path over the USA ground. Example; Payne Stewart's aircraft, intercept after 80 minutes by a standard USAF flight, NOT NORAD. Your research is not a lot more, it is nil.

you completely mis-characterize what I stated. I never said there was an immediate procedure for intercept... I said that the FAA has to notify NORAD. You said that NORAD has no duty in conducting police work in our skies but you insist on changing the subject to fit your thoughts.

Hijacking was domestic law enforcement! NOT war, not a military shoot them up affair. We are a nation of civilians, our military is under civilian control, military is not to be used for domestic police/FBI work. 911 was a hijacking of planes until the second impact, then it was war. The time to figure out 911 is the time the Passengers on Flight 93 stood up and attacked the moron terrorists. There were no provision for intercepts over the USA ground before 911, to shoot down aircraft.
But go ahead cite the regulation on me.

not sure what this has to do with anything and it certainly did not support your claim that NORAD has nothing to do with American skies.

We were not allowed to shoot, we could watch, and it was usually after an hour or hours, to track hijacked aircraft. We were not prepared to deal with threats like terrorists flying planes into buildings on 911. You claim you are up to speed, you are not.
SEE...

I did not say "shoot"... please point out where I did. Now you say that we were not prepared for terrorists flying planes into buildings??? Let me point you to another document that was written in 1999... ""The Sociology and Psychology of Terrorism: Who Becomes a Terrorist and Why?" this report which was circulated through the government agencies states... "Suicide bomber(s) belonging to al-Qaida's Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives...into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or the White House...."

Do I need to post other government documents that were published prior to 911 that specifically mentioned planes crashing into buildings?

 

[ladmo]

From CJCSI...

For 911 issues this is why fighters did not launch and crash through controlled airspace and intercept hijacked planes willy nilly. This is why initially on 911 fighters went to obits in airspace that was clean, off the coast where they don't crash into commercial air-traffic.

If we want to know how an aircraft off flight plan would be treated before 911 we have Payne Stewart. Initial inspect by a USAF aircraft, 80 minutes after no contact, not NORAD assigned aircraft because they are on alert to stop bomber from coming through the ADIZ. The rest of the fighters who intercepted Stewart's plane were an ad hoc set of planes which followed Stewart's plane. The safe way to do it is watch, you could get next to the plane and tip the wing to move the plane to a new course.



Before 911...
Military personnel will provide the following types of support: intercept, surveillance, lift, equipment, and communications.

Military personnel may not participate in a search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity. CJCSI 3610.01A 1 June 2001

This restriction would include the apprehension of aircraft hijackers or use of military aircraft (fixed-wing or helicopter) or other vehicles as platforms for gunfire or the use of other weapons against suspected hijackers. CJCSI 3610.01A 1 June 2001

In addition, assistance may not be provided under this enclosure if it could adversely affect national security or military preparedness. CJCSI 3610.01A 1 June 2001

What is cool about instructions and rules, the military is allowed to use, Judgment, and we can take action. On 911 the response was quicker than normal because controllers figured out things and alerted NORAD directly, not going by the rules.

you left out the part that supports what I said.

4. Policy.
a. Aircraft Piracy (Hijacking) of Civil and Military Aircraft. Pursuant
to references a and b, the Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA), has exclusive responsibility to direct law enforcement activity
related to actual or attempted aircraft piracy (hijacking) in the “special
aircraft jurisdiction” of the United States. When requested by the
Administrator, Department of Defense will provide assistance to these
law enforcement efforts. Pursuant to reference c, the NMCC is the focal
point within Department of Defense for providing assistance. In the
event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious
means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate
responses as authorized by reference d, forward requests for DOD
assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval. DOD assistance to
the FAA will be provided in accordance with reference d. Additional
guidance is provided in Enclosure A.