What's your theory about 9/11?

[LSSBB]

So,you say the mornings scheduled drill had nothing to do with any hijacking and was to take place thousands of miles away? Alright then,explain this to me: "When they told me there was a hijack, my first reaction was 'Somebody started the exercise early,'" Nasypany later told me. The day's exercise was designed to run a range of scenarios, including a "traditional" simulated hijack in which politically motivated perpetrators commandeer an aircraft, land on a Cuba-like island, and seek asylum. "I actually said out loud, 'The hijack's not supposed to be for another hour,'" Nasypany recalled.[Quote-from vanity Fair 'Norad tapes ' Aug 2006-interview of maj. kevin nasypany]

So you're basing your theory on an exercise MSEL inject? How about that was an unfortunate bit of timing that served to add more confusion to a confusing day?

 

[DGM]

If he is I would to ask him some questions. For example,Flight 11 struck WTC1 at 8:46 it was travelling South at nearly 500MPH. If it had continued then by 9:21 it would have already passed Washington DC and be to it's South. If there was no radar track on this phantom Flight 11,how did he know to send the fighters to the North East? There's NO WAY they could have known where Flight 11 was with no radar track on it since 8:46. But if 911 was an inside job they have known that Flight 77 was approaching Washington DC from the South West and sent the fighters in the opposite direction. So,how did they know?

His name is Colin Scoggins. He posts under the name Cheap Shot.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/member.php?u=18092

 

[beachnut]

... But if 911 was an inside job they have known that Flight 77 was approaching Washington DC from the South West and sent the fighters in the opposite direction. So,how did they know?

This is silly stuff, anti-logic. No wonder 911 truth is only good for buying book, DVD, and making donations to nuts.

 

[DGM]

If he is I would to ask him some questions. For example,Flight 11 struck WTC1 at 8:46 it was travelling South at nearly 500MPH. If it had continued then by 9:21 it would have already passed Washington DC and be to it's South. If there was no radar track on this phantom Flight 11,how did he know to send the fighters to the North East? There's NO WAY they could have known where Flight 11 was with no radar track on it since 8:46. But if 911 was an inside job they have known that Flight 77 was approaching Washington DC from the South West and sent the fighters in the opposite direction. So,how did they know?

Why would you ask him these questions? You have no idea what the military liaison does, yet you accuse him of treason. Nice research.

 

[FrankHT]

As for the question of if the pilots would have thought it was just a hijacking drill if not for the phone call from Boston Center and therefore flew faster than they were expected to fly,I'll quote General Arnold, "It just so happens that Colonel Duffy,who was a pilot of that first F-15,had been in some conversation because as telephone calls were made,he was aware that there was a hijacking in the system. It's kind of interesting because he himself concluded that that indeed might have been that airplane himself,and elected to hit the afterburner and to speed up his way towards New York.[Quote-Gen Larry Arnold 2nd public hearing 5/23/03].
It seems I'm correct. They flew faster than they were EXPECTED to fly and ended up in a holding pattern for their trouble.

 

[Reactor drone]

It seems I'm correct. They flew faster than they were EXPECTED to fly and ended up in a holding pattern for their trouble.

Or they flew as fast as they could and were still unable to intercept and were then directed to hold in clear airspace to await further orders. Even if they had got there what would they do? Would you shoot down a hijacked aircraft on the offchance that the other aircraft hadn't crashed by accident?

Your whole argument here seems to be that because people didn't know what was going on and failed to predict the terrorists actions that that is somehow proof that they did know what the terrorists were going to do and deliberately acted like they didn't so as not to arouse suspicion.

 

[FrankHT]

FrankHT,

your theory acknowledges and incorporates many known facts, and ignores or denies relatively few, and not, in my opinion, to a fatal degree.

So at least your theory is not obviously wrong. (I'll stay away from details like your false assertion that the Otis alert crew might have thought they were merely on an exercise, had not Boston Center told them the nature of the incident. That is wrong for several reasons, but not a necessary component of your theory, I think)

But your story hinges on, or adds to the accepted facts, intentions on the parts of several players. So I would ask you: Which facts and which reasoning have compelled you to think these specific individuals actually had those intentions? In other words: What's your evidence?

Because for a number of these facts I can think of no innocent explanation. For example,putting Langley's Supervisor of flying up as a third pilot in an unarmed F16,why? What benefit did it offer? I can think of none. It makes far more sense that he was put up to prevent him from doing his job on the ground with PREDICABLE results.
Another example,Neads Commander (Yes,I know their names but have chosen not to use them unless I'm quoting them) ordering the Air National Guard units to arm up fully when he was told (knew) that that order would keep them on the ground for an hour. I can't think of an innocent explanation for that.
Now if someone can come along and give believable innocent explanations for thing such as these I'm willing to listen.

 

[LSSBB]

Because for a number of these facts I can think of no innocent explanation. For example,putting Langley's Supervisor of flying up as a third pilot in an unarmed F16,why? What benefit did it offer? I can think of none. It makes far more sense that he was put up to prevent him from doing his job on the ground with PREDICABLE results.
Another example,Neads Commander (Yes,I know their names but have chosen not to use them unless I'm quoting them) ordering the Air National Guard units to arm up fully when he was told (knew) that that order would keep them on the ground for an hour. I can't think of an innocent explanation for that.
Now if someone can come along and give believable innocent explanations for thing such as these I'm willing to listen.

So it was Let It Happen On Purpose because you can't think of why they did what they did?

 

[Redwood]

Frank, can you give us an executive summary of your theory?

 

[beachnut]

Because for a number of these facts I can think of no innocent explanation. ...

Why are you quote-mining and cherrypicking? Why do you lack of knowledge on the subject, are you confused. You don't know anything about NORAD, FAA, flight procedures, and more; it shows.

... For example,putting Langley's Supervisor of flying up as a third pilot in an unarmed F16,why? ...

The SOF is already on the base, he can launch and intercept. Plus there are many things you can do with an F-16 to harass the terrorists, mess up their day. Have you flown jets?

... What benefit did it offer? I can think of none. ...

You have never flown high performance jets, or flown in the USAF, how could you answer any of your questions?

... It makes far more sense that he was put up to prevent him from doing his job on the ground with PREDICABLE results. ...

The SOF? LOL, Any pilot can be SOF except the new guy. You have no idea what the military is.

... Another example,Neads Commander (Yes,I know their names but have chosen not to use them unless I'm quoting them) ordering the Air National Guard units to arm up fully when he was told (knew) that that order would keep them on the ground for an hour. ...

? Why not arm the planes, the alert birds from NORAD can be the first wave. You just had a fit when a SOF took off without weapons, now you have a fit when they arm planes. BTW, the local commander could launch planes with many configurations. You are cherry picking and quote mining you way to woo.

... I can't think of an innocent explanation for that. ...

That is because you don't have any useful knowledge about the subject.

... Now if someone can come along and give believable innocent explanations for thing such as these I'm willing to listen.

You are picking things to match your bias view of 911 and ignoring other things.

What you present does not make sense, random stuff you picked up, and can't source.

 

[Mark F]

Because for a number of these facts I can think of no innocent explanation. For example,putting Langley's Supervisor of flying up as a third pilot in an unarmed F16,why? What benefit did it offer? I can think of none. It makes far more sense that he was put up to prevent him from doing his job on the ground with PREDICABLE results.
Another example,Neads Commander (Yes,I know their names but have chosen not to use them unless I'm quoting them) ordering the Air National Guard units to arm up fully when he was told (knew) that that order would keep them on the ground for an hour. I can't think of an innocent explanation for that.
Now if someone can come along and give believable innocent explanations for thing such as these I'm willing to listen.

I get it. You lack both imagination and knowledge, therefore it must have been an inside job.

right.

And you will be presenting this case to a Grand Jury when?

 

[TJM]

For example,putting Langley's Supervisor of flying up as a third pilot in an unarmed F16,why? What benefit did it offer? I can think of none.

I can think of one.

 

[Oystein]

Because for a number of these facts I can think of no innocent explanation. For example,putting Langley's Supervisor of flying up as a third pilot in an unarmed F16,why? What benefit did it offer? I can think of none. It makes far more sense that he was put up to prevent him from doing his job on the ground with PREDICABLE results.
Another example,Neads Commander (Yes,I know their names but have chosen not to use them unless I'm quoting them) ordering the Air National Guard units to arm up fully when he was told (knew) that that order would keep them on the ground for an hour. I can't think of an innocent explanation for that.
Now if someone can come along and give believable innocent explanations for thing such as these I'm willing to listen.

I highlighted your problem. It's a case of the "Argument from ignorance" logical fallacy: "I can't explain X, therefore Y"

Instead of asking for explanations you can't think of, you went ahead and stated your fantasy as claims. Claims that imply a real person, who happens to be a member here (Colin Scoggins, aka Cheap Shot) is an actual murderer, or accessory to about 2600 cases of murder.

I hope you understand that we don't like it very much when people go around making such bold, devestating claims about people we know based on nothing but their personal inability to explain things they apparently don't know very much about.

So that's why I'd ask for a little more evidence.

 

[000063]

So,you say the mornings scheduled drill had nothing to do with any hijacking and was to take place thousands of miles away? Alright then,explain this to me: "When they told me there was a hijack, my first reaction was 'Somebody started the exercise early,'" Nasypany later told me. The day's exercise was designed to run a range of scenarios, including a "traditional" simulated hijack in which politically motivated perpetrators commandeer an aircraft, land on a Cuba-like island, and seek asylum. "I actually said out loud, 'The hijack's not supposed to be for another hour,'" Nasypany recalled.[Quote-from vanity Fair 'Norad tapes ' Aug 2006-interview of maj. kevin nasypany]

That doesn't actually disprove the point. All it means is that someone's initial impression was that they had moved up the schedule.

Or they flew as fast as they could and were still unable to intercept and were then directed to hold in clear airspace to await further orders. Even if they had got there what would they do? Would you shoot down a hijacked aircraft on the offchance that the other aircraft hadn't crashed by accident?

Your whole argument here seems to be that because people didn't know what was going on and failed to predict the terrorists actions that that is somehow proof that they did know what the terrorists were going to do and deliberately acted like they didn't so as not to arouse suspicion.

The Aristocrats!

 

[FrankHT]

Why would you ask him these questions? You have no idea what the military liaison does, yet you accuse him of treason. Nice research.

I notice the question still goes unanswered. How could anyone have known where Flight 11 was without a radar track. Better yet,even if they did have an unidentified track between NYC & Washington DC how could they have known it was Flight 11? It's transponder was turned off.
The bottom line: at the very time Flight 77 is approaching Washington from the South West Scroggin makes a report that turns all eyes at NEADS operational floor to the North East. Yes,I think we more information about this. The answer is simple,If Scroggins is a member here perhaps he should come on answer a few questions. Why not? There's nothing to hide,right?

 

[beachnut]

I notice the question still goes unanswered. How could anyone have known where Flight 11 was without a radar track. Better yet,even if they did have an unidentified track between NYC & Washington DC how could they have known it was Flight 11? It's transponder was turned off.
The bottom line: at the very time Flight 77 is approaching Washington from the South West Scroggin makes a report that turns all eyes at NEADS operational floor to the North East. Yes,I think we more information about this. The answer is simple,If Scroggins is a member here perhaps he should come on answer a few questions. Why not? There's nothing to hide,right?

What questions? You have no idea what NORAD is.

RADAR works without a transponder. You questions are based on ignorance and it seems you are a paranoid conspiracy theorists. Why can't you figure out 911?

Why should the SOF not be flying? How many years did you serve in the USAF? Why can't you respond to questions? Or comments?


If I had a chance to fly when I had SOF duties, I would take off in record time. SOF is a job on the ground, flying is a job in the air - which job do you think a pilot picks? Hello. Wake up. What you don't know about NORAD, USAF, and American fighting people, fills volumes.

 

[FrankHT]

What questions? You have no idea what NORAD is.

RADAR works without a transponder.

For years we've been told what an impossible task it is to find the right blip based only a primary return,now it's a simple matter? So,again if there was a primary return how did they know it was Flight 11? Explain it to me. Better yet,why are they denying there was a primary return? There's no way they could have known. I'm willing to listen,but I haven't heard an answer.

 

[beachnut]

For years we've been told what an impossible task it is to find the right blip based only a primary return,now it's a simple matter? So,again if there was a primary return how did they know it was Flight 11? Explain it to me. Better yet,why are they denying there was a primary return? There's no way they could have known. I'm willing to listen,but I haven't heard an answer.

Source for the impossible task to find the blip you were following in the first place? Where do you get your nonsense from?
If a blip just shows up, like 77, how can you know? Did you know why 77 was lost? No. Need to be flexible with this stuff, you seem to only use 911 truth lies and fantasy for your facts and evidence.


You have spent zero time researching. The controllers had to clear the way for 11 wandering off course. The controllers would suspect the plane lost electricity, lost comm, and was going to land at NYC for an emergency, plane unable to talk. How could they know it was hijacked until the crew on the phone telling mother (company hq) they were? You are unable to do more than spread lies and nonsense because you did zero research. You disrespect those who died by making up nonsense instead of becoming armed with knowledge. Not very nice.

The controllers lost the RADAR signal over NYC. So much for your questions.

Unless the plane is stealth, there is a primary return.

Are you a pilot?

I had traffic called out to me that was not squawking. Why haven't you?

 

[FrankHT]

Source for the impossible task to find the blip you were following in the first place?

Exactly right. They (NORAD) were tracking the planes from the very beginning (even before they were hijacked) themselves with no need for the FAA to tell them anything.
The most damming part of General Arnold's testimony before the Commission wasn't the admission to foreknowledge of Flight 93 (before it was even hijacked),but rather the fact that he told us where he got the information from: His staff. Who he said were "orbiting" in an aircraft over Washington. There was,in fact, an aircraft orbiting over Washington at the time (c9:30) an E4-B 'doomsday' plane which are tied to both NORAD's & the FAA tracking systems. The real tracking data was coming from them & Cheyenne Mountain to General Arnold who related it to Col. Marr. Thus proving the NORAD tapes are useless when it comes to determining when NEADS leadership knew about what.

 

[beachnut]

Exactly right. They (NORAD) were tracking the planes from the very beginning (even before they were hijacked) themselves with no need for the FAA to tell them anything.

What? Source this. NORAD is tracking all 4,000 flight over the USA on 911? Why?

You understand NORAD does not launch planes for hijacked aircraft over the USA unless requested by FAA, before 911? What would happen for one plane, lost Comm, not talking to ATC, Payne Stewart; look it up. NORAD never launched a plane. Sorry, but you have no practical knowledge or experience in flying.

Have you retracted the fact 11 was tracked without a transponder? Are you going to discuss your failed claims? or what?

The most damming part of General Arnold's testimony before the Commission wasn't the admission to foreknowledge of Flight 93 (before it was even hijacked),but rather the fact that he told us where he got the information from: His staff. Who he said were "orbiting" in an aircraft over Washington.

Source.

There was,in fact, an aircraft orbiting over Washington at the time (c9:30) an E4-B 'doomsday' plane which are tied to both NORAD's & the FAA tracking systems.

Source. Does the E4B have RADAR like AWACS? SO?

The real tracking data was coming from them & Cheyenne Mountain to General Arnold who related it to Col. Marr. Thus proving the NORAD tapes are useless when it comes to determining when NEADS leadership knew about what.

WRONG. But go ahead, post your sources, or are you making this up as you go?

FAA was tracking flight 11 up to impact. Why do you fail to retract your lies?

Why can't the SOF fly? You never answer questions or source your junk.