What's your theory about 9/11?

[beachnut]

I've got nothing against the military. In fact,my theory exonerates all but the very TOP leadership. According to it the pilots are innocent,the people on NEADS operational floor are innocent,the people in NEADS battle Cab are innocent save one.
As for the SOF thing,here's what it's based on. 3 paragraphs if the mods will allow it. Debunk it & if your claims check out,I'll drop it from my theory:
...

Your theory is hogwash. The SOF flying, reflects your lack of knowledge and need to google your quotes.

Your theory is fiction, bad fiction, based on nonsense. You don't respond or correct your errors in your, open-loop fantasy.

SOF is not needed, you are cherry-picking. The SOF calls home, his commander says fly. Add another USAF officer to your list of evil doers. Your theory based on ignorance in flying ops, failed reading comprehension, quote-mining, cherry-picking to the extreme.

Leave the SOF stuff in, it makes your theory poppycock. Next time read all the stuff available on the topic, instead of posting nonsense which fits a limited knowledge base, and paranoia.

OOPS, his commander said...

After fetching his harness and helmet, he places a phone call to the commander of the 119th Fighter Wing, at the wing’s home in Fargo, North Dakota. Borgstrom is uncomfortable with the unprecedented situation he is in and feels compelled to notify his immediate higher-ups. He tells the commander: “Sir, they’re launching all three of us. I don’t know what’s going on, but there’s no ops supervision here at all!” The commander knows what has happened in New York from news reports, and so is aware of the situation. He tells Borgstrom: “Go! Our thoughts are with you. Godspeed.” Borgstrom then hangs up the phone and runs to his jet.

... FLY. End of your theory on SOF. Your theory is an excellent example of SOP for 911 truth, cherry-picking the way to nonsense.

Ops officers and commanders know we don't need a SOF, a line pilot with limited experience might think the SOF is important, on a clear day and the mission required on 911, a SOF is not needed. I can't explain 28 years of experience in short posts, your theory is nuts. Keep up the apologizing for terrorists, it is what 911 truth does best.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/1tankerflight.jpg With 28 years of USAF experience, I find your theory, and the SOF card, nonsense.

The post is cherry-picked junk and fiction. You base your claims on opinions.

 

[twinstead]

FrankHT why do you simply change the subject every time somebody asks you an uncomfortable question or debunks something you've claimed? Perhaps you don't get the Gish Gallop references. A quick google search will take care of that.

 

[000063]

It's on page 8,but since people keep asking I'll post it again:

The 2 F15s out of Otis AFB were supposed to do a 'Patriot' fly over of the WTC a few minutes AFTER WTC2 was struck so that people could look up and say,"Just missed,if only they'd gotten here a few minutes sooner". ...

I'm pretty sure anyone with any knowledge of fighter jets would wonder why they were so close behind and flying so low, yet hadn't engaged. Heck, I'd be wondering, and I know fighters are certainly not supposed to fly below rooftops over an urban area. I learned that from a bleeping Michael Bay film. Not to mention the documentation and other records which would be required for the official investigation.

...Once they were scrambled the pilots flew,"full blower" (Supersonic) directly towards NYC. ...

These are really, really incompetent conspirators. I mean, even the pilots weren't in on it, and nearly actually shot down the plane, by your theory. You still keep ignoring Spanx' simple and relevant question.

Hi FrankHT

You seem to be very knowledgeable about the air defence mechanism before the 911 attacks.

Could you answer one question for me.

Was their training based around watching an air strike appear from out side U.S air space or appear from within U.S air space.

Answers relating to before the 911 attacks please.

 

[fess]

Borgstrom Notifies Others, Checks with Commander - Borgstrom heads out to inform others of the instruction. He speaks to one of the alert pilots, Major Dean Eckmann, telling him, “They want us to launch all planes and all pilots if we get scrambled!” According to Spencer, this request “doesn’t make any sense to Eckmann,” and his initial response is ”What?” But “he’s a military officer and he’ll follow orders,” and points Borgstrom to the unit’s third F-16, which is not kept on alert and is therefore unarmed."[Quote-from History commons]

There you go again, cherry picking, stating the 3rd aircraft is unarmed. The very next sentence in the part you quoted is; “Borgstrom instructs the crew chief to arm the fighter’s gun; this will be the only ammunition he has when he takes off.” [Quote-from History commons][/Quote]

 

[Mark F]

It's on page 8,but since people keep asking I'll post it again:

The 2 F15s out of Otis AFB were supposed to do a 'Patriot' fly over of the WTC a few minutes AFTER WTC2 was struck so that people could look up and say,"Just missed,if only they'd gotten here a few minutes sooner". They were scrambled perfectly to do it had the pilots followed protocol and flown SUBsonic. NEADS' leadership had ever reason to believe that they would since the pilots were to suppose to think it was only an earlier than expected start to the morning scheduled (expected) hijacking drill. What NEADS leadership didn't know was that the pilots had been tipped off it was 'real' by Boston Center ATC supervisor (Bueno) who had violated protocol and called Otis tower himself trying to scramble fighters.
Once they were scrambled the pilots flew,"full blower" (Supersonic) directly towards NYC. Until NEADS leadership noticed and quickly redirected them to military controlled airspace over the sea (Whiskey 105) and put in a holding pattern to wait for flight 175 to hit. They were in that pattern when WTC2 was struck at 9:03.
The 911 Commission covered it up by moving the dot (location of fighters at 9:03) on the map of the Otis fighters flight route from it's real location within the pattern to just before the pattern but that created a problem for anyone who bothered to crunch the numbers. Had the pilots flown the way they say they did,"In the air before the radar kicked in","full blower all the way" (8:52-9:03) then they would have been over NYC by 9:03 NOT 100 miles away as the Commission claims (Otis=153 miles from NYC).
I will further claim that the Otis F15s were only given enough fuel to do a 'patriotic' flyover of the WTC but not enough to to be a threat to the other hijacked planes.
Langley AFB is simply too close to Washington DC (6 minutes by F16) and they needed an excuse to send the Langley's F16s to the North East to allow Flight 77 to strike Washington from the South West. It was supposed to be Flight 93 but was 40 minutes delayed,so Boston Center's military liaison made up the false phantom 11 report to cover for the delayed 93 (they knew flight 11 had crashed 35 minutes before).
There was one problem though,if word of Flight 77 somehow got to the pilots they would then think there were 2 hijacked planes heading toward Washington DC at the same time from opposite directions. That would have them fly straight to Washington DC itself and in a position to stop Flight 77.
To prevent that from happening Langley's Supervisor of Flying Capt. Borgstrum (whose job it was to relay mission orders & communicate with civilian ATC-from whom he'd learn of Flight 77 and tip off the pilots) was ordered up in a third unarmed F16. With Borgstrum in the air and no one on the ground doing his job,NEADS leadership was able to ensure a SOP scramble would occur (requires fighters to fly 60 miles East over the Atlantic-Away from Washington DC).
After the SOP scramble the Langley F16s were then directed North East away from Washington DC until after they themselves had confirmed to NEADS that the Pentagon had been hit. They were NEVER direct to Washington DC until after NEADS leadership knew the attack had succeeded.
It appears Gen. Arnold forgot that things had gone according to the original plan and reverted back to it tell the Commission that Langley's F16s had been scrambled for flight 93 which hadn't even been hijacked yet when the scramble order was given (9:24). There you go,my theory.

As theories go this one is pretty poor, which is why I had to ask. It only deals with certain cherry-picked aspects of the military response while completely ignoring the many corrections you have been given, is full of un-supported assumptions and does nothing to really explain the who/what/when/why of what happened that day.

Try again. Next time like you mean it.

 

[Starving for Truth]

I am new here, and I will give this a shot.

I have been what you people call a truther for 3 years now. My stand on 9/11 is not so much about theories, it is about beliefs. Beliefs come in handy when no factual evidence is required to support a theory. I BELIEVE that 9/11 was faked. An inside job.
Given the fact that debunkers are so keen on defending the status quo, and not being a scientist myself, I cannot put my hand into the fire and swear that the truth movement produced valid evidence. Was nanothermite used? I don't know. Was it debunked? According to this forum, yes.

In that situation, it is better to present beliefs than "bullet-proof" theories when there is no actual consensus regarding the science.

I believe that no planes hit the WTC. The plane impacts were a collaboration between the media who provided CGI effect videos and actual explosions in the WTC, and served to provide an alibi for the controlled demolition of the towers. The plane impact holes were cut into the facade with the use of nanothermite.
Why not use real planes? Simple. The perps have rigged the buildings for months, the towers were filled to the brim with thermite, explosives, bombs etc. ready to be brought down in a controlled fashion. Letting real physical planes crash into the towers would have endangered the entire operation. What if the planes had hit the towers in a spot where the explosives were stored, effectively rendering them useless?
The towers wouldn't have fallen, and the implosion couldn't have been performed.

Feel free to rip my beliefs apart, and calling me an idiotic conspiracy theorist, lunatic or retard

 

[phunk]

I am new here, and I will give this a shot.

I have been what you people call a truther for 3 years now. My stand on 9/11 is not so much about theories, it is about beliefs. Beliefs come in handy when no factual evidence is required to support a theory. I BELIEVE that 9/11 was faked. An inside job.
Given the fact that debunkers are so keen on defending the status quo, and not being a scientist myself, I cannot put my hand into the fire and swear that the truth movement produced valid evidence. Was nanothermite used? I don't know. Was it debunked? According to this forum, yes.

In that situation, it is better to present beliefs than "bullet-proof" theories when there is no actual consensus regarding the science.

It would be best to present evidence to support why others should take your beliefs seriously.

I believe that no planes hit the WTC. The plane impacts were a collaboration between the media who provided CGI effect videos and actual explosions in the WTC, and served to provide an alibi for the controlled demolition of the towers. The plane impact holes were cut into the facade with the use of nanothermite.
Why not use real planes? Simple. The perps have rigged the buildings for months, the towers were filled to the brim with thermite, explosives, bombs etc. ready to be brought down in a controlled fashion. Letting real physical planes crash into the towers would have endangered the entire operation. What if the planes had hit the towers in a spot where the explosives were stored, effectively rendering them useless?
The towers wouldn't have fallen, and the implosion couldn't have been performed.

Feel free to rip my beliefs apart, and calling me an idiotic conspiracy theorist, lunatic or retard

How do CGI effects explain the thousands who saw the planes with their own eyes, not on TV?

 

[Starving for Truth]

Beliefs do not require evidence.

How do CGI effects explain the thousands who saw the planes with their own eyes, not on TV?

Eyewitnesses can be corrupted.

 

[phunk]

Beliefs do not require evidence.

Convincing others that your beliefs are true usually does. Unless the others are truthers I guess.

Eyewitnesses can be corrupted.

Some of my best friends were among those eyewitnesses. One of them told me what he saw minutes later. I picked him up from the ferry terminal less than an hour later and spent the day hearing his and a few other's accounts of what they saw.

I wonder when they corrupted him?

 

[cjnewson88]

The funny thing is, if you eventually come to the conclusion that airliners did hit those buildings (which they did), what you also wrote debunked the controlled demolition theory too

 

[Mark F]

Oh I can see the fun beginning already.

I am new here, and I will give this a shot.

I have been what you people call a truther for 3 years now. My stand on 9/11 is not so much about theories, it is about beliefs. Beliefs come in handy when no factual evidence is required to support a theory. I BELIEVE that 9/11 was faked. An inside job.

Beliefs come in handy when one wants to ignore reality. If you want beliefs, try religion. This is a criminal case we are talking about and evidence is the ONLY thing that matters. I have never heard of a prosecutor who was willing to go to trial with a case based on beliefs rather than evidence.

Given the fact that debunkers are so keen on defending the status quo, and not being a scientist myself, I cannot put my hand into the fire and swear that the truth movement produced valid evidence. Was nanothermite used? I don't know. Was it debunked? According to this forum, yes.

I prefer the term "real truthers" to debunkers since we like to base our arguments on actual verifiable evidence, not warm and fuzzy feelings or "beliefs."

BTW - the presence of any kind of thermitic material in the WTC is at best extremely doubtful - certainly nothing close to a rock-solid case for it has been made. What is undeniable however is how completely useless thermite would be in building demolition, a fact truthers never seem to concerned about.

In that situation, it is better to present beliefs than "bullet-proof" theories when there is no actual consensus regarding the science.

No. Evidence counts, BS doesn't. I could say I believe Unicorns are real, but that doesn't prove anything one way or another.

I believe that no planes hit the WTC. The plane impacts were a collaboration between the media who provided CGI effect videos and actual explosions in the WTC, and served to provide an alibi for the controlled demolition of the towers. The plane impact holes were cut into the facade with the use of nanothermite.

And this is why you have to rely on belief instead of evidence. You could not possible even formulate such a theory if you stuck to evidence instead of fantasy.

Why not use real planes? Simple. The perps have rigged the buildings for months, the towers were filled to the brim with thermite, explosives, bombs etc. ready to be brought down in a controlled fashion. Letting real physical planes crash into the towers would have endangered the entire operation. What if the planes had hit the towers in a spot where the explosives were stored, effectively rendering them useless?

Why use thermite/explosives when they are so difficult to install, it would require such a vast conspiracy that would easily fall apart and it would be impossible to install all of this without being seen? Wouldn't it be easier to just fly a large plane (equivilant to one VERY BIG BOMB) into the buildings instead? Why would the evil doers chose the most difficult possible option with the greatest likelyhood of being caught?

Feel free to rip my beliefs apart, and calling me an idiotic conspiracy theorist, lunatic or retard

I don't believe (there's that word again) in name-calling. I believe in evidence (how's that for a belief for you). Belief alone without evidence can allow you to justify anything, no matter how ridiculous, so what's the point?

 

[LSSBB]

Convincing others that your beliefs are true usually does. Unless the others are truthers I guess.



Some of my best friends were among those eyewitnesses. One of them told me what he saw minutes later. I picked him up from the ferry terminal less than an hour later and spent the day hearing his and a few other's accounts of what they saw.

I wonder when they corrupted him?

Hmm, where's Dash80? She is an actual eyewitness.

 

[Robrob]

It's on page 8,but since people keep asking I'll post it again:

The 2 F15s out of Otis AFB were supposed to do a 'Patriot' fly over of the WTC....

Truther "fan-fiction?"

You really need to start providing facts to support your fantasy.

I am new here, and I will give this a shot.

I have been what you people call a truther for 3 years now. My stand on 9/11 is not so much about theories, it is about beliefs. Beliefs come in handy when no factual evidence is required to support a theory. I BELIEVE that 9/11 was faked. An inside job.

Since you readily admit you have no facts or evidence and operate on a non-falsifiable mystical belief, who cares?

Beliefs do not require evidence.

But beliefs which fly in the face of reality, history, facts and evidence do.

Eyewitnesses can be corrupted.

Thousands of them, really?

 

[twinstead]

Beliefs do not require evidence.

Real skeptics require evidence for their beliefs. 9-11 was real event. How can you believe something with no evidence to support it? Nobody's going to try to shove an inside job down my throat without evidence. You are irrelevant.

 

[FrankHT]

Concerning the Supervisor of flying being put up as a third pilot in a third plane. I'll make this as simple as possible & ask just two question:
1. If Capt. Borgstrum had been on the ground acting as Supervisor of Flying,would he have been in communication with BOTH Civilian ATC and the pilots?
2.If Capt. Borgstrum had been on the ground acting as Supervisor of flying,would he have been involved in relaying the mission orders to the pilots and ensuring they are complete and accurate?
My theory requires that one or both of these things be true. If you have evidence that one or both of these claims are not true,please present it.

 

[FrankHT]

There you go again, cherry picking, stating the 3rd aircraft is unarmed. The very next sentence in the part you quoted is; “Borgstrom instructs the crew chief to arm the fighter’s gun; this will be the only ammunition he has when he takes off.” [Quote-from History commons]

[/QUOTE]


Yep,I intentionally left that out. Why,because Borgstrum took it upon HIMSELF to order the guns loaded. Read it again,the callers tone was "URGENT". The caller had just been told the other two pilots are already at battle stations and the caller says, “Suit up and go fly! We need all of you at battle stations!”. Nothing about ordering the guns loaded. Borgstrum took it upon himself to order it done. The order as given,followed exactly,would have had the plane unarmed. NEADS leadership knew that.

 

[FrankHT]

FrankHT why do you simply change the subject every time somebody asks you an uncomfortable question or debunks something you've claimed? Perhaps you don't get the Gish Gallop references. A quick google search will take care of that.

I would love for you to point out to me an example of ONE part of my theory that has actually been debunked. Please be specific.

 

[beachnut]

I would love for you to point out to me an example of ONE part of my theory that has actually been debunked. Please be specific.

All of it. Pick one thing, like the SOF. The dumbest one. You made 6 or 7 errors with the SOF, lies you made up after you did not read all about the stuff you posted. How many years did you serve your country?

 

[BStrong]

I am new here, and I will give this a shot.

I have been what you people call a truther for 3 years now. My stand on 9/11 is not so much about theories, it is about beliefs. Beliefs come in handy when no factual evidence is required to support a theory. I BELIEVE that 9/11 was faked. An inside job.
Given the fact that debunkers are so keen on defending the status quo, and not being a scientist myself, I cannot put my hand into the fire and swear that the truth movement produced valid evidence. Was nanothermite used? I don't know. Was it debunked? According to this forum, yes.

In that situation, it is better to present beliefs than "bullet-proof" theories when there is no actual consensus regarding the science.

I believe that no planes hit the WTC. The plane impacts were a collaboration between the media who provided CGI effect videos and actual explosions in the WTC, and served to provide an alibi for the controlled demolition of the towers. The plane impact holes were cut into the facade with the use of nanothermite.

Why not use real planes? Simple. The perps have rigged the buildings for months, the towers were filled to the brim with thermite, explosives, bombs etc. ready to be brought down in a controlled fashion. Letting real physical planes crash into the towers would have endangered the entire operation. What if the planes had hit the towers in a spot where the explosives were stored, effectively rendering them useless?

The towers wouldn't have fallen, and the implosion couldn't have been performed.

Feel free to rip my beliefs apart, and calling me an idiotic conspiracy theorist, lunatic or retard

Bolded: Whoa!

Last I checked, there was an absolute consensus about the events and facts - reference:

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/

You may not want to recognize the facts, but they stood in court, and all the wishing and "belief" in the world will not negate the facts as presented by the prosecuters in that case.

The 19 attackers had a simple plan, pulled off 75% of it, and the evidence supports that.

 

[BStrong]

Concerning the Supervisor of flying being put up as a third pilot in a third plane. I'll make this as simple as possible & ask just two question:

1. If Capt. Borgstrum had been on the ground acting as Supervisor of Flying,would he have been in communication with BOTH Civilian ATC and the pilots?

2.If Capt. Borgstrum had been on the ground acting as Supervisor of flying,would he have been involved in relaying the mission orders to the pilots and ensuring they are complete and accurate?

My theory requires that one or both of these things be true. If you have evidence that one or both of these claims are not true,please present it.

Since you made the claim, how about you provide the evidence?