Debunk-a-LIHOP

[gumboot]

Whether or not the 911 plot of was really a conspiracy or they actually just let it happen the end result is the same, "Billions in government contracts".

Such as?

-Gumboot

 

[beachnut]

"You can't handle the truth"

That's why they give CIA editors black magic markers.

Cute stuff, rip off a movie. Nice line; and it fits that you are guilty, just like the idiot Colonel who said the line, but you are guilty of not having a fact to support your ideas on 9/11.

OldSchool, when will you have a fact to support what ever you are trying to say.

BTW, the web site you posted is debunked and full of errors and false information. No wonder you like it. Wrong on all counts as usual, please try harder next time.

How is that book you are writing coming along?

 

[OldSchool]

Cute stuff, rip off a movie. Nice line; and it fits that you are guilty, just like the idiot Colonel who said the line, but you are guilty of not having a fact to support your ideas on 9/11.

OldSchool, when will you have a fact to support what ever you are trying to say.

BTW, the web site you posted is debunked and full of errors and false information. No wonder you like it. Wrong on all counts as usual, please try harder next time.

How is that book you are writing coming along?

Mine are not 911 theories. There isn't any proof which either side has supplied. There is lack of information for a reason though. The war which resulted from 911 has nothing to do with terror. As I said above and many times before this war continues for monetary reasons. The oil is a long term gain. The more immediate gain is government contracts. Government contracts mean jobs and strong economy. Any historian knows war improves economy.

Does it really make a difference what you or I think caused the start of this war?


As for my book, if you really must know, I'm still developing theories relating to Sociological Constructs.

 

[GT/CS]

Mine are not 911 theories. There isn't any proof which either side has supplied. There is lack of information for a reason though. The war which resulted from 911 has nothing to do with terror. As I said above and many times before this war continues for monetary reasons. The oil is a long term gain. The more immediate gain is government contracts. Government contracts mean jobs and strong economy. Any historian knows war improves economy.

Does it really make a difference what you or I think caused the start of this war?


As for my book, if you really must know, I'm still developing theories relating to Sociological Constructs.

Strong economy???? Our economy is in the toilet and sinking fast. Have you looked at the value of the dollar lately?

 

[BenBurch]

Strong economy???? Our economy is in the toilet and sinking fast. Have you looked at the value of the dollar lately?

Just wait. The fun is just beginning.

 

[T.A.M.]

Caustic:

If you are looking at who could have gained from 9/11, of course you will find MANY different parties, including elements of the USG, as well as elements of corporate america. If we were going to convict on motive alone, alot of innocent people would be in jail.

Go beyond the list of who would have benefited, and look for where the FACTUAL EVIDENCE POINTS.

If suspicion of the USG is so overwhelming as to suspect all evidence as fabricated or planted (not directed at you), then there is no point in debate.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

Canadian Dollar = 1.03 American....whoohooo...for now.

TAM

 

[ZENSMACK89]

The only issue I wanted to raise from your post was this. I don't know if you have read PNAC, but a protracted counter-insurgency ground war in the Middle East is precisely what PNAC was trying to avoid. Now they have two.

The only thing PNAC was trying hard to avoid was peace.

 

[Corsair 115]

The Pentagon was a stupid target. The Pentagon was much stronger target and would not trap as many people as in the WTC. Stupid target.

From a practical point of view, perhaps. But as a political target, it had high value.

Question: how strong are the roofs of the Pentagon's rings?

Certainly plowing into the reinforced walls makes it more difficult to do extensive damage, but what if an aircraft crashed through the roof of the building? I would think had a jet conducted a diving attack onto the top of the building the damage done might have been much worse.

 

[Bell]

From a practical point of view, perhaps. But as a political target, it had high value.

Question: how strong are the roofs of the Pentagon's rings?

Certainly plowing into the reinforced walls makes it more difficult to do extensive damage, but what if an aircraft crashed through the roof of the building? I would think had a jet conducted a diving attack onto the top of the building the damage done might have been much worse.

Also, there is afaik no evidence of what Hani intended to hit. He might have aimed for the center court, where I asume the walls would be less strong, and also very hard for fire and rescue crews to reach.

 

[gumboot]

Also, there is afaik no evidence of what Hani intended to hit. He might have aimed for the center court, where I asume the walls would be less strong, and also very hard for fire and rescue crews to reach.

Actually it might have been easier than you think. The Pentagon's MASCAL exercise had an airliner crashing into the central courtyard of the building.

The thing to point out about the Pentagon attack (and all terrorist attacks) is that the objective is no to maximise casualties. That is always just a bonus. The important thing is the nature of the target and the spectacle of the attack. The impact of the attack was flying a civilian airliner into the Pentagon. Had no one in the building been killed it would have still been a complete success for Al Qaeda.

Remember the objective of a terrorist attack is not to kill. It is to intimidate. What is more intimidating than seizing control of a civilian aircraft and ramming it into the symbol of American military power?

-Gumboot

 

[Pardalis]

I retract post #144. It wasn't meant to be submitted, it was a thought experiment.

I guess the "submit reply" button clicked itself.

 

[Magenta]

I guess the "submit reply" button clicked itself.

Telekinetic powers perhaps? It was a thought experiment after all.

 

[Caustic Logic]

Sorry I passed you over Mike, and I'm way behind. Technical points then:

You refer at least twice to Payne Stewart's 80 minute-ish intercept as being "swift", and yet are amazed that the 9/11 planes weren't intercepted in less time. Seems a little odd.

I cited "a 39-minute loss-of-contact to takeoff time for Otis" as they were sent after Flight 11 just as it ended. I once found this was "50%, longer than reaction in the totally unexpected Payne Stewart case two years earlier," so that was about 25 minutes till fighters were up. I don't feel like digging the math back up - is this part wrong? The slower response on 9/11 was despite having the Stewart case to learn from plus terror air attack warnings before. Once in the air is another story...

You think "Rumsfeld's" changes to the intercept protocols meant that he had to be notified before intercepts took place. But when you look at the previous version of the protocols it's clear that isn't true. No matter what Mike Ruppert says.

Even Ruppert thinks no 757 hit the Pentagon. And in this case, no, I think the issue is a red herring. It has been portrayed as suspicious, but since there were crambles (if not intercepts) w/o Rummy's say at all. If a new rule meant to facilitate the attack, it was aparently ignored is what I found. Larry Arnold: NORAD CONUS Region Commander: “go ahead and scramble [the Otis fighters], and we’ll get authorities later.”

Similarly, there's no evidence that the ATC saw "false blips" on their radar - that's another case where Ruppert hopes assertion will count as evidence.

And neither is their conclusive evidence blips were not seen. They were there however at the beginning, on someone's screens that needed cleared once the attack was known. Kinda coincidental but lieley irrelevant. Again, Rupp's got some good-sounding stuff to say, but I don't take him at his word either.

Finding the terrorists passports did not require a "miracle". Personal belongings were recovered from all the crash sites

I'll have to look int that. It still seems too smooth for me - were these other belongings found from Flight 11 and 175, which passed thru a crash and catastrophic collapse and burning rubble for days? This isn't a major point for me anymore, but some of the stuff found at Arlington and Shanksville is a tad suspicious too. If found on the bodies it makes sense, and I dunno...

You recount the "trained by the US military" story, but don't spell out the age differences. Some of these stories seem to refer to a group who were around in the early/ mid 1990's, when the hijackers involved where around 15. It just doesn't work

Hmmm... I'll have to go back and check that.

You quote Von Buelow as though he was verifying Joe Vialls "Home Run" idea - he wasn't. He simply repeats the allegation, and says he doesn't accept it, though finds it worth considering

What's weird is how Viall's played it that way, after citing a "European nation" disabling the system, and Von Buelow popped up in the middle. That's all I know.

And I'm out of time! But I'm sure you'll get plenty of other responses.

Oh my god, I forgot. Still on page 1...

 

[Caustic Logic]

Firstly, Caustic, your argument that the Payne Stewart case was not unique is based on "common sense and some evidence", the common sense being that nothing is unique,

Actually that people realized stray planes were dangerous and terrorists like dangerous things - maybe a bit of a stretch, but I don't find it silly in any way...

and the evidence being that the pilots scrambled on 9-11 didn't expect the events that followed.

Actually that they got suited up to intercept a stray trans-continental flight in the pre-9/11 world. Not ADIZ, not coming from Algeria. Coming from somewhere between Boston and LA back towards the NE. And they get ready to take off for nothing too bad in the peacetime world, but clearly for some kind of intercept.

With respect, neither of these is any kind of rational argument. In the comments section, however, you go as far as to say "that original article and the official story are dead wrong" on the basis of a scenario you yourself qualify with the word "perhaps". I think you're allowing yourself to be convinced by your own conjecture here.

I don't remember which article that was... I have expressed myself too firmly before, 'perhaps' this is one of those.

 

[Caustic Logic]

continued, sry

Secondly, in "Muzzling the defense?", you refer to the June 2001 order[...] Comparing the wording of these orders, you should be able to see that the June 2001 order actually introduced an exception in which requests did not need to be forwarded to the Secretary of Defense. Far from removing powers from local commanders, the June 2001 order in fact specifically gave them the authority to respond to an immediate emergency without going via Rumsfeld's office; a rather strange move if those issuing the order were trying to prevent any response to the 9/11 hijacks.

That's interesting, and something I hadn't heard before. Now as I explained above, even though I pass on this part of the LIHOP CT, I have also found it apparently irrelevant. But it seems I did this despite reading it wrong (thanks, Rupp et al!), and it might've helped out instead of hurting the defense. Interesting.

If I bother updatig this stuff, this point will have to go in and the June 1 aspect turned to full debunking mode instead of the weak mish-mash I did.

ETA: Honestly I've never even read that order. I got to be a better researcher later on.

But... while they got airborne just fine, they still never got a shoot-down authorization, even after it was issued just after the attack. Can anyone show this wrong, or find a good reason for Cheney to finally ask Bush for it at about 10:18 am when they'd been chatting all morning?

 

[gumboot]

I cited "a 39-minute loss-of-contact to takeoff time for Otis" as they were sent after Flight 11 just as it ended. I once found this was "50%, longer than reaction in the totally unexpected Payne Stewart case two years earlier," so that was about 25 minutes till fighters were up. I don't feel like digging the math back up - is this part wrong?

Yes. The aircraft that initially intercepted Payne Stewart's learjet was not a NORAD fighter, and was airborne prior to loss of contact. It took 81 minutes to reach the learjet (the Otis F-15's reached New York at about 0905EDT). The first NORAD fighters reached Stewart's learjet over three hours after loss of contact.

The slower response on 9/11 was despite having the Stewart case to learn from plus terror air attack warnings before. Once in the air is another story...

The NORAD response to 9/11 is remarkable for how rapid it was.

And in this case, no, I think the issue is a red herring. It has been portrayed as suspicious, but since there were crambles (if not intercepts) w/o Rummy's say at all.

The reality is the order didn't change anything with regard to hijacking escorts.

And neither is their conclusive evidence blips were not seen. They were there however at the beginning, on someone's screens that needed cleared once the attack was known. Kinda coincidental but lieley irrelevant. Again, Rupp's got some good-sounding stuff to say, but I don't take him at his word either.

The only people who would have been receiving injects on 9/11 were NORAD controllers - the FAA were not part of the exercise and the suggestion that NORAD would inject radar contacts onto FAA screens for a NORAD exercise is ludicrous (and I doubt it's even possible). We don't know if the exercise actually involved injects, but we do know a number of things.

1) When operational centers run exercises they typically maintain a separate monitoring station which does not take part in the exercise and maintains the normal operational tasks of the unit.

2) The NORAD exercise had not started yet, and due to the 9/11 attacks, was cancelled before beginning.

3) The NORAD tapes indicate there was no issue with false radar contacts on 9/11.

-Gumboot

 

[gumboot]

But... while they got airborne just fine, they still never got a shoot-down authorization, even after it was issued just after the attack. Can anyone show this wrong, or find a good reason for Cheney to finally ask Bush for it at about 10:18 am when they'd been chatting all morning?

The shoot down order was issued just after 10, which was after the attack had finished. At this stage, of course, NORAD didn't know the attacks had finished, and indeed they continued chasing suspected hijacked aircraft all afternoon.

The commanders at NORAD made the sensible and obvious decision that the shoot down authorisation would not be passed on to pilots as a general clearance to shoot anything they felt like. That's an excellent way of getting a non-hijacked airliner shot down.

Instead, shoot down would be issued on a case-by-case basis only after successful interception.

Since no hijacked aircraft were intercepted on 9/11, a shoot down order is something of a moot point.

-Gumboot

 

[Normal Dude]

Debunk IHOP? But I just ate there!

 

[Caustic Logic]

Hey, Gumboot - I still didn't answer your first post yet, but I'll do this one anyway:

Yes. The aircraft that initially intercepted Payne Stewart's learjet was not a NORAD fighter, and was airborne prior to loss of contact. It took 81 minutes to reach the learjet (the Otis F-15's reached New York at about 0905EDT). The first NORAD fighters reached Stewart's learjet over three hours after loss of contact.

The NORAD response to 9/11 is remarkable for how rapid it was.

I've always been hazy on the exact details and don't kow much at all about NORAD's SOP I'll have to admit. Perhaps you're correct this was swift and not stalled, but it's not my main point.

The reality is the order didn't change anything with regard to hijacking escorts.

Or may have even helped, as you guys point out. Misconstrued by CTers, it seems and my case loses nothing.

The only people who would have been receiving injects on 9/11 were NORAD controllers - the FAA were not part of the exercise and the suggestion that NORAD would inject radar contacts onto FAA screens for a NORAD exercise is ludicrous (and I doubt it's even possible).

True enough, but if NORAD wasn't helping FAA track things, why hurry to clear the screens? Just for good measure? In fact I thought NORAD was involved with FAA in this regard, weren't they? So the blips might've been a problem, at first anyway, until there was smoke from the WTC. Not a major point anyway, just supportive.

We don't know if the exercise actually involved injects,

Northern Vigilance is the onw reported to involve them

but we do know a number of things.

1) When operational centers run exercises they typically maintain a separate monitoring station which does not take part in the exercise and maintains the normal operational tasks of the unit.

Good point. Would weaken this case greatly.

2) The NORAD exercise had not started yet, and due to the 9/11 attacks, was cancelled before beginning.

Which NORAD exercise? I'd heard NV was in swing and the blips had to be erased when the attack was known?

3) The NORAD tapes indicate there was no issue with false radar contacts on 9/11.

I had wondered about the 'phantom' Flight 11 reported at 9:20 at least, but now I think that might be from an erred FAA memo mentioning a gun fired on Flight 11 at 9:18. http://they-let-it-happen.blogspot.com/2007/03/mistaken-faa-info-some-or.html

Anyne care to debunk this theory?