dh124289 on 17/3/2006 at 04:10
Quote:
I'd just like to pick on this one point because it is indicitive of many believers of the official story. People hear and parrot things without thinking about them. If making a plane invisible to radar was as simple as that don't you think that radar is completely and utterly useless? LOL Migs all had transponders off sorry america cold war lost. Come on.
I think someone already beat me to this point, but ATC radar sees the transponder signal rather than the plane itself.
Military radar however, sees damn near everything.. but then there were very few jets in the area capable of intercepting the hijacked planes; they were all in Canada and Alaska playing wargames :thumb:
(
http://911review.com/means/wargames.html)
As for the collapse of the buildings, I saw a documentary which claimed that expert analysis of the collapse by structural engineers had concluded that the impact blew the fireproofing away from the steel trusses, and once exposed and weakened by the intense fire the trusses started to break free from the sides of the buildings.. thus the
"house of cards" effect seen in the collapse of both towers.
I'm surprised noone has picked up on the story of the Israeli agents arrested in New York on 9/11, they were celebrating the attack, jumping on top of their car in a neighbourhood some distance from ground zero but with line of sight to the towers. A resident reported them to the cops, and they were picked up. Not sure what happened to them though. It could certainly be argued that if the Mossad had prior knowledge of the planned attacks, they may have withheld info from the US since an Arab attack on US soil would greatly reduce sympathy to the plight of the Palestinians.
Food for thought, no?
Tocky on 17/3/2006 at 04:37
Personally I'm not really surprised that people jumping to the conspiracy bandwagon fail to take into account that a plane with a full load of jet fuel in the side of building with a hole in it high enough for constant winds acts as a kiln. I voted against Bush twice and didn't have to chuck my brain out the window once. We do know what a kiln does right?
As for Mossad, I'm willing to entertain any knowledge from verifiable sources but I understand the agenda of the antiBush crowd as well as those most likely to disseminate false information and thier reasons for doing so.
Occams razor indeed.
Kaleid on 17/3/2006 at 07:19
Quote Posted by Tocky
Personally I'm not really surprised that people jumping to the conspiracy bandwagon fail to take into account that a plane with a full load of jet fuel in the side of building with a hole in it high enough for constant winds acts as a kiln. I voted against Bush twice and didn't have to chuck my brain out the window once. We do know what a kiln does right?
"Dr. Shyam Sunder, Lead Investigator for NIST stated: "The jet fuel probably burned out in less than 10 minutes.” (Field, 2005)", "But here we note from the recent NIST report that: “The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes” and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in a given location. (NIST, 2005; p. 179, emphasis added.)"
From: (
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html)
Quote Posted by Tocky
As for Mossad, I'm willing to entertain any knowledge from verifiable sources but I understand the agenda of the antiBush crowd as well as those most likely to disseminate false information and thier reasons for doing so.
Occams razor indeed.
´
(
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/) + search "mossad". Some claim that the evil zionists were behind the attacks, but I think it's necesssary to point out that Israel was one of the many countries that warned USA of the impending attacks.
Four part fox news special (videp clips): (
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7545.htm)
(
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fiveisraelis.html)
Epos Nix on 17/3/2006 at 08:01
Quote:
Israel was one of the many countries that warned USA of the impending attacks.
According to that Fox special, Israel did warn about the attacks yet didn't give enough information to prevent such a thing. That's pretty odd concidering those 5 Israelis set themselves in perfect line of sight of the Twin Towers at the exact moment the planes collided. So either Israel had the information and purposefully withheld some of it or the US simply ignored what information they were provided, writing it off as "too vague".
What were the other countries, out of curiousity?
SubJeff on 17/3/2006 at 08:48
Quote Posted by dh124289
I think someone already beat me to this point, but ATC radar sees the transponder signal rather than the plane itself.
Military radar however, sees damn near everything.. but then there were very few jets in the area capable of intercepting the hijacked planes; they were all in Canada and Alaska playing wargames :thumb:
Yes yes. So 2 passenger planes are hijacked and then what? Does military radar auto shut off when that happens? Or is New York in some special military radar blackspot? Hold on - I thought this was the world's biggest and best military. You'd think that at the very least the borders are monitored by military radar. Isn't New York city pretty near the border?
Whether military aircraft were available or not - the fact is that in the event of a hijack or a passenger airplane ceasing to respond and/or the transponder being turned off, with or without terrorist warnings, there is a high likelyhood of military radar being used.
Defcon on 17/3/2006 at 14:56
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
Yes yes. So 2 passenger planes are hijacked and then what? Does military radar auto shut off when that happens? Or is New York in some special military radar blackspot? Hold on - I thought this was the world's biggest and best military. You'd think that at the very least the borders are monitored by military radar. Isn't New York city pretty near the border?
Whether military aircraft were available or not - the fact is that in the event of a hijack or a passenger airplane ceasing to respond and/or the transponder being turned off, with or without terrorist warnings, there is a high likelyhood of military radar being used.
Military radar was set up to...you know...point outwards. NORAD, remember?
They're worried about unknown planes attacking United States/Canada, not about some guys hijacking planes in the United States and crashing them into buildings.
SubJeff on 17/3/2006 at 16:40
Oh come on. "They were designed to look outside not in." Is that the best you can do? Get out. You are seriously telling me that the world's most advanced military has radar that cannot see airplanes that are flying within the country if the transponders are turned off? Hahahaha. Not quite as advanced as we may have been led to think.
Kaleid on 17/3/2006 at 16:49
Don't know if this is completely accurate but it's near atleast:
"Previous to Sept 11, the Air Defense system, NORAD, intercepted errant aircraft 67 times without fail, with an average response time of 10 minutes. This is standard routine. Intercept doesn't mean "shoot down." Fighter jets flank planes, make signals, and then escort errant plane. Suspiciously enough, the protocol for errant aircraft was changed in June of 2001. The general who was in charge of NORAD that fateful morning....it was his first day on the job!"
(
http://people.tribe.net/chrissia/blog&topicId=797e40f8-1b41-4eb4-8291-5b359190dd6a)
Infact, if you type in "Norad" in the seach over at cooperativeresearch.org you can find plenty of interesting information. How about this, exactly 2 years prior 2001 sep 11 one of the entries is this: "NORAD Exercise Simulates Crashes into US Buildings; One of Them Is the World Trade Center":
(
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/item.jsp?item=a99wtccrashsimulation)
