New book release- 9/11 is the New Pearl Harbor

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2004-04-13 10:11am

An interview with the author. I espicailly liked the point about how the jets were not intercepted on 9/11 as per standard operating procedure.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-04-13 10:40am

Maybe standard hijacking procedures weren't followed because no one knew the planes had been hijacked.

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2004-04-13 10:54am

Durandal wrote:Maybe standard hijacking procedures weren't followed because no one knew the planes had been hijacked.

Umm, don't we have RADAR for that?

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-04-13 11:02am

The problem is that there are so many planes in the air that if one turns off its transponder (which all the hijacked flights did), it becomes effectively invisible. It goes from "find the flight that's off-course" to "find a very small needle in a very large haystack, in less than half an hour."

0.1 · Post by **0.1** » 2004-04-13 11:41am

Whoa, hold the phone there Blkbrry, did you just say that using radar you can tell an airplane has been hijacked.

MY GOD, I mean that literally... the God part, you can just tell something like that with a radar.... a plane has deviated off course, therefore it must've been hijacked. Hey, does that mean if I show you a lottery ticket, can you tell me the winning number? That's just absolutely amazing. What else can you do?

I'm sure a lot of people are just utterly breathless with anticipation. Quick, someone show him a lotto ticket, we need to get the winning number so we can all cash in.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-04-13 11:42am

0.1 wrote:MY GOD, I mean that literally... the God part, you can just tell something like that with a radar.... a plane has deviated off course, therefore it must've been hijacked.

Hey dipshit, planes are not supposed to deviate off course, and if they do, then you're supposed to suspect that something is up. Do you think the airways are like driving a tractor on your grandfather's farm or something?

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-04-13 11:56am

0.1 wrote:Whoa, hold the phone there Blkbrry, did you just say that using radar you can tell an airplane has been hijacked.

MY GOD, I mean that literally... the God part, you can just tell something like that with a radar.... a plane has deviated off course, therefore it must've been hijacked.

Planes that deviate off-course are DANGEROUS. If you're off-course, ESPECIALLY in the metal-laden skies of the East Coast, you're a clear and present threat to every other aircraft in the sky.

When you're flying a half-million-pound airplane, there is NO room for unscheduled or unauthorized flying. A commercial pilot who changes course without explicit permission or direction from ATC is one who WILL BE FIRED the second he touches down.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-04-13 02:25pm

the only cause a plane should have to change course is due to equipment malfunctions or technical problems caused by storms or other unforeseen circumstances. If it doesn't bother reporting to the control towers that they're diverting their course, the naturally someone is going to suspect something is up.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-04-13 05:49pm

I like Blkbrry's taste for extraordinary claims with little to no evidence.

Typical tin-foil fodder, and from a theologian to boot.

Did you fail High School History, Blkbrry? I'd love to see you write a major essay assignment and support your claims.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2004-04-13 07:40pm

Not intercepted? IIRC, the USAF got interceptors up for the hijacked aircraft but they didn't get to an intercept point in time. I heard that by the time the guys under Cheyenne Mountain (and the FAA) knew what was going on, they could only watch the planes go in.

Iceberg is correct about how ATC radar works. They do not work by sending out a radar pulse, receiving the echos and interpreting the data. They work by sending out a pulse which interrogates the aircraft's transponder and that transponder sends back a bunch of useful information to the ground.

Military radar can track actual contacts in the sky, but I doubt ATC had that kind of information available to them. Also, most of those radars probably point outwards, not inwards. Globalsecurity has a map of military radars in the US.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-04-13 07:44pm

The pilots almost certainly had a chance to switch the transponder code to 7600 (IIRC, might be 7500) which indicates a hijack. Takes a second or two. From there, we knew there were hijacks happening.

This is not to say we could or could not have done anything about it. I don't know enough to comment on that.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-04-13 07:47pm

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote: Umm, don't we have RADAR for that?

most civilian radars don't do skin paints, dumbo

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2004-04-13 08:15pm

NICK WELSH:
Is there a smoking gun that shows the Bush administration knew 9/11 was likely to happen and did nothing about it?

DAVID RAY GRIFFIN: I think there are four. One is the fact that standard operating procedures for dealing with possibly hijacked airplanes were not followed on 9/11. Those procedures call for fighter jets to be sent out immediately upon any sign that a plane may have been hijacked. These jets typically get to the plane within no later than 15 minutes anywhere in the United States. And on that day, there were four airplanes that went for a half-hour or more after they were hijacked without jets intercepting them.

What’s the official explanation of that?
I’m afraid the press has not done its job. They have not forced government officials to explain why standard operating procedures were not followed that day, nor have they pressed the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) to explain why they didn’t report these hijackings as they were supposed to. The official story is that [the fighter jets] were very late.

There is something curious as to why the FAA did not inform NORAD for some time. From most timelines I've seen on the 'net (granted, they're mostly people with axes to grind) the FAA got suspicious around 0813, got a firm belief that the first airliner was hijacked around 0820 and contacted NORAD around 0840. If their timeline is correct, somebody fucked up.

And the other smoking guns?
The second strongest piece of evidence I would say is the crash at the Pentagon. The physical evidence contradicts so violently the official account, that the Pentagon was hit by a Boeing 757 — Flight 77, that is. The physical evidence, photographs, and eyewitness testimony say that the Pentagon was hit by something that caused a hole no larger than 18 feet in diameter. The story the Pentagon put out, and was published by the Washington Post, was that the hole in the Pentagon was five stories high and 200 feet wide. If you look at the photographs taken by Tom Horan of the Associated Press — that’s just not the size of the hole.
But if the hole was only 18 feet wide, it had to have been created by something other than a Boeing. Whatever went into the Pentagon pierced six reinforced walls. This was the west wing, the part of the Pentagon being refurbished and reinforced. These walls were extra strong, and yet whatever it was went through six walls creating a hole about seven feet in diameter in the sixth wall. This had to have been something with a very powerful head on it. A Boeing 757 has a very fragile nose, and would not have pierced through all those walls; it would have been crushed by hitting the Pentagon. And given that it only penetrated these three rings, the rest of the aircraft would have been sitting outside on the yard. And yet the photographs taken just as the fire trucks got there — very shortly after the crash — show no plane whatsoever.

What do they show?
They show no aircraft whatsoever. And everyone agrees on this. The official story is that the whole aircraft went inside the Pentagon. The problem with that — the firefighters in there would have seen the airplane. They would have seen the engines, they would have seen the aluminum fuselage, but they reported nothing. Ed Plower, the fire chief, when asked what he saw, said, “I didn’t see any big pieces, no fuselage, no engines, no nothing.” But about a month later, when asked he said, “Oh yes, I saw all that.” His memory had had time to be refreshed.

Not this nonsense again. I do believe that this nonsense has clearly been refuted on this board and elsewhere.

What about the plane thatcrashed down?
We know that on Flight 93, which crashed over Pennsylvania, the passengers were trying to get control of the aircraft. They had decided the hijackers did not have bombs and probably didn’t even have guns. And because their plane didn’t take off until a half-hour after the others, they knew that the others had crashed into the World Trade Center — so they knew they were going to die anyway, even if they didn’t do anything. So as one of the passengers is saying, “They’re doing it, they’re forcing their way into the cabin, they’re going to make it.” As soon as that happened, with the FBI listening in, the plane went down. There was a whoosh, then the sound of wind. And people on the ground reported hearing what Vietnam veterans said sounded like a missile. Furthermore, there was debris from the plan eight miles from the crash site, suggesting the plane had been hit and stuff started falling out. And one of the engines was found over a mile from the crash site. Of course, if it had been a missile that downed the plane, it most likely would have been a heat-seeking missile that would have found the engine and knocked it off.

Why would the government have an interest in doing this?
So the hijackers couldn’t speak to anyone?
That would be a very good reason. If it were a conspiracy and the hijackers knew about it, it would have been very threatening to those who made the plan to have anybody left alive. Again, I don’t pretend to know, but that’s at least a plausible scenario. There were many rumors that day that the plane was shot down, but the government denied it.

Um, what? If these ground observers were close enough to hear a missile being fire, shouldn't they have heard the hit?

You suggest that the World Trade Center buildings must have been detonated with explosives to account for the heat generated and the speed the structures collapsed on themselves. That sounds extreme. What’s the evidence?
The evidence is cumulative — several things that point to controlled demolition. First, a steel-framed building, according to all the reading I’ve done, has never collapsed solely because of fire. They will bend and buckle in a very large all-consuming fire that lasts for a very long time. But they have never collapsed.

But it was not just fire — it was fire and impact at the same time.
The twin towers were very large buildings and extremely well built with a lot of redundancy. Even people who believe the official theory say that the crash of the plane into the towers should have been insignificant, that the shock would have been immediate, but it was over very soon and that the buildings were extremely solid and stable and not moving. In the south tower, much of the fuel from it spilled outside as it collided into the corner. So there was a giant firebomb which looked very impressive, but what that means is that most of the fuel was burned up within a minute, so there was not much fuel inside. Therefore, the fire in the south tower had almost gone out in less than an hour. And that brings us to another strange fact about the towers. If the official story were correct, that the combination of the crash and the fire brought the buildings down, we would expect the north tower to have come down first, because it was hit first. And yet the south tower collapsed first. It collapsed in less than an hour. That makes perfect sense if you’re willing to accept that it was caused by controlled demolition, meaning the building was wired with explosives. And if the official story has it that the buildings were brought down by fire, you’d want the buildings to go down before the fire had completely gone out.

Bzt, wrong, sorry. Structural weakening is more than adequate to explain this. And what qualifies a "philosopher of religion" to make those kinds of judgements?

And soforth the article continues with more silliness.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-04-13 08:26pm

... The stupid... It burns...

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2004-04-13 08:41pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:I like Blkbrry's taste for extraordinary claims with little to no evidence.

Typical tin-foil fodder, and from a theologian to boot.

Did you fail High School History, Blkbrry? I'd love to see you write a major essay assignment and support your claims.

Fuck off you little shit, I'll be recieving my College Degree in a few weeks. And besides, the only point I think is valid is the one on lack of interception.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-04-13 08:45pm

So Blkberry, how many times are you going to flog this dead horse anyway?

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-04-13 08:49pm

Yes, the lack of interception of planes that dropped off the freaking radar. As has been pointed out many times, commercial "radar" isn't radar at all; it only queries the transponder. Shut off the transponder and they can't know where it is until someone trains a military radar on it, checks against the flight charts to see where everything's supposed to be, and then runs an exhaustive check to see what's out of place.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-04-13 08:54pm

Actually, airliners tend to fly in designated airways. Anything out of those airways would be worth checking out.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2004-04-13 09:00pm

Howedar wrote:Actually, airliners tend to fly in designated airways. Anything out of those airways would be worth checking out.

Yep. The US system is set up so you more or less have to play a game of connect-the-dots. However, this will change when the FAA finally implements Free Flight on a broad scale.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-04-13 09:08pm

Howedar wrote:Actually, airliners tend to fly in designated airways. Anything out of those airways would be worth checking out.

Right, but if you switch off the transponder, all the civilian radar operators will see is that the plane disappeared. That's alarming, but if you're an air traffic control center and you see a plane just vanish off the scope, do you jump right to "It's been hijacked", or do you think something is wrong with the transponder or, at worst, the plane crashed?

The delay between when the FAA started getting alarmed and when they alerted NORAD is the only remotely suspicious thing in this entire screed. And it's just as easy to attribute that to a fuckup as it is to malice--it's not like it would be the only fuckup in this whole story.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-04-13 09:10pm

When they start squacking 7500, you're damn right you jump right to the assumption that they've been hijacked.

And the screaming in back is going to tip off the pilots that something's up. You can be damned sure they'll squack 7500.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-04-13 09:15pm

Howedar wrote:When they start squacking 7500, you're damn right you jump right to the assumption that they've been hijacked.

And the screaming in back is going to tip off the pilots that something's up. You can be damned sure they'll squack 7500.

Did they squak 7500 though? Not doubting you, just wondering if there's any report that says whether the transponders were off or switched to "I've been hijacked!"

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2004-04-13 09:26pm

I've seen nothing about ATC seeing 7500 -- the hijackers may have been able to act quickly enough (and perhaps were trained to recognize any attempts to change transponder codes) to stop such an event from happening.

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2004-04-13 09:35pm

Forgive my ignorance, but could they not have switched it back from 7500 or turned it off altogether? If it was 7500 for a few minutes, then it is conceivable that no one noticed. I'm afraid that I will have to yield to someone with experience in ATC.

As for the rest, as soon as someone starts talking about controlled demolitions, government conspiracies to blow up the pentagon, and US jets shooting down the Pennsylvania flight even though the planes weren't close to it, I get angry.

Rogue9 is right. The stupid... it burns...

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-04-13 09:43pm

No conspiracy theorist has yet presented a credible motive for hundreds of high government officials to conspire to kill 3000 Americans.