Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: 240 is Back on March 18, 2007, 08:04:11 AM
-
After going public this week with her skepticism over the official story of 9/11, Rosie O'Donnell has continued to address the issue in a Q&A with her readers on her website.
We reported yesterday that O'Donnell, who has for weeks now been tentatively trying to raise the issue of 9/11 truth on her ABC show The View, wrote a blog entry encouraging her readers to research 9/11, in particular the building 7 demolition.
O'Donnell wrote :
• The fires in WTC 7 were not evenly distributed, so a perfect collapse was impossible.
• Silverstein said to the fire department commander “the smartest thing to do is pull it.”
• Firefighters withdrawing from the area stated the building was going to “blow up”.
• The roof of WTC 7 visibly crumbled and the building collapsed perfectly into its footprint.
• Molten steel and partially evaporated steel members were found in the debris.
She then goes on to explain her thoughts on these facts.
Now, in follow up postings, O'Donnell has been answering reader questions regarding 9/11.
A section of the Q& A from her website http://www.rosie.com
-
ahh - sorry, please move, mods. I meant to share this on the politics board
FROM HER WEBSITE BLOG:
vicki writes: Have you seen BBC vid of reporter telling of collapse of bldg 7 with bldg 7 still in background and 20 minutes before it collapsed? Weird to the max. So much we don’t know. Truth will out. Peace.
rosie: i have
the plot thickens
Leslie writes: Bush’s reaction to attack on 9/11 should b compulsary viewing. He didn’t move a muscle, didn’t look at who gave him the news but it’s his expression that’s so alarming & it wasn’t shock
rosie: shock was the look on everyone elses face
that morning
not his
i agree
stacey writes: OMG!! Where have I been?? What is this third tower that fell?? Where can I read more information on this tower? Sharing your opinion on the veiw has opened my eyes to so much plz. reply!!!!!
rosie: building 7
there is a link on my home page
Jada writes: Do you believe the U.S. government is spying illegally on its own citizen and using invasive and convert tactics to silence dissent?
rosie: i do
Noelle writes: the towers,Bush was not behind that, are you kidding me?He isnt a good enough actor to pull that off. Remember his reaction at the school when it was whispered to him.real emotion. i check it out, tho
rosie: real emotion?
r u kidding me
he didnt move a muscle
after hearing we were under attack
HE DID NOT MOVE
Deb writes: 911weknow.com: If I trust this info, I must believe that my govt has murdered its own people 4 $ in the name of God. I literally vomitted! Why isn’t this info aggressively investigated? Hell on earth.
rosie: info is out there
-
stacey writes: OMG!! Where have I been?? What is this third tower that fell?? Where can I read more information on this tower? Sharing your opinion on the veiw has opened my eyes to so much plz. reply!!!!!
BWHAHAHAH this is the type of people living in america. she is really concerned with the whole situation she just forgot about one of the buildings that collasped.
dude you seem to love this shit.
go to http://www.davidicke.com/forum/ and go to the 9/11 sub forum. the dude is wacky but some people have some decent insight. plus he's a nutjob so you probably havent looked at the site.
-
stacey writes: OMG!! Where have I been?? What is this third tower that fell?? Where can I read more information on this tower? Sharing your opinion on the veiw has opened my eyes to so much plz. reply!!!!!
BWHAHAHAH this is the type of people living in america. she is really concerned with the whole situation she just forgot about one of the buildings that collasped.
World Trade 7 was a 47-story building. It was announced when it collapsed, but there is a standing order in the major cable news that its collapse NEVER BE SHOWN AGAIN.
Most people were driving home from work or making dinner at 5:20 pm when the building fell. While the media was showing the twin towers falling repeatedly, they didn't show this one again, oddly, even though it was HUGE - half as tall as the twin towers, and no plane even hit it.
This stuff is interesting. Biggest event in american history and we witnessed it. The majority of the world's population, and over a third of Americans really believe that the US govt let it happen, or actually did it. Whether or not you believe it, it can't be denied that this is a HUGE public perception division, is a major thing that's only gonna grow.
-
240, are you at the stage where you are still unsure about who really did it, or are you trying to figure out why the people who let this happen did?
-
240, are you at the stage where you are still unsure about who really did it, or are you trying to figure out why the people who let this happen did?
None of us can know who did it. yes, 19 Arabs slashed their ways to the cockpit. Yes, Bush lied about what he knew when he entered that classroom. yes, Norman Mietta testified that Cheney was informed and let the Pentagon be hit. FAA destroyed their recordings. NORAD lied about being told at 8:21 am. And others did other things, we have no clue on them.
All I would like is a second investigation (and I know there will be one once Bush leaves office - pearl harbor had 4 and jfk had multiples also).
Also, I like to argue it with people here who refuse to look at evidence because of political beliefs. I voted for Bush twice, but I admit I do believe he knew about the attacks before they happened (based upon what our allies told him, and his actions that morning, plus him fighting an investigation for 441 days).
There are people that march, hand out DVDs, etc, and I don't do that. I just like to discuss.
-
240, are you at the stage where you are still unsure about who really did it, or are you trying to figure out why the people who let this happen did?
If they let it happen, we already know why: Blank check to invade afghanistan, which served as a launching base against Iran and Iraq. Plus, the taleban had stopped the heroin export, which the US economy actually does need to survive.
-
As loathsome as that fat bitch is, she's worth 100 Charlie Sheens in mainstreaming 9/11 skepticism.
-
If they let it happen, we already know why: Blank check to invade afghanistan, which served as a launching base against Iran and Iraq. Plus, the taleban had stopped the heroin export, which the US economy actually does need to survive.
dude it almost single handedly collasped the economy with airlines barely making it through. we lost hundreds of billlions from tourism, repair, epiphenomenal factors not to mention the blantant slaughter of thousands of americans.
i dont know what i beleive, something fishy is going on but you seriously think the positives you posted are greater then the negaitives of a crippled economy(may even trillions of dollars lost on a multitude of fronts) and the knowing slaugter of americans?
-
dude it almost single handedly collasped the economy with airlines barely making it through. we lost hundreds of billlions from tourism, repair, epiphenomenal factors not to mention the blantant slaughter of thousands of americans.
We lost billions on that day and many billions afterwards - absolutely. But the dropped interest rate and trillion in war borrowing made up for it. plus the war industry has been great for the Dow. In a 5-year window, 9/11 and resulting war were gains for our economy due to borrowing.
i dont know what i beleive, something fishy is going on but you seriously think the positives you posted are greater then the negaitives of a crippled economy(may even trillions of dollars lost on a multitude of fronts) and the knowing slaugter of americans?
Afghanistan has an amazing location - for both Russian and Chinese future engagements.
Iraq has between 50 and 75 TRILLION in saleable oil under their sands.
Suppose you were a utilitarian thinker - putting the greater good of 300mil americans over that of 3000. Wouldn't 911 make sense then? Gain 50-75 tril in oil, keep russia and china from the oil and from gaining any position over there.
-
Rosie in an idiot
-
Rosie needs to be put out to pasture with the rest of the cows!
-
She is a stand-up comic. Why anyone would place any stock whatsoever in what she has to say is beyond me.
-
Hmmm... not pointing any credibility Rosie's way, but didn't you have a mayor of Palm Springs who was at one time a stand-up comic. And then there was that President who starred in some movie called "Bedtime for Bonzo." Isn't there a governor somewhere who was once Conan the Barbarian? Is it such a leap for a tawk show host? (I guess it's still the weekend and you're not on the clock yet... ;))
-
Hmmm... not pointing any credibility Rosie's way, but didn't you have a mayor of Palm Springs who was at one time a stand-up comic. And then there was that President who starred in some movie called "Bedtime for Bonzo." Isn't there a governor somewhere who was once Conan the Barbarian? Is it such a leap for a tawk show host? (I guess it's still the weekend and you're not on the clock yet... ;))
LOL. Touché. :D I'll qualify my comments. She's a "not too bright" stand-up comic. :) I seriously doubt she is smart enough to be mayor, governor, or president.
And no I'm not currently on the clock. :) Watching on-line episodes of Daybreak on ABC. I was not happy that they canceled the show and just realized that they released the remaining episodes online.
-
Lol... sorry, couldn't resist! :D
-
She is a stand-up comic. Why anyone would place any stock whatsoever in what she has to say is beyond me.
And Ronald Reagan an actor, a bad actor, so what's your point homey?
-
And Ronald Reagan an actor, a bad actor, so what's your point homey?
I wasn't talking about Ronald Reagan and didn't say anything about actors. My point was "She's a 'not too bright' stand-up comic. I seriously doubt she is smart enough to be mayor, governor, or president."
-
Rosie is doing something new - waking up the soccer mom voters.
And to Beach Bum's comment, "she's just a comic, what does she know"....
Well, here are thousands of people - white house cabinet members, ex-military, NYPD, NYFD, professors, scientists, engineers, ex-CIA - and they all believe 911 was an inside job.
http://911scholars.org/WhoAreWe.html
They've all gone public, demanding a second investigation. Since you can discount the validity of Rosie's comments because she's just a comic, maybe you can tell us why your opinion is more valid that that of:
Robert M. Bowman, Former Director of the U.S. "Star Wars" Space Defense Program in both Republican and Democratic administrations, and a former Air Force Lieutenant Colonel with 101 combat missions.
Please tell us why you know more about 9/11 than him.
-
Good grief 240. Stop making up quotes already. ::)
I never said I know more about 911 than anyone, so I have no answer for your straw man question.
What I do know is it is an absurd theory that I do not debate anymore.
-
Good grief 240. Stop making up quotes already. ::)
I never said I know more about 911 than anyone, so I have no answer for your straw man question.
What I do know is it is an absurd theory that I do not debate anymore.
Yeah, the evidence is so overwhelming that the official story doesn't work, that no one can blame you for not debating it.
-
Rosie is doing something new - waking up the soccer mom voters.
And to Beach Bum's comment, "she's just a comic, what does she know"....
Well, here are thousands of people - white house cabinet members, ex-military, NYPD, NYFD, professors, scientists, engineers, ex-CIA - and they all believe 911 was an inside job.
http://911scholars.org/WhoAreWe.html
That really prove only one thing; there is thousands of paranoid people in white house cabinet members, ex-military, NYPD, NYFD, professors, scientists, engineers, ex-CIA, because any of those crazy fuc*kers doesn't have any solid evidence about the matter. Only some fuc*ked up "You Tube" -video clips and web pages full of shit.
They've all gone public, demanding a second investigation. Since you can discount the validity of Rosie's comments because she's just a comic, maybe you can tell us why your opinion is more valid that that of:
Robert M. Bowman, Former Director of the U.S. "Star Wars" Space Defense Program in both Republican and Democratic administrations, and a former Air Force Lieutenant Colonel with 101 combat missions.
Please tell us why you know more about 9/11 than him.
Why don't you tell us why you can't answer any questions which I have made to you? You may start to this one:
Why there would be need for a biggest conspiracy in history of mankind, which would involved tens of thousands of participants, when you can make just same destruction and terror threat by planting just a ordinary bomb in those buildings and pay some rag head leader to take a blame for it. In real life you don't need a passenger jets, bombs and missiles, you need just a right amount of explosives, which you can easily plant in some skyscreaper like that. That you can accomplish with a small group of people, instead of gathering a tens of thousands of people to work for the plot.
Secondly: Why inside job with tens of thousands of participants, when you can manipulate some rag head leader with dollars to do all the work for you and take a blame for all of this? Believe or not, a passenger jet is a great weapon in right hands, as we have seen already. You don't need a missiles or bombs if you have few groups stupid enough to kill them self by flying toward the WTC buildings and pentagon. Why don't you ask somebody to calculate to you how much energy you can get when you ignite passenger jet with full fuel tanks....or never mind. Just add new layer to your tin foil hat, and crawl under your bed...
Do you have any idea how stupid you look already? Our own CT specialist, who try to amaze us with the new authority of the matter: Rosie O'Donnel?!?!?!? O Gee, that's something, she is just as convincing than Mickeys friend Goofy would be, if he would have some comment to this shit...
-
That's it!!!
Rosie said it... so there's no way it's true!!!
Hey Republicans... I'm back! If Rosie is with them... I'm NOT!
Ok, not really... I still think Bush is a retard and that we shouldn't be in Iraq.
-
Rosie is encouraging her viewers to research WTC7 - something the govt refuses to explain, which BBC and CNN reported as collapsed BEFORE IT COLLAPSED.
I don't s'pose anyone here wants to tell us how BBC knew it had fallen 26 minutes before it fell? ;)
Then, they claimed to have lost all their video from that day. yes, they lost all their 911 footage. Gimme a break. I feel sorry for any of you who buy that line of bullshit.
-
GreatFinn,
Why did World trade center 7 collapse in 6.5 seconds on Sept 11, 2001?
it was never hit with a plane or any plane debris, they admit.
Just fire. For the first time in history, fire collapsed a steel building.
And, the fire hadn't even burned hot enough to break most of the windows. Yet it decided to melt all 47 floors, and the two giant support columns, at the exact same time. Then, it decided to convert every bit of non-steel material in the building into talcum powder sized particles of dust in 6.5 seconds.
Then you have the EMTs, NYPD, NYFD, and military who all say it was a contorlled demo with a 20 second countdown.
history will show WTC was a controlled demolition. You do the math backwards from there.
-
There are many easier, muich less complicated ways to incite the public and unite behind their political leaders . Many other terrorist attacks could have been pulled off that didn't involve upwards of tens of thousands of people being in on it. It doesn't make any sense.
I mean, just listen to some of the theories out there....they are so ridiculous. There really weren't airplanes, but halograms and the explosives were time to go off when they halograms "appeared" to be hitting the towers. Yeah, right.
-
There are many easier, muich less complicated ways to incite the public and unite behind their political leaders . Many other terrorist attacks could have been pulled off that didn't involve upwards of tens of thousands of people being in on it. It doesn't make any sense.
Would these ways create fear on the level of 911? Fear of the sky. Fear at work (WTC). Fear that our military was helpless (pentagon). Fear at home (plane hitting rural in penn). No truck bomb or whatever would do this, dude.
And 9/11 didn't require "tens of of thousands" of people. Be real here. 3 missiles. 4 planes landed. 3 buildings wired. 500 people would easily be able to do it, provided they were at the right positions. And you toss in the 2.3 trillion announced missing on 9/10/2001, and you have plenty of reason to keep the mouth shut.
I mean, just listen to some of the theories out there....they are so ridiculous. There really weren't airplanes, but halograms and the explosives were time to go off when they halograms "appeared" to be hitting the towers. Yeah, right.
No. The belief is that what hit the buildings were dressed up missiles. Did you see the way the "nosecone/cockpit" went all the way thru the building, and jutted out a perfectly round black object on the other side, THEN exploded? If you look at the film, the plane does change color on its way in. The wing does disappear. The object does slice thru the building before anything exploded - those giant engines sliced into the building cleanly.
Cav, this will come out man. It's going to be the biggest event in US history when it does. All we can do is watch.
-
Demonstration of Support for Rosie O'Donnell Wednesday at ABC Studios
NY911Truth and CHANGE will be outside ABC’s the Views Studios this Wednesday to support Rosie O'Donnell courageous and brave actions standing up for 9-11 truth.
-
Rosie is encouraging her viewers to research WTC7 - something the govt refuses to explain, which BBC and CNN reported as collapsed BEFORE IT COLLAPSED.
I don't s'pose anyone here wants to tell us how BBC knew it had fallen 26 minutes before it fell? ;)
Then, they claimed to have lost all their video from that day. yes, they lost all their 911 footage. Gimme a break. I feel sorry for any of you who buy that line of bullshit.
They should have said all their footage was stored in WTC. it would've been much more believable then. :P
-
240, having Rosie as an ally isn't going to make you anymore credible on this. I say delete this thread before anyone else reads it.
-
240, having Rosie as an ally isn't going to make you anymore credible on this. I say delete this thread before anyone else reads it.
I don't want credibility. I want people here to do their own research and if they believe the evidence points to an inside job, they should ask their representatives for a second investigation. My opinions means as much as yours does. If you think it's BS, feel free to look at the points and challenge them. Rosie has millions of soccer moms doing research on WTC7 this week. If there's nothing to it, I'm sure they'll shrug it off. Problem is - with the powderized building in 6.5 seconds from fire and the announcing it collapsed 26 minutes before it did collapse - is that these things point to foreknowledge and use of explosives.
-
I don't want credibility. I want people here to do their own research and if they believe the evidence points to an inside job, they should ask their representatives for a second investigation. My opinions means as much as yours does. If you think it's BS, feel free to look at the points and challenge them. Rosie has millions of soccer moms doing research on WTC7 this week. If there's nothing to it, I'm sure they'll shrug it off. Problem is - with the powderized building in 6.5 seconds from fire and the announcing it collapsed 26 minutes before it did collapse - is that these things point to foreknowledge and use of explosives.
It will be so nice when one day everyone realizes that this was a terrorist attack and you won't hear from 240 anymore. He will just dissapear with all of his made up evidence.
-
It will be so nice when one day everyone realizes that this was a terrorist attack and you won't hear from 240 anymore. He will just dissapear with all of his made up evidence.
hey dude...
why did WTC7 turn from building to powder in 6.5 seconds?
-
hey dude...
why did WTC7 turn from building to powder in 6.5 seconds?
Because Bush planted explosives, DUH!
-
Because Bush planted explosives, DUH!
monster inability to explain it.
FEMA and NIST can't explain it either.
Bombs were used. period. your use of a joke suddenly shows you don't have the answer.
-
monster inability to explain it.
FEMA and NIST can't explain it either.
Bombs were used. period. your use of a joke suddenly shows you don't have the answer.
You don't have an answer either, If they could get Bush on this you don't think at least one credible media outlet would jump on it?
-
You don't have an answer either, If they could get Bush on this you don't think at least one credible media outlet would jump on it?
No. The 5 major media companies have a vested interest in keeping 911 from going public.
NBC/GE make hundreds of millions of dollars from weapons production Plus, if it came out that 911 was an inside job, there might be some pissed off people doing pissed off things, and that would be very bad for GE stock
The same corps getting rich from the war also own 90% of the news outlets.
-
No. The 5 major media companies have a vested interest in keeping 911 from going public.
NBC/GE make hundreds of millions of dollars from weapons production Plus, if it came out that 911 was an inside job, there might be some pissed off people doing pissed off things, and that would be very bad for GE stock
The same corps getting rich from the war also own 90% of the news outlets.
So basically everyone except the 100,000 or so of you fools are in on this job. CNN/MSNBC/CNBC/CBS/ABC/NBC/BBC/ all senators and congressmen, all military leaders,etc...... Poor 240.......
-
So basically everyone except the 100,000 or so of you fools are in on this job. CNN/MSNBC/CNBC/CBS/ABC/NBC/BBC/ all senators and congressmen, all military leaders,etc...... Poor 240.......
Actually, he believes the CIA controls the media . . . unless the media is reporting a favorable 911 poll.
Also, the media supposedly faked the coverage of the planes hitting the WTC, so naturally they won't blow the whistle on their own conspiracy by reporting that missiles hit the WTC.
-
you two do not comprehend the relationship between the firms, the military, and the govt.
you're arguing from a point of ignorance.
it's like three 1st grade math students mocking a high school math teacher.
-
Hmmm... not pointing any credibility Rosie's way, but didn't you have a mayor of Palm Springs who was at one time a stand-up comic. And then there was that President who starred in some movie called "Bedtime for Bonzo." Isn't there a governor somewhere who was once Conan the Barbarian? Is it such a leap for a tawk show host? (I guess it's still the weekend and you're not on the clock yet... ;))
Actually, Rosie is a woman who claimed to have a major crush on Tom Cruise, and then, about year later, came out as a lesbian.
-
you two do not comprehend the relationship between the firms, the military, and the govt.
you're arguing from a point of ignorance.
it's like three 1st grade math students mocking a high school math teacher.
Oh enlighten us oh great one!!! LMAO, nerd. See you blow up your own arguments. You say NBC won't out Bush as the conspirator because GE makes so much money building weapons. If that was the case they wouldn't even show polls and give the public a chance to think it was an inside job. In the end if the public thinks that, then the war will end, thus ending your theory of weapons.
-
Oh enlighten us oh great one!!! LMAO, nerd.
I understand polls and you don't. That is the argument. Calling me a "nerd"?
Hey man, it sounds like you're wildly successful, seeing a beautiful country and enjoying your work. You be a cool kid and do that. Us "nerds" will stay home and let you do the "cool stuff", okay?
-
I understand polls and you don't. That is the argument. Calling me a "nerd"?
Hey man, it sounds like you're wildly successful, seeing a beautiful country and enjoying your work. You be a cool kid and do that. Us "nerds" will stay home and let you do the "cool stuff", okay?
HAH! You only understand polls that support your cause, I don't use them at all
-
HAH! You only understand polls that support your cause, I don't use them at all
Polls are a useful tool which are very good for showing the beliefs of a large group.
I have never disparaged a poll done by a reputable group. I might not agree with that majority, but I would never challenge the accuracy.
And when you say "I don't use them at all" - that shows that you make statements of what large people believe, without asking them. Kinda poor research mate.
-
Actually, Rosie is a woman who claimed to have a major crush on Tom Cruise, and then, about year later, came out as a lesbian.
So she is a liar in addition to being a not-too-bright stand-up comic?
-
Polls are a useful tool which are very good for showing the beliefs of a large group.
I have never disparaged a poll done by a reputable group. I might not agree with that majority, but I would never challenge the accuracy.
And when you say "I don't use them at all" - that shows that you make statements of what large people believe, without asking them. Kinda poor research mate.
Wait...where is your replies on the other thread where I posted the info on why polls can be inaccurate...oh that's right, facts stump you
-
Wait...where is your replies on the other thread where I posted the info on why polls can be inaccurate...oh that's right, facts stump you
and I asked you to show us evidence that pollsters "mainly interview people who live on the coasts".
You didn't deliver.
-
and I asked you to show us evidence that pollsters "mainly interview people who live on the coasts".
You didn't deliver.
good one, show me where in here you asked that.....waiting.....you did however ask why I felt polls were inaccurate, and as always I delivered. But wya to deflect the fact that my facts stumped you
-
Tell us in your own words. Not some college abstact on a 1984 instance.
We have thing slike computers these days. We have precision polling to the 3% error rate. We have demographic breakdowns using modern technology and census data.
PLEASE SHOW US YOUR EVIDENCE THAT ZOGBY AND OTHER POLLS USE 'COASTAL LEFTISTS' FOR THEIR POLLS
-
Tell us in your own words. Not some college abstact on a 1984 instance.
We have thing slike computers these days. We have precision polling to the 3% error rate. We have demographic breakdowns using modern technology and census data.
PLEASE SHOW US YOUR EVIDENCE THAT ZOGBY AND OTHER POLLS USE 'COASTAL LEFTISTS' FOR THEIR POLLS
The facts I presented have nothing to do with computers or the year 1984. Good job glancing over it...........
-
The facts I presented have nothing to do with computers or the year 1984. Good job glancing over it...........
Please tell us, in your words, why every polling agency in the world gives us false data because they mainly poll "coastal leftists".
-
Please tell us, in your words, why every polling agency in the world gives us false data because they mainly poll "coastal leftists".
once again, I didn't give only ONE reason why the polls can be inaccurate. But way to ignore the rest. Like always you choose one that you can try to debate on and ignore the rest.
-
once again, I didn't give only ONE reason why the polls can be inaccurate. But way to ignore the rest. Like always you choose one that you can try to debate on and ignore the rest.
it's just that they are used for so many purposes in society, and are backed with some seriously solid science and track records.
mm, you are about to single handedly bring down the scam artists known as the polling industrial complex. They've been abusing sexy numbers for way too long now, and it's time you stopped them.
-
it's just that they are used for so many purposes in society, and are backed with some seriously solid science and track records.
mm, you are about to single handedly bring down the scam artists known as the polling industrial complex. They've been abusing sexy numbers for way too long now, and it's time you stopped them.
I never called them scam artists. They have great intent and I am sure that they do there best to be accurate. But there are many factors that can affect the accuracy for me to base my life on them. 99% of what is wrong with politicians is polls. That is all they care about. dems/gop, they don't have the balls to stand for what they believe. All they want is to remain in office to keep collecting the lobby money.
-
Actually, Rosie is a woman who claimed to have a major crush on Tom Cruise, and then, about year later, came out as a lesbian.
yes but their are many lesbians that have crushes on gay men...
-
GreatFinn,
Why did World trade center 7 collapse in 6.5 seconds on Sept 11, 2001?
Ok, so you can answer only with these stupid questions again and again? Doesn't anybody give the right answers to you to write them here, and you are incapable to reason them by yourself? That tells all about you, isn't it? What a tool...
-
Why there would be need for a biggest conspiracy in history of mankind, which would involved tens of thousands of participants, when you can make just same destruction and terror threat by planting just a ordinary bomb in those buildings and pay some rag head leader to take a blame for it. In real life you don't need a passenger jets, bombs and missiles, you need just a right amount of explosives, which you can easily plant in some skyscreaper like that. That you can accomplish with a small group of people, instead of gathering a tens of thousands of people to work for the plot.
what is scarier...
Waking up to see the building gone and hearing what happened...
or...
Seeing 4 planes hit (all day watching your own sky cause we know you're not safe at work, home, and the military can't stop it either), then seeing the buildings collapse?
You don't see the need for fear (one of the goals of 911). And people weren't *terrified* after oklahoma city.
-
what is scarier...
Waking up to see the building gone and hearing what happened...
or...
Seeing 4 planes hit (all day watching your own sky cause we know you're not safe at work, home, and the military can't stop it either), then seeing the buildings collapse?
You don't see the need for fear (one of the goals of 911). And people weren't *terrified* after oklahoma city.
Something to ponder......when PGA golfer Payne Stewart's Lear jet went off it's flight plan, military jets were "scrambled" within 10 mins after going of course. The jets proceded to follow Stewart's plane until it unfortunately crashed........away from the public.
How did 757 jumbo jets go off course for over an HOUR.........with no scramble?
Thing's that make you go .........hummmmmmm? ::)
-
Something to ponder......when PGA golfer Payne Stewart's Lear jet went off it's flight plan, military jets were "scrambled" within 10 mins after going of course. The jets proceded to follow Stewart's plane until it unfortunately crashed........away from the public.
How did 757 jumbo jets go off course for over an HOUR.........with no scramble?
Thing's that make you go .........hummmmmmm? ::)
They sent two F-16s to intercept the hijacked planes.
They were travelling 1875 mph and would have taken down the pentagon and shanksville planes with ease. They had both planes targeted.
Then, *something* told those two to circle in the Atlantic at 500 mph for a half hour.
We'd know why they let the planes go AFTER they have confirmed their targets, but the FAA supervisor destroyed the tape recordings of the day.
Simply put, someone called off the dogs.
-
Something to ponder......when PGA golfer Payne Stewart's Lear jet went off it's flight plan, military jets were "scrambled" within 10 mins after going of course. The jets proceded to follow Stewart's plane until it unfortunately crashed........away from the public.
How did 757 jumbo jets go off course for over an HOUR.........with no scramble?
Thing's that make you go .........hummmmmmm? ::)
Enigma... another point...
Andrews Air Force Base is 12 miles from the Pentagon. They had two fighter jets on call 24/7 as per policy. On 911, they sat idle on the runway and never launched, even in the 48 minutes they knew flight 77 was making a beeline from the OH/KY border to DC. Even after two planes had hit the towers, and they knew a hijacked third plane was beelining for DC.
Then, someone even odder happened. On Sept 12, Andrews AFB changed their website. They removed all the information about having fighter jets on their base.
-
Enigma... another point...
Andrews Air Force Base is 12 miles from the Pentagon. They had two fighter jets on call 24/7 as per policy. On 911, they sat idle on the runway and never launched, even in the 48 minutes they knew flight 77 was making a beeline from the OH/KY border to DC. Even after two planes had hit the towers, and they knew a hijacked third plane was beelining for DC.
Then, someone even odder happened. On Sept 12, Andrews AFB changed their website. They removed all the information about having fighter jets on their base.
They weren't the only one that changed their website, the entire Air Force changed after 9/11. At Hill we used to let people sit by the fence at the end of the runway and watch the 16s take off all day. After 9/11 we put up blast fence around that EOR so that no one could see from the ground what was going on with the planes....It isn't odd that Andrews changed their website....Also I was asking a guy here that came from Andrews, and he doesn't remember an alert ramp pre 9/11.
-
They weren't the only one that changed their website, the entire Air Force changed after 9/11. At Hill we used to let people sit by the fence at the end of the runway and watch the 16s take off all day. After 9/11 we put up blast fence around that EOR so that no one could see from the ground what was going on with the planes....It isn't odd that Andrews changed their website....Also I was asking a guy here that came from Andrews, and he doesn't remember an alert ramp pre 9/11.
They sat idle as a plane flew for 48 minutes after two other planes had hit targets.
The "smoking gun" is the fact those planes never took off.
The fact they woke up quick THE NEXT DAY and changed the website to cover their ass is only the icing on the cake.
mm69 - Why do you believe Andrews didn't put a plane in the air when they knew a plane was heading right for DC?
-
They sat idle as a plane flew for 48 minutes after two other planes had hit targets.
The "smoking gun" is the fact those planes never took off.
The fact they woke up quick THE NEXT DAY and changed the website to cover their ass is only the icing on the cake.
mm69 - Why do you believe Andrews didn't put a plane in the air when they knew a plane was heading right for DC?
I wasn't there. But if there WASN'T AN ACTIVE ALERT RAMP, it would take mearly an hour to launch an F-16. And again the Website shows nothing....seriously, everything at Hill changed over night also as well as every installation in the world. I was at Osan when it happened and within hours we had all the civilians off base and barriers at the gates.
-
I wasn't there. But if there WASN'T AN ACTIVE ALERT RAMP, it would take mearly an hour to launch an F-16. And again the Website shows nothing....seriously, everything at Hill changed over night also as well as every installation in the world. I was at Osan when it happened and within hours we had all the civilians off base and barriers at the gates.
Are you prepared to stake your reputation on the fact "it would take {n}early an hour to launch an F-16"?
Because I've read numerous pieces on the response times, launch sequence times, etc, and NEARLY AN HOUR is absolutely wrong.
If you want to debate it further, please back up your statement and I will back up mine. I'm hoping some of our military folks can chime in too. Would it really take Andrews AFB nearly an hour to scramble a fighter jet?
-
Are you prepared to stake your reputation on the fact "it would take {n}early an hour to launch an F-16"?
Because I've read numerous pieces on the response times, launch sequence times, etc, and NEARLY AN HOUR is absolutely wrong.
If you want to debate it further, please back up your statement and I will back up mine. I'm hoping some of our military folks can chime in too. Would it really take Andrews AFB nearly an hour to scramble a fighter jet?
In the event that an Alert ramp is operational, the planes have a 15 minute response time. But at an Alert ramp the crew chiefs have the planes ready to go, AMMO has the plane loaded and the pilots sit in lounges already dressed for a mission. If the Alert ramp isn't operating, and the planes are sitting cold on a parking ramp it would take close to an hour to make a jet mission ready. At both Hill and Osan, it was a 15 minute trip to bring bombs from the Weapons storage area to the parking ramp alone. That doesn't include loading the bombs, fueling, running through run up procedures, and getting the pilot out to the plane. The question is..was there an alert ramp operational at Andrews at the time. According to the guy I work with, there wasn't. Our shop goes to 24 hours ops when the alert ramp is up and running, so he would probably remember if that was the case. Since 9/11, alert ramp operations are rotated through Air Combat Command, with one east coast and one west coast base on 15 minute response.
-
In the event that an Alert ramp is operational, the planes have a 15 minute response time. But at an Alert ramp the crew chiefs have the planes ready to go, AMMO has the plane loaded and the pilots sit in lounges already dressed for a mission. If the Alert ramp isn't operating, and the planes are sitting cold on a parking ramp it would take close to an hour to make a jet mission ready. At both Hill and Osan, it was a 15 minute trip to bring bombs from the Weapons storage area to the parking ramp alone. That doesn't include loading the bombs, fueling, running through run up procedures, and getting the pilot out to the plane. The question is..was there an alert ramp operational at Andrews at the time. According to the guy I work with, there wasn't. Our shop goes to 24 hours ops when the alert ramp is up and running, so he would probably remember if that was the case. Since 9/11, alert ramp operations are rotated through Air Combat Command, with one east coast and one west coast base on 15 minute response.
First report of hijacking came in at 8:21 AM.
First plane hit Tower at 8:46 AM.
Flight 77 tracked from 8:49 until it hit the Pentagon at 9:37 AM.
No plane ever scrambled from Andrews, but they got them out of Mass fast enough to take out Flight 77 easily had they not been diverted over the Atlantic.
I am under the belief (i've read it repeatedly) that Andrews has fighters on standby 24/7 to have them in the air in minutes, as they are the only thing keeping a plane from hitting DC. I will start posting source after source if you wish - I thought this was commonly known and was surprised you thought it takes an hour to get one fighter in the air.
They had a dead golfer's intercepted in 15 minutes in civilian airspace on regular alert, but in high alert, they can't raise one bird over DC in 76 minutes (821 to 937 AM)? I don't buy that for a moment.
-
Are you prepared to stake your reputation on the fact "it would take {n}early an hour to launch an F-16"?
Because I've read numerous pieces on the response times, launch sequence times, etc, and NEARLY AN HOUR is absolutely wrong.
If you want to debate it further, please back up your statement and I will back up mine. I'm hoping some of our military folks can chime in too. Would it really take Andrews AFB nearly an hour to scramble a fighter jet?
Since Andrews is an Air Mobility Command base, I can't see how they would have an alert ramp. Langley is an ACCbase where they have a fighter wing and a base where they operate Alert ramps since 9/11 but Andrews is a airlift wing, so they operate C-5s and C-17s. I hate to punch holes in your CT but....
The planes from Mass had to have been on Alert. It is impossible to get a cold plane loaded and in the air in much under an hour. Also Langley would be more likely ot have a fighter on standby. I mean I know you probably know more about how the Air Force operates than me due to all the time you have spent on flightlines watching planes operate and all.....LOL
-
I mean I know you probably know more about how the Air Force operates than me due to all the time you have spent on flightlines watching planes operate and all.....LOL
sarcasm detected. I will post my findings on andrews this afternoon. i've read a ton on it and will source everything. I hope you will do the same with your research saying Andrews did not have the capability I believe they did.
-
sarcasm detected. I will post my findings on andrews this afternoon. i've read a ton on it and will source everything. I hope you will do the same with your research saying Andrews did not have the capability I believe they did.
I imagine a guy on the ground wouldn't be enough for you....I mean I know fist hand knowledge doesn't mean much as opposed to some reporter....And I suppose the fact that Andrews isn't a figther wing (place where they keep fighters) doesn't mean anything to you...I have conceded that Langley is a fighter wing (I'm sure you know where langley is, being an Air Force expert and all).... and they possibly could have had fighters on that day. However it is clear that the protection of the eastern seaboard rested on Hanscomb Air Field that day (again I'm sure you know where that is). I know you assume that every fighter in the AF inventory is ready on a moments notice..but that isn't how it works. Drive by any fighterwing today and tell me how many jest are loaded with munitions, guess what......you won't find it with the exception of one eastern and one western ACC base...
-
I imagine a guy on the ground wouldn't be enough for you....I mean I know fist hand knowledge doesn't mean much as opposed to some reporter....And I suppose the fact that Andrews isn't a figther wing (place where they keep fighters) doesn't mean anything to you...I have conceded that Langley is a fighter wing (I'm sure you know where langley is, being an Air Force expert and all).... and they possibly could have had fighters on that day. However it is clear that the protection of the eastern seaboard rested on Hanscomb Air Field that day (again I'm sure you know where that is). I know you assume that every fighter in the AF inventory is ready on a moments notice..but that isn't how it works. Drive by any fighterwing today and tell me how many jest are loaded with munitions, guess what......you won't find it with the exception of one eastern and one western ACC base...
I'll get you the AAFB everything for the date of sept 11. It has been studied greatly and their inability to act goes beyond preparedness or even competence.
I'm not sure you have researched this topic, but I'll engage ya. Let me get back to the smart PC and I'll get ya more
-
I'll get you the AAFB everything for the date of sept 11. It has been studied greatly and their inability to act goes beyond preparedness or even competence.
I'm not sure you have researched this topic, but I'll engage ya. Let me get back to the smart PC and I'll get ya more
OK, you show me all you got on how Andrews had an operational alert ramp.....because without that, all other points dont' really matter. Unless you have been on the flight line and seen what it takes to get a plane mission ready you will never understand.
-
I wasn't there. But if there WASN'T AN ACTIVE ALERT RAMP, it would take mearly an hour to launch an F-16. And again the Website shows nothing....seriously, everything at Hill changed over night also as well as every installation in the world. I was at Osan when it happened and within hours we had all the civilians off base and barriers at the gates.
Sorry MM......A personal friend fly's 16's, so the "hour off the ground" story must be considered a fallacy.
With 16's......we are talking about a "NY minute" to get Airborne.
-
Sorry MM......A personal friend fly's 16's, so the "hour off the ground" story must be considered a fallacy.
With 16's......we are talking about a "NY minute" to get Airborne.
If it's on alert, on the hot pad, it should take minutes.
But from parked to fully fueled, armed and checked? Minutes?
-
they keep them on alert 24/7, and they did before 911.
there were exactly 100 flights intercepted in the 365 calendar days before 9/11/01.
Aside from the idiot's reason that "they were all training that day", there is the problem of the fighters which WERE dispatched. They were zooming in on planes at 1875 mph and would have cut the fckers down very quickly. However, *something* told them to cut speed to 400 mph and do a holding pattern in the atlantic.
We'd know which force was able to stop them from their mission, except the FAA supervisor destroyed all his tapes. Then - hilariously? - NORAD said they didn't have any capability or responsibility to intercept planes inside the US - even though they were actually running drills about intercepting domestically hijacked flights in the US that very morning!
-
If it's on alert, on the hot pad, it should take minutes.
But from parked to fully fueled, armed and checked? Minutes?
It is MADATORY that 16's be on alert.
Do you actually believe we wait to fuel and arm the aircraft?
Not minutes............"a N.Y. minute."
-
It is MADATORY that 16's be on alert.
Do you actually believe we wait to fuel and arm the aircraft?
Not minutes............"a N.Y. minute."
no, my point is, that if you were talking about a F-16 in the hanger it would take some time.
From what i remember there was only 14 planes on alert that morning protecting hte entire east coast.
Add that to the fact that all their training and response protocol were design for attacks coming from the ocean combined with the general confusion of what to do in the heat of the moment cause indecision.
It's easy fro us to look at it now and say they could have intercepted and shot one of those planes down, but in the mess of things as they were happening it either just didn't happen because they could get their act together in time or it wasn't possible. Imagine getting the order...shot the US plane down in your own country..... that's what they were talking about.
-
Since Andrews is an Air Mobility Command base, I can't see how they would have an alert ramp. Langley is an ACCbase where they have a fighter wing and a base where they operate Alert ramps since 9/11 but Andrews is a airlift wing, so they operate C-5s and C-17s. I hate to punch holes in your CT but....
The planes from Mass had to have been on Alert. It is impossible to get a cold plane loaded and in the air in much under an hour. Also Langley would be more likely ot have a fighter on standby. I mean I know you probably know more about how the Air Force operates than me due to all the time you have spent on flightlines watching planes operate and all.....LOL
Are you actually saying that pre 9/11 if something was flying over the white house that it would take about an hour for someone at Andrews to get up in the sky???WTF
-
Are you actually saying that pre 9/11 if something was flying over the white house that it would take about an hour for someone at Andrews to get up in the sky???WTF
hahahahaha yeah, that's about as realistic as a dem with a spine or a repub with a conscience.
-
Bill O'Reilly suggests that had someone like Cuban attempted to distribute a film like Loose Change during World War Two, FDR would have "thrown his butt in jail".
O'Reilly then whines about how people like Cuban, Sheen and O'Donnell should not be given any airtime or attention, whilst this is his third or fourth segment on the same issue.
Billo says he has never watched Loose Change.
(PP)
-
no, my point is, that if you were talking about a F-16 in the hanger it would take some time.
From what i remember there was only 14 planes on alert that morning protecting hte entire east coast.
Add that to the fact that all their training and response protocol were design for attacks coming from the ocean combined with the general confusion of what to do in the heat of the moment cause indecision.
It's easy fro us to look at it now and say they could have intercepted and shot one of those planes down, but in the mess of things as they were happening it either just didn't happen because they could get their act together in time or it wasn't possible. Imagine getting the order...shot the US plane down in your own country..... that's what they were talking about.
Your arguement is weak and flaccid.
It's the Military's job to be ready at a moments notice. Just as they were when Payne Stewart's Lear went off course. Jets scrammbled at lightning speed, to avoid a possible crash in a populated area.
Those Jumbo jets on 9-11 were off course for OVER AN HOUR with communications from the cockpit's that the planes were taken over from the airline pilots.
What more do you need? A permission slip from the hijackers to escort the planes? ::)
-
Your arguement is weak and flaccid.
It's the Military's job to be ready at a moments notice. Just as they were when Payne Stewart's Lear went off course. Jets scrammbled at lightning speed, to avoid a possible crash in a populated area.
Those Jumbo jets on 9-11 were off course for OVER AN HOUR with communications from the cockpit's that the planes were taken over from the airline pilots.
What more do you need? A permission slip from the hijackers to escort the planes? ::)
Apparently so, ...Cheney was in charge that morning.
-
Apparently so, ...Cheney was in charge that morning.
For many years, the pres, VP, Sec of Defense, and generals all had the authority to shoot down planes that were hijacked.
For some reason, in summer of 2001, they passed a bill which put this power ONLY in Bush/CHeney's hands.
On 9/11, those at NORAD (who the FAA records show were informed at 8:21 about the first hijacking) had NO power to shoot down any planes, as they flew at their targets for the next 19 minutes.
You have to wonder why they would pass this bill, whose sole purpose was to remove that power from the generals...
-
For many years, the pres, VP, Sec of Defense, and generals all had the authority to shoot down planes that were hijacked.
For some reason, in summer of 2001, they passed a bill which put this power ONLY in Bush/CHeney's hands.
On 9/11, those at NORAD (who the FAA records show were informed at 8:21 about the first hijacking) had NO power to shoot down any planes, as they flew at their targets for the next 19 minutes.
You have to wonder why they would pass this bill, whose sole purpose was to remove that power from the generals...
240....BINGO!!! You and I might be on the opposite side of the isle ......but we agree on a lot of the objective information available.
IMO, Cheney is just another ChickenHawk, Warmonger w/ 5 deferments from Vietnam......who was quoted saying: "I had better thing's to do at the time, than go to Vietnam."
Bush and Cheney are truely evil bastards, who hide behind organized Religion as their smokescreen, then create Mayhem.
-
On 9/11, those at NORAD (who the FAA records show were informed at 8:21 about the first hijacking) had NO power to shoot down any planes, as they flew at their targets for the next 19 minutes.
Sorry for my typo - to clarify:
On 9/11, those at NORAD (who the FAA records show were informed at 8:21 about the first hijacking) had NO power to shoot down any planes, as they flew at their targets for the next 109 minutes.
Almost two hours those birds were in the air.
Bush, well aware that only two men in the country (he and cheney) could stop those planes, didn't act. FAA records show he knew about 3 of the hijackings and one crash before entering that room at 9 am. Why didn't he give the order? WHy read with children, then give a press conference, which lasted until, coincidentally, the pentagon hit, then get in the limo?
Cheney, well aware that only he and Bush could shoot down planes, was sitting in a capitol bunker. He was repeatedly asked "if the orders stood" as the plane approached, and he said yes. He knew where dubya was (you know, on CNN talking at the time), and he didn't act to shoot down the planes.
Very fishy. And a nearly indefensible position for anyone here. Please, anyone, defend the actions to remove power from the generals, then refusal to act on 911/
-
Your arguement is weak and flaccid.
It's the Military's job to be ready at a moments notice. Just as they were when Payne Stewart's Lear went off course. Jets scrammbled at lightning speed, to avoid a possible crash in a populated area.
Those Jumbo jets on 9-11 were off course for OVER AN HOUR with communications from the cockpit's that the planes were taken over from the airline pilots.
What more do you need? A permission slip from the hijackers to escort the planes? ::)
Comparing Payne Stewarts situation with that of the events of 9/11 is speculative at best and filled with conjecture.
Saying it's the military's job to be ready at a moments notice is true, in theory, but in practice it's not always true.
After formulating just how they could pull this off, add the number of people who would have have to be in the loop to know we purposely let the 2nd plane crash into the tower. Paint the whole picture and try not to believe it's a summer block buster.
-
Comparing Payne Stewarts situation with that of the events of 9/11 is speculative at best and filled with conjecture.
Saying it's the military's job to be ready at a moments notice is true, in theory, but in practice it's not always true.
After formulating just how they could pull this off, add the number of people who would have have to be in the loop to know we purposely let the 2nd plane crash into the tower. Paint the whole picture and try not to believe it's a summer block buster.
You only needed two people, Bush and Cheney.
These two men could have stopped the hijacked aircraft from hitting the WTC.
They chose NOT to.
I never implied our government set up 9-11.
They (see above) chose not to stop it.
-
Oz,
Enigma is right about this -
Only two men in our nation had the power to stop those planes form hitting the buildings. And they knew it, as they had just (inexplicably!) changed the law to take away this ability from the generals.
One of those men was reading a children's book and talking to reporters.
One was in a bunker telling his staff "The orders stand!" as nothing was done to stop a plane (shootdown was an easy option also) they saw coming for 48 minutes.
It doesn't have to be some big conspiracy. It can be two men who handcuffed their generals from acting, then chose not to act.
-
You only needed two people, Bush and Cheney.
These two men could have stopped the hijacked aircraft from hitting the WTC.
They chose NOT to.
I never implied our government set up 9-11.
They (see above) chose not to stop it.
i somewhat suspect that. Not sure it will ever be proved. :-\
-
i somewhat suspect that. Not sure it will ever be proved. :-\
Well, they obviously refused to testify, only engaging in a secret narrative with the 911 commissioners where nothing was recorded.
Officially, everyone blamed the "system".
Everyone knows the pentagon can shoot down a plane if it wants to. They have, and had, the technology. Hell, the night of sept 10, Bush's hotel had a missile battery on the ROOF as part of his security. Does anyone really believe that the pentagon didn't have missiles that day?
History will prove it. No one will go to jail, but we'll all know. And hopefully, we'll be smart enough to not vote in any of the Bush "ilk". ANd hopefully, god forbid any future attack, we'll think twice before rubber stamping a blank check for a prez under which an attack happens.
-
i somewhat suspect that. Not sure it will ever be proved. :-\
I seriously doubt it.
-
I seriously doubt it.
I don't think that when they complete a 2nd investigation that even if they find BUSH and Cheney intentionally held back the F-16's that they will ever make that public because it will damage the identity of the office and damage the credibility of our government to the point that it might not be recoverable for years to come.
Nothing will be done. What they will make public is evidence of incompetence during that day.
-
I don't think that when they complete a 2nd investigation that even if they find BUSH and Cheney intentionally held back the F-16's that they will ever make that public because it will damage the identity of the office and damage the credibility of our government to the point that it might not be recoverable for years to come.
Nothing will be done. What they will make public is evidence of incompetence during that day.
while i agree nothing will be done, i think the credibility of that office is currently zero.
The involvement of past admins in "dirt" has come out quite frequently. Their inaction on 911 will be noted, 40 years after the fact, like it was with JFK's Dod (62 northwoods) and LBJ (67 USs liberty).
LBJ was transcribed saying "I want that boat at the bottom of the g*ddamn sea" - referring to an AMERICAN ship. It was quietly declassified.
-
while i agree nothing will be done, i think the credibility of that office is currently zero.
The involvement of past admins in "dirt" has come out quite frequently. Their inaction on 911 will be noted, 40 years after the fact, like it was with JFK's Dod (62 northwoods) and LBJ (67 USs liberty).
LBJ was transcribed saying "I want that boat at the bottom of the g*ddamn sea" - referring to an AMERICAN ship. It was quietly declassified.
Only blind loyalist are left firing accusing bolts of treason to all those who see the light.
-
Something to ponder......when PGA golfer Payne Stewart's Lear jet went off it's flight plan, military jets were "scrambled" within 10 mins after going of course. The jets proceded to follow Stewart's plane until it unfortunately crashed........away from the public.
How did 757 jumbo jets go off course for over an HOUR.........with no scramble?
Thing's that make you go .........hummmmmmm? ::)
do yourself a favor,, loked it up.. it is not policy to do what they did.. those jets intercepted the plane because they were doing maneuvers in the area.. how many planes in history have been intercepted? only a few.. give me one more example of another plane being intercepted
-
how many planes in history have been intercepted? only a few.. give me one more example of another plane being intercepted
I believe there were 100 planes intercepted in the 365 calendar days before 9/11. I will check.
This is a regular occurence when they lose radio contact, fly off course, or behave erratically.
kh300, I'm a little surprised by your statement here. "Only a few planes in history" have been intercepted? That is off by an incredible margin, and makes me question your understanding of our air defenses, and background in this area. "Only a few in history"? Wow...
-
hahahahaha yeah, that's about as realistic as a dem with a spine or a repub with a conscience.
And to think that a Jumbo jet can drop down and unload 200 plus passengers,refuel, load meals, load luggage and load 200 plus people back on and be up in the air in under an hour in some cases...
-
And to think that a Jumbo jet can drop down and unload 200 plus passengers,refuel, load meals, load luggage and load 200 plus people back on and be up in the air in under an hour in some cases...
LOL!! They can refill the kosher meals and load up with 200 slow, inefficient people and take back off, in an hour...
But they can't get one pilot in a fighter and off the ground.
Incredible how some people have such oddly low expectations. I guess if it makes their story work...
-
I believe there were 100 planes intercepted in the 365 calendar days before 9/11. I will check.
This is a regular occurence when they lose radio contact, fly off course, or behave erratically.
kh300, I'm a little surprised by your statement here. "Only a few planes in history" have been intercepted? That is off by an incredible margin, and makes me question your understanding of our air defenses, and background in this area. "Only a few in history"? Wow...
1 domestic flight in the last 10 years.
-
1 domestic flight in the last 10 years.
Wow.
Just, wow.
Wow.
-
Wow.
Just, wow.
Wow.
you have evidence that suggests otherwise,, id love to see it.. just make sure it doesnt come off some ct website
-
1 domestic flight in the last 10 years.
Sorry.......total BS.
-
Sorry.......total BS.
kh300 has made so many huge errors... he's like the really stupid puppy you put up with. He was from the "Of course WTC7 fell, a plane hit it!" camp before we schooled him on that one.
-
Sorry MM......A personal friend fly's 16's, so the "hour off the ground" story must be considered a fallacy.
With 16's......we are talking about a "NY minute" to get Airborne.
Ask him then, if a plane is sitting on the tarmac, been there all night, not already loaded, how long it would take to get loaded and airborn. I agree and have stated that if the plane is located in a alert ramp, and already Hot (loaded with ammo, pre flights done, pilots sitting around in flight gear etc..) they operate on a 15 minute response time. I personally know that if the plane is sitting on the parking ramp with no plans of flight, and all of a sudden there is a call to launch. It would take AMMO several minutes to load a plane onto a bomb cart, then at Hill it was a minimum 15 minute drive from the WSA to the Ramp, and then another several minutes to load the bomb on the plane, so already you are at 30 minutes just to load ammo. Now that it is loaded they need to finish run up procedures and taxi to the runway, probably another 15 minutes. Assuming the run way is clear they could use the high speed to launch, so I'll give you 45 minutes.....I didn';t know new yourk minutes were that long.
-
Are you actually saying that pre 9/11 if something was flying over the white house that it would take about an hour for someone at Andrews to get up in the sky???WTF
THERE ARE NO FIGHTERS AT ANDREWS!!! How many times do I have to say that....Andrews is an Air Mobility wing
-
as far as all the fighters intercepting planes, I guess you idiots think that every plane that completes a sortie is loaded hot? Not quite. I spend at least one day a week here at the Range (the same range where the F-16s that took out zarqawi paractice) and those A-10s and 16s use a dummy round to practice. The same can be said for the planes that drill at the Utah test and trianing range. It is very rare for a plane to leave the ground hot in the US because if the plane goes down we want to avoid unneeded casualities. Like I said Alert air craft are hot but only launch if called upon. Pre 9/11, I don't know how many planes were hot on that day. But it is a safe bet that if they were training then they were NOT hot. so you need to find a copy of the log that lists the ammo carried to figure that out. I am trying to offer up an inside perpective on this whole thing, I don't know why you guys won't listen.
-
THERE ARE NO FIGHTERS AT ANDREWS!!! How many times do I have to say that....Andrews is an Air Mobility wing
THere was, until Sept 12, 2001, when they changed their website.
Why would they change their website the day after 911?
-
THere was, until Sept 12, 2001, when they changed their website.
Why would they change their website the day after 911?
show me their website on 9/10 where it lists them having fighters. Andrews was classified as an AMC base in 1992....If you can even tell me what AMC stands for I will continue the debate
-
show me their website on 9/10 where it lists them having fighters. Andrews was classified as an AMC base in 1992....If you can even tell me what AMC stands for I will continue the debate
google it yourself.
Internet archivists discovered on 9/11 is said they had them, and on 9/12 they didn't.
-
If you can even tell me what AMC stands for I will continue the debate
???
are you eating mushrooms today?
-
???
are you eating mushrooms today?
Why becasue you don't know what it is? If Andrews has been AMC since 92, then there were no fighters stationed at Andrews in '01. Langley maybe but not Andrews
-
ok, you say for the record, authoratively, that Andrews had no fighters on 9/11.
Then I will go home, read thru my 3 books, and find the specific line with source, scan it, and post it.
I will have spent 30 to 45 minutes doing something - for what purpose? So you will say "yeah - so what - it still doesn't prove blah blah blah..."
So really, it's not worth the time. Anyone here with a brain can research it themselves. being "right" on getbig political forum isn't that profitable, and it's beginning to be schooling the same 4 kids with their same non-research, repeatedly.
-
ok, you say for the record, authoratively, that Andrews had no fighters on 9/11.
Then I will go home, read thru my 3 books, and find the specific line with source, scan it, and post it.
I will have spent 30 to 45 minutes doing something - for what purpose? So you will say "yeah - so what - it still doesn't prove blah blah blah..."
So really, it's not worth the time. Anyone here with a brain can research it themselves. being "right" on getbig political forum isn't that profitable, and it's beginning to be schooling the same 4 kids with their same non-research, repeatedly.
Then show it....Andrews has been a AMW since 92, sorry to say brother.....do you even know where Langley is?
-
Then show it....Andrews has been a AMW since 92, sorry to say brother.....do you even know where Langley is?
stop with the trivia - you're a damn time burglar.
Say for the record there were no fighters at AAFB on 9/11, please.
-
stop with the trivia - you're a damn time burglar.
Say for the record there were no fighters at AAFB on 9/11, please.
According to my sources who were there...there were no f-16s stationed at Andrews on 9/11
-
According to my sources who were there...there were no f-16s stationed at Andrews on 9/11
oh geez,
please look it up, and post with a source.
i don't wanna spend 45 min reading and scanning so it can be "nuh uh, my friend said"
please state for the record there were NO fighters on Andrews on the morning of 911, preferably with a source. If I'm going to open up the 911 Ommissions book this evening and break out the notes and sources from the official report, it's gotta be worth the time.
If you see undeniable proof AAFB had fighters and didn't move them, will it change anyhting in your mind about "let it happen" theory?
-
oh geez,
please look it up, and post with a source.
i don't wanna spend 45 min reading and scanning so it can be "nuh uh, my friend said"
please state for the record there were NO fighters on Andrews on the morning of 911, preferably with a source. If I'm going to open up the 911 Ommissions book this evening and break out the notes and sources from the official report, it's gotta be worth the time.
If you see undeniable proof AAFB had fighters and didn't move them, will it change anything in your mind about "let it happen" theory?
The question should be: "was Andrews a base that had F-16's on alert on the hot ramps that day." Because if it's not, then this thing is moot
MM69 should be able to find that out and provide a link. If he can't it doesn't mean it isn't true. Just can't prove it on the web.
-
kh300 has made so many huge errors... he's like the really stupid puppy you put up with. He was from the "Of course WTC7 fell, a plane hit it!" camp before we schooled him on that one.
this stands untill someone can proove otherwise,, or someone can give me an example of another plane that was intercepted before 9/11
"In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999. With passengers and crew unconscious from cabin decompression, the plane lost radio contact but remained in transponder contact until it crashed. Even so, it took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach the stricken jet. Rules in effect back then, and on 9/11, prohibited supersonic flight on intercepts. Prior to 9/11, all other NORAD interceptions were limited to offshore Air Defense Identification Zones (ADIZ). "Until 9/11 there was no domestic ADIZ," FAA spokesman Bill Schumann tells PM. After 9/11, NORAD and the FAA increased cooperation, setting up hotlines between ATCs and NORAD command centers, according to officials from both agencies. NORAD has also increased its fighter coverage and has installed radar to monitor airspace over the continent."
-
you guys are going to make me do lots of research. So be it. I'll pull up the list. Will you give me a reacharound when i do prove ya wrong, ya neotainty sumbitch?
-
this stands untill someone can proove otherwise,, or someone can give me an example of another plane that was intercepted before 9/11
"In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999. With passengers and crew unconscious from cabin decompression, the plane lost radio contact but remained in transponder contact until it crashed. Even so, it took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach the stricken jet. Rules in effect back then, and on 9/11, prohibited supersonic flight on intercepts. Prior to 9/11, all other NORAD interceptions were limited to offshore Air Defense Identification Zones (ADIZ). "Until 9/11 there was no domestic ADIZ," FAA spokesman Bill Schumann tells PM. After 9/11, NORAD and the FAA increased cooperation, setting up hotlines between ATCs and NORAD command centers, according to officials from both agencies. NORAD has also increased its fighter coverage and has installed radar to monitor airspace over the continent."
This is exactly what i been saying about this.
-
You don't have an answer either, If they could get Bush on this you don't think at least one credible media outlet would jump on it?
the government controlls all the media. rosie must be careful, they allready killed one senator that was diggin too much.
-
the government controlls all the media. rosie must be careful, they allready killed one senator that was diggin too much.
::)
-
you guys are going to make me do lots of research. So be it. I'll pull up the list. Will you give me a reacharound when i do prove ya wrong, ya neotainty sumbitch?
ok you had all day,, lets see what you got
-
ok you had all day,, lets see what you got
what am i looking up again?
and if i prove it, will you not post here for one week?
-
what am i looking up again?
and if i prove it, will you not post here for one week?
think about it for a second, what have we been talking about for the last 2 pages.. what question have i asked twice. is the hampster not running at full speed today
-
ok, you say for the record, authoratively, that Andrews had no fighters on 9/11.
Then I will go home, read thru my 3 books, and find the specific line with source, scan it, and post it.
I will have spent 30 to 45 minutes doing something - for what purpose? So you will say "yeah - so what - it still doesn't prove blah blah blah..."
So really, it's not worth the time. Anyone here with a brain can research it themselves. being "right" on getbig political forum isn't that profitable, and it's beginning to be schooling the same 4 kids with their same non-research, repeatedly.
what do some muslims think
http://www.muslimedia.com/archives/special02/propg-same.htm
-
think about it for a second, what have we been talking about for the last 2 pages..
your inability to impress others with your intellect?
-
Damn OReilly is really showing his colors tonight...The guy truly doesn't understand just how powerful this movement is...
-
your inability to impress others with your intellect?
give me an example of another commercial jet that has been intercepted in the Continental us.. am i irrelevant now, because you cant answer the question? you said im wrong, so proove it to me
-
LOL!!!!
OReilly's guest challenged rosie not to bring on physicists - but to bring on popular mechanics!
hahahahaaaaaaaa
-
Oreailly:
"we don't need to look at rosie's evidence to know she's wrong"
"no need to give the audience materials and let them decide"
-
Damn OReilly is really showing his colors tonight...The guy truly doesn't understand just how powerful this movement is...
i live in one of the most liberal places in the world,, i honestly dont ever hear a thing about 911 conspericys, except on the internet. i would bet that 90% of the ct's in the world dont actually know a thing about it. probably the same on the other side.. but dont say it a movement. internet movements dont mean shit.
-
i live in one of the most liberal places in the world,, i honestly dont ever hear a thing about 911 conspericys, except on the internet. i would bet that 90% of the ct's in the world dont actually know a thing about it. probably the same on the other side.. but dont say it a movement. internet movements dont mean shit.
you're willing to bet that 90% of conspiracy theorists don't know anything about 911?
Wow.
Man, it's gonna be one shitty day for you when the truth comes out. You should seriously ask yourself, just why every day now, there are thousands becoming CTers. Why OReilly and others are bashing it EVERY night now. Why they refuse to talk evidence - they just want to silence people who ask questions.
Truth is coming out. Just because people don't bring it up to you, doesn't mean they don't know about it or have opinions on it. And "internet movements don't mean shit".... I guess time will tell. The internet is the single handed tool which has led those to doubt some aspect of the official 911 story from 1% to 84% (CNN Oct 8, 2006 poll). Internet has educated. Legislation and investigation comes next.
Gonna be a very surreal day for you when it comes out.
-
i live in one of the most liberal places in the world,, i honestly dont ever hear a thing about 911 conspericys, except on the internet. i would bet that 90% of the ct's in the world dont actually know a thing about it. probably the same on the other side.. but dont say it a movement. internet movements dont mean shit.
You didn't hear alot about catholic priest fcking little boys a decade or so go either but now that they are being exposed the truth is coming out...
-
you guys have put together a storyline of 911 based purely on speculation. you guys have convicted people of murder, and several hundred if not thousands to conspericy to murder -with 0 evidence.
if the "truth" comes out then yes im wrong. but that isnt going to happen. the planning of this would have leaked, the plot could have been fucked up, and certinly 6 years later something would have come out.. you can say more is comming out. like i always ask -where is your evidence? what could possibly be comming out when you have nothing to show?
-
we just want a second investigation.
20 NYPD/NYFD coming fwd and saying it was a contorlled demolition - that should be enough to get a second investigation.
You are wrong - we don't want to convict thousands of folks of anything. We want to put silverstein, rudy, and a few others under oath and ask them questions. We want to test the metal for explosives residue. Standard investigative stuff. These things weren't done in the initial investigation and no matter what - over the last 4 years, a GREAT deal of info has come out, spurring the need for a new investigation.
Just another investigation, period. Nothing to hide, right?
-
see this is where you go wrong.. you say 20 nypd.. but who are they?
you just lie threw your teeth. the metal was tested and you know this. heres one test
-
they went on the alex jones show last month. it was posted here. NYPD/NYFD, plus some EMTs and military. All said controlled demo of WTC7.
you just lie threw your teeth.
Are you 14, or mildly retarded? You're a grown man. You spell like this?
-
omg i misspealed a word, thanks for pointing that out dork.. and see how i just expose all of your lies, and its so easy for you to ignore or change subjects.. metal was never tested -i just proved it was.
-
actually, your silly ass told us that you dn't accept youtube clips as evidence.
then, you present youtube as evidence.
you come to the table pre-owned. sucks to be wrong, but really sucks to be inconsistent.
-
big difference pal.. that shows a case aired on the discovery channel of them studying and analyzing the metal. should i dig up the names of the scientists and the studys they did.. you show a blurry clip of a plane hitting the towers with a flash added in..
-
After going public this week with her skepticism over the official story of 9/11, Rosie O'Donnell has continued to address the issue in a Q&A with her readers on her website.
We reported yesterday that O'Donnell, who has for weeks now been tentatively trying to raise the issue of 9/11 truth on her ABC show The View, wrote a blog entry encouraging her readers to research 9/11, in particular the building 7 demolition.
O'Donnell wrote :
• The fires in WTC 7 were not evenly distributed, so a perfect collapse was impossible.
• Silverstein said to the fire department commander “the smartest thing to do is pull it.”
• Firefighters withdrawing from the area stated the building was going to “blow up”.
• The roof of WTC 7 visibly crumbled and the building collapsed perfectly into its footprint.
• Molten steel and partially evaporated steel members were found in the debris.
She then goes on to explain her thoughts on these facts.
Now, in follow up postings, O'Donnell has been answering reader questions regarding 9/11.
A section of the Q& A from her website http://www.rosie.com
haha, your source is Rosie O'donnel the DYKE? oh my, must all be factual!
-
they went on the alex jones show last month. it was posted here. NYPD/NYFD, plus some EMTs and military. All said controlled demo of WTC7.
Are you 14, or mildly retarded? You're a grown man. You spell like this?
240....your being too nice to 300. Mildly retarded is a huge understatement.
-
you guys have put together a storyline of 911 based purely on speculation. you guys have convicted people of murder, and several hundred if not thousands to conspericy to murder -with 0 evidence.
if the "truth" comes out then yes im wrong. but that isnt going to happen. the planning of this would have leaked, the plot could have been fucked up, and certinly 6 years later something would have come out.. you can say more is comming out. like i always ask -where is your evidence? what could possibly be comming out when you have nothing to show?
but with plenty of motive...Can you rule them out is a better question...
-
we just want a second investigation.
20 NYPD/NYFD coming fwd and saying it was a contorlled demolition - that should be enough to get a second investigation.
You are wrong - we don't want to convict thousands of folks of anything. We want to put silverstein, rudy, and a few others under oath and ask them questions. We want to test the metal for explosives residue. Standard investigative stuff. These things weren't done in the initial investigation and no matter what - over the last 4 years, a GREAT deal of info has come out, spurring the need for a new investigation.
Just another investigation, period. Nothing to hide, right?
I would like to see Rosie or anyone else with some serious coin ask 20 top scientist to take a lie detector test on if they were told to keep their mouths shut...Offer them big money if they pass....I bet not one of them would...Or Challange Bill Oreilly or Hannidy to take a test...