|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
Questions about 9/11 - 8/2/2009 1:08:53 AM
|
|
|
cornergas
Posts: 369
Joined: 7/28/2009
Status: offline
|
It is unfortunate that the 9/11 commission did not address a lot of issues and questions regarding 9/11. There are a lot of unanswered questions, a few being:
-Why were no fighter planes sent up to intercept the of course aircraft? The interception is normal procedure by norad, within five to ten minutes of them being of course.
-After the first tower was hit, why weren't people allowed to leave the second tower, as a precaution?
-Why did the buildings fall straight down at free fall speed? This indicates controlled demolition
-Where did all the concrete go?? It was pulverized what did that?
-Why did building #7 collapse, at free fall speed with no damage from airplane impact?
-Why did the owner Mr Silverstein say on PBS we "decided to pull it" which means demolition..
-This would have meant it would have had to been wired weeks before. It takes a long time to prepare buildings of this size for demolition
-Why was there molten steel in the sub ground levels, still a month or two after the demolition?
-As jet fuel only burns at around 1200 degrees or less, why was this used as an excuse for the collapse of the buildings, when it takes 3000 degrees to melt steel?
-Why did the President oppose the convening any sort of an inquiry into the events surrounding 9/11?
-Why were experts denied access to the 9/11 site and the rubble immediately cleaned up. A crime scene of this magnitude is would be investigated and probed for months, if not a year or two?
-Why were all the cameras at the pentagon turned off prior to it being hit with someting?
-Why were no missiles used to intercept the object that struck the pentagon?
-As this is supposedly the most heavy defended building in the world, it seems that missiles and fights jets could have provided defence for that building.
There are many more questions, that remain unanswered as well, and do lead to conclusions which are not consistent with the governments conspiracy theory of 19 Arabs, armed with "boxcutters", directed from some person from a cave in Afghanistan. This motley bunch actually defeated the most sophisticated trillion dollars air defence system of the US defence? Now this is a conspiracy theory!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Questions about 9/11 - 8/3/2009 12:23:25 AM
|
|
|
lhtytlp
Posts: 418
Joined: 6/6/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cornergas
It is unfortunate that the 9/11 commission did not address a lot of issues and questions regarding 9/11. There are a lot of unanswered questions
There are many more questions, that remain unanswered as well, and do lead to conclusions which are not consistent with the governments conspiracy theory of 19 Arabs, armed with "boxcutters", directed from some person from a cave in Afghanistan. This motley bunch actually defeated the most sophisticated trillion dollars air defence system of the US defence? Now this is a conspiracy theory!
Hi, Cornergas:
I found some website and thought that might provide some assistance.
1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hP2t-Wy6W5w
2. http://www.911stuff.com/
_____________________________
The Lord is my strength and song ....... I shall not die, but live, and declare the works of the LORD.
Talk no more so exceeding proudly; let not arrogancy come out of your mouth: for the LORD is a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Questions about 9/11 - 8/3/2009 12:53:15 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 726
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
Hey. I think these are useful sites.
http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/
Especially see the forums.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/
I was involved in a discussion here
Aluminum/magnesium Alloys
I threw in a couple possible solutions just for people to consider but I understand that these solutions have many many shortcomings.
While I do not know what really happened during 9/11, I do believe that what the media claims has happened is not what really happened. I am very upset with how our corrupt media portrayed and seems to censor so much important information and dissenting views and to me this is the strongest evidence of conspiracy. There are very many tough unanswered questions and it's very sad that important issues like this can be systematically controlled by the media to such a large degree as to censor so much information. Never assume this can't happen to the Internet either.
Anyways, those forums are dedicated to discussing 9/11 so if you are really interested you should participate.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Questions about 9/11 - 8/3/2009 1:43:28 AM
|
|
|
tacitus
Posts: 1594
Joined: 5/12/2005
Status: offline
|
So how many hundreds, thousands of people are in on this conspiracy? Yet not one of them has leaked a single piece of information to anyone. It should be plainly obvious that Washington can't keep a secret to save its life, let alone keep secret a vast conspiracy that would be the greatest criminal enterprise in American history.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Questions about 9/11 - 8/3/2009 10:53:48 AM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3560
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tacitus
So how many hundreds, thousands of people are in on this conspiracy? Yet not one of them has leaked a single piece of information to anyone. It should be plainly obvious that Washington can't keep a secret to save its life, let alone keep secret a vast conspiracy that would be the greatest criminal enterprise in American history.
tacitus, you have to bear in mind how efficient these conspirators are. Just because they can't run the government doesn't mean they can't pull off the most elaborate terrorist conspiracy in history.
_____________________________
I know when there is a trouble, and when there is not a trouble, and you may rest assured that there is a trouble.---- Inspector Jacques Clouseau
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Questions about 9/11 - 8/3/2009 11:30:57 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 726
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tacitus
So how many hundreds, thousands of people are in on this conspiracy? Yet not one of them has leaked a single piece of information to anyone. It should be plainly obvious that Washington can't keep a secret to save its life, let alone keep secret a vast conspiracy that would be the greatest criminal enterprise in American history.
Perhaps people have been trying to leak out information but it never makes it on mainstream media. For example, see
General of all American Intelligence: 911 was a fraud!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daNr_TrBw6E
This is simply ONE example. But the mainstream media ignores the leaks. But feel free to ignore the massive evidence that the mainstream media is not fully reporting on the issue.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Questions about 9/11 - 8/3/2009 11:36:56 AM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3560
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: tacitus
So how many hundreds, thousands of people are in on this conspiracy? Yet not one of them has leaked a single piece of information to anyone. It should be plainly obvious that Washington can't keep a secret to save its life, let alone keep secret a vast conspiracy that would be the greatest criminal enterprise in American history.
Perhaps people have been trying to leak out information but it never makes it on mainstream media. For example, see
General of all American Intelligence: 911 was a fraud!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daNr_TrBw6E
This is simply ONE example. But the mainstream media ignores the leaks. But feel free to ignore the massive evidence that the mainstream media is not fully reporting on the issue.
I don't do YouTube for anything serious because anybody can throw anything on it. I've looked at the sites and arguments and find them unconvincing.
_____________________________
I know when there is a trouble, and when there is not a trouble, and you may rest assured that there is a trouble.---- Inspector Jacques Clouseau
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Questions about 9/11 - 8/3/2009 11:49:01 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 726
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
I don't do YouTube for anything serious because anybody can throw anything on it. I've looked at the sites and arguments and find them unconvincing.
Oh yes, this is just some massive conspiracy by those who have known people who were involved in the 9/11 event or who have had family members lost in the event to fabricate evidence. All the video footage during 9/11 at the event about people reporting what seems to be a demolition/explosion, including demolition experts and such, are all just fabricated. It's just one big huge conspiracy by Youtube and everyone to make something up for no reason.
Why do you give the mainstream media so much credibility as if they're somehow less likely to be dishonest? Simply because they have more access to the airwaves and more access to our televisions and attention? Simply because they are more able to broadcast the news and their opinions and assert their authority and authenticity over such matters? Not good enough for me.
So first you complain that, "surely if there was a conspiracy it would have been leaked out." So I present the "leaks" and you simply ignore them saying, "they're not credible because they didn't come from mainstream media or the government."
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Questions about 9/11 - 8/3/2009 12:16:30 PM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3560
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
I don't do YouTube for anything serious because anybody can throw anything on it. I've looked at the sites and arguments and find them unconvincing.
Oh yes, this is just some massive conspiracy by those who have known people who were involved in the 9/11 event or who have had family members lost in the event to fabricate evidence. All the video footage during 9/11 at the event about people reporting what seems to be a demolition/explosion, including demolition experts and such, are all just fabricated. It's just one big huge conspiracy by Youtube and everyone to make something up for no reason.
Why do you give the mainstream media so much credibility as if they're somehow less likely to be dishonest? Simply because they have more access to the airwaves and more access to our televisions and attention? Simply because they are more able to broadcast the news and their opinions and assert their authority and authenticity over such matters? Not good enough for me.
So first you complain that, "surely if there was a conspiracy it would have been leaked out." So I present the "leaks" and you simply ignore them saying, "they're not credible because they didn't come from mainstream media or the government."
I don't believe it based on what the mainstream media said. I've looked at everything on the internet (except YouTube junk). Video isn't able to tell the story without explanation. That's the bottom line on what one is to believe about 9/11 or anything else.
I haven't seen any reasonable explanation as to how all this demolition was set up without anybody getting wise. Theoretically, buildings of that size can be demo'ed. But the kicker is how can a building be wired and all those explosives set while the building is occupied by thousands of workers, employees and visitors.
_____________________________
I know when there is a trouble, and when there is not a trouble, and you may rest assured that there is a trouble.---- Inspector Jacques Clouseau
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Questions about 9/11 - 8/3/2009 12:21:04 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 726
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
Video isn't able to tell the story without explanation.
I never said otherwise and I've looked at much of the evidence myself, including explanations, etc... from all sides (and trying to come up with my own and such).
quote:
I haven't seen any reasonable explanation as to how all this demolition was set up without anybody getting wise. Theoretically, buildings of that size can be demo'ed. But the kicker is how can a building be wired and all those explosives set while the building is occupied by thousands of workers, employees and visitors.
I've already thought of that and the answer is I don't know. But the point that I'm upset at is that the media is not reporting on a lot of things. I don't know what happened during 9/11 and I don't claim to but there are a lot of people who have serious unanswered questions about 9/11 and I want answers. To simply dismiss it all as being crazy conspiracy theories doesn't contribute anything and in fact suggests an inability to answer the questions and address the issues.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Questions about 9/11 - 8/3/2009 1:03:36 PM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3560
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
Video isn't able to tell the story without explanation.
I never said otherwise and I've looked at much of the evidence myself, including explanations, etc... from all sides (and trying to come up with my own and such).
quote:
I haven't seen any reasonable explanation as to how all this demolition was set up without anybody getting wise. Theoretically, buildings of that size can be demo'ed. But the kicker is how can a building be wired and all those explosives set while the building is occupied by thousands of workers, employees and visitors.
I've already thought of that and the answer is I don't know. But the point that I'm upset at is that the media is not reporting on a lot of things. I don't know what happened during 9/11 and I don't claim to but there are a lot of people who have serious unanswered questions about 9/11 and I want answers. To simply dismiss it all as being crazy conspiracy theories doesn't contribute anything and in fact suggests an inability to answer the questions and address the issues.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The truthers started with a belief and worked backwards. They skip over anything that might be a gap (like how the building could've been secretly wired).
Here's a link to an article exploring ideas as to why another 9/11 has not taken place.
Al-Qaida's successful elimination of the Twin Towers, part of the Pentagon, four jetliners, and nearly 3,000 innocent lives makes the terror group seem, in hindsight, diabolically brilliant. But when you review how close the terrorists came to being exposed by U.S. intelligence, 9/11 doesn't look like an ingenious plan that succeeded because of shrewd planning. It looks like a stupid plan that succeeded through sheer dumb luck.
_____________________________
I know when there is a trouble, and when there is not a trouble, and you may rest assured that there is a trouble.---- Inspector Jacques Clouseau
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Questions about 9/11 - 8/3/2009 1:41:49 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 726
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
I'm not claiming there was a demolition (or that there wasn't) just that there are a lot of serious unanswered questions that the media overlooks. Claiming that these tough questions have been answered is an extraordinary claim and I want extraordinary proof. Just because the media makes the extraordinary claim that all questions have been answered doesn't make it so (and just because the mainstream media has more access to the airwaves and such doesn't make their extraordinary claims any less extraordinary).
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
The truthers started with a belief and worked backwards.
Or maybe this is exactly what the mainstream media has done.
quote:
They skip over anything that might be a gap (like how the building could've been secretly wired).
I am not skipping over anything, it's the mainstream media that has been skipping over a lot of things. I want all things to be considered and I want the mainstream media to stop ignoring things simply because they disagree.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Questions about 9/11 - 8/3/2009 1:48:29 PM
|
|
|
rlj
Posts: 3880
Joined: 4/14/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
Video isn't able to tell the story without explanation.
I never said otherwise and I've looked at much of the evidence myself, including explanations, etc... from all sides (and trying to come up with my own and such).
quote:
I haven't seen any reasonable explanation as to how all this demolition was set up without anybody getting wise. Theoretically, buildings of that size can be demo'ed. But the kicker is how can a building be wired and all those explosives set while the building is occupied by thousands of workers, employees and visitors.
I've already thought of that and the answer is I don't know. But the point that I'm upset at is that the media is not reporting on a lot of things. I don't know what happened during 9/11 and I don't claim to but there are a lot of people who have serious unanswered questions about 9/11 and I want answers. To simply dismiss it all as being crazy conspiracy theories doesn't contribute anything and in fact suggests an inability to answer the questions and address the issues.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The truthers started with a belief and worked backwards. They skip over anything that might be a gap (like how the building could've been secretly wired).
Here's a link to an article exploring ideas as to why another 9/11 has not taken place.
Al-Qaida's successful elimination of the Twin Towers, part of the Pentagon, four jetliners, and nearly 3,000 innocent lives makes the terror group seem, in hindsight, diabolically brilliant. But when you review how close the terrorists came to being exposed by U.S. intelligence, 9/11 doesn't look like an ingenious plan that succeeded because of shrewd planning. It looks like a stupid plan that succeeded through sheer dumb luck.
Excellent link Cow. I have always believed from what I have read, seen, and heard that 9/11 was a result of sheer incompetence on a gargantuan scale.
_____________________________
Thbbbt!!!!
A video of our cat and kitten:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ycCndVNctA
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Questions about 9/11 - 8/3/2009 1:51:04 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 726
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
Another example is that the crash on the pentagon didn't have wing marks, it should have had wing marks. Videos were confiscated and the media COMPLETELY ignored the issue.
quote:
If you were a news team, and there were ongoing terrorist attacks, would no one go to the Pentagon to get the scoop?
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread395619/pg1
Instead of just claiming, "we're all conspiracy theorists" care to actually address the issues we bring up?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Questions about 9/11 - 8/3/2009 1:56:11 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 726
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
I haven't seen any reasonable explanation as to how all this demolition was set up without anybody getting wise. Theoretically, buildings of that size can be demo'ed. But the kicker is how can a building be wired and all those explosives set while the building is occupied by thousands of workers, employees and visitors.
and I haven't seen a reasonable explanation as to how the terrorists got away with flying an airplane into a building without our military or anyone even noticing to stop it.
What's even more interesting is this
quote:
#1 – On the morning of September 11, 2001, NORAD was running war games involving hijacked airliners while the National Reconnaissance Offices (NRO) was running a drill for the scenario of an errant aircraft crashing into a government building at the exact same time as an identical scenario was perpetrated. The Air Force was in day two of annual drills testing all of its systems to respond to various threats.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/KAN403A.html
The terrorists picked a perfect time for it, a time when the military was distracted. How did they know to pick that specific time unless someone on the inside somehow informed them? I find it hard to believe it was just by coincidence they chose that specific time, a time when testing was being done and hence they were distracted. These are serious questions that need to be addressed.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Questions about 9/11 - 8/3/2009 2:19:22 PM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3560
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
I haven't seen any reasonable explanation as to how all this demolition was set up without anybody getting wise. Theoretically, buildings of that size can be demo'ed. But the kicker is how can a building be wired and all those explosives set while the building is occupied by thousands of workers, employees and visitors.
and I haven't seen a reasonable explanation as to how the terrorists got away with flying an airplane into a building without our military or anyone even noticing to stop it.
What's even more interesting is this
quote:
#1 – On the morning of September 11, 2001, NORAD was running war games involving hijacked airliners while the National Reconnaissance Offices (NRO) was running a drill for the scenario of an errant aircraft crashing into a government building at the exact same time as an identical scenario was perpetrated. The Air Force was in day two of annual drills testing all of its systems to respond to various threats.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/KAN403A.html
The terrorists picked a perfect time for it, a time when the military was distracted. How did they know to pick that specific time unless someone on the inside somehow informed them? I find it hard to believe it was just by coincidence they chose that specific time, a time when testing was being done and hence they were distracted. These are serious questions that need to be addressed.
I'll refer you back to the link in post 12 on both of these. I don't think the hijackers knew or cared about what NORAD was doing. Hijacking airliners was not anything new, so it makes sense that many training scenerios had been "gamed" prior to 9/11. What couldn't be anticipated was the confusion and communication problems.
_____________________________
I know when there is a trouble, and when there is not a trouble, and you may rest assured that there is a trouble.---- Inspector Jacques Clouseau
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Questions about 9/11 - 8/3/2009 2:34:43 PM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3560
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
Another example is that the crash on the pentagon didn't have wing marks, it should have had wing marks. Videos were confiscated and the media COMPLETELY ignored the issue.
quote:
If you were a news team, and there were ongoing terrorist attacks, would no one go to the Pentagon to get the scoop?
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread395619/pg1
Instead of just claiming, "we're all conspiracy theorists" care to actually address the issues we bring up?
Why would there be wing marks? The wings aren't designed for ramming buildings like the Pentagon. The plane also hit at an angle. Plus there's the problem of the fire. Here's a computer simulation by Purdue University. I presume you've seen the security camera vidoes that were released several years ago.
_____________________________
I know when there is a trouble, and when there is not a trouble, and you may rest assured that there is a trouble.---- Inspector Jacques Clouseau
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Questions about 9/11 - 8/3/2009 3:29:33 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 726
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
I don't think the hijackers knew or cared about what NORAD was doing.
Oh yeah, the hijackers wouldn't care about choosing a time that they think they are most likely to get away with it and not have their plan stopped. More extraordinary claims.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Questions about 9/11 - 8/3/2009 3:31:06 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 726
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
Why would there be wing marks?
Because airplanes have wings.
quote:
The wings aren't designed for ramming buildings like the Pentagon.
Neither are airplanes, so should we now assume that airplanes should ram into buildings and leave no marks either?
quote:
The plane also hit at an angle.
yeah so?
quote:
I presume you've seen the security camera vidoes that were released several years ago.
No, would you mind posting them? Thanks.
quote:
Here's a computer simulation by Purdue University.
Even your simulation doesn't seem to contradict the fact that wing marks should have been present. In fact, I see wing marks in the simulated pictures.
Visualization of the facade damage
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Questions about 9/11 - 8/3/2009 3:56:53 PM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3560
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
Why would there be wing marks?
Because airplanes have wings.
quote:
The wings aren't designed for ramming buildings like the Pentagon.
Neither are airplanes, so should we now assume that airplanes should ram into buildings and leave no marks either?
quote:
The plane also hit at an angle.
yeah so?
quote:
I presume you've seen the security camera vidoes that were released several years ago.
No, would you mind posting them? Thanks.
quote:
Here's a computer simulation by Purdue University.
Even your simulation doesn't seem to contradict the fact that wing marks should have been present. In fact, I see wing marks in the simulated pictures.
Visualization of the facade damage
This is from a skeptic, so you cannot dismiss it as "mainstream media" (the media did not write the 9/11 Commission Report, BTW). It is a lengthy article and addresses alternative theories:
Although the damage beyond the impact punctures appears to be consistent with the impact of the outer portions a 757's wings in both degree and extent, many observers think that the impact should have left a clear imprint of a 757's profile on the facade, much as the impacts of 767s left their profiles in the Twin Towers. This is not a persuasive argument against the crash of a 757: The physical integrity of the Pentagon attack plane on impact is unknown. It is possible that either or both of the wings was severely damaged by the impacts with the lamp poles, generator, and retaining walls on its final approach. Portions of the wings may have separated prior to impact, changing their impact profiles.
_____________________________
I know when there is a trouble, and when there is not a trouble, and you may rest assured that there is a trouble.---- Inspector Jacques Clouseau
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Questions about 9/11 - 8/3/2009 4:00:34 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 726
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
This is from a skeptic, so you cannot dismiss it as "mainstream media" (the media did not write the 9/11
I'm not taking any positions on this, I honestly don't know what happened. I'm not saying an airplane hit it, I'm not saying it didn't, I really don't know. The main thing that upsets me is the fact that the mainstream media has failed to fully report the issue and various views and evidence of it. They take one side as if their side is definitively true simply because they assert so, as if their side is somehow less extraordinary than other sides by merit of their assertions.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Questions about 9/11 - 8/3/2009 4:06:46 PM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3560
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
I don't think the hijackers knew or cared about what NORAD was doing.
Oh yeah, the hijackers wouldn't care about choosing a time that they think they are most likely to get away with it and not have their plan stopped. More extraordinary claims.
The hijackers likely knew they were unlikely to be shot down because it has never happened. American skies are not full of fighter jets, anyway. Air defense strategy prior to 9/11 was primarily focused on external threats, not internal. Scrambling jets to intercept hijacked airplanes had been done, but nobody ever crashed one into anything during a hijacking. There was no need to consider "timing" other than having all planes strike as closely as possible to the same time. The odds that all four civilian planes could be shot down were off the board.
Remember this was a suicide attack. If they had been shot down it would still have been a sentinel event with significant loss of American lives.
_____________________________
I know when there is a trouble, and when there is not a trouble, and you may rest assured that there is a trouble.---- Inspector Jacques Clouseau
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Questions about 9/11 - 8/3/2009 4:16:28 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 726
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
Air defense strategy prior to 9/11 was primarily focused on external threats, not internal.
"NORAD was running war games involving hijacked airliners" during the time that this occurred.
Furthermore, these drills are run annually, but what we're not supposed to know is exactly when they're supposed to be ran. Out of all 365 days of the year the terrorists just so happen to choose the correct date.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
