What If Everything You Know About 9/11 Is Wrong?

[trufflepigs]

This is a very interesting article, check it out....

 

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050604140153943

[Sparq]

This again?

 

;)

[ecnarf]

What if everything that you think you know about Sept. 11 being wrong is wrong?

 

dun dun dun.

[static]

What if everything you know about uncited bullshit is wrong?

[mikebutt]

Hustler? The porn magazine?

 

Nice to see Hustler doing some hard hitting investigative journalism. And by "hard hitting investigative journalism" I mean interviewing some nutjob.

[Rebabaluba]

Now people we can't believe everthing we read just because the writer has made it look fancy. I think Mr. Butt is right by calling this person a nutjob!

[no yu begin wher i end]

There was a great article in Popular Mechanics a few months ago debunking myths about 9/11. It's really interesting, I should try and find a link to it.

 

Edit: Here it is.

Edited July 14, 2005 by no yu begin wher i end

[sancco]

conspiracy theorists in mass have ruined their credibility by being nutjobs

[supercanuk]

There are some unanswered questions about 9/11, however that does not mean that the government planned 9/11 in order to get material gain and a middle east war to get oil etc etc etc. Its this same old story over and over again.

[sancco]

yeah its pretty old

[ecnarf]

There are some unanswered questions about 9/11, however that does not mean that the government planned 9/11 in order to get material gain and a middle east war to get oil etc etc etc. Its this same old story over and over again.

The biggest problem I see with the "official story" (to use such a hideous term) is the lack of air cover for jets. NORAD is supposed to be notified once a plane moves eleven degrees (or so)beyond its planned flight or fails to properly communicate with air traffic control. It doesn't mean there was some government conspiracy, but it has to raise some serious questions about the air traffic controller of the day or whatever prevented jets from being scrambled.

[Dan #3]

Read Chomsky. Any and all questions are answered because he teaches how to think for one's self and see through all the bullshit.

[aloha_joe]

As for Chomsky, he usually just teaches people to think HIS way, not to think for themselves. He's not the end-all of academia.

[supercanuk]

Yah ecnarf, i agree, that and a few other questions like the money men and who stood to gain and why people involved in 9/11 were in contact with high government officals. But as we said its not some crazy conspiracy, just questions that id like answered. Chomsky is one of the most succint and i find interesting writers on imperialism, illegitamate forms of authority, propaganda, etc etc. I think to underestimate this mans extreamly good writing is a mistake. He may not be the end all and the be all of academia, but he is an extreamly influential and id say one of the most important academics of our time.

[no yu begin wher i end]

There are some unanswered questions about 9/11, however that does not mean that the government planned 9/11 in order to get material gain and a middle east war to get oil etc etc etc. Its this same old story over and over again.

The biggest problem I see with the "official story" (to use such a hideous term) is the lack of air cover for jets. NORAD is supposed to be notified once a plane moves eleven degrees (or so)beyond its planned flight or fails to properly communicate with air traffic control. It doesn't mean there was some government conspiracy, but it has to raise some serious questions about the air traffic controller of the day or whatever prevented jets from being scrambled.

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.

 

On 9/11 there were only 14 fighter jets on alert in the contiguous 48 states. No computer network or alarm automatically alerted the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) of missing planes. "They [civilian Air Traffic Control, or ATC] had to pick up the phone and literally dial us," says Maj. Douglas Martin, public affairs officer for NORAD. Boston Center, one of 22 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regional ATC facilities, called NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) three times: at 8:37 am EST to inform NEADS that Flight 11 was hijacked; at 9:21 am to inform the agency, mistakenly, that Flight 11 was headed for Washington (the plane had hit the North Tower 35 minutes earlier); and at 9:41 am to (erroneously) identify Delta Air Lines Flight 1989 from Boston as a possible hijacking. The New York ATC called NEADS at 9:03 am to report that United Flight 175 had been hijacked--the same time the plane slammed into the South Tower. Within minutes of that first call from Boston Center, NEADS scrambled two F-15s from Otis Air Force Base in Falmouth, Mass., and three F-16s from Langley Air National Guard Base in Hampton, Va. None of the fighters got anywhere near the pirated planes.

 

Why couldn't ATC find the hijacked flights? When the hijackers turned off the planes' transponders, which broadcast identifying signals, ATC had to search 4500 identical radar blips crisscrossing some of the country's busiest air corridors. And NORAD's sophisticated radar? It ringed the continent, looking outward for threats, not inward. "It was like a doughnut," Martin says. "There was no coverage in the middle." Pre-9/11, flights originating in the States were not seen as threats and NORAD wasn't prepared to track them.

 

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/de...842.html?page=1

 

This is a good article for debunking conspiracy theories.

[sancco]

interesting stuff

[calm2chaos]

AHH shit weres my tin foil hat

[mikebutt]

Not that I necessarily buy the conspiracy theory, but just to throw some fuel on the fire heres a slightly more credible source than some guy that managed to get interviewed by Hustler.

 

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2...05insidejob.htm

[Dan #2]

Former MI5 agent David Shayler, who previously blew the whistle on the British government paying Al Qaeda $200,000 to carry out political assassinations

 

Why the hell is this not creating an uproar, if it's true?

[heyrabbit]

It doesn't take you long to figure out that this article is as self-serving and credible as Michael Moore.

 

The article points out that building 7 caught on fire even though "it was two blocks away".They didn't bother mentioning that it's not outlandish at all to assume that explosion depris could make its way from the umpteenth story of the building to a mere two blocks away.

 

"Now, steel-frame high-rise buildings have never in the history of the universe been brought down by fire. And yet on this day, three of them were allegedly brought down by fire".

 

They conveniently forget to mention that two massive fucking planes crashed into them lol.

 

The article mentions the multiple reported threat of a terrorist attack but doesn't ask the question: How many other threats were recieved in that time and how common is it for the Pentagon to receive such threats?

 

I could go on forever.

[ecnarf]

It doesn't take you long to figure out that this article is as self-serving and credible as Michael Moore.

 

The article points out that building 7 caught on fire even though "it was two blocks away".They didn't bother mentioning that it's not outlandish at all to assume that explosion depris could make its way from the umpteenth story of the building to a mere two blocks away.

 

"Now, steel-frame high-rise buildings have never in the history of the universe been brought down by fire. And yet on this day, three of them were allegedly brought down by fire".

 

They conveniently forget to mention that two massive fucking planes crashed into them lol.

 

The article mentions the multiple reported threat of a terrorist attack but doesn't ask the question: How many other threats were recieved in that time and how common is it for the Pentagon to receive such threats?

 

I could go on forever.

The problem with the internet is that any idiot can post anything. And since nobody really knows every last detail that happened on 9/11, people are willing to believe what anyone says.

 

I mean, David Icke and his bullshit about the Illuminati, and how 9/11 was a plot by a bunch of half-reptilian people who feast on human blood...

[heyrabbit]

hahah yeah. You have to admit that the Illuminati is entertaining though.

 

What's not funny - scary actually - is that people actually like Chomsky.

[sancco]

oh well what you gonna do

[supercanuk]

What's not funny - scary actually - is that people actually like Chomsky.

Just out of curiosity what do you dislike about him? In undergraduate papers he is the most sourced, modern scholar, so it seems a lot of people at least like his ideas.

[TheKwas]

Chomsky>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>HeyRabbit.

 

 

Yeah, the guy has been quoted more than any living man (and I think he's 8th overall).