This link is such utter crap I just HAD to share it!

Here

It is amazing how someone can portray a "theory" by using big words and treating absurd assumptions as fact (when more rational, realistic solutions are more apparent). I just hope that nobody believes this. But (proven by its existance) some people will try so damn hard to prove whatever conspiracy they have concocted in thier mind.... wow.

Not quite as bad as the "moon landing was faked" consipiracy theory, but almost as bad.

I'd say more offensive. But yes - the "moon landing was faked" conspiracy takes the cake.

My favorite line:

"So, if Flight 77's transponder was off (and radar/radio contact was lost), then what evidence do we have that it was, in fact Flight 77 that caused the Pentagon event?

Questions like this kept me out of the good schools."

And statements like that kept him on the short bus.

Can we trade this guy to Mexico and get that guy that turned himself into a car seat.

Hmm. I think it would be naive to assume that there isn't a LOT more going on here than what we've been told. Likewise, how can you not see that this "War on Terrorism" is a godsend for a lot of people in politics and the military? It's giving them the opportunity to dramatically expand their power and influence. I get a little magazine called "Military & Aerospace Electronics", and it's just shocking how happy people in the industry are.

I'm not saying it happened, but don't think for a second that people in power wouldn't be willing to sacrifice or redirect the lives of a couple thousand people for their own gain. There are a lot of scumbags out there, and many of them are naturally drawn to positions of power.

Alex

Actually, this is interesting.

"Mr. Cheney's statement [on Meet the Press] that 'the toughest decision was this question of whether or not we would intercept incoming commercial aircraft' is a lie. Publicly available FAA documents prove that fighter jets routinely intercept commercial aircraft under certain designated circumstances without requiring or asking for approval from the White House."

[ http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-1.htm ]

I wasn't aware that it was routine operating procedure for fighters to intercept commercial aircraft that are off-course and unresponsive to communications. With over an hour's notice of terrorist attacks in progress, it's even more suspicious that nothing happened.

Alex

Ok, please tell me where the junk science is in this article:

http://www.emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-3.htm

I don't even know what to think.

Alex

Those articles are definitely trying to spin a conspiracy theory when one probably doesn't exist.

First, a few things. NORAD has no direct control over any missile silos, air force units, or other military units. They simply watch and report. Forget Wargames, nothing in that movie beyond NORAD being located in Cheyenne Mountain is true (and even that is not completely true, but moving right along...)

If Bush knew about the first attack at 8:46, he knew probably very little. He probably thought it was an accident. Most people did at that time, and that was the first time in history that a hijacked plane was used as a weapon and not a negotiation tool. It took the second plane and masses of cameras watching for anyone to realize the depth of the problem. Plus, if fighters had been scrambled, they probably were not expecting to shoot down anything, nor were they expecting mass chaos. If the base near the pentagon was staffed well enough to have them up right away, they were probably en route to New York since at that time 2 planes were already around there. Again it's hard to say though from the public standpoint.

I suppose my main point would be up until that morning, no one in the world expected what happened on 9/11. No training had anyone prepared, no one had their thought process aligned properly to deal with the situation. All our leaders do have some extraordinary qualities, but they are human just like us, and work much the same as we do here. For a geek, what would be your first response to a crash under Linux looking like an NT blue screen?

Yeah, those articles are full of BS. First off, he tries to prove that government officials are lying and changing cover up stories by quoting contradictory news articles that were written a day after the attack. Yeah, and some people on the ground in NY thought they were being bombed. So I guess that was a government cover up, too.

Then he tries to prove that Bush had prior knowledge of the attacks because:

a) he didn't respond when someone whispered in his ear.

b) he didn't fear for his life in the school building.

As for point-a, that guy could have been saying, "hey check out that reporter's rack" for all we know. Very weak.

As for point-b, I'm pretty sure there's a no-fly zone over the president no matter where he is and is accompanied by fighter jets no matter where he is in the country. So that pretty much rules out his already weak argument that Bush should have been afraid of a plane hitting the school. Then he mentions Bush should also have feared a ground attack on the school. Now it would have to be one HELL of highly trained ground force to take on an army of SS agents and police officers. So his argument that already made little to no sense now makes even less sense. He is basically blaming the President for not doing what the author would've done- run like a pussy.

Ask that guy if he was ever abducted by aliens. I bet he'll tell you they 'probed' him a few too many times.

The other big thing with an attack on Bush, it's doubtful the attackers even had a clue where he was. Sure, it was a public event, but it wasn't widly broadcast that he would be there. Why do you think a plane might have hit the white house? Because they planned it in advance, and figured thats where he would be.

The thing is, I think that training DID have people prepared. I saw a lot of references to Payne Stewart's Learjet -- in 1999, his aircraft diverted from its flight plan and wasn't responding to radio. The FAA notified the military within 4 minutes, and it was promptly met by fighter jets. (It didn't pose any danger and was followed until it crashed some four hours later.) Regardless of what Bush may or may not have known, there are some very big unanswered questions about why the planes were not met in the air, particularly in the case of the Pentagon crash. Also, remember that there is a big difference between interception and "shooting down" -- the standard procedure is to intercept a plane; that is, meet it and try to divert it. Visual observation of who's in control. That sort of thing. It wasn't done.

I also think that while using a hijacked plane as a weapon might be new to you or I, it wasn't at all new to people in intelligence and defense.

Add this to the Israeli telecommunications spy ring -- which is most definitely NOT a "conspiracy theory", there's lots of documentation and hundreds of deported Israelis -- and it really does get suspicious. Odigo being evacuated two hours before? [ Fox News: http://216.239.39.100/search?q=cache:qEvuSiNA3mgC:www.firefox.1accesshost.com/cameron.html ]

Regarding the aliens, are you really telling me that you don't believe in anything even remotely conspiratorial, and that only mainstream media has the truth? I mean, sure, there a lot of crazies out there, but there are also a lot of plausible scenarios. And if you've ever read anything about the intelligence industry, you would know that none of this is even remotely far-fetched. It's creepy stuff.

Alex

>If Bush knew about the first attack at 8:46, he knew probably very little. He
>probably thought it was an accident.

There's supported evidence in that link that the Secret Service knew by 8:40 that it was a hijacking. They must have told the president.

Alex

I should have made the accident part a bit clearer. He may have known a hijacking occured, but without enough details. So, he knew it was hijacked, and he figured the crash was an accident. Only after the second one did the truth surface.

And sure, someone might have thought this up long before and had some training scenarios developed. But up until that point, it hadn't happened before, and noone expected it to. I'm prepaired for quite a few technical scenarios in my line of work, but if someone tells me a server went down, I don't immediatly jump to the conclusion that the server is on fire. It's a possibility I am aware of, but not something I expect.

The consppiracy theories tend to come from crackpots who would try to say the sky is pink if they could. Yes, I personally believe the government does certain things and covers them up for our own public good. But I don't believe the US would stage the destruction of property to justify a war.

>But I don't believe the US would stage the destruction of property to justify a war.

I guess that's where you and I agree to disagree.

Alex

Sure you should be aware of conspiracy possibilities, but this is an obvious weak attempt at smearing Bush. You gotta watch out for that author's conspiracy of his own.

In reply to:

---

why the planes were not met in the air

---

Do you realize how many planes are in the air at any given time? It's easy to look back and say, "Oh I should have bought Nintendo stock back in 1985", but it wasn't that clear-cut back then. Before 9-11, the airforce's main threat was bombers coming from the sea, not kamikaze airliners.

And how could you fake a plane crashing into the pentagon? First you have to dispose of the plane and people. You have to get people to call their loved one's on cellphones and pretend to be on a hijacked plane in DC, just before you kill them. Then you have to pay off the hundreds of rescue workers, firefighters, eyewitnesses, and forensics experts working at the site of the crash to pretend that an airliner did indeed crash into it. It's just too far-fetched.

As for the Israeli thing, I remember that. I remember thinking that the Israeli's would benefit from this. And I think Fox News deleted the articles, cause they were probably pissing a lot of people off who sided with Israel. But do you really think Israel would do something like planning an attack just so we'd come and mow down terrorists? Think of what the state of Israel would face if we found out they had a hand in it. They'd be crushed. Would you risk everything you owned so you could gain a few dollars? But sure I'd think it's possible that Israel found out about the attack beforehand and decided not to tell us.

In reply to:

---

Regarding the aliens, are you really telling me that you don't believe in anything even remotely conspiratorial, and that only mainstream media has the truth? I mean, sure, there a lot of crazies out there, but there are also a lot of plausible scenarios. And if you've ever read anything about the intelligence industry, you would know that none of this is even remotely far-fetched. It's creepy stuff.

---

Sure, but sometimes you gotta use common sense. I'm not gonna rule out that aliens exist, but if I lend a hundred bucks to someone, and then when it's time to pay me back and he tells me aliens took it, that's not gonna fly.

First off, I don't give a whole lot of credit to the "Pentagon crash was faked" story either (though where IS the plane?), and don't really care much about whether Bush personally knew in advance or not (though I find it a little shocking that he would continue to talk about education when he knew that a hijacked plane flew into the WTC).

>Do you realize how many planes are in the air at any given time?

A lot, I know, but EVERY SINGLE ONE is tracked by air traffic control. And every commercial flight files a flight plan in advance. And if it deviates from the plan, it's contacted. And if it doesn't respond, it's intercepted. It's standard operating procedure. It's how mid-air collisions are avoided.

I don't think Israel "planned" the attack either, but I strongly suspect they didn't help avoid it, and it sounds more like an issue of provocation, anyway -- the Fox News link above shows that the Israeli firms providing phone taps to law enforcement have been abusing their tapping abilities, and the hypothesis that the Israeli government has been blackmailing the US government into aid is not so far-fetched. (See Clinton, Lewinsky, and "Mega": http://www.shmoo.com/mail/cypherpunks/mar99/msg00044.html ) And, of course, when a major power is providing substantial aid to one of your enemies, that major power becomes your enemy as well.

In the game "Civilization", there's this thing called "war weariness", which is most pronounced under a democracy. Basically, your people get tired of fighting a war when you declare it, and start rioting and such. BUT -- they don't get tired so quickly when some other nation declared war on you. So if you have a democracy, and you want to start attacking somebody else, you provoke that nation surreptitiously. Then they declare war on you (often with an attack), and you can fight quite a bit with your country's support.

It just seems a bit too real.

Alex

though where IS the plane?

Read this: http://www.snopes2.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

It does quite a good job of explaining this one. Basicially someone picked a few photos that obscure the evidence of a plane hitting the Pentagon and called it a cover up.

Excellent article, I hadn't realized Snopes would have updated it by now. Thanks.

And by the way, anyone who's seen any detailed information on commercial jetliner crashes knows the answer to the "Where is the plane" question: After the impact, was still right there, in about a billion tiny pieces. The thing was full of fuel, I wouldn't have expected there to be much left of it.

Yeah he says "where's the plane?" But then they say it was a truck, not a plane. So then where's the truck?

>It does quite a good job of explaining this one.

<shrug> Doesn't seem to do a much better job than the thing it's refuting. The thing I'm really curious about is the wings -- in the WTC, the wings clearly punched through the building. I know the Pentagon had a much stronger exterior wall, but I'm not sure I buy the "snapped during the initial impact, then were pushed inward towards the fuselage and carried into the building's interior" story. If they were weak enough to snap, why wouldn't they have stayed outside the wall that snapped them and exploded there? Also, my rough estimations say that about a third of the weight of a fully-loaded 757 is in the wings. Then see the pictures at the bottom of this page: http://www.ifrance.fr/silentbutdeadly/

Specifically this one: http://www.ifrance.fr/silentbutdeadly/pentagonxox3.jpg

Though I guess I'm supporting a story that I don't really believe in myself. Problem is, I'm a perpetual devil's advocate. I swear, if the general consensus was that it was a truck bomb, I'd argue that it was a plane.

Alex

Alex, dude, you're nutz! The wings ARE that much weight but only because they are what is filled with explosive fuel! And the impact on the ground is what would (In my "non expert" opinion - however some French f'er doesn't seem to mind be "non-experts") have weakened the wings.

Skyscrapers are designed to we "non-rigid" so that they can flex rather than snap in a wind. Saying that they are weaker that the Pentagon is an understatement. And the Pentagon is HUGE. The mark in the side of it looks small, but it isn't.

But what is the oddest part of this is that we are expected to believe than in an hour, we intercepted a hi-jacked plan, somehow forced it to land (using that mind controlling device we got from the Roswell crash), secretly took the hijackers prisoners (because the government wouldn't want anyone to feel good by knowing we have terrorists prisoner), gave all the passangers new identities and then flew a drone or something into the Pentagon "for kicks".

If you really want to know what a small craft looks like when it hits a building - look at that little plane that crashed into the Florida building.

You're demanding to see the plane. I demand to see the truck.

No, you're right, the drone thing is, how shall we say...unlikely.

But did you catch this link at the bottom of the page: http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0203/S00051.htm ?

And a only slightly related mini-conspiracy that's more about the media: http://palestinechronicle.com/article.php?story=20020319212443316

And that's not the first time today I've been called nuts!

Alex

But what is the oddest part of this is that we are expected to believe than in an hour, we intercepted a hi-jacked plan, somehow forced it to land (using that mind controlling device we got from the Roswell crash), secretly took the hijackers prisoners (because the government wouldn't want anyone to feel good by knowing we have terrorists prisoner), gave all the passangers new identities and then flew a drone or something into the Pentagon "for kicks".


Naah. I can't even believe that part of the story. If the jet didn't hit the Pentagon then it was AMRAAMed. (Do you really think they'd admit that?? ) Perhaps a figher pilot was then ordered to hit the Pentagon as a cover and to gain national sympathy. Either that or he was so sickened by his act that he decided to of his own free will.

Or possibly the jet just did hit the Pentagon. Like JFK, we will never be 100% sure about the details.


"Mother shall I trust the Governement?"

Now if you were talking about the plane that was supposed to hit the White House, that's a different story. But the Air Force has admitted that they would have shot it down if they could have. If fact, a jet was chasing it to do just that.

Doesn't seem to do a much better job than the thing it's refuting

Except a pretty clear picture of a small piece of debris from the plane. I do have to agree with Yz33d, if a plane didn't do it, then what did, and where is the proof. We have plenty of incidents of truch bombs revealing quite a bit of easially spottable debris. (WTC 1993, Oklahoma City, etc...) A plane on the other hand going 350mph and hitting the ground, then a very strong building is not going to leave anything much bigger then the pieces shown in photos. We have plenty of examples of that as well. And with the wings carying the fuel, they definitly exploded on impact as seen by the security camera footage. Notice how the fireball starts outside on the ground and not in the building like with the towers. The wings impacted, ignited, and exploded before the plane body at that point entered the building. Anything left of the wings would have just been small pieces carried in alongside the body.

As a matter of fact, as of 1437 PST, there are exactly 1136 police, medical and private flights (planes, helicopters, etc) in the air and exactly 3189 that are commercial airliners. Don't ask about military. The biggest concentrations of flights at the moment are in and out of Atlanta (ATL), Dallas Fort Worth (DFW), Chicago O'hare ORD and LA International LAX. I can tell you precisely where each and every single one of those planes with precise coordinates, i can tell you the last known radar & transponder response, I can tell you exactly how high, how fast, how far along its filed route it is. I can see from the top of Canada all the way down into Mexico.

If you mom is taking a flight, I can tell you exactly the pinpoint coordinates of where she is down to the inch. If we can intercept a flight, you bet your ass we can.

Calvin

Here's some information for you. Airplanes deviate from their intended filed route *all the time*. For any given region of the world we're monitoring, we have dotted lines with an indicated expected route, and these pilots shift from side to side as far as a hundred miles, to get better tailwinds, and sometimes as in the case of LAX to SFO some of these guys will deviate off their overland route along the coast to give their passengers a better view. This is norma. I don't think every single one of these guys are contacted, though in the days following 9/11 the flight patterns tightened up.

Calvin