I think it would be too obvious. I am afraid it would cause massive unrest, sort of like the purges in Russia or Nazi Germany.
The debate is over. The results have long since been in. The only ones still arguing the Bush Administration talking points are as Rumsfeld referred to a group, "the dead enders."
I feel that factions within our government and entities directed by globalist wealth entities are behind the obvious 9/11 INSIDE JOB. I have never said our entire government was behind the attack event......but the facts do VERY WELL support that many governments have conducted "false flag" ops for a variety of geopolitical/economic reasons. The 9/11 attacks have brought about and created MASSIVE new capabilities for the government to gain power and grow in their abilities to control the citizenry. We now have the Patriot Act (which was already written and waiting in the wings PRIOR to 9/11), the new TSA, the new DHS, an expanded FEMA, expanded federal govt programs to grow the size and capabilities of local law enforcement, a gigantic increase in defense spending and contracts, a new presence in the middle east with two separate operations in Iraq & Afghanistan, newly expanded surveillance & wiretapping programs INSIDE the US, etc, etc, etc. Did you need more reasons to see the OBVIOUS........LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :eek:
BOTTOM LINE......very high tech military ONLY grade nano-thermite found by numerous scientists and engineers in WTC rubble/dust samples from all over the ground zero area! BOTTOM LINE.......all the distractions brought about by any challengers CAN'T make the NANO-THERMITE evidence GO AWAY!!!!!!!! :eek: CASE CLOSED.......9/11 INSIDE JOB!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-NNczrplac
It will not hit in the US among major networks or cable. Coverage of NEWS is a business and there is simply no money in covering "conspiracy theories".
I think people in general spend too much time trying to explain exactly how it happened instead of concentrating on why. There are enough things on the surface to completely nuke the official explanation of 9/11. Once you highlight those you proceed to why. Without answering "why" people tend to reject out of hand any elaborate theory of how buildings collapsed. Things that simply destroy the official explanation: No jets were able to intercept/shoot down 4 hijacked airliners, even though elaborate procedures exist and existed to do so. It is laughable to imagine that NORAD&Pentagon would allow a fully loaded hijacked passenger airplane to penetrate super protected air space with full knowledge of what happened to Twin Towers. If you don't have appropriate identification ("friend or foe") you get shot down. End of story. In Florida when there is a launch of the space shuttle if you venture into the very outer limits of protected air space you get intercepted pronto. If you don't react you get shot down. Despite the importance of the pentagon building and security around it, no video exists of a passenger airplane actually slamming into the pentagon. What exists is a joke that was probably edited frame by frame. Buildings collapsed very neatly onto their foundations. If it were due to weakened steel this WOULD NOT have happened. North Tower was hit first and collapsed later. WTC 7 was not hit at all and collapsed still... Despite concerte and furniture and paper being pulverized authorities were still able to find mohammed atta's passport (how nice and convenient) There are more things (such as comments on flight ability of hijackers from flight instructors of schools hijackers allegedly attended, etc.) but they are not important. Too much effort is being spent on how and not enough on why. I once watched a film on 9/11 and it spent like 4 hours describing how the fire was not intensive enough to melt steel, it discussed thermite, etc., etc. but it never touched on why.
You hit it there about the jet fighters. To me that is damning. I can remember wondering that day "where is our air force?
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=139027&highlight=intercept Page 2, post #50. Mother of God... not NORAD claims again. What claim is SteveAustin resurrecting this time? Is he pitching the whole idea of "NORAD Stood Down" at once, or is he just trying to step into it slowly by saying NORAD should have intercepted the jets? Basic - and just for emphasis, so people understand, BASIC i.e. beginning, prerequisite, necessary - reading in order to understand the situation with US air defense on that day: The NORAD response to 9/11 - http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=70300 Timeline - FAA/NORAD response - http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1845150&postcount=1 Vanity Fair: The NORAD Tapes- http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/08/norad200608 Q&A With 9/11 Boston Center Air Traffic Controller - http://911guide.googlepages.com/cs 9/11 Myths page listing the common NORAD conspiracy fantasies - http://911myths.com/html/stand_down.html Gravy's page: Info on NORAD, FAA, NTSB... etc. - http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/norad,faa,ntsb,aircraftcapabilities,pilo Bottom line to lurkers and newbies: People often reintroduce the claim that the US air defense should have intercepted the jets and stopped 9/11 from occuring. Some go so far as to say that NORAD was "Stood Down" i.e. ordered into a lesser state or readiness. These myths often stem from misunderstandings (or outright distortions) of NORAD's mission to facetious claims about what other entities consider to be NORAD's duties. The fact of the matter is: NORAD did NOT have authority to conduct intercepts at will inside the US borders. Rather, their assistance had to be requested. Andrew Burfield's "The NORAD Response to 9/11" presents the facts that make this quite clear. As he has pointed out: ======================================= Originally Posted by gumboot The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) is responsible for the intercept of aircraft inside the ADIZ. However, as it is the FAA and Transport Canada that handle the ADIZ clearances, a request for intercept from one of these agencies precedes any action by NORAD against civilian aircraft. NORAD do not, and never have, directly monitored air traffic inside the ADIZ themselves. ======================================= The FAA documents supporting this are linked at the page linked above. Regardless of authority or standing orders - which again, is information gathered and republished at Gumboot's link above - the fact remains that the FAA was having trouble getting a handle on the situation with enough clarity to conduct any sort of intercept. This is patently clear from a study of the NORAD tapes (refer to Vanity Fair article above), and made explicity clear with Andrew Burfield's timeline (also linked above). The time NEADS (the Northeast Air Defense Sector component of NORAD) had between getting notification of the hijackings and those jets crashing were: [See link for details] AA11 - 9 minutes UA175 - 0 minutes AA77 - 2 minutes UA93 - minus 4 minutes As Andrew said in summary: 1-NORAD's area of responsibility is inside the ADIZ 2-The Hijackings occurred outside the ADIZ 3-There was no standard procedure for hijackings outside the ADIZ on 9/11 4-From 1991 to 2001 only one military intercept occurred over CONUS airspace (Note: This was the famous "Payne Stewart's jet" intercept). It took 81 minutes and the aircraft transponder remained on at all times. 5-Incident-specific conditions on 9/11 did not favour a successful intercept, based on previous experience. The information linked above is necessary context that you'll need to judge any of the conspiracy fantasy claims forwarded by any truther here. I'll leave the refutation of the specifics of this claim to others better informed than me; Reheat and Beachnut have US Air Force experience, and can more readily address details than I. And Andrew Burfield (aka Gumboot) has studied this topic to greater detail; if he chooses to participate, you would benefit from paying close attention to what he posts. Others, too, will have valuable information to chime in with. The point I'm making is that any of you lurkers and new folks should study the information I've listed above - yes, it's dense; my apologies, but it can't be helped. There's simply a lot of information that's necessary to develop the proper context - and use that as background with which to judge the claim-of-the-week recycled by the truther-of-the-month in this thread. And you can also use the search function to look up old threads; I particularly urge you to search for "NORAD" and "Gumboot", although also using terms like "NEADS", "stood down", "ADIZ" and the like will produce results. Bottom line: Please pay attention to the basic informational links I've provided. It's good information painstakingly assembled by rational individuals interested in the real truth, not the conspiratorial, fantasy "truth" pitched by conspiracy peddlers.