Why the planes?

[FourScore]

I need some help here. If the government were involved in 911, then why go to the trouble to use the planes? Why not just blow up the buildings? Why use planes, and then blow up the buildings? This is the question that everyone asks me.

[wildbilln864]

1. Welcome to this forum whereismyparty.

Indeed where is my party?

I think there are a few reasons for the planes if it was rogue members of gubment.
One is "Shock and Awe"!
And hypothetically, let's say that they used explosives/thermite/thermate, or whatever but no planes. Then the buildings collapse. They'd then need to show how the terrorists were able to plant them without getting caught. They can't have that! Planes help support "the terrorists did it" hypothesis. Which is a hypothesis as there's no real clear evidence that terrorists did it without some type of assistance. That's IMO!

[FourScore]

2. Yes...

And I suppose since the focus is on the planes, there is no real investigation into the collapsing buildings. The focus of the investigation becomes all about hijackers and boxcutters instead of how three high rise buildings in Manhattan were rigged.

Maybe the planes also enabled as many evacuations as possible before the detonations. After all, the least populated side of the Pentagon was also hit.

Perhaps they wanted everyone to witness the collapse of those buildings live on TV in order to garner as much outrage as possible.

On the other hand, then people question how the planes were hijacked, and why no military air response, etc. So that presents other problems.

Anyone else have any ideas? What d'ya say to people who pose this question?

And thanks for wellcoming me wildbilln864!:hi:

[John Q. Citizen]

5. They wanted a "Pearl Harbor" type event.

It had to be especially dramatic and spectacular.

[Ezlivin]

7. The best CGI money can buy - without the CGI

They absolutely had 99.9999% of us riveted in our chairs during the attacks. If you didn't have the television on, someone you knew called you to tell you about it. I doubt there were very many of our fellow citizens who were not watching with "shock and awe".

And while we were still in the midst of our shock they started trying to ram through the Patriot Act and other goodies. They already had the plans to invade Afghanistan ready to go.

They needed this event to shock the hell out of complacent Americans, to switch on the "fear factor" which would then make us more malleable to other psych-ops.

[John Q. Citizen]

9. Absolutely. And yet some still try to argue that these people are

incompetent.

[mrgerbik]

12. The incompetence angle may well be a ruse n/t

[greyl]

14. May I ask you to do an experiment for us?

I'd like to count the brilliant arguments and evidence that result from a thread in GD-Politics titled "Contrary to what most of you believe, Bush IS competent", so could you start that thread?

Put whatever you like in the body of the OP, but I'd like the subject to be faithful to my example.

[John Q. Citizen]

17. Sure, but first I'd like to know what the point of your experiment is.

What are you trying to test?

Also, I'd like to change the subject line from "Contrary to what most of you believe, Bush IS competent", to "bush is competent."

I ask for this change because I have no empirical evidence as to what most of the readers may or may not believe.


edited to add - And when you say us, who are you refering to? Do you have a group that has discussed this and wants me to run this experiment for you all?

edited again to add- and instead of bush, i'd rather use the bush crime family, as in "these people" which was how I refered to who are competent in my earlier post.

[greyl]

19. I'm testing the veracity of your position. nt

[John Q. Citizen]

21. You want me to conduct an opinion poll is what it sounds like. If this

is your idea of what a scientic experiment looks like then I see where you are coming from on your opinion regarding the 9/11 attacks. :)

[greyl]

22. No, not an opinion poll. Subjecting your theory to a broad audience

of progressives may be enlightening.

edit: broad relative to those who frequent the S/11 forum.

[John Q. Citizen]

23. Are you refering to my theory that

the bush crime family is competent at scaring our nation into needless wars?

[greyl]

26. You assert that bush is competent, rather than incompetent.

PROVE IT!

What's so hard to comprehend?

[John Q. Citizen]

29. greyl, you are sounding a tad rude and obnoxious

Ezlivin wrote;
"They absolutely had 99.9999% of us riveted in our chairs during the attacks. If you didn't have the television on, someone you knew called you to tell you about it. I doubt there were very many of our fellow citizens who were not watching with "shock and awe".

And while we were still in the midst of our shock they started trying to ram through the Patriot Act and other goodies. They already had the plans to invade Afghanistan ready to go.

They needed this event to shock the hell out of complacent Americans, to switch on the "fear factor" which would then make us more malleable to other psych-ops. "


To which I responded;
"Absolutely. And yet some still try to argue that these people are incompetent."


Perhaps you have reading comprehension problems, greyl? That might explain your immature outburst.

[greyl]

40. I'm not the issue, your claim that bush is competent is the issue.

Your post doesn't deal with the argument at hand.

edit: switched the subject and the body

[mirandapriestly]

47. Yes, that proves they were very competent

at getting their agenda across. The Bush administration WANTS us to believe "incompetence" because they want to privatize most government functions, people who only watch television for their information or who only see the obvious and what they are told by screaming voices don't see that

[HuskerDU]

100. I think that they are purposefully incompetent. ie They could

be competent, but they choose not to.

'Noone could have imagined that terrorists would fly planes into buildings.'

'Noone could have imagined what was going to happen in NO.'

Seems to me that were aware of what disasters loomed ahead, and purposefully did nothing.

[Artdyst]

101. Then kindly explain how you think Osama was able to plot, plan, organize,

convince 10 young MOOSElims to suicide themselves, gain access to the most SECRET of U.S. military and intelligence that would be 100% necessary and requried to pull off 9/11, and do all that without leaving ANY credible evidence behind that would legally incriminate them. Explain all that and then we can talk about what the Bush administration "purposely DIDN'T do" that made it possible for Osama's boys to defeat the United States on 9/11.

Thank you. I'll hold.

[HuskerDU]

103. Friend, if this board is indeed divided into 2 groups, you can

count me as being in yours. But of course I cannot do what you ask.

IMO cavemen either didn't do it, or didn't do it alone. Yes they would've needed the kind of help that only *co could provide.

[greyl]

106. Not 2 groups! Not 2 groups! Not 2 groups! Not 2 groups!

157 individual opinions.

Black and white thinking and presupposed adversarial BS aren't good.

[HuskerDU]

107. You are totally right about that.

Kinda red in the face right now. That Artdsyt sometimes confuses me greatly.

[CJCRANE]

71. Yes...

and strangely the two people with the authority to give the shootdown order (* and Rummy) didn't seem at all interested in watching it as it unfolded or finding out what was happening in real time.

[Ka hrnt]

8. Least populated are of Pentagon?

This was due to it having just finished the reconstruction/upgrade, wasn't it?

[Make7]

10. Welcome to DU Ka hrnt.

I believe I forgot to properly welcome you in that other thread, therefore I am now rectifying that oversight. :hi:

My recollection is that the reconstruction project was nearly complete and they were in a phased move in stage at the time of the attack. I'm not sure that this renovation was significant in any way relating to the attacks, hopefully whereismyparty (or another DU member) will reply with more detail about how exactly it is relevant.

Regardless, here is a little bit of information regarding the history of the construction:

http://renovation.pentagon.mil/projects-W1.htm

- Make7

[DoYouEverWonder]

3. First, it made for great visuals

and added to the horror.

Second, liability. If they admitted that any part of the attack involved bombs, then they would have been liable for negligence. It would have also meant that all their 'high' security at airports and at the WTC wasn't worth a damn.

[Nitty-Gritty]

4. Why couldn't they just say it was an act of war, therefore no liability?

Actually, don't you think it's possible that as more evidence comes to light, the fall back position might well be one in which it is admitted that bombs were used --- which just shows how fiendish those guys from al Qaeda are.

[John Q. Citizen]

6. That would open up the question of who had access and how they

had access.

[DoYouEverWonder]

11. Yes, anybody can do boxcutters

but missiles and weapons are a whole different ballgame. If the weapons came from the US Military, then Houston we have a serious problem.

[wildbilln864]

39. Yes John Q. and that wouldn't be good for that other Bush who's ...

company was in charge of security!

[planeman]

41. Having seen the plane with my own eyes from the West Steet Highway.

I can certainly concur that there was indeed an element of unbelievable horror as that plane impacted the South Tower.

-Planeman

[DoYouEverWonder]

43. Please tell us more

about what you saw?

Was it the 1st or 2nd plane?

BTW: Welcome to DU :hi:

[planeman]

64. Thank you very much for the welcome.

I would have to concede that it happened very quickly.I was initially facing in the wrong direction as I hade decided to walk North away from the then burning North Tower and that is when I heard the sound of an approaching jet.As I turned back around ,I literally only had a second, maybe 2, to observe the plane as it veered behind the North Tower and out of my view.When it hit,it was a very surreal experience because one does not expect to ever see such an incident.

[petgoat]

74. self-delete. nt

[Grateful for Hope]

46. Do you mean Westside Highway? n/t

[HamdenRice]

48. It's called "West Street" down there

The West Side highway begins uptown around 50th street. But West Street really looks like a highway with traffic lights.

[Grateful for Hope]

49. Thanks, HR.

I used to travel it everyday, and I always called it the Westside Highway ...all the way down. Guess I was in error!

[DoYouEverWonder]

53. That may have been before it started collapsing

back in the 70's? I'm not sure what became of it after that. I thought they ended up closing a large section of it?

[HamdenRice]

62. That's right -- the West Side Highway went pretty far downtown

but during the collapse of NYC's infrastructure during the 1970s fiscal crisis, the West Side Highway below the 40s began falling apart. I remember some guy was riding his bicycle on it and fell through a hole onto the street below. That's when they decided to tear it down below the 40s.

[DoYouEverWonder]

63. I was in college when NYC went bankrupt

Right before finals of course. Loads of fun to have to take finals a month after classes finished.

[Sinti]

13. They had to use planes - plane hijacking is the MO of ME terrorists

If a plane is hijacked you know it's a ME terrorist. Nobody even has to ask the question. It prevented any possible international investigation, placed the blame squarely and quickly in the lap of OBL (bogeyman du jour) and allows them to go after any place in the ME they like. All they need say is, "they're harboring terrorists."

Imagine if the buildings were bombed and just fell like that with no planes for a second. How many questions would you have? The rest of the world would probably have even more.

[Grateful for Hope]

24. Very good point, Sinti

your posts amaze me!

Edited to add: I admire posters like you that post only when they have something of substance to say. It is a good lesson for me also.

[Brainster]

15. Because Planes Were Used

You have to understand, the conspiracy theory is constructed backwards. Start with the conclusion (Bush/Cheney did it), and then start interpreting the actual evidence with that "conclusion" in mind. But your theory does have to comport to reality, at least somewhat, unless your Spooked911 or Killtown or one of the other no-planers.

[greyl]

16. welcome to DU :) nt

[John Q. Citizen]

20. Oh, I thought the first conspiracy theory began with

Arab terrorist did it and then all the evidence was interpreted throught that lense.

I didn't reealize there was a criminal investigation to determine who the culprits were.


But, for the sake of argument, let's suppose that it was radical Arab terrorists who did it.

How did they go about shutting down US air defenses so there plot would succeed? What's your theory on that, Brainster?

[Brainster]

98. Read This

Here's a great Vanity Fair article on why the terrorists got through.

[greyl]

18. It's a great question.

If anyone of competence was constructing a false flag operation, they'd eliminate as much uncertainty and potential for failure and exposure as possible.

I think that convincing 70 percent of the USA that Iraq needed to be invaded in order to prevent a mushroom cloud in the US could have been accomplished a hell of lot more simply and reliably than orchestrating 4 hijackings plus wiring 3 buildings for CD.

When put in its simplest terms, that particular conspiracy theory is ridiculous, as many right-wing trolls know.

[DoYouEverWonder]

25. If the dark players within the US and other countries

did not orchestrate 9-11, you expect me to believe some guy in a cave was able to?

If neither of the above, they who do you think planned and carried out the 9-11 attack?

[greyl]

27. "some guy in a cave"? Explain the Pakistani ISI connection. nt

[DoYouEverWonder]

36. Just another part of the network

BushCo has been moving drugs, weapons and money around for decades. I'm sure the Pakistanis are good businessmen and merchants and have no problem playing middleman regardless of whether or not the deal is legal.

Maybe you can explain the Bob Graham connection? That's the one I don't get. Yet he seems to be a part of the cover up? What was Graham and Porter Goss doing in Pakistan in August, 2001 and then on Sept 11th they end up having breakfast with the bagman? Goss is connected to Poppy Bush since the Bay of Pigs fiasco, so I'd expect him to be involved but Graham?

[sabbat hunter]

54. well considering he

wasnt in a cave prior to 911 why couldnt he have (OBL) planned it?

[petgoat]

75. Much more than Iraq was at stake.

Bush's very Presidency, when it was revealed that Gore got more votes in Florida.

The $2.3 trillion missing from the Pentagon.

The military wishes for an expanded budget.

The expansion of Presidential powers to permanent
war-president scope.

The creation of the perception of a Millenial War Between
Civilizations required 9/11. An Iraq threat wouldn't do it.

[Grateful for Hope]

88. and

only an Iraq threat wouldn't have gotten us into Afghanistan.

[petgoat]

96. Right you are, Hope

And Afghanistan was needed for its proximity to
the oilfields in the 'stans, for the UnoCal
pipeline, and for the opium revenues.

Also because sabre rattling from Iraq and Afghanistan
would be more effective against the Iranians than
sabre rattling from Iraq alone.

And because the easy military victory in Afghanistan
would cheer the American flag-wavers, and overthrowing
Taliban was globally popular enough that no one complained
about a blatantly illegal aggressive war, which helped
grease the way for the blatantly illegal aggressive invasion
of Iraq later on.

[elias7]

90. it's more than just Iraq

it's the whole pnac agenda, as many left wing trolls know

[Papa]

28. I'll tell you what I think...

When i was watching that day, after both planes had hit and the buildings were still standing and the fire and smoke had died down enough to where you could see the gaping holes in the building, my thoughts were "yeah you fuckers, you tried twice to knock down these buildings and failed both times. The buildings are still standing strong." Not more than 10 seconds after that the buildings disappeared into dust, like some kind of magic trick.

The buildings had to come down in order to have the country in a state of shock and fear. THey played that stuff over and over for days on tv pummeling our emotions...fear, horror, feelings of revenge, depression, hopelessness, anger. IF those buildings had stayed up, then the country wouldn't have been in a state of shock and it would have been harder to have the neo-con agenda pushed forward.

[Nitty-Gritty]

30. Smart people don't argue with Papa. At least I know I won't. Thanks. NT

NT

[Papa]

31. I like how you think...... n/t

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mirandapriestly]

45. Al Qaeda also had control of our broadcasting? Figures!

Just kidding I agree with you, it's ridiculous to believe that those planes "knocked over the buildings" and even a building that they didn't come into contact with (7). (but only if the lease was held by Larry Silverstein, former owner of the illustrious Runway 69- a real high class joint)

[CJCRANE]

72. ...even that wasn't enough...

the anthrax letters kept the paranoia going for several more weeks, as anyone can get a letter.

Also America was very, very lucky that flight 93 was delayed by 41 minutes and didn't reach it's target, especially if that target was the US Capitol building. Imagine if the legislature had been symbolically wiped out, B*sh would have got his de facto dictatorship in one fell swoop.

[quicknthedead]

32. The Smoking Gun - Sept. 11th Plane Impact Time Discrepancies

The Smoking Gun - Sept. 11th Plane Impact Time Discrepancies


The facts are simple and few, yet extremely powerful for what they mean: US Government complicity in 9/11/01.

Facts by themselves are simple and mean something, but these facts lead to a true smoking gun. I know of no other regarding 9/11. Do you? A smoking gun that can be given in a court of law?

What is presented here is no theory. It is factual data of “impact times” from Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University (LDEO) that differs significantly from factual data of impact times given in the 9/11 Commission’s Final Report.

LDEO
Link: http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_wtc.html
(note: all times precise to plus or minus 1 to 2 seconds)



9/11 Commission Timeline
Link: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/index.html
(note: both impact times are the only ones on the page precise to the second)



This is the data:

<“Impact Times”>
LDEO
8:46:26 and 9:02:54


9/11 Commission
8:46:40 and 9:03:11

Respective Differences
14 seconds
17 seconds

After reflecting upon these timing discrepancies and what they mean, indicting evidence appears of something very wrong with the official explanation about what happened. Lest we forget, America still owes it to those who perished on 9/11, and their families and friends, to get to the bottom of this; justice has yet to be served on those responsible.

Both impacts are important. This happened twice, and comparing LDEO versus the 9/11 Commission Report, there are similar time disparities (respective differences of 14 and 17 seconds). Consider these as extremely close to the differential, because when consideration is given to the seismic wave, amplitude, and duration, understand that the dominant period is extremely short and occurs near the beginning of the signal.

We have LDEO on record stating times of plus or minus 1 to 2 seconds, which is a high degree of precision. Would they publish if a 95% level of confidence had not been achieved for the data? No. LDEO was then (and still is) a prestigious scientific entity; and no one has challenged their data for 9/11/01. We should trust their seismic data.

Is there any expected time delay between the initiation of the "impact" pulse and the reception of the seismic signal? From study, it is understood that this factor is already accounted for in the software logic used. Besides, if this were a factor, it would make the disparity greater, thereby yielding even greater time differences; however, the differences we have already are compelling.

Two questions:
(1) Is there any motive behind having two sets of impact times?
(2) What is the significance, if any, of having two different sets of impact times?

Addressing Question (1): Motive probably had nothing to do with our now having two different sets of impact times; also, more than likely, no one lied in all this with the information each entity published. Probably the 9/11 Commission made a simple error of missed oversight. They should have noticed the disparity in impact times and looked into the matter. This is their error. They never saw the disparities, or, if they did, they never attempted to resolve them. Then, years later, somebody happened to notice them by chance. The Commission either did not care, did not bother to ask LDEO, did not consider it at all, or, more than likely, was not even aware of the Lamont-Doherty seismic data regarding “impact times”. If they had known, someone at the Commission would surely have envisioned possible future repercussions of having two sets of factual data on impact times (such as is happening now). This would be (and now is) a conflict of data from two highly reliable sources—something that is to be avoided in one’s life and affairs. Each day has enough trouble of its own.

The problem probably came about by having two different groups of people working during two different time periods. They just happened to intersect on a single data point by either accident, neglect, or whatever. Actually, it was the Commission who did the “intersecting” as LDEO was published long before the Commission came into being. LDEO did their job on 9/11 and believed at the time that their seismic data, precise to the second, represented the impacts on the towers (this is key because what they thought were “impacts” is now brought into question). Another key here is “at the time”. Think about it. LDEO had these two small seismic spikes at the general time of the impacts, so they must have naturally thought they were the impacts. This is understandable, especially in the light of that horrible day.

However, the 9/11 Commission’s precision times came much later, at a different time period, and only after much analysis and effort. They are basically based upon: "We have determined that the impact time was 9:03:11 based on our analysis of FAA radar data and air traffic control software logic." <9/11 Commission Report, pg 460, Note 130>:

http://www.insightful.com/infact/911/corpus/report_470_460.html
(Note 130 is the basis for WTC1 & WTC2 precision impact times to the second)



This is an entirely different set of data than LDEO, but it too is highly accurate and precise; e.g., consider the technology needed and used in the space program; and although different, these technologies are similar in many ways; and one critical way they are similar is that they both must be precise in the area of timing; and so they are. It is known that the FAA tracked AA Flight 11 under four different stations using Primary Radar Return, and all times were being recorded to the second.

So, this is probably how these two extremely precise but different data sets came about for the same event (plane impact) and appear before us now. However, it does not matter how they came into being. What is important is that both sets are precise to the second.

Also important is: Are the two data sets correct?

As pointed out above, the LDEO set should be correct. The 9/11 Commission’s set should be trustworthy as well. This is because both entities came up with their conclusive data under similar conditions and constraints: required, high precision parameters; working in the face of high visibility in the wake of a national tragedy; and finally, the general understanding of what these entities were attempting to do (i.e., to get it right). There is no reason to disbelieve either data set.

Addressing Question (2): What is the significance, if any, of the different impact times?
Yes, there is significance and it goes to the next level; this is the heart of the matter.

The Commission Report must have the correct impact times because this is what they were specifically looking at: flight data that ultimately ended at precise terminations (to the second) when the towers were struck. There is no question: precisely, AA Flight 77 died at 8:46:40 and UA Flight 175 at 9:03:11 . So, if the planes impacted the towers at those times, what were these earlier times as noted by LDEO due to notable seismic spikes (~14 and ~17 seconds earlier)?

What first caught my eye last week about this was the implausibility of “impact times” by LDEO. I thought, “How can such a huge jet airliner impact WTC1 above the 90th floor and we end up with energy transference traveling all the way down to the earth (even through the massive multi-level sub-basement structure) sufficiently so as to be picked up by LDEO as a seismic spike?” This still makes no sense. Energy from the impact should have been mostly absorbed by the building’s immense structure and mass.

Then I recalled reading a while back about accounts of people who experienced explosions down in the basements before the planes struck. The following is an excerpt about one of them, an eyewitness at WTC1 by the name of William Rodriguez:

http://www.newswithviews.com/Spingola/deanna17.htm

-------
Arriving at 8:30 on the morning of 9-11 he went to the maintenance office located on the first sublevel, one of six sub-basements beneath ground level. There were a total of fourteen people in the office at that same time. As he was discussing the day’s tasks with others, there was a very loud massive explosion which seemed to emanate from between sub-basement B2 and B3. There were an additional twenty-two people on B2 sub-basement who also felt and heard that first explosion.

At first he thought it was a generator that had exploded. But the cement walls in the office cracked from the explosion. “When I heard the sound of the explosion, the floor beneath my feet vibrated, the walls started cracking and everything started shaking.” said Rodriguez, who was crowded together with fourteen other people in the office including Anthony Saltamachia, his supervisor for the American Building Maintenance Company.

Just seconds later there was another explosion way above which made the building oscillate momentarily. This, he was later told, was a plane hitting the tower at about the 90th floor. Upon hearing about the plane, he immediately thought of the people up in the restaurant. Then there were other explosions just above B1 and individuals started heading for the loading dock to escape the explosion’s resulting rampant fire. When asked later about those first explosions he said: “I would know if an explosion was from the bottom or the top of the building.” He heard explosions both before and after the plane hit the tower.
-------

This provides the plausible answer as to what LDEO picked up as a seismic spike moments before the plane struck the tower.

Again, the question: What caused the earlier seismic spike picked up by LDEO?

There are only two logical choices: either (A) a true seismic event (a very small earthquake tremor; and, yes, this would mean the eyewitnesses who said explosions happened before the plane struck are not telling the truth), or (B) very large explosion(s).

It could not possibly have been a very small earthquake. Why? Because this same, exact scenario happened again a few minutes later at WTC2, both spikes occurring within a brief 15-minute period under the most unusual circumstances. The odds of this happening by chance go beyond the pale, beyond the realms of possibility (you don’t need to be a statistician to see this). This only happens when man is involved.

The earlier seismic spikes had to have been (B): very large explosion(s). Middle Eastern terrorists could not possibly have been responsible; they do not have the wherewithal for this kind of scale.

It is more than remarkable that the 9/11 Commission, although it did hear the testimony of William Rodriguez regarding the explosions in the basements, did not deem this important enough to be included in their Final Report.

It should have been.

This is what really happened:

Explosion(s) Meant to Coincide……………
<“Impact Times”>
LDEO
8:46:26 and 9:02:54

Respective Differences
14 seconds
17 seconds

With

……………Planes Impacting Towers

9/11 Commission
8:46:40 and 9:03:11

(The explosions were more than likely done to prepare the buildings for final controlled demolition later by implosion.)

To sum up: This is no conspiracy theory. Why?
This is not theory. These are facts.

But it is definitely a conspiracy.

This isn’t rocket science (it is simple).
This is the smoking gun (it is solid evidence).
It has legs (knowledge of this is now spreading).
And this dog can hunt.

What must be done? Two extremely important things:

(1) A new independent, quasi-private-public, non-politicized 9/11 investigation must be formed at once to approach and pursue this for what it really is: the crime of the century. America needs good police detective work here—and the conspirators need to be identified, apprehended, jailed, and brought to justice…now.

(2) The 9/11 Commission and the Bush Administration must answer this question immediately:

WHAT CAUSED THOSE SEISMIC SPIKES?

They must answer, they must answer now—and if they don’t, it is the same as admitting guilt.

The entire US Government is not bad; just the few rogue conspirators who did 9/11—those who committed mass murder, treason, and betrayal to America.

May God help us.
Craig T. Furlong
Huntington Beach, CA USA
July 31, 2006

PS IMPORTANT—ASAP, please send this message far and wide!

[Make7]

33. Welcome to DU quicknthedead!

I found this in the 9/11 Commission Report Notes:

130."N90 controller stated 'at approximately 9:00 a.m., I observed an unknown aircraft south of the Newark, New Jersey Airport, northeast bound and descending out of twelve thousand nine hundred feet in a rapid rate of descent, the radar target terminated at the World Trade Center.'" FAA report,"Summary of Air Traffic Hijack Events September 11, 2001,"Sept. 17, 2001. Former NORAD official Alan Scott testified that the time of impact of United 175 was 9:02. William Scott testimony, May 23, 2003. We have determined that the impact time was 9:03:11 based on our analysis of FAA radar data and air traffic control software logic.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Notes.htm

Do you have any idea what the accuracy of this method used by the commission to determine the impact time would have been? What would you guess? Plus or minus how many seconds?

Is it even remotely possible that using different methods to determine the impact time would yield these different results?

Once again, welcome to the board - enjoy your time here.

:hi: Make7

[quicknthedead]

34. Extremely Accurate!

Thanks for the welcome, MAKE7!

The FAA tracked AA Flt 11 with four different radar stations Northeast quadrant that morning (they had to because the plane's transponder was turned off). These stations used Primary Radar Return so they would know exactly where the plane was every given second. They could not tell the altitude, but they knew where it was every moment. No chance for error on this. As far as I know, they don't even give a plus or minus on seconds in this area. The software logic is extremely accurate.

Think about docking one spacecraft with another, getting the time of propulsion correct, angles of attitude, the physics involved, etc., and it must be calculated to the split second. It has to be (and you need a computer to get to this level of sophistication).

No, the 9/11 Commission and the Bush Administration do not have a way out of this; it can't be explained. Facts are facts. Both data time sets are correct (to the second).

And these facts mean 9/11 complicity and resulting coverup.

Please call me “Craig”.
And please spread this far and wide. I really believe we are almost out of time.

Thanks, MAKE7!

[Make7]

35. I'm not convinced that radar data would be that accurate at low altitudes.

I don't have time to go any further right now, but since you are new I'm going to start a thread of your post so everyone can discuss it.

- Make7

[quicknthedead]

37. Let each one be firmly convinced...

They saw both planes all the way, all the way until they died.

Please start the new thread, MAKE7--great idea!
Facts and information (not theories) are what are needed in all this.

I am so sick of conjecture and speculation. What a waste of time, and most of it ends up discrediting those who genuinely are sincere in trying to get to the truth about 9/11, wherever the chips may fall.

We need justice for those who died as well as their families and friends who still grieve to this day.

[DoYouEverWonder]

38. Have you seen the video called '9-11 Eyewitness'?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603&q=911+eyewitness.

It's by a fellow who was over on the NJ side of the Hudson River and he has continuous video of the two towers burning and then collapsing. There are very distinctive booms before each collapse. The video seems to back up your theory about bombs going off prior to certain major events during the attack.

[quicknthedead]

42. Yes, I have -- One Of The Best! by Rick Siegel

Great video! The scientific sound analysis is also a smoking gun that 9/11 was done by controlled demolitions! Absolutely definitive piece of work by Rick Siegel.

It can be seen here:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603&q=9%2F11+eyewitness

[mirandapriestly]

44. I ordered a copy and just got it

so I can watch it over and over and over and over....

[John Q. Citizen]

55. Ha ha ha that's funny, miranda. n/t

[savemefromdumbya]

50. practicing using remote controlled planes?

[mirandapriestly]

51. Herbert Homer &DCMA

Raytheon and other gov't contractors who worked with UAV's were on board flight 77 and other planes. I have been looking into the "passengers on "77" and it is rather remarkable.
Check this out:-

http://www.dcma.mil/communicator_express/archives/2002/homer.htm

"Herbert W. Homer, a corporate executive at DCMA Raytheon in Burlington, Mass., was on his way to a meeting in California when United Airlines Flight 175 crashed into the south tower of New York City’s World Trade Center

“It was cathartic for me, to be part of the planning, Colt said, “the ceremony was important to make Karen Homer realize that she had a family here, too.” Another significant part of the ceremony “was to demonstrate DCMA’s role, not only on that day, but during the recovery effort and in the war on terrorism – to show how we had come full circle.”

“I think that Herb’s death, although tragic, serves as a reminder that every one of us has a critical role in the accomplishment of DCMA’s goals and mission – we can never underestimate the importance of each individual’s contribution.”

What "role" did they play that day? ("not only on that day") Goals and Missions? and on course if you check out Raytheon & other def. contractors even the software companies were, you will see they were/are very involved with the UAV's, it is not "kooky stuff" although I remember when the OCT ridiculed people who thought there were UAV's.

(Defense Contract Management Agency-http://www.dcma.mil/
("We are an independent combat support agency within the Department of Defense (DoD).")
And what are their goals and mission?

[savemefromdumbya]

52. he's probably very much alive

there is a little mix up in the planes that actually left the runway at Boston etc that day. If you see what I mean.

[mirandapriestly]

70. Maybe, I don't think he ended up

crashing into the Pentagon, but I'm not sure what happened, many of these passengers were all strangely related to events of 9-11.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Make7]

58. I think whereismyparty was wondering how to counter the questions.

Perhaps when trying to convince people of MIHOP, people are asking these questions and whereismyparty wants to get some ideas for how to answer them.

That's what it looks like to me anyway.

- Make7

[Jazz2006]

59. Perhaps....

But having read her/his prior posts about being a firm MIHOP believer, I do not think that she/he is interested in rational responses to why it wasn't MIHOP and thus I think the premise of this thread is somewhat dishonest, as it gives the impression of something quite different than a MIHOPer looking for answers.

So, I'll pass on editing my prior post, but I'll look forward to reading any and all other contributions, as always.

Edit: of, not "or".

[Make7]

60. I don't quite see it that way.

As a MIHOPer, whereismyparty is probably talking to people about controlled demolitions. Some people probably are asking "why use the planes if they used explosives?"

This thread looks like it could be nothing more than an attempt to gather something to counter the questions presented in the opening post. I don't think whereismyparty is trying to pretend not to be a MIHOPer here.

That's just my opinion... although it is a bit odd that whereismyparty is noticably absent... but then again, he/she doesn't seem to post very frequently anyway.

- Make7

.   .

[Jazz2006]

61. C'est la vie ~ we can't (and shouldn't) always agree, of course.

That said, I do see your point. I'd probably see more of it if the OP had ever come back to his/her thread, but still.... I get the impression that we are reading things differently in this particular instance, but we can talk about it further via PM rather than here in a thread that the OP hasn't even bothered to return to since starting it a week ago.

[Jazz2006]

65. In retrospect, Lared,

I realize that I had the OP confused with someone else ~ it makes more sense now that I see he/she isn't who I thought he/she was, and I think that your position was accurate and mine was not.

My apologies.

Cheers,
Jazz

[Make7]

66. LARED?

Anyway...

No need to apologize, it was just a little misunderstanding. Happens all the time. Especially around here. :)

Peace,
Make7

[Jazz2006]

67. Lol ~ there you go...

yet another example of a simple misunderstanding.

To fix it, "in retrospect, Make7.... see above."


;)

Psst, you're both such cool guys and such that I sometimes mix you up in this weird, wonderful?, whacko world that is the dungeon. (Plus, tinhatters have accused me of being both of you at various and different points even though you've both been around a lot longer than I have and have entirely different backgrounds than I have, so... you know... it wasn't so difficult to confuse your names, but I'm sorry - and terribly embarrassed - that I did momentarily!)


Very sorry about that. (and Lared, if you're out there, please see above. My apologies. )



Edit: punctuation and such.

[FourScore]

68. MAKE7

You are quite right about all that you have stated in post60. I am simply looking for a rational response to counter that question (why use the planes?) It's not a bad question. It's one of those moments when you know the answer in an ethereal sort of way, but you can't form it into a clear verbal answer. The discussion here has certainly helped.

It's really a very compelling question, though. One that MIHOP believers cannot choose to ignore.

You are also correct in noticing that I do not post much -- how astute of you. This is mainly because my time is so very limited.

I hope this discussion continues. Even if I can only join from time to time. I find it very interesting.

Thanks to all who contribute.

[Make7]

69. Astute might be overly generous.

whereismyparty wrote:

You are also correct in noticing that I do not post much -- how astute of you.

Its mostly a coincidence that I remembered this. My good laptop died on me on my last trip out of town, and I had all my DU code saved on it. Before I was able to retrieve the files on that hard drive, I looked up the old thread where I had posted my CSS quote box code in order to copy it. And it just so happens that you were the one that started that thread so I remembered seeing your name.

And of course someone can always click on the by a posters name and (sometimes) look in their profile to see when they joined.

I feel that one of the really beneficial things about the 9/11 forum here at DU is that people will definitely get more than one viewpoint from the rest of the members. Personally, I think that is one of the things that attracts many people to this place.

- Make7

[petgoat]

76. Why Use the Planes?

Because the '93 truck bombings failed to terrorize.

Making a common object such as a housefly or an airplane
an object of terror terrorizes more effectively than
the vague fear of men planting explosives.

Only aircraft-as-weapons justifies making grandmothers
take the shoes off in airports.

[Jazz2006]

77. What's with your strange fixation on grandmothers, goat?

Just wondering.

[petgoat]

78. Why don't you start a petgoat psychoanalysis thread in the Lounge, Jizz.

The grownups are talking here.

[Jazz2006]

79. You're a strange bird,goat.

Your post is wholly disconnected to anything approaching reality. And it shows that you are clearly not among the grownups posting here.

It's people like you that require the dungeon to be in the dungeon ~ you give progressives a bad name by posting the shit that you post repeatedly.

Edit to fix the apostrophe in the subject line.

[petgoat]

80. I post on the topic subject. You post gossip about posters.

I once saw a great bumpersticker:

"Great minds talk about ideas. Average minds talk about
events. Small minds talk about people."



It's not your fault if your parents gave you the impression
that analysis of character is the most penetrating issue.
Maybe that will provide you some insight into the course of
your law career?

With all best wishes, sincerely,

goat

[Jazz2006]

81. Bullshit.

You post nonsensical crap and hope that your fellow CTers will buy it. A few of them probably do because they are equally ill equipped to deal with the real world as you appear to be.

The fact that you feel the need to resort to personal attacks in your posts, and the fact that you feel the need to start talking about my parents speaks volumes.

And your bumpersticker post is a lame repeat that you've made on other threads ~ gee, I wonder why you failed to mention my response to that same old lame post on your most recent repetition of same.

Who do you think you're kidding?

Only those who can't conduct searches here, I guess. Gee, who would the bulk of those members be?

Edit to add: the day I need advice from the likes of you, goat, will never in a million years happen. And just fuck off about my parents. They are and were a thousand times better than the likes of you will ever be.

[petgoat]

82. Don't go away mad. Sorry you're sensitive about your parents.

Mine weren't perfect either. :)

[Jazz2006]

83. You are truly an unmitigated asshole, goat.

Read my prior post.

What makes you think that posting absolute bullshit about the parents of DUers who happen to disagree with your POV makes it okay to be such a fuckwit?

I can't imagine that DU on the whole agrees with you that it's okay to post such ugly crap.

But I'm not at all the sensitive type, so I'll leave it open to others to speculate on whether you're an asshole or whether I'm being "sensitive".

Frankly, your pathetic and assinine attacks against my parents have little effect, despite your best efforts, since one of my parents died in 1997 and the surviving one, fortunately, doesn't access the internet and therefore has no idea about your pathetic and despicable posts about him.

That said, the very fact that you would go there speaks volumes about you.

Disgusting, pathetic cretin that you are.

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[petgoat]

86. "The only principles to discuss here are the ones that you do not have"

Ah, so even when discussing lofty principles you immediately
board the express elevator to personalities.

I guess Dr. Griffin's and Dr. Fetzer's discussions of
epistemology are of no interest to you, then.

Your reasoning on Dr. Romero would seem to indicate that.

[Jazz2006]

87. Nobody's going to buy your attempted deflection.

This is not about your wah wah rah rah Griffin and Fetzer posts, it's about your pathetic, disgusting, unethical and ugly posts, most recently about my parents (though you've been posting pathetic and disgusting, unethical and ugly posts about others for a long time).

So, back to the subject matter at hand. Go back to the post above that says "you are an unmitigated asshole" and see the posts following that one.

Edit to add ~

Edit to delete the previous addition because it's better saved for another day :)

[mirandapriestly]

89. heh hehe heh.

"the express elevator to personalities"- heh

[John Q. Citizen]

93. I think maybe Jazz has a "thing" for you petgoat. He just can't

stay away.

He's slightly obsessed and it really perturbs him.

If he hates you so much, why doesn't he just put you on ignor?

[Make7]

104. She. ( n/t )

[John Q. Citizen]

105. Oh, sorry didn't know. Thanks Make7 n/t

[CJCRANE]

73. Maybe they always intended

to blow up the buildings as a failsafe to get their "catastrophic event" (as the hijackings couldn't be relied upon 100%).

Then when the buildings collapsed nobody in the MSM asked any tough questions so the whole issue was just brushed over.

(BTW I'm not really convinced by CD, although I wouldn't rule it out. I think finding out who transferred the $500,000 to the hijackers would provide more leads).

[leftofthedial]

91. The planes were the sizzle

and the underpinning of the PNAC "Pearl Harbor" event and the "terrorism" boogeyman cover story

Demolition (the steak) was required to actually bring the building down and kill people (and prepare the real estate for redevelopment).

[John Q. Citizen]

92. Yeah, the real estate here, in Afghanistan, and in Iraq, etc.

[leftofthedial]

94. yup

[petgoat]

97. Demolition was also required because the towers standing

would have been a symbol of endurance, a symbol of the
failure of the Bush administration in its duty to
protect the country.

Only through their collapses did they become a symbol of the
fragility of civilization, and its helplessness in the face
of small swarthy lunatics armed with boxcutters.

[Artdyst]

95. Planes? What planes? You mean the ones that disappeared?

Other than a few pieces of material whose origin COULD be traced from the serial number on each one, but to date, the Gov't hasn't seen fit to do that, almost certainly because the pieces were planted...at the WTC and at the Pentagon...other than those pieces and the vaunted "eyewitnesses" who claimed they "saw a plane" (hey, I saw one a little while ago when I took my dog out for a walk), how can you be so sure that ANY planes were used on 9/11?

[Zynx]

99. *rolls eyes*

Good lord this forum just gets worse and worse by the day.

[Name removed]

102. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.