9/11 - Italian TV Network Covers WTC 7 Evidence

[KeepOurFreedoms]

Italian TV Network Covers WTC 7 Evidence

9/11 blogger
Wednesday May 02, 2007

Seven is exploding

On April 16, 2007, a major Italian network (Canale 5) has aired some conclusive evidence that Building 7 did not collapse on its own, but was deliberately taken down with the use of explosives.

The piece was part of a larger presentation we provided to the network as an update on the ongoing research on 9/11. In particular, we included a clip we had all seen many times before, but possibly never listened to with the full attention it deserved. Here is the 6 min. segment (please ignore yellow subtitles):

The video is here: http://www.911blogger.com/node/8267

Yes, we all saw that last clip more than once, but each time we must have stopped at the powerful evidence the blast itself represents, while disregarding the ensuing exchange, which in our opinion represents the final nail in the coffin of the official version on WTC7. Without even the need to discuss Larry's intentionally ambiguous "pull it" statement.

Our presentation was broadcast as a rebuttal to a bunch of accusations leveled on the same channel by a group of Italian debunkers against the movie "Inganno Globale" (produced by this writer/website), which is possibly the "flagship" for 9/11 Italian truth seekers, being somehow the equivalent to any other major 9/11 movie in English available on the web.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/8267

[Rokerijdude11]

Y5m5zJfudyk

[vyo476]

This is just going to turn into another "our experts vs. your experts" thing. One group of experts says that 7 WTC was brought down as a result of fire and impact damage; one group says it was a controlled demolition. The ideology behind one group's ascertation is that it was the work of radical Muslim hijackers wishing to kill as many Americans as possible; the ideology of the other group says that the whole thing was orchestrated by President Bush as a means for catalyzing the wars in the Middle East that followed 9/11. In the end the evidence on both sides holds some merit and the fact of the matter is that we'll never have 100% evidence for either side, so it really comes down to what you believe.

[KeepOurFreedoms]

Why are you so limited in your thinking? Do you really think there are only 2 choices to any story?

[vyo476]

Why are you so limited in your thinking? Do you really think there are only 2 choices to any story?

I simply state that those are the two choices presented most often in relation with this story. We've had discussions about 7 WTC here before and what I described is exactly what happened then. If you have another idea than feel free to present it.

[Dave]

Why are you so limited in your thinking? Do you really think there are only 2 choices to any story?

What exactly are the other choices to this story?

[KeepOurFreedoms]

You mean neither of you have done any investigation in to the governments theory?

[Dave]

You mean neither of you have done any investigation in to the governments theory?

I've done a ton of investigation into it, and there really isn't anything conclusive enough to disprove it.

[KeepOurFreedoms]

I've done a ton of investigation into it, and there really isn't anything conclusive enough to disprove it.

And there is nothing to prove the governments theory.

[vyo476]

And there is nothing to prove the governments theory.

I was thinking about that. Here's what we should do: build an actual-size, completely perfect replica of 7 WTC and then recreate the exact conditions that occurred on 9/11 that, according to the government, brought the building down. Then we'll see if fire and structural damage from falling debris could cause the building to collapse or not. Of course, in the clinical sense there is no way to recreate EXACTLY what took place on 9/11 so we might have to build a few of them to conduct the experiment a few times. That sounds like a good way to waste taxpayers money.

Or how about we just go over the list of problems with the idea that 7 WTC was brought down by controlled demolition.

1. Your government supposedly did this. That means that the President of the United States of America and everyone underneath him who was a part of this (and lets face it, there's no way George "How Do You Say Nuclear Again?" Bush could set all this up by himself) are traitors and mass murderers. Here's where the pool of corruption starts.

2. A controlled demolition requires a demolition team. Generally speaking there are a lot of people needed to make things go "boom" the way they want them to in a controlled demolition. So, we're going to add one large-scale demolition team to the list of people that would have to be corrupt in order to have pulled this off.

3. According to the video, news networks aired reports of 7 WTC's collapse long before the collapse actually occurred. Perhaps they were fed data from the government that told them that 7 WTC had collapsed, since the government KNEW it was going to happen, right? There's something key missing. The news agencies were receiving reports from eye witnesses, not from the government. Either you have to add them to the corruption pool or chalk them off as blind idiots. Maybe both.

4. Many of the police officers seen in the video you posted (talking about how 7 WTC was going to "blow up" and such) are only seen and heard there; they have not come forward with any stories of their own. Add a whole mess of NYPD officers to the corruption pool.

5. There have been lengthy government studies done on the "how" of 9/11 and those studies have all concluded that 7 WTC collapsed because of structural damage caused by fire and falling debris from the Towers. If it really was a controlled demolition (and is so obviously a controlled demolition that a whole bunch of conspiracy theorists who aren't scientists can spot it) than the government scientists who submitted those reports need to be added to the corruption pool.

6. And lets not forget the hijackers themselves. I mean, we know that two planes flew into the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11, right? That isn't in dispute (unlike the Pentagon thing which is a completely different argument). So far no one has presented any evidence that those planes were not flown by radical Muslim hijackers as reported. So, unless you want to make the ascertation that a group of militant Muslims decided to attack the WTC on the same day the government decided to covertly destroy 7 WTC, you have to say that our government was in league with al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is a highly idealistic organization. They have some pretty warped ideals but that is the basis for their organization. I find it to be a tough swallow that Osama bin Laden would, at this point, want to join forces with GW Bush, even if it was to kill a ton of Americans. And even if he did - don't you think that Mr. bin Laden would have been bragging about it in one of his numerous internet posts?

So you see, unless you think half of America was corrupt enough to get involved in this, you're kind of sunk. What are the chances that that many Americans would willingly participate in a treasonous plot without a single leak? What are the odds that that many Americans could participate in any government program without a leak?

[Dave]

KeepOurFreedoms, let me ask you something. What would be the purpose of having controlled demolition of the towers? You already have an attack from a bunch of radical Muslims. If all you want is a pretext for war then you already have it the second that first plane hit, and if not then, surely after the second one hit. All George Bush would have to do is step in front of a camera and say "We've been attacked. We are going to respond." and it wouldn't have been any different reaction from the public that what actually happened. After the attacks were carried out, I just can't seem to find any reason to bring the towers down through demolition.

[The Founders Intent]

What I had heard was that is was brought down, but not in any secret way. It was condemned after 9/11 and not even the fire fighters wanted to go in there because of all the damage. So the city takes a building down, what's the big deal?

[vyo476]

What I had heard was that is was brought down, but not in any secret way. It was condemned after 9/11 and not even the fire fighters wanted to go in there because of all the damage. So the city takes a building down, what's the big deal?

No, 7 WTC collapsed on 9/11. According to the government-sponsored report it was brought down as a result of fire and falling debris weakening its structural integrity; according to conspiracy theorists it was brought down by controlled demolition (still on 9/11, which would imply that the demolition was prepared for in advance of the attacks - hence the conspiracy).

Of course, I could be being "limited in my thinking" again. Perhaps KeepOurFreedoms would like to enlighten us as to what REALLY happened on 9/11.

[KeepOurFreedoms]

Wouldn't you like a real investigation regarding 9/11? What the government has told us is just their theory. They have no proof. You do realize there was no major fire in Building 7 don't you? And all 3 buildings were basically in free fall instead of being impeded by the building themselves. And there is absolutely NO WAY that I would believe that 4 planes were hijacked by guys with box cutters. And where was NORAD in all this? And why are some of the so called hijackers still alive?

[vyo476]

Wouldn't you like a real investigation regarding 9/11?

Define "real investigation."


What the government has told us is just their theory. They have no proof.

I suppose that depends on how you define "proof." As in, whether or not you're capable of accepting that proof can come from the government.


You do realize there was no major fire in Building 7 don't you? And all 3 buildings were basically in free fall instead of being impeded by the building themselves.

No fire? My dear, according to all sources (even your own) Building 7 was hit by "large masses of flaming debris." As for the free fall comment, it makes no sense at all. The buildings didn't fall, they collapsed.


And there is absolutely NO WAY that I would believe that 4 planes were hijacked by guys with box cutters. And where was NORAD in all this? And why are some of the so called hijackers still alive?

Number one: Don't underestimate a guy with a boxcutter, especially if he's a crazy religious nut and he has a bunch of his crazy religious nut friends around who also have boxcutters and you're completely unarmed.
Number two: It all happened far too fast for NORAD to get involved.
Number three: They aren't. There were unsubstantiated rumors that several o the hijackers were still alive after 9/11 but that's all those were - rumors. There was never any proof and several of the sources later admitted they made it up.

[Rokerijdude11]

Define "real investigation."


I suppose that depends on how you define "proof." As in, whether or not you're capable of accepting that proof can come from the government.

too many unanswered questions,,,,Government Knowledge of the plan, Norads stand down, Evidence shipped off to be smelted before being examined. the list goes on and on the Official theory is just as riddled with holes as the craziest
CT's that are out there


No fire? My dear, according to all sources (even your own) Building 7 was hit by "large masses of flaming debris." As for the free fall comment, it makes no sense at all. The buildings didn't fall, they collapsed.
what a fabulous Play on words!!!the Building was "HIT" By a large mass of burning debris------

Just Exactly i am wondering,as are the readers im sure. Exactly how is it that being HIT with debris is indicative of any sort of proof that the BUILDING WAS INVOLVED IN A LARGE FIRE?

And another FABULOUS play on words in your next statement as well the didnt "Fall" they Collapsed.Ok.. Mr Technicality they "collapsed"
right they didnt "fall" as that would indicate falling over which they didnt ....this is really a sophmoric point if i may say so.....

Building 7 was most certainly a controlled demolition there is far too much evidence to suggest such. it did collapse within its footprint the farthest debris fell out of that footprint at building seven was 70 feet and that was a SMALL percentage of the structure the rest fell in a neat pile in the footprint.


there WERE NO LARGE Fires present in building 7. Neither FEMA or NIST has addressed Building seven and neither of them have a REASON for its collapse Fema flat out saying at this time they do not KNOW what caused it to collapse


Number one: Don't underestimate a guy with a boxcutter, especially if he's a crazy religious nut and he has a bunch of his crazy religious nut friends around who also have boxcutters and you're completely unarmed.
yeah all americans are pansies .they all would have sat there like Bunny rabbits at a coat factory!! how simply ludicrous!!! you are easily swayed i see. and also not a fighter, to even think that way. i would have died taking them out, before i would have let them hijack anything!!
as would have MOST Americans


Number two: It all happened far too fast for NORAD to get involved.
Dude are you serious? 2 hrs isnt enough time? what a CROCK do you really believe that? if you do you need to learn some more about what we are capable of when it comes to NORAD intercepts

there is CLEAR evidence that there was confucion deriving from drills being conducted that morning at the exact time the attack was being pulled off.......Norad was MORE than capable of launching birds for intercept they just DIDNT

they could have scrambled NAVY fighters from norfolk as well. yes it is the Air Force and National guards job but 4 errant aircraft? Navy jets could have done this in an emergency

doi you know how many ALERT bases there are on the east coast? and in the united states? they could have scrambled fighters from scott AFB in ILLINOIS and still intercepted

I think your a bit naive on what intercept is and how it is SUPPOSED to work and what NORADS mission statement is and has been.....too too many unanswered questons

the fficial story is as Full of holes as any CT




Number three: They aren't. There were unsubstantiated rumors that several o the hijackers were still alive after 9/11 but that's all those were - rumors. There was never any proof and several of the sources later admitted they made it up.

Actually there is PROOF substantiated PROOF your just mistaken .what DID happen was several of the men whose passports were used ...............never left theyre homes ......the documents were DUPLICATES or FAKES the men portrayed themselves as Living individuals

[Rokerijdude11]

What I had heard was that is was brought down, but not in any secret way. It was condemned after 9/11 and not even the fire fighters wanted to go in there because of all the damage. So the city takes a building down, what's the big deal?

Thats Not what your Federal Government says???

[Rokerijdude11]

KeepOurFreedoms, let me ask you something. What would be the purpose of having controlled demolition of the towers? You already have an attack from a bunch of radical Muslims. If all you want is a pretext for war then you already have it the second that first plane hit, and if not then, surely after the second one hit. All George Bush would have to do is step in front of a camera and say "We've been attacked. We are going to respond." and it wouldn't have been any different reaction from the public that what actually happened. After the attacks were carried out, I just can't seem to find any reason to bring the towers down through demolition.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[Dave]

Wouldn't you like a real investigation regarding 9/11? What the government has told us is just their theory. They have no proof. You do realize there was no major fire in Building 7 don't you? And all 3 buildings were basically in free fall instead of being impeded by the building themselves. And there is absolutely NO WAY that I would believe that 4 planes were hijacked by guys with box cutters. And where was NORAD in all this? And why are some of the so called hijackers still alive?

How do you explain the many, many phone calls from passengers claiming they were being hijacked by guys with box cutters?

As for the buildings collapsing in "free fall," its only half true. They collapsed at "near free fall" speeds. Once you have such enormous weight slamming down on the floor below the collapse point, its not suprising that there was no real resistance from the rest of the structure. As more debris builds up as the building is coming down, it only adds to the weight that is coming down on the next floor. Physics worked exactly how it should.

With regards to NORAD, this is another one of the truisms about 9/11. The "stand down" myth came from a Jim Marrs book claiming that the training exercises being conducted the morning of 9/11 prevented NORAD from executing a response, and that this indicated it was an inside job. In reality, all this indicates is that this was a very sophisticated attack. No one has ever offered any proof of a NORAD stand down.

[vyo476]

Hey Roker. Let's conduct an experiment. I'll stand with a flaming baseball bat and whack you with it repeatedly and we'll see if you light on fire as a result. Then I'll toss it up in the air so that it lands on your head and we'll see if it makes the fire worse. 7 WTC experienced fires that day as a result of being in a very similar situation the one I just described.

Has anyone ever stopped to consider the idea that the building was hit and weakened in a way that caused it to collapse in a manner resembling a controlled demolition? I'm no demolition expert but I'd figure that's just as likely as a massive government conspiracy behind 9/11.

There's a pretty big difference between "collapse" and "fall" and her statement was an attempt to characterize the collapse of the Towers as a "fall." Setting the record straight on that is hardly sophomoric. Or do facts not matter?

Okay, scenario. It's 9/11 and you're on one of the planes and you haven't heard about what else has been happening that day. A bunch of crazy-ass hijackers take over the plane using boxcutters. They've more than likely already killed someone (pilot, etc.) but maybe not. Either way, they've told you that they've hijacked the plane and are taking it back to Boston (or wherever you launched from) so that their demands may be met (this is what they did on Flight 93). If you sit down and shut up, as far as you know you live. Cause a ruckus and they'll cut you open. Stage an uprising on the plane and they'll just crash it. Ask yourself: what's the smart course of action? In hindsight, the uprising. At the moment? Sitting your ass down. As far as you know they really are just taking the plane back to Boston and any attempt to regain control of the plane could result in them intentionally crashing it, getting you and everyone else and anyone unlucky enough to be at ground zero killed.

Nowadays a plane full of Americans would fight like Hades to regain control of plane. We've learned something new. But on 9/11, without knowledge of the terrorists' plans, the passengers on the three planes that hit their targets didn't rise up against the hijackers, not out of cowardice but out of a desire to keep from escalating the situation.

Now I'm a zombie, huh? Okay, you obviously know more about NORAD than I do. There are tons and tons and tons of bases that could have scrambled intercept fighters to deal with the planes on 9/11. Okay. Why didn't they? According to the CTs, they were all ordered to stand down. Okay. Why aren't we hearing from more of them, then? How come, in the wake of 9/11, there wasn't a giant outcry of base commanders across America? Sure, a few have chimed in, but according to your information (which I'm not disputing - this paragraph if no other is meant entirely sincerely) there should have been dozens. Either they were all involved in the conspiracy too or something even weirder than the CTs have put forward occurred that day.

Where is the substantiated proof that the 9/11 hijackers were still alive after 9/11? I'd like to see it. If you could post a link that'd be much appreciated.

I'll admit that I used to believe in a lot of conspiracy theories. I always thought that something was being withheld because not everything added up. As the authoritative body in charge of everything I blamed the government. Then, after studying a lot of history, I realized something - not everything adds up. We're just not capable of knowing everything about a particular situation. Conspiracy theorists latch onto circumstantial evidence (an unexplained part of the big picture) and then build a case around it.

You know what? I'm with KeepOurFreedoms. I'd like to see a "real" investigation into 9/11. Let's do it. How? Who knows. But still. Let's do it. I'm just far enough onto the fence about this issue that I'm willing to listen if someone who hasn't already picked a side and is qualified to look into these things does so. Anyone else agree?

[KeepOurFreedoms]

Payne Stewart Response: 19 Minutes, Hey Presto …
On October 25, 1999, at 9:33 a.m. air traffic controllers in Florida lost touch with a Learjet carrying golfer Payne Stewart and several companions after it left Orlando headed for Dallas, Texas. Nineteen minutes after Air Traffic Control realized something was wrong, one or more US Air Force fighter jets were already on top of the situation, in the air, close to the Learjet. Moreover, throughout the course of its flight, Payne Stewart's jet was given escort from National Guard aircraft coordinated across state lines. See "Golfer Payne Stewart Dies," October 25, 1999, at:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/plane102599.html
or read the National Transportation Safety Board report on Payne Stewart's flight:

http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2000/AAB0001.htm
or
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/stewart
(There are minor discrepancies between the ABC and NTSB reports.)

That was the response when a small private jet lost radio contact with air traffic control over a relatively sparsely populated area in Florida. Compare that to what was done when they lost communication with four commercial passenger jets flying over the populous northeast on September 11, 2001.

[KeepOurFreedoms]

Hey Roker. Let's conduct an experiment. I'll stand with a flaming baseball bat and whack you with it repeatedly and we'll see if you light on fire as a result. Then I'll toss it up in the air so that it lands on your head and we'll see if it makes the fire worse. 7 WTC experienced fires that day as a result of being in a very similar situation the one I just described. Stop it, be nice.

Has anyone ever stopped to consider the idea that the building was hit and weakened in a way that caused it to collapse in a manner resembling a controlled demolition? I'm no demolition expert but I'd figure that's just as likely as a massive government conspiracy behind 9/11. Building 7 was barely hit by falling debree, and had very little fire.
There's a pretty big difference between "collapse" and "fall" and her statement was an attempt to characterize the collapse of the Towers as a "fall." Setting the record straight on that is hardly sophomoric. Or do facts not matter? I said Like Free Fall. Like there was no resistance from a building. Like it was being blown up before each floor went down........making it look like free fall.
Okay, scenario. It's 9/11 and you're on one of the planes and you haven't heard about what else has been happening that day. A bunch of crazy-ass hijackers take over the plane using boxcutters. They've more than likely already killed someone (pilot, etc.) but maybe not. Either way, they've told you that they've hijacked the plane and are taking it back to Boston (or wherever you launched from) so that their demands may be met (this is what they did on Flight 93). If you sit down and shut up, as far as you know you live. Cause a ruckus and they'll cut you open. Stage an uprising on the plane and they'll just crash it. Ask yourself: what's the smart course of action? In hindsight, the uprising. At the moment? Sitting your ass down. As far as you know they really are just taking the plane back to Boston and any attempt to regain control of the plane could result in them intentionally crashing it, getting you and everyone else and anyone unlucky enough to be at ground zero killed.

Nowadays a plane full of Americans would fight like Hades to regain control of plane. We've learned something new. But on 9/11, without knowledge of the terrorists' plans, the passengers on the three planes that hit their targets didn't rise up against the hijackers, not out of cowardice but out of a desire to keep from escalating the situation.

Now I'm a zombie, huh? Okay, you obviously know more about NORAD than I do. There are tons and tons and tons of bases that could have scrambled intercept fighters to deal with the planes on 9/11. Okay. Why didn't they? According to the CTs, they were all ordered to stand down. Okay. Why aren't we hearing from more of them, then? How come, in the wake of 9/11, there wasn't a giant outcry of base commanders across America? Sure, a few have chimed in, but according to your information (which I'm not disputing - this paragraph if no other is meant entirely sincerely) there should have been dozens. Either they were all involved in the conspiracy too or something even weirder than the CTs have put forward occurred that day.

Where is the substantiated proof that the 9/11 hijackers were still alive after 9/11? I'd like to see it. If you could post a link that'd be much appreciated. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hijackers.html


I'll admit that I used to believe in a lot of conspiracy theories. I always thought that something was being withheld because not everything added up. As the authoritative body in charge of everything I blamed the government. Then, after studying a lot of history, I realized something - not everything adds up. We're just not capable of knowing everything about a particular situation. Conspiracy theorists latch onto circumstantial evidence (an unexplained part of the big picture) and then build a case around it. That is your theory.

You know what? I'm with KeepOurFreedoms. I'd like to see a "real" investigation into 9/11. Let's do it. How? Who knows. But still. Let's do it. I'm just far enough onto the fence about this issue that I'm willing to listen if someone who hasn't already picked a side and is qualified to look into these things does so. Anyone else agree?
!!!!!

[USMC the Almighty]

Then, after studying a lot of history, I realized something - not everything adds up. We're just not capable of knowing everything about a particular situation. Conspiracy theorists latch onto circumstantial evidence (an unexplained part of the big picture) and then build a case around it.


Exactly right.

My question is why would they need to take down WTC 7? Wasn't the pretext for war already established with WTC1 and WTC2?

[Dave]

Payne Stewart Response: 19 Minutes, Hey Presto …
On October 25, 1999, at 9:33 a.m. air traffic controllers in Florida lost touch with a Learjet carrying golfer Payne Stewart and several companions after it left Orlando headed for Dallas, Texas. Nineteen minutes after Air Traffic Control realized something was wrong, one or more US Air Force fighter jets were already on top of the situation, in the air, close to the Learjet. Moreover, throughout the course of its flight, Payne Stewart's jet was given escort from National Guard aircraft coordinated across state lines. See "Golfer Payne Stewart Dies," October 25, 1999, at:

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/plane102599.html
or read the National Transportation Safety Board report on Payne Stewart's flight:

http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2000/AAB0001.htm
or
http://www.Public-Action.com/911/stewart
(There are minor discrepancies between the ABC and NTSB reports.)

That was the response when a small private jet lost radio contact with air traffic control over a relatively sparsely populated area in Florida. Compare that to what was done when they lost communication with four commercial passenger jets flying over the populous northeast on September 11, 2001.

The Payne Stewart story has been told so many times its starting to get too easy to debunk it.

First, if you look at the time it took for a response to the Payne Stewart incident, it takes 39 minutes from the time a plane goes off course, until an intercept can even be launched. It took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach Payne Stewart's plane. His plane remained in transponder contact the whole time. The flights on 9/11 had their transponders turned off, which would have made them extremely harder to make contact with. It is clear that no fighter could have reached Flight 11 and 157 before the impacted the towers. Even making it to Flight 93 would have been a pretty big stretch. FAA regulations in effect during the Payne Stewart incident, as well as on 9/11, prevented supersonic intercepts in American airspace. There simply wasn't time to make an intercept on 9/11.

The Payne Stewart story is often used, as it is here, to make it appear that these types of intercepts are common or are standard operating procedure. Anybody want to take a guess at how many times a fighter intercept has been launched in the decade before 9/11? You guessed it, only one. The Payne Stewart flight was the ONLY incident of any fighter intercept launched over American airspace in the entire decade prior to 9/11.

[KeepOurFreedoms]

Exactly right.

My question is why would they need to take down WTC 7? Wasn't the pretext for war already established with WTC1 and WTC2?

See if you can find out what/who was officed in Building 7.

[KeepOurFreedoms]

The Payne Stewart story has been told so many times its starting to get too easy to debunk it.

First, if you look at the time it took for a response to the Payne Stewart incident, it takes 39 minutes from the time a plane goes off course, until an intercept can even be launched. It took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach Payne Stewart's plane. Do you have a link??
His plane remained in transponder contact the whole time. The flights on 9/11 had their transponders turned off, which would have made them extremely harder to make contact with. Got proof of this? It is clear that no fighter could have reached Flight 11 and 157 before the impacted the towers. Even making it to Flight 93 would have been a pretty big stretch. FAA regulations in effect during the Payne Stewart incident, as well as on 9/11, prevented supersonic intercepts in American airspace. There simply wasn't time to make an intercept on 9/11.

The Payne Stewart story is often used, as it is here, to make it appear that these types of intercepts are common or are standard operating procedure. Anybody want to take a guess at how many times a fighter intercept has been launched in the decade before 9/11? You guessed it, only one. The Payne Stewart flight was the ONLY incident of any fighter intercept launched over American airspace in the entire decade prior to 9/11.

Please check the time span of all 4 box cutter hijackings, and the small airspace the were in.

[Dave]

Please check the time span of all 4 box cutter hijackings, and the small airspace the were in.

Need links? Here ya go.

http://www.911myths.com/html/payne_stewart.html

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=3

[Rokerijdude11]

Hey Roker. Let's conduct an experiment. I'll stand with a flaming baseball bat and whack you with it repeatedly and we'll see if you light on fire as a result. Then I'll toss it up in the air so that it lands on your head and we'll see if it makes the fire worse. 7 WTC experienced fires that day as a result of being in a very similar situation the one I just described.

bawwwwahahahahahahahahahaha SUPERB thanks

Has anyone ever stopped to consider the idea that the building was hit and weakened in a way that caused it to collapse in a manner resembling a controlled demolition?
yes actually i had considered that .......Until I learned more about the building in question, and how it was constructed,etc. It had many Unique features,in its construction .............and equally uniique tennants.

Then I go on to several videos that are out you tube that you can hear them talking about taking the building down, and other videos where you hear the explosions, just as Building seven comes down. then you go to several engineers or demolition experts, one is a dutch expert who is very well known, and they clearly point out, the fact that its simply CD....


Also i stated the debris feild at its furthest point was 70 feet outside the footprint of the building. which is almost textbook perfect as it was only a very small portion. the experts at F.E.M.A. did "Not at this time "Know" why Building seven collapsed"
As well NIST did not conclude as to why the building fell either.We have fireman and police telling people to move away, because they are going to take that building down,its on tape.








I'm no demolition expert but I'd figure that's just as likely as a massive government conspiracy behind 9/11.
not so massive actually ,a blurring of truth and lies .and spinning the facts. not out and out conspiratorial,more shapers of the official theory

There's a pretty big difference between "collapse" and "fall" and her statement was an attempt to characterize the collapse of the Towers as a "fall." Setting the record straight on that is hardly sophomoric. Or do facts not matter?


Give me a break its a childish technicality ....

Okay, scenario. It's 9/11 and you're on one of the planes and you haven't heard about what else has been happening that day. A bunch of crazy-ass hijackers take over the plane using boxcutters. They've more than likely already killed someone (pilot, etc.) but maybe not. Either way, they've told you that they've hijacked the plane and are taking it back to Boston (or wherever you launched from) so that their demands may be met (this is what they did on Flight 93). If you sit down and shut up, as far as you know you live. Cause a ruckus and they'll cut you open. Stage an uprising on the plane and they'll just crash it. Ask yourself: what's the smart course of action? In hindsight, the uprising. At the moment? Sitting your ass down. As far as you know they really are just taking the plane back to Boston and any attempt to regain control of the plane could result in them intentionally crashing it, getting you and everyone else and anyone unlucky enough to be at ground zero killed.


all wild speculation .....

due to my training I would have acted upon instinct, and taken action against the "terrorists".......



Nowadays a plane full of Americans would fight like Hades to regain control of plane. We've learned something new. But on 9/11, without knowledge of the terrorists' plans, the passengers on the three planes that hit their targets didn't rise up against the hijackers, not out of cowardice but out of a desire to keep from escalating the situation.
i wasnt suggesting they were cowards

again speculation
Now I'm a zombie, huh? Okay, you obviously know more about NORAD than I do.

I edited the zombie part....it was there 5 seconds...or so.............again I know you though, technically it WAS there...so you had to comment ........fact remains i removed it

There are tons and tons and tons of bases that could have scrambled intercept fighters to deal with the planes on 9/11.

thats not true. the Air Force only had 4 bases with Intercept jets ready for takeoff on the east coast..... there are alot of bases, but they do not ALL contain "Intercept" jets......

Okay. Why didn't they? According to the CTs, they were all ordered to stand down.


when they say "stand down" im not sure they are amply describing the situation. there were Drills being done that morning. Dick Chaney was in command there were several mock drill occurring. one was even a plane crashing into the pentagon.

The nature of the drills and the resources being used for the drills and there was confusion as to whether or not events were real.or a drill..

we have a high ranking, white house official ,recanting an air force aide, who continued to come in and tell chaney how far out th plane was. and asked if the orders still stood and chaney snapped back at the aide.....
have you heard anything different?

the stand down was in fact an order issued by dick chaney for the flight that Allegedly hit the pentagon.


Okay. Why aren't we hearing from more of them, then? How come, in the wake of 9/11, there wasn't a giant outcry of base commanders across America? Sure, a few have chimed in, but according to your information (which I'm not disputing - this paragraph if no other is meant entirely sincerely) there should have been dozens. Either they were all involved in the conspiracy too or something even weirder than the CTs have put forward occurred that day.

they were all involved in the Drills which totally compartmentalized the issue. keeping the veil easier to enact...

Where is the substantiated proof that the 9/11 hijackers were still alive after 9/11? I'd like to see it. If you could post a link that'd be much appreciated.
[b] ill dig it up or KOF will shes a great gal she knows alot about this subject


I'll admit that I used to believe in a lot of conspiracy theories. I always thought that something was being withheld because not everything added up. As the authoritative body in charge of everything I blamed the government. Then, after studying a lot of history, I realized something - not everything adds up. We're just not capable of knowing everything about a particular situation. Conspiracy theorists latch onto circumstantial evidence (an unexplained part of the big picture) and then build a case around it.

You know what? I'm with KeepOurFreedoms. I'd like to see a "real" investigation into 9/11. Let's do it. How? Who knows. But still. Let's do it. I'm just far enough onto the fence about this issue that I'm willing to listen if someone who hasn't already picked a side and is qualified to look into these things does so. Anyone else agree?
Id love to see an investigation for REAL...but it will never happen .KOF is a great gal as i said earlier she knows alot about this issue too

[ArmChair General]

Another fun fact about that day, 9/11. Turns out there was a total of 12 -- TWELVE -- fighters assigned to defend the whole of the US. And those were -- you guessed it -- National Guard. So America was guarded by 12 planes piloted by dentists, claims adjusters or copier repairmen.

Then the USAF admitted something even more sickening: if they had managed to get any fighters into the air in time (which they didn't), they were planning to order the pilots to crash their planes into the hijacked airliners, because there were no air-to-air weapons to arm them with.

American kamikazes! Sure, it's a good movie title -- but Christ, didn't all of us wage-slave suckers pay billions of tax dollars for whole arsenals full of every air-to-air weapon Raytheon or Lockheed or Hughes ever came up with? Didn't the USAF brag up the AMRAAM (Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile), the "Slammer," as the biggest thing since look-down shoot-down?

It's like a sick joke: the same USAF penpushers who lobbied the AMRAAM through Congress were sitting in the Pentagon when a hijacked jet smashed into it. And even after that -- after a whole wing of their own HQ was hit and burning -- the Pentagon still couldn't find a single AMRAAM-armed fighter jet to send up.

Hell, the USAF didn't really even need AMRAAMs. Sidewinders would've done fine -- even the Sparrow, the dog of American AA missiles, would've worked against a slow blimp target like a passenger jet. A burst from a 20mm nose cannon would've done the job. But they couldn't even manage that.

You can look through a thousand years of military history and you'll never find a strategic failure as complete as that.

But whats really wierd, is that nobody was upset about it. I started wondering, am I the only American who thinks some overpaid USAF heads should roll for this?

I mean the biggest, most expensive air force in history -- couldn't find one armed fighter jet for "several hours" after the WTC towers got blasted????????

[Dave]

Like I said before, it doesnt matter how many planes there were out there, or what resources were where. If it took them an hour and twenty-two minutes to intercept Payne Stewart's plane when it had its transponder turned on, there isn't a chance in hell of catching these things when their transponders were off.

[KeepOurFreedoms]

Need links? Here ya go.

http://www.911myths.com/html/payne_stewart.html

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=3

Oh pleasssssssseeeeeeeeee Popular Mechanics has been debunked!!!

[KeepOurFreedoms]

Didn't you ever wonder how those hijackers passports survived in the ball of flames from the crashing jets? They said they were found close to ground zero. Everything else in the buildings disintegrated except the passports. Too weird to believe.

[Rokerijdude11]

Like I said before, it doesnt matter how many planes there were out there, or what resources were where. If it took them an hour and twenty-two minutes to intercept Payne Stewart's plane when it had its transponder turned on, there isn't a chance in hell of catching these things when their transponders were off.

No like you said earlier apparently we know a lot more about Norad than you do. Intercpt jets are supposed to be in the air within 15 minutes of the call......intercept bases have ARMED jets ready to launch 24/7......

The payne stewart issue has NO bearing on this at all. it was a Golfer in a small plane,not 4 jumbo jets full of alleged passengers? and the time you mention is only due to a time zone change......not actual time

are you aware of NORADS mission statement? and are you of the flawwed thought pattern that this is the norm 2 hrs to intercept? if so why bother to even have intercepts? you really think the U.S. Air Force is that inept? and you expect us to believe it as well?

you do have a LOT to learn about Norads Mission and Air Force Interceptor jets......heres a link to a great article for you

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/UQPC061002.html

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/seal01.htm
here is a snip


It's an airspace that, when I grew up here in DC, I have seen, and friends of mine have seen, commercial aircraft stray into this airspace and be confronted by interceptors that came up from local military bases or other points in the city and wagged back out of that airspace. This is an airspace that's under constant surveillance.

There were some quotes that came out shortly afterwards. This Pentagon spokesperson said, "We had no mechanism to respond." I would suggest that if you're an investigative reporter, that you will find out that they have a very extensive mechanism to respond. That they don't only respond in the case of a crisis emergency like this but they respond when any commercial aircraft goes off course, even for a period of a few minutes. They have interceptors that go up to find out what's happening, why it's off course, if communication to the tower is broken, and that these are procedures that don't need any order from the President. They don't need any order from the Pentagon or anything else. These are standard FAA and NORAD procedures.


Now is it the case, as they were saying, that they had no mechanism, that they didn't have any scrambling planes available here in DC? Absolutely not. Andrews Air Force Base which is ten miles away from here has both the 121st Fighter Squadron of the 113th Fighter Wing, F-16's, multiple planes, the equivalent of two squadrons of combat-ready fighter jets at Andrews Air Force Base. They also house the 321st Marine Fighter Attack Squadron, the 49th Marine Air Guard which defends the airspace over the DC area and F-18's that are combat ready.

In addition to that there is Anacosta Naval Air Station which houses the DC National Air Guard and DC National Guard, and they have combat-ready jets. These jets are in the air now, after the fact, actively defending the United States. Where were they on September the 11th? Why was nothing put up in the way of this flight?

[Rokerijdude11]

Oh pleasssssssseeeeeeeeee Popular Mechanics has been debunked!!!

http://www.freedomisforeverybody.org/debunkPopMech.php

[vyo476]

http://www.freedomisforeverybody.org/debunkPopMech.php

This article starts out with a semantic point about the search terms. When they put that in quotes it was to stay in line with the conventions of English, not to indicate that the phrase itself was in quotes in the search engine. Semantics!!

Second paragraph...more semantic arguments...

“Theorists claim it proves the U.S. government instigated the assault” Grassroots InfoMedia makes no claim of proof, although we may claim that others claim things, and we advocate investigation due to the mountain of strange, unexplained phenomenon surrounding the events of 9/11.

To paraphrase: "We don't have proof but we're going to ***** you out for not having proof while citing other people who have proof but keeping ourselves distant enough from them so that if you can prove that they don't have proof we aren't affected. We want investigation because not everything completely adds up like it should in reality where everything is completely, perfectly explicable and nothing is ever, or should ever, be a mystery."

Photos of these objects on the belly of the planes as you can clearly see are not reflections, and both planes have the same pod, are we to believe that they are both reflections?

Considering that they aren't stated to be "reflections" but glints off the fairings, yes, both planes have them. They do both have landing gear.

"This concerns the article about the anomaly on the 767 (sic) that struck the tower. I have worked on Boeing 767s as a licensed aircraft mechanic for fifteen years and I can tell you there is nothing that even remotely resembles what I see in the photographs on "normal" aircraft." Paul Higginbotham

A fairing looks a lot different on the ground than it does in the air. Especially moving at that speed with light glinting off of it.

I could keep going, but I have to make lunch. Perhaps someone else would like to take over...?

[Rokerijdude11]

Yup all that can/could be summed up in a sentance but why bother?

its some guys opinions and theories

no proof.....wait did i say it was? no didnt think so just found it of interest

glad you enjoyed it so much

[USMC the Almighty]

You conspiracy theorists need to get your story straight. You can't keep flip flopping "Oh, Bush knew, but didn't do anything" then turn around and said "Oh, Bush planted explosives" or "Bush paid for hijackers training" or "the planes were remote controlled".

Stick to one story.

[Rokerijdude11]

thats a line of shat buddy

because I NEVER said Bush planned it

or that Bush planted explosives

any of that shat you just mentioned

Ive never changed my theory yet???

nor have i layed it out? so your simply full of it

[Rokerijdude11]

http://www.rense.com/general62/deun.htm

[vyo476]

nor have i layed it out? so your simply full of it

Why don't you?

[Dave]

Oh pleasssssssseeeeeeeeee Popular Mechanics has been debunked!!!

Care to actually address the information presented in the article instead of simply attacking the people saying it?

Rokerijdude, the Payne Stewart has everything to do with this. It was a civilian passenger plane and just like the planes on 9/11, it had simply gone off course for all anybody knew. The problem with your logic is that you are thinking in post-9/11 terms. Today, it would be logical to think that all those fighters are on standby to intercept civilian planes but prior to that, those planes were meant to respond specifically to a MILITARY threat. As the articles I posted earlier clearly state, it would be impossible to launch an intercept in less than half an hour, so I don't know where you are getting your BS that these planes can do it in 15 minutes.

[KeepOurFreedoms]

You conspiracy theorists need to get your story straight. You can't keep flip flopping "Oh, Bush knew, but didn't do anything" then turn around and said "Oh, Bush planted explosives" or "Bush paid for hijackers training" or "the planes were remote controlled".

Stick to one story.

Who said those things?

[KeepOurFreedoms]

Care to actually address the information presented in the article instead of simply attacking the people saying it?


Attack? you must be joking.

[USMC the Almighty]

Who said those things?

Various conspiracy theorists.

[KeepOurFreedoms]

Various conspiracy theorists.

At least you admit not everyone thinks alike.

[USMC the Almighty]

At least you admit not everyone thinks alike.

That's my whole point. You guys need to pick one conspiracy and stick with it. Was it "controlled demolition"? Was it merely foreknowledge? etc.

Perhaps ya'll should unionize...

[KeepOurFreedoms]

That's my whole point. You guys need to pick one conspiracy and stick with it. Was it "controlled demolition"? Was it merely foreknowledge? etc.

Perhaps ya'll should unionize...

Perhaps you should learn how to spell Y'all.

[USMC the Almighty]

Perhaps you should learn how to spell Y'all.

Perhaps it's not a real word (it's a sound) and thus I can choose to spell it however I wish.

[Dave]

Attack? you must be joking.

Once again, provide some evidence that something said in the article is false, or stop dismissing what it is saying.

[Rokerijdude11]

Care to actually address the information presented in the article instead of simply attacking the people saying it?

Rokerijdude, the Payne Stewart has everything to do with this. It was a civilian passenger plane and just like the planes on 9/11, it had simply gone off course for all anybody knew.
It had nothing to do with this there is no comparison again ill ask you....do you expect us to believe that the greatest military power in the world .....needs over an hour to respond to threats in the sky or elsewhere? seriously?....besides that payne stewarts story is skewed by the Time zone difference invlolved in the intercept.

The problem with your logic is that you are thinking in post-9/11 terms. Today, it would be logical to think that all those fighters are on standby to intercept civilian planes but prior to that, those planes were meant to respond specifically to a MILITARY threat.
sorry ,this is a completly incorrect statement ,and assumption.... Military or any threat in the skies above america.........you refer to it as all those...there arent actually that many bases that are on standby for intercept .the number is much smaller than one may think.....sorry Norad scrambled many times for commercial airliners prior to 9-11...this is not a new phenomenon.
Its In Norads original mission statement and still exists in the modified mission statements...



As the articles I posted earlier clearly state, it would be impossible to launch an intercept in less than half an hour, so I don't know where you are getting your BS that these planes can do it in 15 minutes.
Intercept bases can and do launch birds in 15 minutes .....there arent as many intercept bases as you portray...what a sad shape of affairs it is if it takes 30 minutes to launch birds......sorry as an ex Aircrewman in the Navy I know far better about launch times than you may imagine

[Rokerijdude11]

That's my whole point. You guys need to pick one conspiracy and stick with it. Was it "controlled demolition"? Was it merely foreknowledge? etc.


Just because "Varous conspiracy theorists" have said any one thing, or another....It has ABSOLUTLY no bearing, on what KOF has said, or myself ... was it controlled demo or merely foreknowledge?? you ask so callously, it is a far deeper web than that my friend. Theres no readers digest version on this story...


Why dont YOU, tell US, how and why, Building seven collapsed in its footprint? I mean after all F.E.M.A. has been unable to determine the cause ........neither has the NIST....but Im sure YOU can set us all straight...Im interested in what YOU think happened? being that even the Officail Theory has no explanation???
Perhaps ya'll should unionize...

un-real

[Dave]

Intercept bases can and do launch birds in 15 minutes .....there arent as many intercept bases as you portray...what a sad shape of affairs it is if it takes 30 minutes to launch birds......sorry as an ex Aircrewman in the Navy I know far better about launch times than you may imagine

Fine, if you know so much about it, prove it. Show some documented examples.

I'm just quoting how long it took jets to intercept the Payne Stewart jet. The only way it can be skewed by time zone differences is if you don't account for the time change. 9/11 truth movement sites did not, Popular Mechanics did. Thats why the 9/11 sites say the response time was 22 minutes and the Popular Mechanics report said it was an hour and 22 minutes. What's skewed about that?

Like I've said numerous times, NORAD's focus on defense is aimed at external threats. They are watching for planes coming close to American airspace so that when something actually does enter our airspace there can be jets ready to intercept. Before 9/11, NORAD was not in the business of tracking civilian aircraft, therefore, there was a delay in getting the information where it needed to be. If you want to blame someone, blame the air traffic controllers for not being able to realize a threat, and then not knowing how to react once they knew it was a threat. But then again, that wasn't what they were trained for at the time.

[Rokerijdude11]

Fine, if you know so much about it, prove it. Show some documented examples.

I'm just quoting how long it took jets to intercept the Payne Stewart jet. The only way it can be skewed by time zone differences is if you don't account for the time change. 9/11 truth movement sites did not, Popular Mechanics did. Thats why the 9/11 sites say the response time was 22 minutes and the Popular Mechanics report said it was an hour and 22 minutes. What's skewed about that?
the fact that you even ask.....never mind


Like I've said numerous times, NORAD's focus on defense is aimed at external threats. They are watching for planes coming close to American airspace so that when something actually does enter our airspace there can be jets ready to intercept.

and you have repeatedly been wrong....Norads Mission has ALWAYS been to watch EVERYTHING in the sky above this country


Before 9/11, NORAD was not in the business of tracking civilian aircraft, therefore, there was a delay in getting the information where it needed to be.

this is incorrect
If you want to blame someone, blame the air traffic controllers for not being able to realize a threat, and then not knowing how to react once they knew it was a threat.
it was NORAD and Dick Chaney who did not know how to react.....ask Mineta he told all
But then again, that wasn't what they were trained for at the time.

no Ill blame Norad who failed to respond in a timely or professional manner

[Dave]

no Ill blame Norad who failed to respond in a timely or professional manner

NORAD was in charge of defense related aircraft, the FAA was in charge of civilian craft. What's so hard to understand about that?

[KeepOurFreedoms]

Perhaps it's not a real word (it's a sound) and thus I can choose to spell it however I wish.

Good try, but wrong again.


Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
y'all yɔl - Show Spelled Pronunciation[yawl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation,
–pronoun
YOU-ALL.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source



y'all (yôl) Pronunciation Key
pron. Chiefly Southern U.S.
Variant of you-all. See Regional Note at you-all.

(Download Now or Buy the Book)
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

[KeepOurFreedoms]

NORAD was in charge of defense related aircraft, the FAA was in charge of civilian craft. What's so hard to understand about that?

FAA and NORAD, two completely different things.

FAA Mission Statement
Mission
Our Mission
Our mission is to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world.

Our Vision
Our vision is to improve the safety and efficiency of aviation, while being responsive to our customers and accountable to the public.

Our Values
Safety is our passion. We're world leaders in aerospace safety.
Quality is our trademark. We serve our country, our customers, and each other.
Integrity is our character. We do the right thing, even if no one is looking.
People are our strength. We treat each other as we want to be treated.


NORAD

North American Aerospace Defense Command

The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) is a bi-national United States and Canadian organization charged with the missions of aerospace warning and aerospace control for North America. Aerospace warning includes the monitoring of man-made objects in space, and the detection, validation, and warning of attack against North America whether by aircraft, missiles, or space vehicles, through mutual support arrangements with other commands. Aerospace control includes ensuring air sovereignty and air defense of the airspace of Canada and the United States. The May 2006 NORAD Agreement renewal added a maritime warning mission, which entails a shared awareness and understanding of the activities conducted in U.S. and Canadian maritime approaches, maritime areas and inland waterways.

To accomplish these critically important missions, NORAD continually adjusts its structure to meet the demands of a changing world. The commander is appointed by, and is responsible to, both the U.S. president and the Canadian prime minister. The commander maintains his headquarters at Peterson Air Force Base, Colo. The NORAD-U.S. Northern Command (USNORTHCOM) Command Center serves as a central collection and coordination facility for a worldwide system of sensors designed to provide the commander and the leadership of Canada and the U.S. with an accurate picture of any aerospace threat. Three subordinate regional headquarters, located at Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska, Canadian Forces Base, Winnipeg, Manitoba, and Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida, receive direction from the commander and control air operations within their respective areas of responsibility.

To accomplish the aerospace warning mission, the commander of NORAD provides an integrated tactical warning and attack assessment to the governments of Canada and the United States. To accomplish the aerospace control mission, NORAD uses a network of satellites, ground-based radar, airborne radar and fighters to detect, intercept and, if necessary, engage any air-breathing threat to North America. As a part of its aerospace control mission, NORAD assists in the detection and monitoring of aircraft suspected of illegal drug trafficking. This information is passed to civilian law enforcement agencies to help combat the flow of illegal drugs into North America. The command is currently developing a concept for implementing the new maritime warning mission.

Through outstanding bi-national cooperation, NORAD has proven itself effective in its roles of watching, warning, and responding. NORAD continues to play an important role in the defense of Canada and the U.S by evolving to meet the changing threat. The events of September 11, 2001 demonstrated NORAD’s continued relevance to North American security. Today, NORAD provides civil authorities with a potent military response capability to counter domestic airspace threats.

While the national leadership of Canada and the U.S. continue to refine our response to the terrorist threat, NORAD’s proven abilities and unique capabilities will remain a vital part of homeland defense.

[Dave]

FAA and NORAD, two completely different things.

FAA Mission Statement
Mission
Our Mission
Our mission is to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world.

Our Vision
Our vision is to improve the safety and efficiency of aviation, while being responsive to our customers and accountable to the public.

Our Values
Safety is our passion. We're world leaders in aerospace safety.
Quality is our trademark. We serve our country, our customers, and each other.
Integrity is our character. We do the right thing, even if no one is looking.
People are our strength. We treat each other as we want to be treated.


NORAD

North American Aerospace Defense Command

The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) is a bi-national United States and Canadian organization charged with the missions of aerospace warning and aerospace control for North America. Aerospace warning includes the monitoring of man-made objects in space, and the detection, validation, and warning of attack against North America whether by aircraft, missiles, or space vehicles, through mutual support arrangements with other commands. Aerospace control includes ensuring air sovereignty and air defense of the airspace of Canada and the United States. The May 2006 NORAD Agreement renewal added a maritime warning mission, which entails a shared awareness and understanding of the activities conducted in U.S. and Canadian maritime approaches, maritime areas and inland waterways.

To accomplish these critically important missions, NORAD continually adjusts its structure to meet the demands of a changing world. The commander is appointed by, and is responsible to, both the U.S. president and the Canadian prime minister. The commander maintains his headquarters at Peterson Air Force Base, Colo. The NORAD-U.S. Northern Command (USNORTHCOM) Command Center serves as a central collection and coordination facility for a worldwide system of sensors designed to provide the commander and the leadership of Canada and the U.S. with an accurate picture of any aerospace threat. Three subordinate regional headquarters, located at Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska, Canadian Forces Base, Winnipeg, Manitoba, and Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida, receive direction from the commander and control air operations within their respective areas of responsibility.

To accomplish the aerospace warning mission, the commander of NORAD provides an integrated tactical warning and attack assessment to the governments of Canada and the United States. To accomplish the aerospace control mission, NORAD uses a network of satellites, ground-based radar, airborne radar and fighters to detect, intercept and, if necessary, engage any air-breathing threat to North America. As a part of its aerospace control mission, NORAD assists in the detection and monitoring of aircraft suspected of illegal drug trafficking. This information is passed to civilian law enforcement agencies to help combat the flow of illegal drugs into North America. The command is currently developing a concept for implementing the new maritime warning mission.

Through outstanding bi-national cooperation, NORAD has proven itself effective in its roles of watching, warning, and responding. NORAD continues to play an important role in the defense of Canada and the U.S by evolving to meet the changing threat. The events of September 11, 2001 demonstrated NORAD’s continued relevance to North American security. Today, NORAD provides civil authorities with a potent military response capability to counter domestic airspace threats.

While the national leadership of Canada and the U.S. continue to refine our response to the terrorist threat, NORAD’s proven abilities and unique capabilities will remain a vital part of homeland defense.

Yeah, I know what the FAA and NORAD are. Before 9/11 the FAA handled air traffic for all civilian planes. NORAD responded to national security issues. Before 9/11, civilian planes were not considered national security threats, so they were in the FAAs jurisdiction until the FAA gives NORAD a call to tell them otherwise.

[KeepOurFreedoms]

Yeah, I know what the FAA and NORAD are. Before 9/11 the FAA handled air traffic for all civilian planes. NORAD responded to national security issues. Before 9/11, civilian planes were not considered national security threats, so they were in the FAAs jurisdiction until the FAA gives NORAD a call to tell them otherwise.

Until a plane is hijacked.

[Dave]

Until a plane is hijacked.

And NORAD didn't know that the planes were hijacked until it was too late to do anything about it.

[Rokerijdude11]

And NORAD didn't know that the planes were hijacked until it was too late to do anything about it.
your a frigging hilarious piece of work. Do you really think ANYBODY buys this garbage you spread?

[Dave]

your a frigging hilarious piece of work. Do you really think ANYBODY buys this garbage you spread?

Oooooh, great argument. How about you either show some proof against what I'm saying, or do everybody a favor and keep quiet next time you have thought in that little brain of yours.

[Rokerijdude11]

read the quote again.....do you?

[Rokerijdude11]

And NORAD didn't know that the planes were hijacked until it was too late to do anything about it.
yes they did


Startling testimony:
Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta testified that on 9-11 he arrived at the Presidential Emergency Operations Center under the White House at 9:20 a.m. Vice President Cheney was already there. This timeline is important because if Cheney arrived at 10 a.m. it would have been about 20 minutes after the Pentagon was allegedly struck by a hijacked airplane at 9:38 a.m., too late for him to authorize the Air Force to shoot it down. Mineta’s account is also supported by Vice President Cheney himself, who told a reporter that the plane struck the Pentagon “some time after” he had arrived in the command center.
Mineta testified “during the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, ‘the plane is 50 miles out, the plane is 30 miles out.’ And when it got to ‘the plane is 10 miles out’, the young man also said to the Vice President, ‘Do the orders still stand?’ And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said ‘Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?’”

“Do the orders still stand, sir?”

Since the airplane was not intercepted and destroyed, even though the vice president knew of it, “the orders” must have been to allow the plane to hit the Pentagon. The repeated questioning of Cheney by the junior officer whether “the orders still stand” had to be about whether the order NOT to destroy the plane still stood. Given the known attacks against the Twin Towers using the commercial airliners as weapons, an order to destroy the plane approaching the Pentagon would be the only order to give and would not be subject to question by a junior officer as the plane approached. Furthermore, had Cheney’s order been to fire on the plane approaching the Pentagon (which first passed at low altitude near the White House), the anti-missile and anti-aircraft capacity of the Pentagon or White House would have sufficed to take out that plane, or at least they would have fired on it. Neither occurred, and since Mineta does not speak of a last-second change by Cheney, the only supportable conclusion is that Cheney’s order was NOT to defend the Pentagon, an order so contrary to both common sense and military defense that it, and it alone, explains the repeated questioning by the junior officer.


Mineta’s testimony raises more questions: If the standing order given by the Vice President prior to the aircraft hitting the Pentagon was not a shoot down order, then what was it?
Perhaps it was the danger of this question that caused the Vice President to testify to the Commission along with the President in closed session, with no transcript, no witnesses, and no public accountability. Remember, Cheney resisted testifying to the very end.

[Dave]

Got anything to back up those statements? Did anybody else hear it? The Pentagon is a pretty crowded place, so I'm sure a ton of people would have heard this conversation. Are you really going on the word of one man's hearsay testimony? I'm having a hard time believing this since Mineta's "testimony" is clearly hearsay and wouldn't be allowed in any court room in America. Do you even have anything that would make a suggestion as to what "orders" the Vice President was talking about? Or is this simply 100% speculation as usual?

Just curious, but what type of anti-air defenses do you think the Pentagon has?

[Rokerijdude11]

Got anything to back up those statements? Did anybody else hear it? The Pentagon is a pretty crowded place, so I'm sure a ton of people would have heard this conversation. Are you really going on the word of one man's hearsay testimony? I'm having a hard time believing this since Mineta's "testimony" is clearly hearsay and wouldn't be allowed in any court room in America. Do you even have anything that would make a suggestion as to what "orders" the Vice President was talking about? Or is this simply 100% speculation as usual?

Just curious, but what type of anti-air defenses do you think the Pentagon has?



You have got to be kidding me right? Do you live in a cave? Norman Mineta gave this testimony at Congressional hearings ! these quotes are from that testimony..... yes i do have the congressional hearings to back those statements???

It is PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE.....the minutes of these meetings, are availible through FOIA,So lets get this straight...You "Dave" some guy on the internet, actually have the gonads to question a statement, given under oath, in congressional hearings, by a high ranking white house official..... thats rich

Ok then, thats swell Dave...maybe you should have been at the congressional hearings huh? Then you could have asked those hard line questions.....I mean after all.... im sure NOBODY at the hearings, would have thought of those dave?

As well i am sure that a high ranking white house official would go on the record stating what had happened if it didnt occur? Im sure you have your staunch pro government stance as usual but i find it silly in this instance what did Mineta GAIN from his testimony?.....he lost his job actually they asked/forced him to retire over this

something that happens alot these days
this was snipped from an article somewhere ...........Personally i do not believe the pentagon has ANY type of air defence, outside of the air force, or national guard..... I do not believe the authors claims of missles, or anti air-craft guns...
although it is the pentagon, and if it were to be protected in this fashion,im not sure it would be public knowledge?


I wasnt in the room,I cant say for sure what Chaneys orders or intentions were.Norman Mineta was. he was a high ranking official with an impeccable record. I have NO reason to doubt what he says,and therefore no problem believing what he has implied Chaneys orders were

Funny how Chaney and Bush would only testify in private off the books????

wonder why that may be?

Sorry Dave once again Im not Buying what your selling

have a nice day

[Dave]

Once again, you missed the point. I'm asking if you have anything to back up what he is saying. He is just one man. There had to have been dozens of people in that bunker, and not just people in the Bush administration. There were several members of the press corps there too. Why is Norman Mineta the only one that heard this conversation? Do you really want to base an argument on what one person overheard in an extremely stressful situation? Hearsay isn't admissable as evidence in a trial for one simple reason. It isn't reliable.

[Rokerijdude11]

he was comfortable enough to testify to such at a congessional hearing,im not inclined to believe he is lying .Im sure others did hear what was said not to mention the one who kept coming in to point out how far the plane was


is there a report somewhere that suggests that nobody else heard this?