You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #19: Why should we listen to them? [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
Time for change Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Aug-18-07 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #6
19. Why should we listen to them?
Edited on Sat Aug-18-07 10:13 AM by Time for change
First of all, the fact that many of the thousands of people in the 9/11 truth movement don't agree with each other doesn't mean that much. To discount many of the cogent arguments coming from them because of that reason alone would be like discounting "the theory of evolution" because there are many evolutionary biologists who disagree on the details of evolution. The arguments of the 9/11 truth movement should stand or fall on the merits of their arguments, not on whether or not they all agree with each other. Not every argument needs to be valid in order to demonstrate the likelihood or even proove that the 9/11 attacks didn't happen the way our government would like us to believe.

Nor does the fact that there are websites that allegedly "debunk" the conspiracy theories, in and of itself, say very much. Have you read and studied those websites? Have you read David Ray Griffin's book? I have to admit that I have read only a minute fraction of the website information that supposedly debunks MIHOP or LIHOP. But what I have read I have not found very impressive. For example, one of the websites you site supposedly debunks the idea that the towers could not have fallen as a result of airplanes alone hitting the WTO. They provide very detailed and complex theories on how the towers could have fallen on the basis of an airplane crash alone. I do not have the engineering and physics background necessary to evaluate those theories. However, even if those experts are spot on, so what? So, the towers could have possibly fallen as the result of an airplane crash. That doesn't mean that they did or even that it was remotely likely that they did.

If we want to examine debunking, why not go to those who provided the "official" explanation -- the 9/11 Commission itself. In response to all the criticism of their ridiculously inadequate report, Hamilton and Kean wrote a book which supposedly debunked the debunking of their original report. Their debunking was woefully indadequate -- if a fifth grader handed in an argument like that he should get an F on it. I discuss their ridiculous book in this post:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

Anyhow, if you want to argue that the Bush/Cheney version is correct, then please try to explain this:


How super-Flight 77 evaded the most powerful military in world history

Griffin goes into great detail on the inconsistencies and implausibility of the standard CM story regarding each of the hijacked flights, and why our military should have been able to prevent any of the airliners from hitting the WTC buildings or the Pentagon. I will talk here about the story of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon because that is the most absurd of all the stories surrounding the 9/11 attacks. To do that, Ill: 1) Note the original timeline for that flight, which strongly suggested government complicity; 2) Discuss how NORAD changed the original story to establish their innocence; and 3) Discuss how the 9/11 Commission further changed the story, and what one would have to believe in order to make sense of that story.

The original account of the events surrounding Flight 77
8:20 Leaves Dulles Airport in Washington D.C., headed West.
Sequence of events leading to disappearance of plane:
 8:46 Flight goes significantly off course.
 8:50 Radio contact lost, FAA learns that flight is hijacked.
 8:56 Transponder is turned off.
 8:57 Flight is lost to FAA controllers.
Interval from 8:57 to 9:24 Hmmm, seems like a long time for nothing to be happening
9:24 NORAD gives order to scramble fighter jets for Langley AFB.
9:30 Fighter jets from Langley become airborne.
9:38 Pentagon is struck.


How the original account implicates the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), and how NORAD tried to explain the problems away
The original version of events indicates several problems, suggesting gross negligence at best on the part of NORAD, and complicity at worst, for the following reasons:

1) Certainly the FAA would have notified NORAD once they confirmed that the flight was hijacked, if not four minutes earlier, when they first noted the flight having gone off course, as prescribed by standard operating procedures. That would have given our military all the time in the world to protect our capital. NORAD gets around this problem by claiming, incredibly, that they werent notified of Flight 77 until about 9:24.

2) But even if the FAA was totally negligent in its duty to warn NORAD of the hijacking of Flight 77, shouldnt the military have sent up fighter jets anyhow, given that they knew that our country was under attack for almost an hour before the Pentagon was hit? And even if they didnt get a plane up in the air long before they did, shouldnt they have been watching closely and have been able to track Flight 77 heading for Washington D.C. (IF indeed that flight did head for Washington D.C.) long before it hit the Pentagon at 9:38?

3) NORAD claims that it issued an order to scramble fighter jets from Langley AFB immediately after being notified at 9:24. It is supposed to take two and a half minutes for a fighter plane to get to 29,000 feet after receiving a scramble order. Yet, even if NORAD is telling the truth about not being notified until 9:24, it still took six minutes for the fighter planes to become airborne.

4) Why would NORAD issue the scramble order to Langley, which is 130 miles away, when Andrews AFB is only 10 miles away? NORAD explains this away by claiming that there were no fighter jets on alert at Andrews AFB at the time. This claim is incredible, based both on common sense and historical documentation.

5) Even if we assume that there was no choice other than to issue the order to Langley rather than to Andrews AFB, and even if we assume that the fighter planes didnt become airborne until 9:30, they still ought to have arrived in Washington, D.C. within 5 minutes, given a flight speed of 1,500 mph. Yet, according to NORADs account, the fighter jets were still 105 miles away when the Pentagon was struck. The math just doesnt add up.


How the 9/11 Commission took the blame off the military (NORAD), and what youd have to swallow to believe their revisionist account

Thus, there were so many problems with NORADs attempt to rationalize its actions within the framework of the accepted events surrounding Flight 77 that a reasonable person might suspect that NORAD had been given orders from above to stand aside and allow the attack to take place. Here is how the 9/11 Commission explained the situation in a manner so as to let the military off the hook:

1) As being notified of the attack by 9:24 would still have given the military plenty of time to get fighter planes up to defend the capital, the 9/11 Commission claimed that they were not notified by the FAA until 9:34, just four minutes before the attack on the Pentagon took place.

There are several problems with this account. First, it requires us to believe that the FAA personnel were so incompetent on that day that they couldnt follow standard operating procedures which, as far as anyone knows, they had never previously so completely failed at. Second, there is a memo from an FAA employee, Larua Brown, which states that a phone bridge was established between NORAD and FAA within minutes of the first strike, and that the FAA shared information continuously with NORAD about all flights of interest during this teleconference, including Flight 77, as discussed in this NY Times article. And thirdly, Richard Clarke describes another teleconference which included the White House and the FAA, also initiated long before 9:24.

2) As for why the military was not able to track Flight 77 despite not being notified about it by the FAA, the 9/11 Commission explains this by saying that the transponder on the plane was turned off. So if its that easy to make airplanes escape our militarys ability to track them, how did we protect ourselves against the Soviet Union for 44 years?

3) But even assuming that our military knew nothing of the attack until 9:34, the fact that we had fighter planes from Langley up in the air by 9:30 still has to be explained. The 9/11 Commission explains this by saying that NORAD was notified of a phantom plane. This phantom plane was Flight 11, the one that struck the North Tower of the WTC at 8:46. According to this version, someone in the FAA (for which no publicly available evidence exists) notified NORAD that Flight 11 was still in the air and headed toward Washington. Consequently, the order went out to Langley to get fighter planes up into the air and headed towards Baltimore to intercept Flight 11 coming from New York. In other words, despite the fact that there were four hijacked planes reported on 9-11, the only one to which we responded by scrambling fighter planes, according to the 9/11 Commission, was a phantom plane. The absurdity of that notion requires no further comment.

4) But if we had fighter planes up in the air by 9:30, headed towards Baltimore, and since the 9/11 Commission admits at least that the military knew of Flight 77 headed to Washington by 9:34, then why couldnt have those planes been directed to defend the capital? The 9/11 Commission explains this by saying that the lead pilot misunderstood the orders he received and headed east, towards the Atlantic Ocean, instead of north. Therefore, by the time NORAD became aware of the impending attack on the capital, those fighter planes were too far away to respond. Again, we are presented with no evidence to support this view.

Norman Minettas testimony before the 9/11 Commission
Supporting evidence for the theory that orders were given to prohibit any military response to Flight 77 comes from testimony before the 9/11 Commission of Norman Minetta, U.S. Secretary of Transportation, regarding a meeting he was having with Dick Cheney shortly before the Pentagon was hit. Here is Minetas account:

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 down 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?

The 9/11 Commission interpreted this statement to indicate that Cheney had ordered the shooting down of Flight 77. But if that was the case, then why wasnt it shot down, and even more important, how can NORAD claim that it hadnt even been notified about Flight 77 until four minutes before the Pentagon was hit?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC