What Bothered YOU about 9/11?

[leftstreet]

I remember that day pretty well. I haven't done any 9/11 research, but I've had a lot of questions I'd like to see answered.

On the day of the attacks, and in the following weeks, I watched CNN nonstop. The things that really bothered me during that time:

1) Why didn't the "govt" send Air Force planes into the air the moment the controllers knew something was wrong? I remember thinking about that Payne Stewart golfer thing.

2) Why didn't the Secret Service immediately remove the President of the United States from that school to a safe and secure location?

3) Why did the "terrorists" strike the buildings BEFORE normal working hours? Why not wait until, say 10:30 am when many more thousands of employees would have been at their desks? Why pre-9:00 am?

4) Who warned that mayor in CA about not flying commercial aircraft before 9/11?

5) How did a paper passport from one of the hijackers manage to survive such a fiery inferno? An inferno capable of collapsing buildings within seconds.

6) Why did the govt have photos and info on 19 hijackers to give to the news media within days of the attack, yet they claimed later the whole thing was such a surprise to them?

There were many things that bothered me at the time. Things that didn't feel right. If that makes me a "conspiracy theorist," :eyes: so be it.

[DoYouEverWonder]

1. Good questions

to which there are no good answers.

In regards to #3, the planners did a fair bit to try to minimize loss of life.

[LARED]

13. Regarding number 3

How exactly do you know that? Were you in on the plot?

[leftstreet]

18. I think it's a fair question

I visited the Trade Center almost 10 yrs to the day of the attack. I remember our guide explaining the inner workings of the towers and the times they reached their full capacity.

Having had the experience firsthand, it was a question that stood out to me.

[DoYouEverWonder]

36. The evidence indicates that deliberate actions were taken

to minimize the loss of life.

Sept 11, 2001 was the first day back to school for a lot of kids in the NY area, plus they had a primary election. There were a lot fewer people at work on time has a result.

They hit WTC1 first because in order to drop the building properly they had to make accommodations to drop the antenna, which they didn't have to do in WTC2. WTC2 could be hit lower, which was a better place in the building because of the location of the mechanical floors. So they hit WTC1 first because fewer people would be trapped above the impact zone and giving more time to the people in WTC2 who needed more of a headstart.

Also, both buildings fell mostly to the east into the Plaza. Again, that direction would minimize loss of life, the Plaza was mostly empty by the time the buildings fell, because most people were being directed out toward the streets. Also it made it easier to get heavy equipment in for the clean up, because the surrounding streets ended up surprisingly clear of debris and major damaged.

[salvorhardin]

2. The Payne Stewart golfer thing?

You mean the Payne Stewart golfer thing where it took 79 minutes (1 hour, 19 minutes) from lost of contact with air traffic control to first visual contact by an air force jet? The Payne Stewart golfer thing where it took 204 minutes (3 hours, 24 minutes) from loss of contact with air traffic control and a number of air force planes to get a good enough visual inspection to determine that the windshield was iced over?

At 0933:38 EDT (6 minutes and 20 seconds after N47BA acknowledged the previous clearance), the controller instructed N47BA to change radio frequencies and contact another Jacksonville ARTCC controller. The controller received no response from N47BA. The controller called the flight five more times over the next 4 1/2 minutes but received no response.

About 0952 CDT,7 a USAF F-16 test pilot from the 40th Flight Test Squadron at Eglin Air Force Base (AFB), Florida, was vectored to within 8 nm of N47BA.8 About 0954 CDT, at a range of 2,000 feet from the accident airplane and an altitude of about 46,400 feet,9 the test pilot made two radio calls to N47BA but did not receive a response. About 1000 CDT, the test pilot began a visual inspection of N47BA. There was no visible damage to the airplane, and he did not see ice accumulation on the exterior of the airplane. Both engines were running, and the rotating beacon was on. He stated that he could not see inside the passenger section of the airplane because the windows seemed to be dark. Further, he stated that the entire right cockpit windshield was opaque, as if condensation or ice covered the inside. He also indicated that the left cockpit windshield was opaque, although several sections of the center of the windshield seemed to be only thinly covered by condensation or ice; a small rectangular section of the windshield was clear, with only a small section of the glare shield visible through this area. He did not see any flight control movement. About 1012 CDT, he concluded his inspection of N47BA and proceeded to Scott AFB, Illinois.

About 1113 CDT, two Oklahoma ANG F-16s with the identification "TULSA 13 flight" were vectored to intercept the accident airplane by the Minneapolis ARTCC. The TULSA 13 lead pilot reported to the Minneapolis ARTCC controller that he could not see any movement in the cockpit. About 1125 CDT, the TULSA 13 lead pilot reported that the windshield was dark and that he could not tell if the windshield was iced.

About 1133 CDT, a TULSA 13 airplane maneuvered in front of the accident airplane, and the pilot reported, "we're not seeing anything inside, could be just a dark cockpit though...he is not reacting, moving or anything like that he should be able to have seen us by now."

About 1138 CDT, the TULSA 13 lead pilot stated, "my wingman is going to make a final pass and then we are going to head back to the tanker." The TULSA 13 wingman reported, "we did not get close enough to see any icing on the window due to our configuration...we did get up behind him but did not see anything." About 1139 CDT, TULSA 13 flight departed for the tanker.

About 1150 CDT, two North Dakota ANG F-16s with the identification "NODAK 32 flight" were vectored to intercept N47BA. (TULSA 13 flight had returned from refueling, and both TULSA 13 and NODAK 32 flights maneuvered in close proximity to N47BA.) About 1157 CDT, the TULSA 13 lead pilot reported, "we've got two visuals on it. It's looking like the cockpit window is iced over and there's no displacement in any of the control surfaces as far as the ailerons or trims." About 1201 CDT, TULSA 13 flight returned to the tanker again.
http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2000/AAB0001.htm

0933:38 EDT to 0952 CDT seems like a short time until you realize there's a change of timezones in there. When you account for that the blindingly fast response time quoted by all the truthers suddenly blossoms to one and a third hours.

[leftstreet]

10. I didn't know that

...all the different airbases/jets involved before they actually had visual contact with the cockpit. And by the time people were finding the tv coverage, it was well past the initial loss of contact.

But, I think I meant the actual reporting that the plane wasn't responding.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/golf/stewart/stewfs14.htm

The jet took off at 9:19 a.m., bound for Dallas Love Field. Stewart was to play in a tournament this week near Dallas.

For the next 25 minutes, the twin-engine jet climbed normally. Though commercial jets normally fly between 30,000 and 40,000 feet, corporate jets such as the Learjet often fly above them, and Stewart's jet was headed toward its normal cruise range.

But after 9:44, the crew did not respond to radio calls. Within 24 minutes, the Federal Aviation Administration had asked the Air Force for help in tracking the jet.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9910/26/shootdown/

Several Air Force and Air National Guard fighter jets, plus an AWACS radar control plane, helped the Federal Aviation Administration track the runaway Learjet and estimate when it would run out of fuel.

But even if an unguided plane were on a collision course with the center of a major city, military planes could not take aim and pull the trigger unless they received permission from the White House because only the president has the authority to order a civilian aircraft shot down.

All the more reason, from the last link, that I wondered why Bush wasn't rushed to some kind of command center on 9/11.

[salvorhardin]

11. Try not to strain yourself

Those goalposts are mighty heavy and it's easy to throw out your back pushing them around like that.

[leftstreet]

14. ...

:shrug:

[vincent_vega_lives]

23. Refering to this

1) Why didn't the "govt" send Air Force planes into the air the moment the controllers knew something was wrong? I remember thinking about that Payne Stewart golfer thing.

[leftstreet]

45. Right

But the poster explained the "govt" aircraft alert timing thing to me, and I get it. Just didn't get the goal posts thing.

No biggy though. Lots of code-talking on the DU that I fail to understand.

[vincent_vega_lives]

51. "goal posts" isn't code

It refers to setting a challenge and when its clear the initial criteria has been met, the challenger changes the criteria. Continue changing the criteria so the challenge can NEVER be met...as was the intention of the challenger all along.

Happens quite a bit 'round here. example:

Challenge: "There is NO DEBRIS! Show me a picture with debris, there is none!"

response: "Here are several."

Challenger: "There is NO LARGE debris! Show me a picture with debris larger than a breadbox, there is none!"

Response: "Here's one"

Challenger: "All THAT debris is FAKED! Show me a picture of debris that ISN'T faked!"

And on and on...

[leftstreet]

67. To clarify

I originally made a comparison between 9/11 and the Payne Stewart incident.

The poster explained the length of time it took Air Force jets to make actual visual contact with Stewart's plane.

I clarified by quoting news sources that the FAA contacted the Air Force within 24 minutes. What the Air Force did with that info, or the length of time it took them to respond, was something I wasn't aware of.

I was talking about the FAA's transfer of information within 24 minutes to the Air Force.

The poster explained what the Air Force did once they received that information.

Apples. Oranges.

And then everybody started talking about football.
At which I sucked.
:)

[Emillereid]

29. According to the source, the air force responded in under 1/2 hour.

.... At 0927:10 EDT, N47BA called the Jacksonville ARTCC controller and stated that the flight was climbing through an altitude of FL 230. At 0927:13 EDT, the controller instructed N47BA to climb and maintain FL 390. At 0927:18 EDT, N47BA acknowledged the clearance by stating, "three nine zero bravo alpha." This was the last known radio transmission from the airplane.4 The sound of the cabin altitude aural warning5 was not heard on the ATC recording of this transmission.6

At 0933:38 EDT (6 minutes and 20 seconds after N47BA acknowledged the previous clearance), the controller instructed N47BA to change radio frequencies and contact another Jacksonville ARTCC controller. The controller received no response from N47BA. The controller called the flight five more times over the next 4 1/2 minutes but received no response.

About 0952 CDT,7 a USAF F-16 test pilot from the 40th Flight Test Squadron at Eglin Air Force Base (AFB), Florida, was vectored to within 8 nm of N47BA.8 About 0954 CDT, at a range of 2,000 feet from the accident airplane and an altitude of about 46,400 feet,9 the test pilot made two radio calls to N47BA but did not receive a response. About 1000 CDT, the test pilot began a visual inspection of N47BA. There was no visible damage to the airplane, and he did not see ice accumulation on the exterior of the airplane. Both engines were running, and the rotating beacon was on. He stated that he could not see inside the passenger section of the airplane because the windows seemed to be dark. Further, he stated that the entire right cockpit windshield was opaque, as if condensation or ice covered the inside. He also indicated that the left cockpit windshield was opaque, although several sections of the center of the windshield seemed to be only thinly covered by condensation or ice; a small rectangular section of the windshield was clear, with only a small section of the glare shield visible through this area. He did not see any flight control movement. About 1012 CDT, he concluded his inspection of N47BA and proceeded to Scott AFB, Illinois....

http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2000/AAB0001.htm

[Bolo Boffin]

30. Do you see no difference between 0933:38 EDT and 0952 CDT? n/t

[Emillereid]

31. Here's a contemporaneous story of the event originally published by the

Dallas Morning News:

... Instead, according to an Air Force timeline, a series of military planes provided an emergency escort to the stricken Lear, beginning with a pair of F-16 Falcons from the Air National Guard at Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla., about 20 minutes after ground controllers lost contact.

An F-16 and an A-10 Warthog attack plane from Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., took up the chase a few minutes later and were trailing the Lear when it climbed abruptly from 39,000 to 44,000 feet at 9:52 a.m. CDT.

Fifteen minutes later, the F-16 intercepted the Lear, the pilot reporting no movement in the cockpit.

At 10:44 a.m., the fighters from Eglin diverted to St. Louis for fuel. Fifteen minutes later, four Air National Guard F-16s from Tulsa, Okla., took up the chase, accompanied by a KC-135 refueling tanker.

F-16s from Fargo, N.D., later scrambled to intercept the Lear jet, too. At noon Dallas time, the Fargo F-16s reported that the windows of the jet were fogged with ice and there was no evidence anyone was piloting the plane. .... http://www.wanttoknow.info/991026dallasmorningnews

Looks like the NTSB account left out the first planes from Tyndall Air Force. Maybe there is some confusion in the report with the time frames. I do know that Florida is part Eastern time and part Central time. Jacksonville was the air traffic location so would have been in Eastern time, but Payne's plane would have definitely been in central time by the time it went off.

[Bolo Boffin]

33. Do you see no difference between 0933:38 EDT and 0952 CDT? n/t

[Emillereid]

35. Yeah, I see a difference! But I don't know what it means.

According to reports at the time ... "Instead, according to an Air Force time-line, a series of military planes provided an emergency escort to the stricken Lear, beginning with a pair of F-16 Falcons from the Air National Guard at Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla., about 20 minutes after ground controllers lost contact.

From a CNN report: ... "An Air Force spokesman says two U.S. Air Force F-15s from Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, intercepted the plane shortly after it lost contact with aircraft controllers, and followed it to Missouri." http://www.cnn.com/US/9910/25/wayward.jet.07/

Here's a good annotated account: http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?id=1521846767-4906 Check the references yourself.


I actually think there is something wrong with the NTSB report -- anyone who was alive when it happened can remember how fast the air force responded! It was a huge story. The time-line in the report is confusing.

[Bolo Boffin]

39. EDT is Eastern Time, CDT is Central Time.

When Payne Stewart's jet was discovered to be incommunicado, it was being monitored by ATCs in the Eastern time zone. By the time the fighter jets made it there, the plane had been handed off to ATCs in the Central time zones.

So fighter jets didn't respond in under a half hour. They responded in under an hour and a half. The CNN report made the same math mistake.

[Emillereid]

42. I know the difference between EDT and CDT! But you don't seem to

want to acknowledge the following:
"Instead, according to an Air Force timeline, a series of military planes provided an emergency escort to the stricken Lear, beginning with a pair of F-16 Falcons from the Air National Guard at Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla., about 20 minutes after ground controllers lost contact. EDT or CDT is irrelevant. Unfortunately the NTSB report did not acknowledge the fast response of the Tyndall Air force base -- probably because these planes didn't actually catch up with Payne's plane as that job was handed off to another unit. Remember the question was the speed of the response in the Payne Stewart incident in comparison to the almost complete failure of response on 9/11. As I understand the air force responds to these planes off course many times a year (in the neighborhood of 100 or so).

[Bolo Boffin]

48. You don't seem to be able to read your source.

From the cooperativeresearch link:

At 10:08 a.m., two F-16 fighters from Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida that were on a routine training mission had been asked by the FAA to intercept the Learjet, but never reached it.

Twenty minutes is when these fighters were asked to go check it out. They never made it.

That still doesn't change the fact that you quoted only the NTSB report when you said that the plane was intercepted in under a half hour. It wasn't. It was intercepted in under an hour and a half.

You don't seem to want to acknowledge reality.

[Emillereid]

53. The question was about the timeliness of the air force's response -- they

sent jets up within 20 minutes -- whether those jets reached the wayward plane was irrelevant. The fact is the air force responded rapidly -- unlike 911. You just like to argue to argue!

[Bolo Boffin]

55. They did not send up jets within twenty minutes!!

Good Lord, will you look at the words contained in the sources you are quoting???

[Emillereid]

56. What part of about 20 minutes do you not get?

"""...according to an Air Force timeline, a series of military planes provided an emergency escort to the stricken Lear, beginning with a pair of F-16 Falcons from the Air National Guard at Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla., about 20 minutes after ground controllers lost contact.

CNN uses the word 'shortly' -- certainly they didn't mean 1 1/2 hours, oui? From a CNN report: ... "An Air Force spokesman says two U.S. Air Force F-15s from Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, intercepted the plane shortly after it lost contact with aircraft controllers, and followed it to Missouri." http://www.cnn.com/US/9910/25/wayward.jet.07 /

..."The FAA says controllers lost contact with it at 9:44 a.m. , but according to a later report by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) the plane first failed to respond to air traffic control at 9:33 a.m., after which the controller repeatedly tried to make contact for the next 4 1/2 minutes, without success. NORAD’s Southeast Air Defense Sector was notified of the emergency at 9:55 a.m. <9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 459> At 10:08 a.m., two F-16 fighters from Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida that were on a routine training mission had been asked by the FAA to intercept the Learjet, but never reached it. At about 10:52 a.m., a fighter from Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, was directed to within 9 miles of it, and at around 11:00 a.m. began a visual inspection of the plane...."
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?id=1521846767-4906
)
Norad was notified by 9:55 am and had planes in the sky by 10:08 am -- no doubt the Eglin planes didn't make visual inspection until 10:52 (that's your 9:52 CDT ) -- but the Tyndall air force base had planes after it by 10:08 AM. If the FAA timeline is used -- the Tyndall planes were after the Lear jet in 24 minutes -- still way faster than the 911 response!!!!

[Bolo Boffin]

57. What part of "read your sources" do YOU not get? n/t

[wildbilln864]

3. welcome to the dungeon, leftstreet!

:hi:
Absolutely things are very disturbing concerning 911! I'd like to suggest a book called "911 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out"

There are too many problems with the PNAC CT!
:shrug:

[leftstreet]

9. Thanks

:hi:

I've been meaning to get that book. I saw the tail end of the CSPAN segment they were all on and it sounded interesting.

[John Q. Citizen]

4. As to question #6, I recommend reading

http://www.american-buddha.com/911.welcometoterrorlandhopsicker.htm
Welcome To Terrorland; Mohamed Atta and the 9/11 Coverup in Florida

and

The Triple Cross Timeline
http://www.peterlance.com/Peter%20Lance/TRIPLE%20CROSS%20Timeline%20Part%20One.html

There's a very good reason the Government knew so fast who they were going to finger. The Gov. was already working with these people

[Contrite]

16. That Democracy Now interview is very interesting

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/29/1438234

(snip)

And when I began to, you know, peel back the layers on Ali Mohamed’s career, I realized that the principal fed, the principal prosecutor who was running Squad I-49 effectively in the New York office of the bureau, the bin Laden squad, was Patrick Fitzgerald. Patrick Fitzgerald, from January 1996, was charged by the Justice Department with pretty much getting bin Laden. President Clinton had issued --

(snip)

Patrick Fitzgerald!

Xymphora suggests this is disinfo:

http://xymphora.blogspot.com/2006/11/ali-mohamed-and-patrick-fitzgerald.html

[leftstreet]

17. Thanks for the links, JQC

Very interesting.

The only "timeline" I was familiar with is from Paul Thompson. And I found that after watching a documentary featuring "The Jersey Girls." Can't remember the name of the DVD, but his work was featured in it.

[John Q. Citizen]

24. That would be "9/11 Press for Truth," one of the best. Paul

and Lance are apparently on good terms, because Lance mentions his work, mentions that they have done some collabrative work, and links to cooperative research from his site.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

5. So many dots still to connect

when you look back over the events of that day something went terribly wrong with all the government departments. Why did everything go haywire on 9/11/01? What bothered me were the cell phone calls from Barbara Olsen. Did someone write the script for all this disinformation to dupe the American public?

[vincent_vega_lives]

25. What makes you the genious?

All the government departments? Whad the Post Office do wrong?

[Rosa Luxemburg]

41. very funny

[vincent_vega_lives]

6. How 'bout

that 3,000 people were murdered. That bothered me quite a bit.

[leftstreet]

19. Yeah, I agree

3,000 people murdered and we have YET to launch a criminal investigation.

That just seems wrong somehow.

[vincent_vega_lives]

22. I think the FBI would disagree

http://www.fbi.gov/pressrel/penttbom/penttbomb.htm

Our ensuing investigation of the attacks of 9/11/01—code-named “PENTTBOM”—was our largest investigation ever. At the peak of the case, more than half our agents worked to identify the hijackers and their sponsors and, with other agencies, to head off any possible future attacks. We followed more than half-a-million investigative leads, including several hundred thousand tips from the public. The attack and crash sites also represented the largest crime scenes in FBI history.

Oh I forgot, the FBI is part of the grand criminal enterprise.

[leftstreet]

37. No, I meant an independent investigation

Not FBI, CIA, etc.

LOL - I don't think the FBI is part of "the grand criminal enterprise," so much as they are an organization like most others; bogged down by bureaucracy and career opportunists.

[vincent_vega_lives]

50. You claimed there was NO investigation done

Independent from what? The government, reality? BTW the CIA wasn't involved in the criminal investigation.

So what kind of opportunists should undertake this "independent investigation".

[leftstreet]

61. You're right. I should have said "independent" investigation n/t

[leftstreet]

63. delete wrong place

[G Hawes]

60. Who do you think should be on the independent investigation team?

Any ideas?

[leftstreet]

64. I don't know

I don't know how investigations work, or how they should work. Definitely no insider agency involved with national security issues.

I only know I'd sooner see my local city's prosecuting atty and a team of local detectives investigate 9/11 as a criminal investigation and present their findings to a grand jury, than the crony cover-up issued by the 9/11 Commission.

[G Hawes]

68. It seems a bit problematic

to appoint an "independent" investigatory team when none of the people clamoring for one (that is, the twoofers) seem to be able to come up with any idea whatsoever about who the members of said independent investigatory team might or should be. This is a recurring problem among twoofers. They keep ostensibly calling for an "independent investigation" but none of them seems to be able to articulate any rational or coherent idea about who should be on that independent investigation team or how it should be conducted.

Now, you've suggested your local law enforcement members, and that's more than most twoofers have done in the past, so that's a good start. Can you please elaborate on your local law enforcement members with a view to convincing other twoofers that they are reliable and disinterested and unbiased enough so that perhaps their findings could be potentially believed by twoofers in the event that their findings concur with the evidence based conclusions previously reached by the experts who have studied the events? I'm not sure that die hard twoofers will ever be convinced that anyone who disagrees with their tinhat theories, despite significant in-depth research, isn't a "guvmint shill" or "plant" etc. but perhaps you can convince them otherwise. I sure hope someone can.

And then there's the problem of funding of it, of course. Since twoofers don't trust anyone even remotely connected to "the government", obviously the independent investigation cannot be funded by "the government", because if it was, they'd just claim that any and all results are tainted on the basis that it was funded by "the government". So, who do they/you trust to fund this independent investigatory team and how will they/you propose that such funding should be arranged and managed? Any ideas?

[leftstreet]

69. What is a "twoofer?"

Sorry. But I just don't get the lingo around here.

:shrug:

[G Hawes]

70. Twoofers

Accent on the "woo" part of the word, are self proclaimed members of the twoof movement.

[Mist]

7. I was at a friend's house most of 911 and the day after--we flipped back

and forth to various channels, and after a while, I wondered why all the newscasters sounded like they were reading from the same script. My friend and I couldn't understand why there was no interception of ANY of FOUR jets that went off course. Another thing that we noticed: the films of the WTC were shown non-stop, but nothing of the Pentagon, which I thought odd. And I also thought it odd that it was announced who had done it so soon after. Yet I didn't start seriously questioning the gov'ts story until the following spring.

[Grateful for Hope]

8. No, I don't think that your questions make you a

"conspiracy theorist". They are excellent questions.

On edit: Edited to remove a personal assessment of those who do not question the official story.

[sabbat hunter]

12. passport surviving inferno

other things that should have burned up survived as well. seats from the planes, papers from offices, etc.

i think it also wasnt necessarily the amount of people that were killed that they were after, but the symbolism. the financial center of NYC, the US and possibly the world.

[Contrite]

15. The very first thing that bothered me

is my DH woke me up out of a sound sleep and told me that terrorists had flown planes into the WTC--"I'm not kidding!" and right away I thought, "huh"? It just sounded so surreal from the get-go and it just kept getting more so as the day wore on. Mainly, I thought it was just plain WEIRD and I never thought it made any sense, and overall just had a feeling that things "weren't as they seemed" or as we had been told.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

20. Many things

I felt outrage over the deliberate targeting of civilians in a wide-scale attack and the approximately 3,000 people who died on that day.

I felt angry over the opportunistic use of the attack by the Bush Administration to engage in a reactionary domestic social engineering programme, as well as a very aggressive foreign policy.

I feel distinctly bothered by the incompetence involved in the Bush Administration in dealing with the 9/11 attacks both prior and after. Richard Clarke made it apparent how dismissive the incoming Bush team were about the threat Al-Qaedia posed.

I was bothered about how Bush and his party used 9/11 to fleece Americans out of their civil liberties, and to subdue the counterbalance of the domestic media.

I am still bothered that Bush can't give a speech without mentioning "9/11" to excuse his failed, disastrous and deadly foreign policy.

I am also bothered that others are using 9/11 to further a bigoted agenda, specifically anti-Semites.

[leftstreet]

32. Good points

Thanks. I'm especially bothered by these:

I was bothered about how Bush and his party used 9/11 to fleece Americans out of their civil liberties, and to subdue the counterbalance of the domestic media.

I am still bothered that Bush can't give a speech without mentioning "9/11" to excuse his failed, disastrous and deadly foreign policy.

I get angry when Bush refers to "9/11" in his speeches. As if it's some vague justification for his administration's vague intentions.

And he's still doing it!

:mad:

[sweetheart]

21. The mushroom clouds

I remember hearing about it, that planes had crashed that morning, and
my immediate reaction was that there was no threat to the buildings, go back to work.

Then, i was really gobsmacked to hear and see the collapse.... it felt wrong, not because
of the attack, but for reasons i'm now more aware of; who was really attacking that day.

The fires that lasted for months burning at hotter temperatures than jet fuel gets to,
just didn't make sense, nor did the awesome ongoing dust clouds... like any demo site,
i expected the dust to clear immediately.

As i now read, the reason for all the concrete and steel vaporizing was a fusion explosive..
too bad the NIST does not have a little one of those to test with...
it bet then they could reproduce the results.
http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/evidence.htm

The proportion of aviatioin fuel 90 sq meters... thats a 5x6 yard room filled from floor
to ceiling with kerosine... its not much fuel at all. Had i used that relative amount
on my recent experiment, it would have burned for a coupla minutes max and then gone out.

All of america's military enemies who know explosions, i now realize, knew immediately that
the US government has such a grip on power that it can use fusion nuclear devices on its own
cities and get away with it... even be reelected for it; a revolutionary war of zealots to grab
all the world's resources and deny all national boundaries now that it has deniable nuclear
devices it can use on any and all its opponents; to hide up its crimes, its thefts, but
all for the good american people to have cheap petrol... no, more than that, to dominate
the earth like an unreprentant rapist, unaware that she is coming in a fever that will show their
eartly dominion humility.

The russian generals know about, but don't discuss using nukes as they like the idea too,
red mercury, i heard about that before here on DU somewhere....

[vincent_vega_lives]

26. I liked this part

The proportion of aviatioin fuel 90 sq meters... thats a 5x6 yard room filled from floor
to ceiling with kerosine... its not much fuel at all. Had i used that relative amount
on my recent experiment, it would have burned for a coupla minutes max and then gone out.

:spray: :rofl:

[LARED]

27. I am slowly becoming convinced sweetheart is a master of

the satirical arts.

What else can explain it?

[leftstreet]

46. Wow. You've done a lot of research

It's way beyond my understanding, but I appreciate the link.

[LARED]

52. Not to worry

most people have the same issue.

[eyl]

76. A fusion explosion?

You are aware that a fusion weapon - particularly one which pulverized "99% of concrete into ultra fine dust" - would have irradiated a huge swath of Manhattan?

[Emillereid]

28. In addition to your queries, I remember watching in utter disbelief that

the twin towers came down so fast -- it was as if the floors below the impact were made of nothing more substantial than potato chips or something. Then there is WTC7. Ah, building 7! Also the buildings appeared to have blown up leaving nothing but tiny bits of depris and dust. If it were a real building collapse I would have expected more of a clunk-clunk fall. I mean every joint must have simultaneously given - wierd. Also though NIST can make computer models collapse a la the WTC buildings, their actual real world models failed to fall from similar firey conditions!

I remember on the day of 9/11 screaming at my TV, "Where is our trillion dollar defense??"

To believe the official story one has to not only suspend the laws of physics and disregard one's own 'lying eyes' but have to believe that absolutely everything went wrong and all standard procedures were disregarded.

I want another commission -- this time staffed by real scientists with no stake in politics.

[leftstreet]

34. "Where is our trillion dollar defense??"

I had that same reaction!

Yes, a new commission. A real investigation.

I don't know many people (non-Internet people that is) who accept the official story. Some may have initially, but over time and with so many logical questions left unanswered they decided LIHOP, MIHOP, or that something just wasn't right.

[CJCRANE]

38. My initial reaction

was that somehow Bush had brought it on America by his isolationalist policies (basically ripping up treaties like ICBM, Kyoto, ICC) and that it would never have happened under a Gore administration.

I was also fascinated by Bin Laden who seemed to be a larger-than-life James Bond movie supervillain...and Mohammed Atta who was like a character from a J.G. Ballard sci-fi dystopia novel, an obsessive who had ended his life in a physical act that became the "ultimate metaphor".

The implosion of the two towers felt like a metaphorical black-hole sucking all of the optimism out of the new century, kind of like an ultimate act of nihilism...I just couldn't get my head around it, it seemed so fantastical.

After years of absorbing info from various sources (many linked to on DU) I've come to the conclusion that it was a set-up for Bushco to get the political will they needed for the pre-emtpive war policy needed to attack Iraq (and subsequently all of the other countries on the PNAC wish-list).

[leftstreet]

43. What a fascinating observation

The implosion of the two towers felt like a metaphorical black-hole sucking all of the optimism out of the new century, kind of like an ultimate act of nihilism...I just couldn't get my head around it, it seemed so fantastical.

:wow:

I wasn't "tuned in" enough to events to have revelations such as yours, but that's a very interesting perspective.

Thanks!
:hi:

[dailykoff]

40. The way they railroaded the "rebuilding" process

gave away the store. At first I more or less bought the incompetence theory and figured Junior was so totally clueless he'd allowed all his airline, intelligence, and real estate pals to ignore every obvious warning in their pursuit of the bottom line.

Then I watched the same people do the same thing to the rebuilding process (notice what's been rebuilt so far--nothing) and realized that the whole damn thing was just a GOP gravy train designed to line the pockets of everyone involved.

I also realized that the WTC was a white elephant hated by many including quite a few NYC politicians and papers (Bloomberg, NYT, etc.) who coincidentally had huge financial interests in midtown Manhattan construction projects that benefited greatly from having the WTC disappear.

And then I finally figured out the obvious. Duh.

[leftstreet]

44. Have you seen "Iraq For Sale?"

Documentary by Robert Greenwald.

I think that was the first time I really understood that most decisions made by our "elected representatives" are based on profit$.

Profits for them.
Not profits for you or me.

[dailykoff]

59. Iraq was part of the equation, no doubt.

I haven't seen this but I'll make a point to. The PNAC new Pearl Harbor angle was a great incentive and also gave them a scapegoat (Muslims) and facilitated the coverup (national security).

So it was kind of like making lemonade from lemons, and the WTC was definitely a lemon from the financial perpective, which is the only one these guys know.

[Unperson]

47. No investigations, no trials, ready made perps.

[DoYouEverWonder]

49. Notice the FBI identified the hijackers

and that was about it?

BTW: Welcome to DU :hi:

[treestar]

54. My thoughts

1) Why didn't the "govt" send Air Force planes into the air the moment the controllers knew something was wrong? I remember thinking about that Payne Stewart golfer thing.

Incompetence; or not expecting such a thing to happen. I can buy the idea that they just never dreamed this would happen. If they had thought of it or imagined it, it probably seemed like a really out-there scenario. They could have been focused on more mundane types of threats.

2) Why didn't the Secret Service immediately remove the President of the United States from that school to a safe and secure location?

This is odd, but again, it could be that they just didn't know what to do for a while.

3) Why did the "terrorists" strike the buildings BEFORE normal working hours? Why not wait until, say 10:30 am when many more thousands of employees would have been at their desks? Why pre-9:00 am?

That could be because they needed flights which would have a lot of fuel - all of them were going to the West Coast - and the timing of those flights might have made it impossible to do otherwise. The terrorists did enough damage to make their mark and have the effect they wanted, so they didn't need to be picky about this.

4) Who warned that mayor in CA about not flying commercial aircraft before 9/11?

That could happen, sort of like the insider trading did. People know things and aren't sure but still decide it's worth acting on - even if the threat was imaginary it might not hurt to just not fly that one day when there was enough buzz.

5) How did a paper passport from one of the hijackers manage to survive such a fiery inferno? An inferno capable of collapsing buildings within seconds.

This is absurd and makes you wonder. The government is capable of staging such a thing as part of psy ops, even if the attack did happen as they say it did. They would be afraid of questions and would take steps to try to quell the questions.

6) Why did the govt have photos and info on 19 hijackers to give to the news media within days of the attack, yet they claimed later the whole thing was such a surprise to them?

I suppose that it believeable, that they could get that information together once they got the passenger lists. But I still don't think they have ever proved who the hijackers actually were and have shown a remarkable lack of curiosity. After all, that information would lead them directly to other Al Qaeda terrorists, of whom we are so allegedly so afraid.

The part that is most questionable to me is the whole Flight 77 / Pentagon thing. The official explanation just seems so off on so many factors, there is a lot of smoke indicating there may be a fire. The government should have access to every bit of the plane if it had DNA access to the bodies. It should be the most provable of the four cases and yet has so many holes. The only phone call coming in to Theodore Olsen - I do not trust what he says to be true and would need other confirmation. Maybe Hanjour could have managed the maneuver, but the pieces of the plane should still be available to study.

[raccoon]

81. Your answers to questions 1 & 2 may be right, but if so, why

are these people (the "govt" and the Secret Service) getting paid the big bucks, and I'm sure, terrific benefits, if all they can do is stand around with their thumbs up their arses when such an attack occurs?

Especially the fricking Secret Service! For all they knew, another plane could be headed for that elementary school. Or a truck, a la McVeigh.

[HamdenRice]

58. A New York perspective

I was in lower Manhattan that day. I have to admit, I bought the official story completely for a long time.

But I did almost immediately think that the administration was launching a full scale coup. I had to walk home all the way to central Brooklyn that day, and stopped by a pub on Flatbush Avenue to have a much needed drink and watch the news. Everyone was talking about how this was Pearl Harbor and World War III.

The first thing that really shocked me about the government reaction was the next morning. I went to buy milk or something and there were national guard soldiers at the nearby intersection of Atlantic Avenue. I knew this was an emergency, but I was wondering what the fuck are soldiers doing way out in Brooklyn and on virtually every street corner?

I had lived in several third world countries during "states of emergency" and I could recognize it when I saw it, and this had never happened in the US, even during World War II, according to my parents.

Also, if you were outside NYC, you probably saw video of the attack and buildings falling, but one of the eeriest parts of it in NY was that there was a partial media blackout. That's because many of the broadcasting antenas were on the north tower. When I turned on the radio the next morning, many stations were silent. I don't think I saw video of the collapse until many weeks or months later.

The first time I thought the official story was bullshit was just before Farenheit 9/11 came out, and the publicity was mentioning that the Bush and bin Laden family had been in business for 30 years, that Bush flew the entire bin Laden clan out of the US, that Poppy had been meeting with bin Laden's brother on the morning of 9/11.

At that point, it was, oh come on, you expect us to believe this bullshit?

[G Hawes]

65. .

.

[leftstreet]

66. Interesting perspective

Thanks.

Duh. It hadn't occurred to me that some people in the NYC area didn't have access to tv/radio news. That must have been creepy, to say the least.

I know some of those early news casts set off red flags for me. Before the day had even ended (west coaster here) the "news" was already seeming very narrow and focused, and somewhat scripted. Similar graphics. Refocused footage - no more scenes of people jumping from buildings, etc. Good guys. Bad guys.

Sounds like, while some of us watching in the west had ample time to start forming reactions and questions, many NYCers were still wondering what was going on.

[G Hawes]

62. Another New York perspective.

What "bothered me most about 9/11" is that thousands of innocent people died in NYC that day at the hands of terrorists who chose to make us their target as a result of their misguided, and primarily religious, beliefs.

May the victims rest in peace.

[John Q. Citizen]

71. I have some questions about some of your perspective.

I share your concern for the victims and their families. In fact I'm confident that all DUers share that concern.

But what evidence can you present that the attacks were the result of religious beliefs?

I know that commentators like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and others of that ideological bent have made that claim, or insinuated that, but I never bought that analysis.

[Bolo Boffin]

73. Are your selected commentators the only ones who have made that claim? n/t

[John Q. Citizen]

75. No, some of the right wing Christians on my local ISP discussion board

have made that claim too. I bet there are others who have made the claim as well. I recall Ann Coulter making that claim, but I'm not positive about that.

On the other hand, there are people who have attributed a wide range of motivations for the attacks, from Juan Cole, who attributes American attempts at hegemony in the mideast and our support of repressive regimes in the area, to those who see a connection to the PNAC desire for a "New pearl Harbor," among other hypotheses.

bush said it was because they hate our freedoms.

The Islamic sect of Wahhabism is the official Religion of Saudi Arabia, yet that same country is one of America's closest allies. Pakistan is a close allie, Egypt is an allie, and they are Sunnis (though not Wahhabi Sunnis.)

The identities of some of the accused hijackers are in some dispute as the head of the FBI has said. Also, the activities and lifestyles of many of the accused hijackers doesn't seem to be consistent with a religious motivation being a primary motivator.

So where's the evidence that the attacks were primarily religiously motivated?

[Bolo Boffin]

79. I suggest a book for you to read on the subject: Triple Cross, by Peter Lance.

You may have heard of it.

[petgoat]

82. Do you think Lance really believes that Ali Mohammed fooled

his CIA handlers? Or is he just pretending to believe that
because he couldn't get his book published if he told us what
he really believes?

[Bolo Boffin]

83. The question was: where's the evidence that the attacks were primarily religiously motivated?

Do you deny, Petgoat, that Ali did what he did for primarily religious reason?

[petgoat]

84. I don't know why spooks are spooks, and it's not at all clear to

me what Ali Mohammed did.

He negotiated a plea bargain with Patrick Fitzgerald with respect
to his participation in the African embassy bombings. He was
never sentenced, and he's disappeared.

Whether this means he's now living on an island with Ken Lay and
Osama, or whether he's in a secret prison somewhere in eastern
europe getting his nuts squeezed in a vise I don't know.

Could be he started out motivated by religious reasons and wound
up motivated by trying to avoid torture.

Was Mohammed Atta motivated by religious reasons?

[jberryhill]

85. I'll take a rare opportunity to disagree with you, bolo

I do not believe the attacks were primarily religiously motivated.

That does not mean that there are not people who are using religion in order to advance their agenda. Hence, individual terrorists may be motivated by religion.

But I believe Bin Laden's issue is primarily political, and primarily arises from resentment of the Saudi royal family.

It's just my own, probably ill-informed, opinion. The way I see it is that in Saudi society, you either have a connection with the royals or you do not. The Bin Ladens are not royal. But their family achieved stellar commercial success the old fashioned way - by earning it. Meanwhile, a hereditary monarchy filled with corrupt ne'er do wells derives their power from ownership of the oil assets and are the putative "guardians" of the holy mosques.

Consider the contrast between the Bin Ladens and the Bushes. The Bushes parlayed their commercial power into political power. The Bin Ladens can't do that kind of thing. So, regardless of whether the Bin Ladens are smarter or have better ideas on how to manage Saudi Arabia, the political system is closed to them.

Playing off of the moral corruption of the royals gives Osama Bin Laden good material with which to seduce earnest Muslims to build his anti-saudi-royal cadre. Hence, the religious angle. Having been promised something along the lines of "Help us fight the Soviets and we will help you with your Saudi problem", and then us not delivering, he was used. What's worse is that he saw how quickly we would deploy to Saudi in the event of a threat (Gulf War I), and wove in the "infidels in the holy land" schtick into his routine.

The Chechnyan rebel leaders use similar bait. They are no more Muslim than I am, but it is a powerful recruiting and motivational tool for them to advance their goal of obtaining political power.

That's just my own pet thoughts on the subject. Feel free to disagree.

[leftstreet]

97. Then why didn't he fly planes into Saudi royal palaces?

Saudi businesses, etc.

If he's excluded from the political system there and wants in, and he can recruit Muslims by exploiting the corruption of the royals...why not attack the royals directly?

Why conjure the idea for attacks on the US?
How would that help him break the power grip of the Saudi royal family?

:shrug:

[Bolo Boffin]

98. Because the royal family is propped up with American military might.

The 9/11 attack was aimed at the US-Saudi relationship. 15 out of 19 hijackers were Saudis - you don't think they could have gotten people from all over the world, people more representative of their beliefs? We were meant to find out that the hijackers were overwhelmingly Saudi. My proof of this? That official report that was released with an entire chapter excised on the basis of "national security." Someone else will know the one I'm talking about. The chapter talked about the involvement of a single country. I used to think it was Pakistan, but now I think it was Saudi Arabia.

[leftstreet]

99. Oh. So wouldn't we have gone into Afghanistan anyway?

In support of the Saudis, to "smoke out" Osama, etc?

If Osama already knew about the US/Saudi alliance, then he knew the US wouldn't attack Saudi Arabia - no matter how many hijackers were Saudis.

So what was the point of attacking the US?

[Bolo Boffin]

100. It isn't that the US would attack Saudi Arabia.

Not at all. Osama only wanted the US gone - out of Saudi Arabia - with no more support for the royal family.

Of course, we would have gone into Afghanistan anyway.

[leftstreet]

106. Okay. So now that Osama got what he wanted...

..the US out of Saudi Arabia...the US Terror Threat Level should be terminally Peaceful Blue, right?

No worries.

[HamdenRice]

74. By "bothered" the OP obviously meant ...

By "bothered" the OP obviously meant what bothered you about the official story, or what made you suspicious about the official story. You are misconstruing his words.

Taking your meaning, what bothered me as much as the destruction and carnage was running around lower Manhattan hoping not to get my ass blown up.

[leftstreet]

78. Yes, that's correct

By "bothered" the OP obviously meant what bothered you about the official story, or what made you suspicious about the official story.

Guess I should have been more specific.

[leftofthedial]

72. and none of them have been cleared up

of course, why would they, considering a evidence from the crime scene was destroyed as rapidly and completely as possible and there has been no investigation.

[leftstreet]

80. Yeah, I've never seen a crime scene so obliterated

Makes you wonder.

[eyl]

77. Regarding point #5

while it seems completely implausible, this isn't the only time something like this has happened.

After the Columbia disaster, pages from (Israeli astronaut) Ilan Ramon's diary were found in a recoverable condition (one of the eight pages was at least partially readable even before reconstruction).

[leftstreet]

105. Interesting

I didn't know that.

[bushatbooker]

86. 7) How did a friggin 757 crash into our Defense Headquarters?

(Regardless of whether you think one actually crashed there or not.)

[LARED]

87. By decreasing altitude (n/t)

[Ezlivin]

88. A 330° descending turn, actually

Although Super Pilot Hani Hanjour could have just lowered the nose of the aircraft and plowed into the building, he chose to take the scenic route.

[Bolo Boffin]

89. A banking turn is a way to decreasing altitude.

And haven't you been told about that diagram being obsolete? The new FDR infomation shows the actual path. The least you could do is based your woo on the latest actual information.

I know, sometimes woo gets so comfortable, like an old Raggedy Ann doll missing a button eye. Who cares if it's missing a button eye? It's your woo.

[Ezlivin]

91. I didn't get the memo - but then again, you probably work in a different department

Here's a animation provided by the NTSB based upon the CDR (Cockpit Data Recorder).

If you ignore the comments, what inconsistencies do you find between the graphic I originally posted and this animation done by the NTSB?

[Bolo Boffin]

93. The big one is the original direction of the plane.

It came in more from the west, not the north.

Here's a memo - quit bringing me into the topic and alluding to where I work, mmkay?

[Ezlivin]

94. So USA Today's graphic is more accurate than the CDR?

Or vice versa?

[Bolo Boffin]

95. vice versa. The CDR was there for the whole trip.

The USA Today editor was only there for the end.

[Ezlivin]

96. Thank you for your courteous reply

And have a nice day.

[LARED]

90. He could have done a lot of things - so what -

is there a point?

[Ezlivin]

92. No, there is no point to your posting

There, now you know.

Next!

[TheWraith]

101. Here's some answers.

1. Remember, Air Force jets didn't intercept Payne Stewart's jet until it had been off-course and unresponsive for an hour and fifteen minutes. Simple numbers dictate that we can't afford to send interceptor flights after every airplane which deviates from its course. That said, airborne response protocol does dictate that the FAA inform NORAD if a plane has been hijacked, or appears to have been hijacked, and they're supposed to launch interceptors to find and track it. The catch is that that takes time, and generally these decisions are made with less than immediate speed. For instance, it took ten minutes before the controllers even decided that contact with the Stewart Learjet was lost, after it failed to respond to a radio call.

However, even had the information been passed along as promptly as possible, they probably wouldn't have had time for intercept aircraft to locate the target planes, let alone actually do anything. The soonest interceptors could have been in the air was 8:32, leaving only about 13 minutes to find a specific airplane among hundreds, possibly thousands of birds in the air, and then catch up to said plane. Just getting from Andrews to Manhattan would take 7 minutes at top burn.

After the first impact, the snowball effect took over. People trying to catch up with the last set of events failed to think forward to the next set of events, a situation not helped by the lack of any leadership from the White House, SecDef, or any of the other political muckety mucks. Interceptors were scrambled for the second two flights, but failed to make contact before each crashed.

2. Probably for one of two reasons: either decisions were being made by the political leadership, and we know what great thinkers they are, or else they simply didn't know what constituted a secure location at the time.

3. Well, it almost wasn't pre-9 AM. The first strike was at 8:45, the second at 9:15. I don't know what kind of timing they had planned, but maybe they thought it would take longer to hijack the plane and find their targets. Maybe they just didn't care.

4. According to him, what happened was that when he called his security people at the airport the night before his scheduled flight, they made mention of a travel advisory about terrorism which had been issued four days earlier. Nothing about not flying commercial planes on 9/11. Besides which, you have to ask yourself: why would anyone who had detailed foreknowledge of a planned attack inform the mayor of San Francisco, particularly when his flight wasn't supposed to leave SF until 8 AM Pacific time, long after the attacks had ended?

5. Strange things can happen in explosions. Often material is ejected from inside the explosion without destroying it. It's how they reassemble bomb components to trace where they came from.

6. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, particularly when it prompts you to start listening to the people who have been warning you about something for months. Also the benefit of having their names and IDs from the airline database.

[Downtown Hound]

102. Bush's My Pet Goat reaction bothered me from the moment I first saw it

i'd have to say I bought the official story of 9-11 for a long time, but when I first saw Bush get his deer in the headlights look in front of that classroom and do nothing, my suspicions were aroused. Even if Bush really is a scared little clown boy put into the White House by corporate handlers and Dick Cheney, someone around there should have and would have told him that he needs to get off of his ass and deal with the situation. Get some interceptors in the air. Find out what's going on. Hell, do fucking SOMETHING! But nothing. The silence and the stillness that greeted the announcement that our nation was under attack was eerie.

Later, I'd have to say the images of the Pentagon left largely intact after a 757 supposedly flew into it turned me into a full fledged conspiracy theorist regarding the whole thing. Unless someone rebuilds the Pentagon using the original construction blueprints and flies a 757 into it with the same weight, speed, and amount of fuel on it that the original one had, no one is going to convince me that a plane that size made that tiny little hole in the building and nothing else. I'm a big believer in the unmanned drone theory. A small plane like that seems to be more consistent with the damage that I saw.

[leftstreet]

103. We are SO on the same page!

We need a REAL investigation into all your questions.

[rman]

104. The fact that invasion of Iraq,

and a doctrine of unilateral military action to dominate the world, was planned well before 9/11, and the fact that it was mentioned that a catastrophic and catalyzing event such as a new Pearl Harbor was needed before those plans could be put to practice.