| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
London Mick
Moderate Poster
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
Posts: 139
Location: London
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 9:26 pm Post subject: How do we deal with disinfo sites? |
 |
|
A friend who believes the official story and thinks I'm a nutter has sent me this website. I've glanced through it and to someone who doesn't know many of the facts about 9/11 this would all seem very plausible.
Any suggestions for a rebuttal?
http://www.911myths.com/index.html
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Abandoned Ego
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Sep 2005
Posts: 288
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 11:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | I've glanced through it and to someone who doesn't know many of the facts about 9/11 this would all seem very plausible.
Any suggestions for a rebuttal? |
With something that looks this 'scholarly', youve got your work cut out, and there are no short cuts.
What you need to do is to cipher through this site for yourself, and point out the sloppy logic in much of what is said. Ive only had a look at a couple of their rebuttals and they are stretching credibility to say the least.
I was actually going to suggest that you try the coincidence theorists guide to 9/11, but unfortunately if your man is going to fall for the 9/11 myths stuff , which talks for instance about how the Terror drills at the London underground 'weren't such a big coincidence after all' ( whilst skillfully failing to mention the prescence of Rudy Ghouliani and his "Gulyiani securities company), then hes probably beyond help lol.
And that is not to mention the ommissions, and there are plenty of those.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Light Infantree
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 28 Sep 2006
Posts: 300
Location: Ipswich, Suffolk
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 12:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Save your energy and admit to your friend that you are a nut. In time your friend will watch you grow into a big tree of truth. Perhaps then your friend will see the light 
Seriously, I really wouldn't bust a gut over it Mick. If your friend wants you to prove it to them fine, but the reality is that they are probably feeling the fear and need some security from the informaiton you have already given them. Its a normal response and it takes some people years for the penny to drop.
If they don't see it - I don't argu, I just make sure that what they see is very clear and to the point. After that its up to them. The truth will get them in the end. Those who don't get it will hold you back in thier lair of uncertainty and procrastination. The very fact that you are walking your talk will do more to those around you than you can possibly imagine, it will also make you more aware of how you really feel about it and therefore your truth will shine for others to see more clearly.
_________________
It's not about terror, its about illusion. It's not about war, it's about you
Stop worrying, take risks
Be brave
The revolution has been cancelled - its an evolution and everyone's included |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
QuitTheirClogs
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 630
Location: Manchester
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chek
Mega Poster
Joined: 12 Sep 2006
Posts: 3889
Location: North Down, N. Ireland
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 9:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
911 Myths is one of the highest expressions of the art of the
plausible-sounding story.
The main problem with it is after about 10 of them, it all gets a bit wearing; after 20 your disbelief is so suspended it's in need of a surgical support.
The only way to tackle them is one item at a time - in many cases they simply debunk their own lazy assumptions, not the events themselves.
_________________
Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's them or us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig W
Validated Poster
Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 485
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 10:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yep, you've got your work cut out there, Mick.
I'm quite familiar with that website myself and use it as a counter-balance in order to filter much of the "evidence" presented as signs of a conspiracy. In that way it can be very useful in filtering out weaker leads and seeing which to best concentrate on.
Try and look for evidence that the site overlooks or skims over. It is well done and superficially comprehensive but there are areas that are glossed over, down-played or ignored.
I notice there is no forum or feedback facility - why not? Do they not want to open themselves up to scrutiny?
Also ask him who would spend so much time trying to disprove alternative theories of 911 - I mean it is meant to be run by a single bloke (I think). Well he is certainly extremely thorough and hard-working - and for what just to persuade a bunch of conspiracy nuts that they are fooling themselves. Who is behind the site and what is their motive?
Another approach could be to turn his question round. If he is so convinced of the official story ask him to prove it to you. Present the case for the offical story. What is the evidence for the 19 Arabs? Where is the evidence of no warnings or that this kind of attack was unexpected? etc.
Personally, I think that approach is one of the 911 movements main strengths. We should focus on the many anomalies, coincidences and omissions in the Official Government Conspiracy Theory. Providing alternative explanations about the real method for the WTCs collapse etc should be secondary and will always be an exercise in speculation.
You could also give hims some background on false flag terrorism, problem-reaction-solution, etc.
Good luck.
PS I notice that in the "What's new section" (here: http://www.911myths.com/html/what_s_new_.html) this workaholic debunker has already updated teh site with today's news that "Khalid Sheikh Mohammed has confessed to planning the 9/11 attacks". And this tireless truth campaigner has ferretted out a link to a supporting Guardian story and US DoD piece. This guy never sleeps - all in the name of truth, you understand. What a guy!
_________________
"Nothing can trouble you but your own imagination." ~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig W
Validated Poster
Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 485
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
This is the text from the 911myths Home page (here: http://www.911myths.com/index.html):
| Quote: |
911 Myths - Reading between the lines
The web is full of sites covering various conspiracy theories. Many seem well-researched, and appear to have plenty of detailed documentation to prove their claims. But are they really true?
We don’t know, but one good way to start is by checking a few claims for yourself. We tried that with a number of 9/11 sites, with surprising results. Many of the “facts” we read were distorted, or simply wrong. Quotes were routinely taken out of context. Relevant information was often ignored. And much of this could be discovered with a minimum of online research.
Whatever you believe about 9/11, the spreading of false claims helps no-one, and we’d like to play a small part in revealing some of them. We’re not about debunking entire conspiracies, then, but will use this site to zoom in on what we think are the more dubious stories, revealing the misquotes, the distortions, the inaccuracies that are so common online.
But does this make us an authority? No. If we’ve an overall message here, it’s check things for yourself. Don’t trust a site just because it’s telling you what you want to believe. Don’t believe us without evaluating our arguments and checking the references we provide, either (we’re as likely to make mistakes as anyone else). Look into the claims yourself, discover both sides of the argument, and make your own mind up. The truth deserves nothing less. |
This is their home page statement. Note that nowhere on the site do they say who is behind the site and there is no way of contacting them, nor any feedback or forum page.
I find the emboldened bits particulalry interesting. They are clearly trying to come across (whether geuninely or not) as honest, sceptical inquirers who take an even-handed approach to investigating things and are not automatically dismissive of conspriacies.
However, I find it odd and frustrating that given their stated intent to highlight some of the more dubious claims they don't also indicate which claims they feel hold more water.
It would seem logical to me that if your intent was to investigate an event in a sceptical and thorough way you should not only highlight those matters which were of dubious evidential quality but also those that performed well under close scrutiny. It would have been easy to do that as part of their filtering process. Yet nowhere on this site do they do that.
I suppose they could say that that was not the purpose of the site. As the name indicates, the purpose was to highlight "911 myths". But hang on a minute, these are not all the 911 myths they are just the 911 alternative myths, ie possible flaws within the theories that question the OGCT. Have they done the same thorough analysis of the OGCT? One must assume not. Why not? Do they presume it is true? If so, why, when they clearly regard themselves as logical and sceptical?
If they were the true, helpful, honest seekers after truth that they would have us believe why on earth would you not want to apply the same level of rigour to the OGCT. Surely that would be the first place you would start investigating and highlighting any anomalies and omissions.
A true 911 myths site would not focus solely on the alternatives to the offical story but would also include the weaknesss of the official story.
This is their intro above:
| Quote: | The web is full of sites covering various conspiracy theories. Many seem well-researched, and appear to have plenty of detailed documentation to prove their claims. But are they really true?
We don’t know, but one good way to start is by checking a few claims for yourself. |
If only the same level of scrutiny were applied to the "official" version of events in all the MSM.
So the subliminal message here is alternative theories of 911 are largely mythical, ie untrue. And the OGCT is beyond question (or else we would have questioned it!).
_________________
"Nothing can trouble you but your own imagination." ~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Graham
Moderate Poster
Joined: 30 Jul 2005
Posts: 350
Location: bucks
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Theres a big thread on debunking 911myths.com on pilots for truth.
_________________
"All we are asking for is a new International investigation into 9/11" - Willie Rodriguez |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
uselesseater
Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 21 Sep 2005
Posts: 629
Location: Leeds
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 12:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I read the one on Silverstein.
I don't know if they realise that they prove us right on this as they maintain that 'pull' refers to the final stage of the demolition. Ha!
any interpretation of pull imlies some kind of prior knowledge as they had to know the building was about to collapse.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Roger the Horse
Moderate Poster
Joined: 02 Jun 2006
Posts: 159
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 12:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Simply look at the thing as a whole -
The lies and distortions we've been fed, the stonewalling, the reluctance to release evidence, , the cover ups, the apparent foreknowledge, the PNAC and Neo con statements, the inconsistencies of the official story and possibly more importantly the resulting practical police state in the UK and USA and the various wars that have led from 911.
The 911 myths site tries to take various points and construct an explanation for them and does a pretty good job of providing a plausible reason for many (though horrendously shoddy and ludicrous for others!).
I would ask yourself this;
What is more likely?
1) That all the often far fetched but maybe possible explanations on the 911 Myths site occurred all in the same few hours on the same day and 911 happened just as we've been told. The lies, wars and oppression ever since are just a natural reaction to a horrible terrorist attack carried out by some bearded chaps in a cave who don't like 'freedom'.
2) As uncomfortable as it may be, a lot of the 911 'conspiracy theories' have at the very least some basis in truth.
Seems to me that the 911 myths site is basically trying against all the odds to explain each point it makes as a seperate event which suggests that the author is coming from the point of view that the official version MUST be true. By saying essentially that
it looks weird but this could have been responsible for each individual point, he or she often appears to be trying to ram a cube into a circular hole in order to support his existing beliefs.
_________________
Only sheep need a leader. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stefan
Banned
Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 1219
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 1:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mick,
Your friend might be interested to know that I, like many others, owe my realising of the lies to this site and others like it.
When I was first brought evidence of discrepancies regarding 9/11 I instantly looked for a simple answer, and the response these sites gave were seriously lacking, as I continued to find out more I would cross reference it with these sites and in almost every occasion (there is a lot of nonsense written about 9/11 and they helped in spotting that) they simply didn't answer the point-
They would reduce the actual argument down, mis represent it or in many cases offer a one-in-a-million scenario to explain it.
Chek hit the nail on the head when he said that after a little reading it really strecthes credibility.
One outlandish and unlikely but technically possible occurance in the events of that day is passable- these things do happen, but when almost every answer they give is a scenario so unlikely eventually you realise: these guys are utter nutters. To read the ENTIRITY of one of these sites, not pick little bist to respond to people like most people who use them do, is what makes you realise that the Official Conspiracy Theory is a tissue of scores and scores of one-in-a-million-chances; all occurring on the same day in the same set of events.
What we are looking at here, when we really take apart the OCT is the fable of the luckiest terrorists on earth. I have even commented before- If you believe the OCT, why not join al-qaeda? You clearly think god wanted these attacks to happen? (Doesn't work with atheists)
If your friend is into 9/11 myths, suggest he does the opposite of what I did.
Tell him to read through the WHOLE site and google the other side of the story.
He will see for himself that they are well-written examples of straw man arguments at their best. They are written solely for the benefit of people who have never heard the actual 9/11 truth arguments and to diseude them from looking into it. Anyone who knows what the actual arguments are will not be disueaded by their attempts.
If he does read through the entire site, piece by piece and cross reference every thing said with sites like wtc7, cooperative research, journal of 9/11 studies etc, he will not only come out of the other side of this "on board" he will be one of the best equipped campaigners out there- as he will know what the weak and strong arguments are, what to talk about, and how to rebut these initially impressive but ultimatley vacant attempts at disinformation.
_________________
Peace and Truth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
London Mick
Moderate Poster
Joined: 07 Feb 2007
Posts: 139
Location: London
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 4:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for all the interesting replies. That particular website will certainly keep us on our toes.
I may just direct my friend to this discussion!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Craig W
Validated Poster
Joined: 22 Feb 2007
Posts: 485
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 5:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mick,
Here's some stuff from pilots for 911 truth:
http://z9.invisionfree.com/Pilots_For_Truth/index.php?showtopic=1529&s t=15
The thread is a few pages long and pretty interesting. I joined today to see it - you can't view the forum if not a member.
Here are a few random excerpts:
| Quote: | I'm not going to bother with Mike's section on the collapse of the WTC simply because it's based on the FEMA and NIST reports which have already been debunked. He also used the same strawmen introduced by Popular Mechanics which have also been debunked. Instead I'll leave some links:
Popular Mechanics Debunked:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseacti...14-74f3038e6670
Brent Blanchard wrote a paper attempting to debunk the use of explosives in the towers, however, I have written an in-depth debunking of his paper here:
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseacti...f1-c8695d70dafd
Hani Hanjour's "270-degree" Turn
9/11 Myths claims:
Since Hani Hanjour was an inexperienced pilot, he may have had to turn the aircraft around to repeat his approach. Mike claims that "he flew past the Pentagon at something like 7,000 feet, so it’s possible the pilot simply overshot." He also claims that the trajectory Hani took allowed him to easily navigate by landmarks visible from the ground and that being unfamiliar with flying large airplanes at high speeds, the pilot wouldn't have taken into account the large radius required to make the turn. Mike claims that it was a 270-degree turn.
Our Take:
Firstly, it was not a 270-degree turn, but rather a 330-degree turn coming in from the west! (Thanks JDX ) Let's take a look at the route Hani Hanjour took before deciding to make his 330-degree turn. Below is a link to an animation provided by the NTSB of Flight 77's final approach toward the Pentagon:
http://www.youtube.com/v/DzR-q0ijbV0
Here you will see the Pentagon is straight ahead of Flight 77. It is also a very distinctive landmark, even from 8,000 feet! Since Hani was an inexperienced pilot, the most logical action for him would be to push the nose straight down into the Pentagon. It is also very clear from this animation that contrary to Mike's suggestion, Hani did not overshoot the building!
Also, if as Mike claims, Hani decided to make this over elaborate maneuver simply because he was planning to navigate by way of landmarks easily visible from the ground, then how on Earth did he know exactly when and where to begin his 330-degree turn? The most visible landmark from his altitude upon approach was the Pentagon!
If we consider Mike's assertion that due to Hani's inexperience with flying large airplanes at high speeds he under-estimated the radius required to make the turn, then Mike is overlooking a major contradiction... The level of skill required to undertake such a maneuver in a Boeing 757 would be a challenge to even the most experienced military pilots! Remember, this was a huge commercial aircraft, clearly lacking the flexibility of an F-18!
According to Russ Wittenberg, a former captain of the aircraft, "[Flight 77] could not possibly have flown at those speeds which they said it did without going into a high speed stall...The airplane won't go that fast when you start pulling those high G maneuvers. That plane would have fallen out of the sky..."
Russ Wittenberg, a Former Vietnam Combat and Commercial Pilot, says there is "No Way" a novice could have flown the "big birds" he knew so well:
http://www.arcticbeacon.citymaker.com/arti...18131/29392.htm
This very maneuver and the unlikelihood of the aircraft having made it without stall casts doubt on whether this even was a Boeing 757. Bear in mind some eyewitnesses reported seeing an aircraft closer in size to a 727-737:
http://www.coping.org/911/survivor/pentagon.htm
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2...606flight77.htm
Whatever aircraft this was, it must have been under the control of a highly skilled and experienced pilot. Hani Hajour was anything but this!
Hijackers Still Alive
9/11 Myths claims:
The stories that some of the named hijackers were alive and well occurred very soon after 9/11. Once the FBI released their official list of hijackers, complete with photographs (on the 27th September), these stories disappeared. This suggests to us they were only ever a mixup over names, and once the photos appeared as well these individuals realised they weren’t wanted men after all.
Interestingly, Mike insinuates that we are claiming 9/11 to be a staged attack for the purposes of attacking Afghanistan and Iraq. He claims that this doesn't make much sense because "they made them inconvenient Saudis."
Our Take:
I don't know where Mike got the idea that the purpose of 9/11 was simply to go to war with Afghanistan or Iraq. In fact, it would have been difficult to bring in Iraqi or Afghan patsies. US Intelligence do not share the same working relationship they have with the Saudis with either country.
It is true that some of the "alive" stories were simply cases of mistaken identity, however, there are still some instances where this cannot be the case. I have detailed these below:
Mohammed Atta - His father, Mohamed el-Amir, claimed to recieve a phone call from his son the following day. They allegedly spoke for two minutes.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/oney...,784541,00.html
Since then he has given numerous interviews:
Here Atta Senior claims that "I do not believe my son did it; I am sure he is alive," the father said. "He was afraid of flying."
http://www.maebrussell.com/Articles%20and%...hijackings.html
In an interview reported by the Associated Press in 2004, he further insists that his son is still alive:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/septe...tillinsists.htm
Another interview was given by him to TV2 Nettavisen in September 2006 (TV2 is the biggest commercial TV channel in Norway).
http://www.nettavisen.no/verden/article729378.ece [Norwegian]
An English translation can be found here:
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...showtopic=12548
His father still references the September 12th 2001 phone call from his son and is convinced that 9/11 was an inside job, orchestrated by the Bush administration, Zionists and corrupt Arab leaders.
He tells the reporter, "[Mohammed Atta] called me the day after 9/11, and told me he was fine. If it is true he was on the plane, they have to show me DNA evidence. I have asked the authorities in Egypt to go through my phone logs from that day to see who called me. They have not done that."
He also spoke out recently, claiming that the video released this October, allegedly showing his son was a fake.
http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level_English.....346051476&par=
Mike attempts to destroy the credibility of Atta Senior with the following CNN interview from July 20th, 2005:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/07/19/...rror/index.html
However, in this interview the reported demeanor of Mohamed el-Amir completely contradicts that of all previous and subsequent interviews with other (mostly non-American) journalists. Furthermore, his views as reported by CNN completely contradict his eminent belief that his son is still alive and that 9/11 was orchestrated by Zionists and insiders within the US Government.
If as CNN suggest, Atta Senior was the proud father of a martyr, then why did he not voice this opinion after 9/11, or even on any other occasion before or after this interview with CNN? Clearly something is amiss with this interview.
In fact, this would not be the only occasion where CNN have distorted the views of an interviewee to fit their story. In a recent interview with Christopher Bollyn, CNN smeared Bollyn as a rabid anti-Semite, who believed that "the Jews were behind 9/11", however, if we listen to the full, unabridged interview, we will see that this was not his view at all:
http://www.iamthewitness.com/Bollyn-CNN-interview.html
As with Bollyn's interview, CNN's interview with Mohamed el-Amir casts serious doubts upon the reliability of this story, and even the overall integrity of the publication. Therefore, Mike should realize that in this case, CNN may not be the most reliable of sources.
Khalid Al Mihdhar - On October 4th 2001, the Chicago Tribune reported Mihdhar as saying:
"'I want to think all this is a mistake.' Al Mihdhar was watching TV at home when friends saw his photograph on the news and began to call to see if he was still alive."
A picture of Al Mihdhar is published in this report:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm
The suggestion is made that he may still be alive.
Eight days after 9/11, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. distributed a "special alert" to its member banks asking for information about 21 "alleged suspects" in the attacks. The list reads "Al-Midhar, Khalid Alive":
http://www.fdic.gov/news/news/inactivefina...1/fil0179a.html
In the following story it is reported that Khalid Al-Mehdar was also identified as Khalid Almihammadi. The closest it comes to suggesting a mix up is that "the FBI first released a different picture of Mehdar. Later it published the picture of Mihammadi."
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=4§ion=0&...d=27&m=9&y=2001
It suggests that two different pictures were released, however, it does not state which picture Al Mihdhar saw.
Mohand Alshehri - According to the Orlando Sentinel, the Saudi Arabian Embassy confirmed that ... Mohand Alshehri ... [is] not dead and had nothing to do with [9-11]. This was reported in the American Free Press, 10/12/2001.
Whether or not the reported Mohand Alshehri and Khalid Al Mihdhar were the same patsies used in the 9/11 attack, it is still important to mention them, as from the evidence it is apparent that the FBI may still be touting the pictures of innocent men on their "Most Wanted" list. The cases of Mohand and Khalid can be considered a testament to the half-hearted efforts of the FBI to "solve" this crime.
Stand Down
9/11 Myths Claims:
The 1999 case of Payne Stewart's Lear jet does not prove that intercepts with the 9/11 aircraft would have been possible because it did not take 18 minutes from loss of radio contact to intercept. Mike points out that according to the NTSB timeline, radio contact was lost at 0933:38 EDT, however, intercept occured at 0952 CDT. Taking into account the hour time difference between EDT and CDT, this was roughly 76 minutes to intercept.
Our Take:
There appears to be some confusion as to this timeline, as another report from the Dallas Morning News seems to contradict Mike's claim:
http://www.wanttoknow.info/991026dallasmorningnews
"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."
So, here it is apparent that 20 minutes after radio contact was lost, they decided to scramble aircraft. Furthermore, from the time they decided to scramble jets, to the time they arrived at the Payne Stewarts plane, 15 minutes had elapsed.
However, to be fair to Mike, let's consider his 76 minutes and its significance to the events of 9/11...
9/11 Research states that, "83 minutes elapsed between the time that Flight 11 veered off course and the Pentagon was hit, and 112 minutes elapsed between the time that contact was lost with Flight 11 and Flight 93 crashed."
Mike considers this an "odd" way of accounting, as he doesn't seem to see how Flight 11 relates to Flight's 77 or 93. However, if we relate this to the case of Payne Stewart's Lear jet, then we will see that these times are comparable. Why? Because from the time Air Traffic Control noticed that Flight 11 had veerer off course, they should already have been aware of a potential problem. Had jets been put in the air to intercept, they may not have been able to catch Flight 11 in time, but they could have caught Flight 175. Furthermore, if redeployed they certainly would have been able to intercept Flights 77 and 93 far in advance of impact.
We also need to consider that the fighters on 9/11 were far closer than those which intercepted Payne Stewart's Lear jet. Below are NORAD's response times:
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrori...orad091101.html
Interestingly, the original press release has been removed from the official NORAD website.
On 9/11, the first base to finally scramble interceptors was Otis in Falmouth, Massachusetts, at 8:52. This was about a half-hour after Flight 11 was taken over, and already eight minutes after the aircraft had hit the North Tower. This was 9 minutes before Flight 175 hit the South Tower.
According to NORAD, at the time of the South Tower Impact the two F-15's from Otis were still 71 miles away. Otis is 153 miles east-northeast of the WTC. That means the F-15's were flying at: (153 miles - 71 miles)/(9:03 - 8:52) = 447 mph.
That is around 23.8% of their top speed of 1875 mph!
At 9:11am the F-15's finally reached the World Trade Center. Their average speed for the trip was: 153/(9:11 - 8:52) = 483 mph.
That is only 25.8% of their top speed!
The F-16s from Langley reached the Pentagon at 9:49. It took them 19 minutes to reach Washington D.C. from Langley Air Force Base, which is about 130 miles to the south. That means the F-16's were flying at: 130 miles/(9:49 - 9:30) = 410.5 mph.
That is only 27.4% of their top speed of 1500 mph!
Andrews Air Force Base, located on the outskirts of the capital, is just over 10 miles from the Pentagon. One would have expected interceptors to be scrambled to protect the capital within a few minutes of the 8:15 loss of contact with Flight 11. Instead, no fighters from Andrews reached the Pentagon until 9:49, several minutes after impact.
What's worse, fighters that were in the air were not redeployed to intercept the deviating planes. When the fighters scrambled to protect Manhattan arrived too late, they were not redeployed to protect the capital even though they had plenty of time to reach it before the Pentagon was hit.
By the time the two F-15's from Otis reached Manhattan, the only jetliner still flying with its IFF transponder turned off had just made a 180-degree turn over southern Ohio and was now headed for Washington D.C. for 12 minutes. This was still 34 minutes before the Pentagon impact. Had the fighters been sent to protect the capital, they could have traveled the approximately 300 miles in:
300 miles/1875 mph = 9.6 minutes.
They even could have made it to the capital in time to protect the Pentagon if they had continued to fly at only 500 mph.
If we look into the NTSB report for the crash of Payne Stewart's Lear jet, we will see that:
"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. About 0954 CDT, at a range of 2,000 feet from the accident airplane and an altitude of about 46,400 feet, the test pilot made two radio calls to N47BA but did not receive a response".
http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2000/AAB0001.htm
This report makes no mention as to the speed the F-16 was travelling, however, based on this timeline it seems highly unlikely it was travelling anywhere near its top speed. Its interception occured 2 minutes after it had been vectored within 8 nm (9.2 miles) of the Lear Jet.
If you still believe that such intercepts would not have been possible on 9/11, then you need to take the following into consideration:
1. Norman Mineta gave testimony before the 9/11 Commission that Dick Cheney was told as Flight 77 was approaching the Pentagon how far out it was. When the plane was 10 miles out, a young man asked Dick Cheney "Do the orders still stand?" Dick Cheney responded: "Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary!"
2. Intercepts were routine before 9/11, and they had been done numerous times before 9/11.
"Overall, during the past 4 years, NORAD's alert fighters took off to intercept aircraft (referred to as scrambled) 1,518 times, or an average of 15 times per site per year. Of these incidents, the number of suspected drug smuggling aircraft averaged one per site, or less than 7 percent of all of the alert sites' total activity. The remaining activity generally involved visually inspecting unidentified aircraft and assisting aircraft in distress."
http://www.fas.org/man/gao/gao9476.htm
If you believe that on 9/11 NORAD were unable to effectively respond because they were indisposed by multiple war games (including the imaginary scenario of hijacked airliners being flown into the World Trade Center), then you have to ask yourself just how many amazing coincidences you are prepared to believe!
PNAC
9/11 Myths claims:
The PNAC did not predict a New Pearl Harbor, although it may have seen 9/11 as presenting opportunities. It also did deliver increased military spending, but that isn’t purely what the PNAC were after. They are after targeted spending on new technologies, not simply more money. Mike also claims that the last thing the PNAC would want would be war, since this would hurt the military.
Our Take:
How Mike could even attempt to defend the PNAC almost defies belief! While the PNAC did not predict a New Pearl Harbor, they claimed one would be needed for their plans to come to place. Let's take a closer look at the PNAC document:
"The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification. The need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."
(Page 26, Rebuilding America's Defenses)
"Establish Four Core Missions For U.S. military forces:
* defend the American homeland;
* fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;"
(Page 11, Rebuilding America's Defenses)
1. The U.S. is now playing a permanent role in Gulf regional security.
2. The U.S. is now involved in multiple wars one in Afghanistan and one in Iraq, and most probably soon Iran.
Now the PNAC document "Rebuilding America's Defenses" states:
"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor."
(Page 63, Rebuilding America's Defenses)
http://www.newamericancentury.org/Rebuildi...casDefenses.pdf
The PNAC document requires the U.S. to be involved in multiple wars, and therefore we need to ask ourselves if the U.S. would be in Afghanistan had 9/11 not occurred?
Since the official purpose of invading Afghanistan was to capture Osama Bin Laden, the answer is no.
Although hardcore neo-conservatives will debate this, the U.S. wouldn't be in Iraq either if 9/11 hadn't occurred. Mike also claims that the last thing the PNAC would want would be war as it would hurt the military, however, you need to ask yourself this:
Is it not true that U.S. Military spending has increased as a result of the so-called "War on Terror"?
This post has been edited by Beached on Dec 3 2006, 11:06 AM |
_________________
"Nothing can trouble you but your own imagination." ~ Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Poacher
Minor Poster
Joined: 16 Sep 2006
Posts: 72
Location: South East UK
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 6:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Mick,
My view is that as 9/11 is such a huge subject, one really needs to have done a lot of research oneself so as to be able to feel you are on solid ground when talking about it.
Then, and only then, one can really be able to persuade someone who is still caught deep in the OTC trap.
I like to try to talk to people about 9/11 in 'bite sized chunks'.
Take one issue (and in this case, any page off the site you mentioned) and you will be able to counter it. If they disagree, then move on to another page.
Trust me. . . if you have read enough on 9/11 you will be able to give a credible answer for EVERY SINGLE element to show the entire event and OCT is not as it seems.
On the other hand. . . it takes a great deal of effort to convert or convince someone wholly entrenched in their thinking, if they are so deep in conditioning not to be able to even think that there could be something wrong with 9/11, you will have to spend a huge amount of time to convince them. My advice is to leave them. . . spend your time talking to people who have more open minds. The aim in the 9/11 truth movement is to reach the masses, to edcuate enough people that there is a tipping point, and the best way is to concentrate on those who CAN be educated. . . the rest will follow like sheeple once they are in the minority.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Abandoned Ego
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Sep 2005
Posts: 288
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 6:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Having had the opportunity to look at this site more closely, the term "smoke and mirrors" is the one that immediately comes to mind.
The whole debunking of these myths revolves around, amongst other things;
1)careful ommission of key facts - Not a word in there about the criminal destruction of Able Danger records, whistleblowers such as Sibel Edmunds, Cheney and Bushes refusal to testify under oath, Norman Mineta's testimony
2) contradictory press reports.
3) Compounded Coincidence upon coincidence being attributed to the Chit happens theory.
And, as someone else pointed out, the first thing I like to see on any website, is an "about us" section. This is of course conspicuous by its absence.
Finally, Mick, as has also been pointed out, someone like your friend is most likely at this point, a waste of your energies.
Swallow a bit of pride, and quietly concede that he is entitled to his own opinion, but that, with respect, to dismiss you as a nutter is wayyyy off the mark.
If you wanted any final proof that this site is little more than a propaganda machine, someone has reported the latest "news" that KSM has admitted responsibility for 9/11 and asked for a zillion other offences to be taken into consideration.
After years at Gitmo Bay, anyone who takes anything this man says seriously is a cherry short of a fruit salad IMO.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thermate
Angel - now passed away
Joined: 13 Nov 2006
Posts: 445
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 15, 2007 7:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Poacher wrote: | | On the other hand. . . it takes a great deal of effort to convert or convince someone wholly entrenched in their thinking, if they are so deep in conditioning not to be able to even think that there could be something wrong with 9/11, you will have to spend a huge amount of time to convince them. My advice is to leave them. . . spend your time talking to people who have more open minds. |
Exactly. Some people don't want to be awoken and the harder you push the deeper they stick their heads in the sand. Just like Cypher from The Matrix, for some people "ignorance is bliss..."
I repeatedly suggested a friend watch a few 911 videos on Google, eventually he did but what he did was have 911Myths open in his browser next to the video as he watched 
Now why did he do this? I suggest he was afraid the videos might "suck him in", there is nothing you can do with people like this, just smile at them and let it go.
_________________
Make love, not money. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Newspeak International
Validated Poster
Joined: 18 Apr 2006
Posts: 1158
Location: South Essex
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ravenmoon
Validated Poster
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 410
Location: Sheffield
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 9:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Buy your pal a copy of david ray griffins new book 
| Quote: | | By virtue of his previous four books on the subject, David Ray Griffin is widely recognized as one of the leading spokespersons of the 9/11 truth movement, which rejects the official conspiracy theory about 9/11. Although this movement was long ignored by the US government and the mainstream media, recent polls have shown that the rejection of the official theory has become "a mainstream political phenomenon." No longer ignoring the 9/11 truth movement, the government and the corporately controlled media have released a flurry of stories and reports aimed at debunking it. In the present book, David Ray Griffin shows that these attempts can themselves be easily debunked. Besides demonstrating the pitiful failure of Debunking 9/11 Myths (published by Popular Mechanics and endorsed by Senator John McCain), Griffin challenges recent reports and stories put out by the US Department of State, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the "New York Times", "Vanity Fair", and "Time" magazine. This book, by debunking the most prevalent attempts to refute the evidence cited by the 9/11 truth movement, shows that this movement's central claim - that 9/11 was an inside job - remains the only explanation that fits the facts. |
http://www.play.com/Books/Books/STGCS10/3-/3322456/Debunking_9_11_Debu nking/Product.html
_________________
"The people will believe what the media tells them they believe." George Orwell |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
