A leading Japanese politician espouses a 9/11 fantasy

[SMC]

Radars cannot tell us aircraft status, particularly what goes on inside. Radars can only tell us location and other factors that make up 'location', such as altitude, direction, speed, etc...

A plane is going off track and not heading where it's intended. Hmm, I wonder that signals.

Wrong...It is only YOUR opinion that the number of fighters on alert is 'too low'. You are making serious reasoning error. If this figure is supposed to be kept 'secret' then how is it that we know about it?

Because the government is releasing fake figures to cover its ***.

And if the US government is covering up something, strange that we would use '14', why not zero to further support the 'official' story that we were unprepared?

That would pretty much give away the conspiracy as on one particular day of the year you have no planes on alert. 14 is a more calculated number I think.

Fact is that the US was at a peacetime footing. The belief was that any enemy attack would be from a government hostile to US and that such a state of hostility would be indicative of an imminent armed conflict. Methods of attack would have been bombers or ICBMs, not hijacked airliners.

That's an unreasonable explanation. US was not completely at peace, and moreover even if it was, it would still have several bases on alert, just like any other country.

Wrong...Here is what the article actually said...


Transponders are not radars. I have said it many times before here and will repeat...In radar detection, NOTHING is invisible. But the problem is that detection is not identification. This is where gullible people like you got suckered. Notice what the paragraph said...That there were over 4000 other airborne targets. That is a huge identification problem. If you detect a flock of birds, that does not mean you can identify a sparrow from a warbler from a marlin. That is identification, distinct from detection. That is why transponders are useful. The transponder transmit a unique code containing the aircraft's speed, direction and altitude to assist the controller in identifying which target is which on his scope, making guidance easier. The controller's scope would look something like this...

Notice all the targets' names and positions.

So if the hijackers turned off the transponders, the controller may (or may not) still have the aircraft on his scope but no way to confirm identity. So if already you are making a serious technical error which led up to a flawed understanding of the day, why should anyone take you seriously?

If anyone is having problems here, it is you. On one hand, you have the article saying why the planes could not be identified and why there was nothing dispatched to intercept it. On the other hand, a plane that has already crashed is told to be heading towards a certain direction and is hijacked. A clear cut case of creating a smokescreen for why the planes were not intercepted and at the same time convincing the public that would could be done was done as regards to informing the military.

Moreover, this is not even the main argument (although it does counter the BS official story) as to the interception of the planes part. That is the exercises being done to stop the interception. And really, you're telling me that people who were supposedly learning to fly paper airplanes can be fly these jets?

Sorry...Another baseless assumption.

Again a childish and desperate argument. If there are no planes on alert, that has to be engineered by the government. Under normal protocol in any country with a decent airforce, much less US, there will always be planes on alert. Anyway that's not really a big deal as far as the overall conspiracy is concerned.

Missile bases would be on alert. Do you know how much it would cost to keep an armed fighter on alert, as you posit: 'to take off within a few seconds' ? Not every USAF base is a fighter base. Not every USAF base even have an active runway, such as Lowry AFB base by Denver, Colorado, for example. Lowry is a technical training base. So in order to keep armed fighters on 'few seconds' alert to provide coverage across continental US we would have to be a dictatorship, like the once USSR.

And I really hope no one else has bought these blatant lies. I do not know how much it costs, but regardless the US military budget allows that. Heck even in Pakistan with 4% of GDP being used for military, and about 0.5% the military budget of the US, we have that capability. This is an absurd argument to say the least.

Not only that, the US military does not have authority over US airspace. The Federal Aviation Administration does...

Federal Aviation Administration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The only places where the US military can exercise independent actions are Defense Identification Zones...

Air Defense Identification Zone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Once an aircraft is confirmed to be 'friendly' and passed thru an ADIZ, jurisdiction falls to the FAA, not NORAD as deceitfully argued by many loony conspiracy believers. So if an aircraft somehow lost its ID to a controller, it would be the FAA's responsibility to reestablish contact and reconfirm ID before assuming that something as bad as an air piracy and before calling the military for assistance thru a liaison, such as this man...

http://www.asiwebsite.com/cv_ew.html

Any calls for military assistance would have to be approved by the Pentagon, not the local military liaison desk. This is to ensure no abuse of military assets for trivial reasons. So the chain of calls and confirmations can be long.

And I am not arguing against that, but you're telling me the pentagon would take forever to approve military assistance, given that a plane had already crashed and the news was spreading like wildfire.

 

[gambit]

A plane is going off track and not heading where it's intended. Hmm, I wonder that signals.

It can signals many things...Such as unruly passengers...

Brawling English football fans force plane to make emergency landing in Germany | Mail Online

Fighting English football fans aboard an EasyJet flight forced a plane to make an emergency landing in Germany.

Or a mechanical problem...

Probe into exploding oxygen cylinder in 747 aircraft emergency landing drama | Mail Online

An exploding oxygen cylinder may have ripped open the fuselage of a Qantas jumbo jet that had to make an emergency landing, investigators said yesterday.

Or a medical emergency...

Stork makes surprise delivery on Southwest Airlines, prompts emergency landing in Denver

In a rather unusual case, to say the least, a baby was delivered during Southwest Airlines flight 441 last Friday from Chicago (MDW) to Salt Lake City (SLC). The plane was diverted to Denver where the mother and newborn were met at the airport by an ambulance and the plane continued onto its destination. Both are reportedly in good condition.

It is simply absurd to assume that every deviations from filed flight plans has nefarious intentions and it is not possible to effect an interception by the military for every deviation. General aviation in the US is notorious for such deviations, especially by corporate flyers. Sometimes it is possible for ground controllers to be fully informed and was actually in command of the situation. Sometimes the emergency is great enough that it require all the attention of the aircrew to maintain stable flight, keep the passengers calm, and make a deviation without authorization.

I am going to get some dinner...As The Terminator said: "I'll be back." In the meantime, the readers can see already how ignorance trumps reality and common sense.

 

[ptldM3]

A plane is going off track and not heading where it's intended. Hmm, I wonder that signals.

It's not easy finding an aircraft with its transpoder turned off esspecially when the air traffic controllers have to monitor thousands of other aircraft.

So now the air traffic controlers where in on 911 too?

That would pretty much give away the conspiracy as on one particular day of the year you have no planes on alert. 14 is a more calculated number I think.

Typical conspiracy theorist argumant. One thing i notice about conspiracy theorists is that they just feed off emotions, rumors and distorted facts

Moreover, this is not even the main argument (although it does counter the BS official story) as to the interception of the planes part. That is the exercises being done to stop the interception. And really, you're telling me that people who were supposedly learning to fly paper airplanes can be fly these jets?

First off all aircraft are basically the same when talking in the context of controls, if a "paper" pilot knows how to pitch, yaw, and roll, a "paper plane" than he can do the same to a passenger jet...remember those hijackers didn't 'fly' the aircraft, instead they steard it. I got to 'stear' my first aircraft when i was 11, and as long as you know the basics of an aircraft you should be able to keep in in the air...remember we are not talking about taking off and landing, we're talking about stearing.


I have debuked 911 conspiracies on this forum and various other forums and most of the crap conspiracy theorist say is rediculous, let me give a few examples:

The twine towers were brought down by explosives...yea right and they managed this how? Better yet how did they drill all the holes for the explosive charges?

The pentagon was hit with a missle...yea right and the hundreds of eye witnesses are liars...

No Jew died in the attack...another good one.

No aircraft wreckage was found at either sites...pictures prove otherwise.

The twine towers couldn't have callaped because other high rises burned without callapsing....yes and other higher rises didn't get their core supports completely destroyed.

Another twin tower conspiracy theory: the fire was not hot enough to melt the beams, well firstly beams don't need to actually melt, they just need to weaken and once they do gravity will pull down and and cause them to sag. why is this important? Because the beams are connected to the outer walls, thus once they sag they will pull in the outer wall (concave) this is what i mean:

http://img175.imageshack.us/i/saght2.jpg/

another stupid theory: thermit was used to bring down to wtc. Here is what the picture all the stupid conspiracy theorist jump on:

http://img191.imageshack.us/i/beamsmelted3.jpg/

Too bad the conspiracy theorist are too dumb to understand that clean-up crews cut beams with plasma torches:

http://img515.imageshack.us/i/43torch.jpg/

 

[gambit]

Am back and filled with steak and a few beers...BUUURRRPPP...Pardonez Moi...S'il vouz plait...

Where was I...

Because the government is releasing fake figures to cover its ***.

That would pretty much give away the conspiracy as on one particular day of the year you have no planes on alert. 14 is a more calculated number I think.

That's an unreasonable explanation. US was not completely at peace, and moreover even if it was, it would still have several bases on alert, just like any other country.

If there are no planes on alert, that has to be engineered by the government. Under normal protocol in any country with a decent airforce, much less US, there will always be planes on alert.

Really...? Just like ANY other country...? Right...So the gist of the argument here is that no country is ever at peace, therefore the military must always be at 'few seconds' alert.

Perhaps some Pakistani members of this forum would tell the readership if Islamabad is bristling with missile launchers, the Pakistani Air Force crisscrossing Pakistani airspace fully armed and ready, the sea off Pakistani coast alive with Pakistani warships running at flank speed. Why not when hostile India is nearby and is fighting for Khasmir? We should see the same military readiness in Tokyo and Seoul when giant China and proxy North Korea are rattling their sabers. But the last time I was in either city, the only time I ever had any contact with either country's military was during official duties, not when I was playing tourist downtown and meeting pretty girls.

Do you see how silly your argument really is...???

If anyone is having problems here, it is you.

Absolutely not. YOU made a serious technical error, one that facilitated other misconceptions. A radar transponder is not the radar system itself. Own up to it.

On one hand, you have the article saying why the planes could not be identified and why there was nothing dispatched to intercept it. On the other hand, a plane that has already crashed is told to be heading towards a certain direction and is hijacked.

I have no idea what that mean.

Moreover, this is not even the main argument (although it does counter the BS official story) as to the interception of the planes part. That is the exercises being done to stop the interception.

Say what? Here is where your ignorance is revealed.

For example...The 121st FS Air National Guard unit, aka 'Capital Guardians', like all other USAF fighters, has strict protocols they must obey. When the US President is at Andrews AFB, any airborne inbound fighters are diverted. If the US President is in his 747, which at that time would become Air Force One, not only are airborne fighters diverted, but any fighter on the ground is instructed to have its engines shut down and its nose turn away from Air Force One. This is to eliminate any possibility of an accidental weapons discharge in the direction of Air Force One, no matter how remote the possibility and regardless of whether the fighter is armed or not, even with dummy weapons. The unit's main mission as 'Capital Guardians' is supposed to be evident only in war only when the US President is secreted away somewhere unknown, not that the unit is supposed to have armed fighters with engines running hot all the time. This applies to every other USAF flying base, that they are supposed to be 'weapons tight'. Live weapons are always stored in bunkers away from the rest of the base, often out of sight. Contrary to what you may want to believe, the US does not have its military on a hair trigger.

And really, you're telling me that people who were supposedly learning to fly paper airplanes can be fly these jets?

Another revealing instance of ignorance. The hijackers were already flight students and this is where you got suckered. The only time a pilot license matter is if I intends to make flying my career, such as having repeated take-offs and landings. But if all I want is to take-off just once with no landing, why should a pilot license matter? As for autopilot, any airliner pilot will tell you that their skills and experience matters most is at take-offs and landings, not during flight where the aircraft can practically fly itself.

Do you know how much it would cost to keep an armed fighter on alert, as you posit: 'to take off within a few seconds' ?

I do not know how much it costs, but regardless the US military budget allows that. Heck even in Pakistan with 4% of GDP being used for military, and about 0.5% the military budget of the US, we have that capability. This is an absurd argument to say the least.

Good...Then you should have no problems providing a CREDIBLE source for that claim. Remember...Your argument is this...

...will have planes ready to take off within a few seconds at any given time.

I want to see if the Pakistani Air Force has constant armed fighters with ENGINES RUNNING on the pad. Else there would be no time to meet YOUR criteria, which is to take-off in seconds.

Any calls for military assistance would have to be approved by the Pentagon, not the local military liaison desk. This is to ensure no abuse of military assets for trivial reasons. So the chain of calls and confirmations can be long.

And I am not arguing against that, but you're telling me the pentagon would take forever to approve military assistance, given that a plane had already crashed and the news was spreading like wildfire.

Forever? Since when is an hour or even a few minutes 'forever'? The reason you cannot argue against what I said is because you never knew it in the first place, that the US military are not the first authority over internal US airspace, but the FAA is. So from ignorance you were gullibly led to a false conclusion about September 11, 2001. So to try to cover up your ignorance, you resort to exaggeration. In a crisis, many things beyond one's control can happen, and the lack of credible information encourages hesitation lest the actors jump into false conclusions.

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

Pakistanis don't want to believe that pre 9/11 the usaf was alseep. There was no threat in the air or ground from anywhere---there were no pilots sitting around waiting for the alarm to sound---that was a time of total peace---all the threat levels were down to below minimal.

Now, when the hijackings took place---it was assumed and assessed that they would follow the standard hijacking procedure---that the hijackers would arrive at a certain place---land and make demands---that was the standard of acceptance.

You have to understand the mentality of the amercan CEO---the head of the agency and the bureau---indeed there were some employees who had warned about air plane attacks on the buldings, but those employees were considered to be sh-it stirrers by their seniors and any ideas of those people was suppressed by the seniors and it never went to the top.

You neeed to work in managerial / executive positin in the u s to understand how the american corporate structure works.

Now comes the language part---the civil air traffic controllers donot speak the same language as the millitary traffic controllers---at that time nobody was ready to give orders or take orders. Nobody wanted to take it upon himself to give the order to shoot down a plane with passengers at that time.

The AF pilots, the way they are trained understood it the way they have practised---they have practised that any attack from the air would be coming from the ocean---.

This argument should not even be taking place---all the discussion should have been focused on how to get america out of these countries without any more bloodshed.

What people are reading of the japanese minister---what he is saying is that the world has no compassion left for the u s anymore. He cares less if anything happens. The world is basically tired of this war and its repurcussions on civil liberties.

 

[Hussein]

Japan lifts lid on Cold War nuclear pacts with US - Yahoo! News

 

[SMC]

It can signals many things...Such as unruly passengers...

Brawling English football fans force plane to make emergency landing in Germany | Mail Online

Or a mechanical problem...




Probe into exploding oxygen cylinder in 747 aircraft emergency landing drama | Mail Online


Or a medical emergency...

Stork makes surprise delivery on Southwest Airlines, prompts emergency landing in Denver


It is simply absurd to assume that every deviations from filed flight plans has nefarious intentions and it is not possible to effect an interception by the military for every deviation. General aviation in the US is notorious for such deviations, especially by corporate flyers. Sometimes it is possible for ground controllers to be fully informed and was actually in command of the situation. Sometimes the emergency is great enough that it require all the attention of the aircrew to maintain stable flight, keep the passengers calm, and make a deviation without authorization.

Differences here. The plane is off-target, and there is no communication with the plane. If there's a mechanical problem, the communication almost always remains and when it doesn't there's usually a crash. And you're ignoring the important part. It's understanable as to why the first plane was not intercepted, but the latter ones, quite some time later? That has to be done intentionally.

 

[SMC]

Really...? Just like ANY other country...? Right...So the gist of the argument here is that no country is ever at peace, therefore the military must always be at 'few seconds' alert.

Few seconds might be an overstatement but regardless every decent airforce has the capability to take-off in a short amount of time, whether that may be a few seconds or a few minutes. Since the second plane hit much later, there was ample time.

Perhaps some Pakistani members of this forum would tell the readership if Islamabad is bristling with missile launchers, the Pakistani Air Force crisscrossing Pakistani airspace fully armed and ready, the sea off Pakistani coast alive with Pakistani warships running at flank speed. Why not when hostile India is nearby and is fighting for Khasmir? We should see the same military readiness in Tokyo and Seoul when giant China and proxy North Korea are rattling their sabers. But the last time I was in either city, the only time I ever had any contact with either country's military was during official duties, not when I was playing tourist downtown and meeting pretty girls.

Do you see how silly your argument really is...???

You're exaggarating what I am saying here. Being ready to take off in a short amount of tme does not mean a country at war. Any decent military will have that capability whether in peacetime or not (and btw I don't buy the argument that US was totally at peace around that time due to tensions with Iran, Iraq and Al Qaeda).

Absolutely not. YOU made a serious technical error, one that facilitated other misconceptions. A radar transponder is not the radar system itself. Own up to it.

My original argument still stands.

I have no idea what that mean.

In the popular mechanics article, they are saying that NORAD was told that a possible hijacked flight was heading towards Boston or Washington (I can't remember which) when in fact that flight had already crashed.

Say what? Here is where your ignorance is revealed.

For example...The 121st FS Air National Guard unit, aka 'Capital Guardians', like all other USAF fighters, has strict protocols they must obey. When the US President is at Andrews AFB, any airborne inbound fighters are diverted. If the US President is in his 747, which at that time would become Air Force One, not only are airborne fighters diverted, but any fighter on the ground is instructed to have its engines shut down and its nose turn away from Air Force One. This is to eliminate any possibility of an accidental weapons discharge in the direction of Air Force One, no matter how remote the possibility and regardless of whether the fighter is armed or not, even with dummy weapons. The unit's main mission as 'Capital Guardians' is supposed to be evident only in war only when the US President is secreted away somewhere unknown, not that the unit is supposed to have armed fighters with engines running hot all the time. This applies to every other USAF flying base, that they are supposed to be 'weapons tight'. Live weapons are always stored in bunkers away from the rest of the base, often out of sight. Contrary to what you may want to believe, the US does not have its military on a hair trigger.

US has anti-missile defence to stop missiles from Russia. Those missils take 18 minutes to travel from source to destination - US has capability to stop that. And you're telling me US does not have military on 'hair trigger'? Of course it does. And regardless, it doesn't need to be completely at war to be on alert. I mentioned this before.

Moreover, this is regarding president this, president that, etc. I am merely saying that US was having exercises at that time to make sure the planes do not get intercepted.

Another revealing instance of ignorance. The hijackers were already flight students and this is where you got suckered. The only time a pilot license matter is if I intends to make flying my career, such as having repeated take-offs and landings. But if all I want is to take-off just once with no landing, why should a pilot license matter? As for autopilot, any airliner pilot will tell you that their skills and experience matters most is at take-offs and landings, not during flight where the aircraft can practically fly itself.

This is BS. There's a big difference between knowing how to fly small airplanes and flying commercial jets. If you fly small airplane and all of sudden get into the cockpit of commercial jet, there will be a big difference as to what you see and you'll be overwhelmed.



This is a boeing 767 cockpit.

These two are paper airplane cockpit.

The cockpit is from plane that was used to crash in WTC, and next two to allegedly train by hijackers. Quite a bit of difference. It's not like driving that you really need to learn how to drive and then you can drive all cars.

And moreover, small planes do not normally have autopilots. First one of training definitely does not, while second one only has 1 model out of several which has autopilot, and even that one has an optional autopilot.

So there is where the BS is going. Utter BS.

Good...Then you should have no problems providing a CREDIBLE source for that claim. Remember...Your argument is this...

You do remember that not too long ago (in 2009) Pakistan intercepted indian airplanes who went into Pakistani territory in roughly 23 seconds.

I want to see if the Pakistani Air Force has constant armed fighters with ENGINES RUNNING on the pad. Else there would be no time to meet YOUR criteria, which is to take-off in seconds.

And again, it doesn't have to be in seconds. But yes Pakistan does have quick take-off capability as mentioned.

Forever? Since when is an hour or even a few minutes 'forever'? The reason you cannot argue against what I said is because you never knew it in the first place, that the US military are not the first authority over internal US airspace, but the FAA is. So from ignorance you were gullibly led to a false conclusion about September 11, 2001. So to try to cover up your ignorance, you resort to exaggeration. In a crisis, many things beyond one's control can happen, and the lack of credible information encourages hesitation lest the actors jump into false conclusions.

Oh here we go again, taking something simple and making it sound like I literally meant forever. The first plane had already crashed, the news reaches to people in no more than 5 minutes, and it would take several minutes or hours to give authorization. Quite a bit of BS there. I think it's obvious what happened and why US was slow to respond (or actually not respond at all) on that day. The people who believe in 100000 coincidences happening on one day and that government never lies can remain asleep and keep their heads buried in the sand.

 

[SMC]

It's not easy finding an aircraft with its transpoder turned off esspecially when the air traffic controllers have to monitor thousands of other aircraft.

So now the air traffic controlers where in on 911 too?

And it's the article on popular mechanics that's saying that the there was possibly hijacked planes heading towards DC and Boston (one of those possible hijackings had already crashed).

Typical conspiracy theorist argumant. One thing i notice about conspiracy theorists is that they just feed off emotions, rumors and distorted facts

Nice argument. 14 sounds a good number to make up and feed to gullible people.

First off all aircraft are basically the same when talking in the context of controls, if a "paper" pilot knows how to pitch, yaw, and roll, a "paper plane" than he can do the same to a passenger jet...remember those hijackers didn't 'fly' the aircraft, instead they steard it. I got to 'stear' my first aircraft when i was 11, and as long as you know the basics of an aircraft you should be able to keep in in the air...remember we are not talking about taking off and landing, we're talking about stearing.

Yeah, and how would you explain the pentagon crash then? Not exactly about steering anymore is it? Moreover, again, small planes differ heavily from bigger ones. Again, it's not like learning how to drive and then driving any car. Totally different.

The twine towers were brought down by explosives...yea right and they managed this how? Better yet how did they drill all the holes for the explosive charges?

You're kidding me, are you? This is your debunking? Did you not see loose change where they zoomed into the buildings falling and there were small explosions going off? When that happens, really how it's done becomes irrelevent. It happened and there's videos to show that, how it happened is just a desperate argument.

Moreover, no one is taking about drilling explosives. Hundreds of buildings have been brought down by explosives. You're telling me this one can't be?

The pentagon was hit with a missle...yea right and the hundreds of eye witnesses are liars...

No aircraft wreckage was found at either sites...pictures prove otherwise.

There was in fact no wreckage found at the pentagon except small pieces - and a few of them only -, small enough to be easily carried by one person and planted as evidence. For instance, no engines or wings, etc. Those don't get destroyed as easily. And no, no pictures show plane wreckage at the pentagon.

As far as witness accounts go, there are videos of only 1 or 2 of them. The rest are only words, which means they were made up by GoA. This is contradictory to the conspiracy theorists evidence, which shows visual evidence of bombs going off at the WTC and the sound of them as well in several videos.

Also something important as far as pentagon goes.

They claim they found the black box, yet have never released the data to the public. They confiscated the camera data of every single camera in the surrounding area, and to this date, and only released three frames of animation from ONE of them, and neither of those frames show a plane. Interestingly enough, the three frames they released had been leaked years earlier. If they actually wanted to settle this debate once and for all, they'd simply release all the camera data. If you have nothing to hide, you have reason to hide nothing.

The twine towers couldn't have callaped because other high rises burned without callapsing....yes and other higher rises didn't get their core supports completely destroyed.

And 9/11was the first time fires apparently destroyed the core support of 3 buildings, contradictory to many other buildings that were on fire. Right? How many firsts happened on 9/11? (And also lasts)

Another twin tower conspiracy theory: the fire was not hot enough to melt the beams, well firstly beams don't need to actually melt, they just need to weaken and once they do gravity will pull down and and cause them to sag. why is this important? Because the beams are connected to the outer walls, thus once they sag they will pull in the outer wall (concave) this is what i mean:

I am not talking about melting or anything here. If fire was responsible, I just can't see the building collapsing like the way it did or how quickly it did.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/...rldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf

This is a long article that deals with some things.

Engineers have been trying to figure out exactly what happened and whether they should
be worried about other buildings like it around the country… Most of the other buildings
Journal of 9/11 Studies 23 September 2006/Volume 3
in the [area] stood despite suffering damage of all kinds, including fire... ‘Fire and the
structural damage …would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear
to have been partly evaporated’, Dr. [Jonathan] Barnett said. (Glanz, 2001; emphasis
added.)
The observed “partly evaporated” steel members is particularly upsetting to the official theory,
since fires involving paper, office materials, even diesel fuel, cannot generate temperatures
anywhere near the ~5,180oF (~2860oC) needed to evaporate steel. (Recall that WTC 7 was not
hit by a jet, so there was no jet fuel involved in the fires in this building.) However, thermitevariants,
RDX and other commonly-used incendiaries or explosives (i.e., cutter-charges) can
readily slice through steel, thus cutting the support columns in a controlled demolition, and reach
the required temperatures. This mystery needs to be explored – but is not mentioned in the
“official” 9-11 Commission or NIST reports.

This was from page 22-23.

Experts said no building like it [WTC7], a modern, steel-reinforced high-rise, had
ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire. (Glanz, 2001; emphasis added.)
Fire engineering expert Norman Glover agrees:
Almost all large buildings will be the location for a major fire in their useful life.
No major high-rise building has ever collapsed from fire…
The WTC [itself] was the location for such a fire in 1975; however, the building survived
with minor damage and was repaired and returned to service.” (Glover, 2002)
That’s correct – no steel-beam high-rise had ever before (or since) completely collapsed due to
fires! However, such complete and nearly symmetrical collapses in tall steel-frame buildings
have occurred many times before -- all of them due to pre-positioned explosives in a procedure
called “implosion” or controlled demolition. What a surprise, then, for such an occurrence in
downtown Manhattan— three skyscrapers completely collapsed on the same day, September 11,
2001, presumably without the use of explosives.

Page 22.

A near-symmetrical collapse, as observed, evidently requires the simultaneous “pulling”
of many of the support columns (see below, particularly discussion of Bazant & Zhou paper).
The likelihood of complete and nearly-symmetrical collapse due to random fires as in the
“official” theory is small, since non-symmetrical failure is so much more likely. If one or a few
Journal of 9/11 Studies 21 September 2006/Volume 3
columns had failed, one might expect a portion of the building to crumble while leaving much of
the building standing.

Page 20.

Now here comes the important part:

The maximum flame temperature increase for
burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1000 °C -- hardly sufficient to melt
steel at 1500 °C."
"But it is very difficult to reach [even] this maximum temperature with a diffuse
flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the
best ratio... This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500 °C to
650 °C range [Cote, 1992]. It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse
flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke.... It is known that structural steel
begins to soften around 425 °C and loses about half of its strength at 650 °C [Cote,
1992]. This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss
of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse... The WTC, on this
low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable... Even
with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses
imposed by a 650 °C fire."

On page 7.

another stupid theory: thermit was used to bring down to wtc. Here is what the picture all the stupid conspiracy theorist jump on:

Too bad the conspiracy theorist are too dumb to understand that clean-up crews cut beams with plasma torches:

In these two pictures, the first one seems to be right after the towers collapsed, and the second one some time later (few days in fact). Moreover, the article I gave above heavily discusses thermite.

 

[gambit]

Few seconds might be an overstatement...

Your words.

...but regardless every decent airforce has the capability to take-off in a short amount of time, whether that may be a few seconds or a few minutes.

And it depends on the situation, such as when the country is at war and the enemy is right next door like if either Canada or Mexico or both is at war against the US, not when the enemy is stateless and has no standing army.

Since the second plane hit much later, there was ample time.

Ample time? According to whose and what standards?

September 11 attacks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Early on the morning on September 11, 2001, nineteen hijackers took control of four commercial airliners en route to San Francisco and Los Angeles from Boston, Newark, and Washington, D.C. (Washington Dulles International Airport).[1] At 8:46 a.m., American Airlines Flight 11 was crashed into the World Trade Center's North Tower, followed by United Airlines Flight 175 which hit the South Tower at 9:03 a.m.[7][8]

Fifteen minutes difference is not enough time to:

- Alert and order ALL airborne targets to land at the nearest airport.

- Sort out among the descending targets as to which could be a victim of a hijack. Or not.

I challenge you to show the readers any country, before Sept 11, 2001, that they are that capable.

You're exaggarating what I am saying here.

No...The 'few seconds' are YOUR words, not my exaggeration. Be man enough to own them.

Being ready to take off in a short amount of tme does not mean a country at war. Any decent military will have that capability whether in peacetime or not (and btw I don't buy the argument that US was totally at peace around that time due to tensions with Iran, Iraq and Al Qaeda).

Neither Iran nor Iraq was capable of attacking continental US and al-Qaeda do not have a standing army.

YOU made a serious technical error, one that facilitated other misconceptions. A radar transponder is not the radar system itself. Own up to it.

My original argument still stands.

Wrong...Your argument collapsed a long time ago. Your argument is based upon the flawed understanding that when an airliner turned off its radar, ground controllers can no longer track it. Let me remind you and also to prevent you from editing away your gross technical error I will cite your original argument...

One of the contradiction I starkly remember was the article mentioning that the planes' radars were turned off so they didn't know where they were going, but then pretty soon the article mention that they caught a plane moving (incorrectly) toward Washington DC.

You do not understand what I am saying, do you? The article said the planes could not be found because the radars were turned off:

Radars are not transponders and transponders are not radars. When you make such a gross technical error, one that is a vital element of the event, your credibility is pretty much shot.

In the popular mechanics article, they are saying that NORAD was told that a possible hijacked flight was heading towards Boston or Washington (I can't remember which) when in fact that flight had already crashed.

Do try to provide the source and the relevant paragraph. Still...What you have here is a clear case of confusion of what was going on. This further debunk your argument that the US should have been able to respond in a timely manner.

US has anti-missile defence to stop missiles from Russia. Those missils take 18 minutes to travel from source to destination - US has capability to stop that. And you're telling me US does not have military on 'hair trigger'? Of course it does. And regardless, it doesn't need to be completely at war to be on alert. I mentioned this before.

Incoming ballistic missiles from the other side of the world have distinct flight characteristics and they come from outside of the FAA's jurisdiction, meaning monitor and control. Inside US borders, the FAA have jurisdiction. Why is that so difficult for you to understand? NORAD's monitors outside of US borders. The FAA monitors what is going on inside US borders and the FAA have no response mechanisms.

Moreover, this is regarding president this, president that, etc. I am merely saying that US was having exercises at that time to make sure the planes do not get intercepted.

Wrong...That is your assumption that any exercises before or during was intended to occupy the USAF. You have no evidence that the USAF was supposed to be on alert status in the first place.

This is BS. There's a big difference between knowing how to fly small airplanes and flying commercial jets. If you fly small airplane and all of sudden get into the cockpit of commercial jet, there will be a big difference as to what you see and you'll be overwhelmed.

<snipped>

So there is where the BS is going. Utter BS.

In the later stages of the kamikaze program, Imperial Japan stopped training suicide pilots on how to land and instrument flying. Why? Because those skills are useless. Look at the cockpit gauges and think hard...really hard...And ask yourself what are they for? Howabout they are for NORMAL pilots whose concerns are passenger comfort, fuel versus range, altitude and airspeed...etc...etc. Does a suicidal pilot have any need for any of those considerations? Airliners do not always take flight with a full load of fuel. Why should they when EACH aircraft knows exactly where they are going, day after day? So an airliner will always be loaded with just enough margin of fuel to get to destination, loiter for a while if necessary, and land with very low fuel. The only exceptions to this practice, not rule, is Air Force One or any aircraft carrying a head of state. In such a situation, it is desirable that the aircraft be fully refueled by the time of landing to provide said head of state with a mean of leaving without fuel load worries.

So for a normal airline pilot those cockpit instruments would be very important, but for a suicidal pilot they would be worthless. Back in WW II for Imperial Japan kamikaze pilots, all they had to do is learn how to take-off, basic formation, follow a lead, and when they sight enemy fleet, pick any ship and dive at full throttle. So what need of them to learn how to read instruments other than airspeed and altitude? For the Sept 11, 2001 hijackers, their aircrafts is programmed to do much, not all, of the flying. None of them need to know how to make a coordinated turn. Modern avionics for passenger comfort oriented flying will do that for them.

By the time Mohammed Atta arrived at Huffman Aviation to learn how to fly multi-engines, he already possessed a private license and many people can have multi-engine private license without being in the aviation industry. I got my single engine private license while in high school and I graduated in 1982. I often flew over Pearl Harbor and those flights were with the venerable Cessna 152/172. If all I wanted was to crash a 747, either into the ground or a building, the basic airmanship I learned many many years ago would suffice. Since then my license is expired and if I want to recertify and regain my private pilot license, I would have to start all over again as if I was a novice, but I have not forgotten those basic skills.

Huffman Aviation

Furthermore, reportedly, &#8220;Atta and al-Shehhi would rent a plane from Huffman and be gone for days at a time, Pursell said. They could fly to 20 airports across the state and never be noticed.&#8221;

That is considerable piloting skills regardless of platform. So if all they wanted was to crash an multi-engined large passenger aircraft into a building, they have all the necessary basic flying skills for a good start on learning how to manage said multi-engined aircraft.

Greaves says, &#8220;I was really a little bit jealous in that they were always given preference with one of the Warriors which was a much newer, much neater aircraft,&#8221; and comments that for Atta &#8220;to have progressed as rapidly as he seemed to have done at Huffman he must have had flying skills before he came to Huffman Aviation.&#8221; (This fits with claims made by Rudi Dekkers, that Atta already had a private pilot&#8217;s license when he first arrived at the school (see July 6-December 19, 2000).)

Instructors, if possible, will try to give their better student pilots the best training aircrafts the school can offer that day. It is both good PR and good business sense. You get your money regardless if the student is there for six weeks or six months. So the sooner you graduate your best students, the sooner you can move to the next group and make more money. The student leave your school with a good impression and positive word-of-mouth is priceless for business. For Atta and his crew, what need is there for them to give Huffman a positive review? All they need to learn, just like Imperial Japan's kamikaze pilots, is basic multi-engine instructions.

You do remember that not too long ago (in 2009) Pakistan intercepted indian airplanes who went into Pakistani territory in roughly 23 seconds.

No...I do not so please provide source. Still...Even if I was to grant you this claim, this is about India and Pakistan, hostile neighbors. The US, Canada and Mexico are not hostile. The only worry we have are EXTERNAL threats, which is what NORAD is all about and for whom on Sept 11, 2001, NORAD's vigilance was EXTERNAL while the FAA's responsibility was internal and the FAA have no response mechanisms.

And again, it doesn't have to be in seconds. But yes Pakistan does have quick take-off capability as mentioned.

And again, the 'few seconds' are YOUR words which also is your demand. Either you refrain from hyperboles or they will be held against you.

Oh here we go again, taking something simple and making it sound like I literally meant forever.

Why should I not? After all, you did demand that the US should have 24/7/365 alert aircrafts capable of taking off to intercept errant airborne targets in as little as a 'few seconds'.

The first plane had already crashed, the news reaches to people in no more than 5 minutes, and it would take several minutes or hours to give authorization. Quite a bit of BS there. I think it's obvious what happened and why US was slow to respond (or actually not respond at all) on that day. The people who believe in 100000 coincidences happening on one day and that government never lies can remain asleep and keep their heads buried in the sand.

You might want to look up these keywords 'mathias rust moscow square' and see how vulnerable cities are to aircrafts rather than ICBMs. Just because one WTC tower was struck, there was no way for the FAA and NORAD to know for certain that the next target would be the other tower and the Pentagon. Your argument is based entirely on unreasonable assumptions.

 

[gambit]

Differences here. The plane is off-target, and there is no communication with the plane. If there's a mechanical problem, the communication almost always remains and when it doesn't there's usually a crash. And you're ignoring the important part. It's understanable as to why the first plane was not intercepted, but the latter ones, quite some time later? That has to be done intentionally.

Point here is that there is a distinct line of responsibilities between the military and the civilians in the US. Each have their own response mechanisms. Just because an aircraft lost communication, that does not mean the aircraft is a victim of air piracy. There could be very plausible technical causes and it is good that we give these technical causes much leeway.

 

[gambit]

The twine towers were brought down by explosives...yea right and they managed this how? Better yet how did they drill all the holes for the explosive charges?

Moreover, no one is taking about drilling explosives. Hundreds of buildings have been brought down by explosives. You're telling me this one can't be?

No need to drill holes? You cannot be THAT incompetent with the web browser...

Seattle Kingdome | Controlled Demolition, Inc.

CDI had Aman’s drilling subcontractor drill 5,905 holes for CDI’s explosive placements in the tension and compression rings, roof ribs, columns and support structure under the Kingdome. During loading operations, CDI laid 21.6 miles of detonating cord and placed more than 4,700 lb. of explosives in critical locations to control the fall of the structure and reduce vibration. The explosives detonation sequence utilized over 900 delays both to control the fall of the structure, mitigate air overpressure and to enhance fragmentation of resultant debris.

Thousands of holes, miles of det cords and tons of explosives are needed to bring down a stadium. And here we are talking about two world class towers that YOU claim can be brought down through planted explosives that does not need drilling and not one explanations on how much explosives are needed.

Sources for your claims, please...

 

[SMC]

Now this is time consuming stuff. I promise to reply to this (if I remain alive and well anyway), but after some time, since I am very busy with exams, projects, assignments, etc.

 

[gambit]

Now this is time consuming stuff. I promise to reply to this (if I remain alive and well anyway), but after some time, since I am very busy with exams, projects, assignments, etc.

Very good that you realize that. Now think...hard...that why is it that no controlled demolition company in the world stepped forward to support these loony conspiracy theories? After all, what they do is also very 'time consuming' in their trade, correct? YOU who are still in skule is here claiming to know better than they who deals with life threatening substance, aka TNT and the sort, for a living.

 

[gambit]

And 9/11was the first time fires apparently destroyed the core support of 3 buildings, contradictory to many other buildings that were on fire. Right? How many firsts happened on 9/11? (And also lasts)

Are you certain that no fire have EVER collapsed a building prior to Sept 11, 2001...???

Fire Protection Engineering Archives - Historical Survey of Multistory Building Collapses Due to Fire

A fire-initiated full collapse of a textile factory occurred in Alexandria, Egypt, on July 19, 2000.6 This 6-story building was built of reinforced concrete, and its fire started at about 9 a.m. in the storage room at the ground floor.

Concrete have better fire resistive behavior than steel and here we have from the firefighters themselves that a 6-story concrete building collapsed from a fire.

http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/pr...strucfire/materialInFire/Concrete/default.htm

Concrete has a low thermal conductivity (50 times lower than steel) and therefore heats up very slowly in a fire. It is the low thermal conductivity that provides good inherent fire resistance of concrete structures. The main concern of using HSC is its higher susceptibility to explosive spalling during a fire attack.

I suggest at least one semester of critical thinking course for you.