Are Americans dumb?

Superfreak said:
1) NORAD's drills were in regard to planes coming from foreign space into ours.

2) To suggest that NORAD's drills are what confused the media is a bit strange given the transcript of the ATC conversation showed that they thought other flights had been hijacked due to a lack of communication with the planes... Delta 1989 is one example.

3) On OPERATION NORTHERN VIGILANCE: was planned prior to 9/11 and scrubbed when the hijackings occurred. A person could certainly pretend that this was done deliberately, but I see no evidence of such.

4) On OPERATION VIGILANT GUARDIAN: These again were tests that had been done annually and that one of the tests involved a hijacking. Again, the conspiracy theorists can certainly make a case that this was odd given the events of the day, but if it was done annually, I would think that too could have provided cover for terrorists... and thus why they chose that time frame for attack.

5) Nowhere in the transcripts of the ATC conversations were people getting 'confused' by the exercises by the military. So his comments there are a bit weird to say the least.
Click to expand...

I just want to know why somebody who was so high up in the military, after all he was in charge of the SDI aka Star Wars project, would say that it was a deliberate act by Cheney. It is not as if he said it years ago and has changed his mind since, as he is still saying it in 2012. Why would somebody like that risk losing their credibility over this issue?
 
Last edited:
Aoxomoxoa said:
I just want to know why somebody who was so high up in the military, after all he was in charge of the SDI aka Star Wars project, would say that it was deliberate act by Cheney.
Click to expand...

That I cannot answer, but I have not seen anything of his that would indicate such. Smart people can be duped too. I think BAC is very smart, I think I am fairly intelligent as well, yet one of us is way way way wrong on this issue. Sometimes we see what we want to see. Which is BAC's opinion as well... he and I just think it is the 'other' that is looking through tainted glasses.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
They relied on domestic ATC centres but you don't find it strange that they didn't have direct comms links? They put them in PDQ after 9/11.
Click to expand...

No. Though I was not aware they relied on the domestic ATC centers either. I thought they had their own sat systems and radar that they used.
 
Superfreak said:
No. Though I was not aware they relied on the domestic ATC centers either. I thought they had their own sat systems and radar that they used.
Click to expand...

I am going by what the Calgary Herald article said. They obviously had the capability as that article was written one month after 9/11

Since that date, however, Norad's mission has expanded.
"If it (an aircraft) took off from within the U.S. or Canada, Norad always assumed the law enforcement, the Federal Aviation Authority, or the air force security people had done their jobs and it wasn't going to be a threat. That's why we looked out," says Hunter. "We are prepared now more than we were previously for internal threats from the sky."
Norad now tracks 40,000 flights a day.
"We have to assume something else is coming because if we didn't, as military officials, we would be irresponsible. We plan for the worst and right now we're planning for that," says Hunter.
Click to expand...

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/analysis/norad/calgaryherald101301_scrables.html
 
Superfreak said:
Seems you continue to fail at reading your own links. Again that states the aircraft in the scenarios were FOREIGN based. Coming from outside the borders into the US.

That said, what if they had been able to intercept the planes and were forced to shoot them down? How quickly would the left be screaming about cowboy military pilots going John Wayne on innocent civilians? How long would we have had to hear about the 'fact' that we couldn't possibly 'know' they were going to ram the planes into buildings?
Click to expand...

Well, it is good to know that you are fine with the way things were handled and that you trust our government so completely!

I don't, I think we get lied to a lot about a great many things that concern our security.

I think there are a lot of unanswered questions to this day and our government let us down and a lot of people died as a result.

But I am glad you feel safe and secure!
 
Rana said:
Well, it is good to know that you are fine with the way things were handled and that you trust our government so complicitly!
Click to expand...

I am fine with the way the military responded that day. To pretend that equates to trusting the government is just a sad little straw man.

I don't, I think we get lied to a lot about a great many things that concern our security.

I think there are a lot of unanswered questions to this day and our government let us down and a lot of people died as a result.

But I am glad you feel safe and secure!
Click to expand...

I think we definitely are not told the truth about many things that the elite politicians feel we cannot handle.

There are always unanswered questions and the ability to 'what if' scenarios via 20/20 hindsight. It is easy to look back and say 'they could have stopped it, IF ONLY they had done 'x''

I do feel quite safe and secure in the US... though I think we over do our illusion of safety.
 
Superfreak said:
I am fine with the way the military responded that day. To pretend that equates to trusting the government is just a sad little straw man.



I think we definitely are not told the truth about many things that the elite politicians feel we cannot handle.

There are always unanswered questions and the ability to 'what if' scenarios via 20/20 hindsight. It is easy to look back and say 'they could have stopped it, IF ONLY they had done 'x''

I do feel quite safe and secure in the US... though I think we over do our illusion of safety.
Click to expand...

Military = government

We have been lied to by both concerning 9/11.
 
blackascoal said:
When falling mass encounters equal or greater mass IT ALWAYS SLOWS DOWN. Objects that only encounter air resistance fall faster than objects that encounter mass resistance .. thus the term, free-fall speed.

The ONLY way the towers AND WTC7 could have fallen as fast as they did is if the mass resistance was being removed .. thus, controlled demolition.

But the rate of speed was hardly the only demonstration that this was a controlled demolition .. in which the buildings that have been imploded fall into the own footprints with the outer roofs laying on top of the roof which was pulled inward.


WTC 7 laying in its own footprints with the outer walls laying clearly on top.

conspiracy-theory-8.jpg


But laying in its own footprint and the rate of speed of the collapse aren't the only demonstrations of a controlled demolition.

So is the symetrical, uniform progression of the collapse .. which requires no post because that's eaxactly what the world witnessed.

Collapsing buildings tend to fall over to the path of least resistance.

This is a controlled demolition ..

Click to expand...

How are you assuming, and I use that in the nicest possible way, are you coming to the conclusion that the falling floors are meeting a mass greater then what their combined mass and momentum were?
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
I just want to know why somebody who was so high up in the military, after all he was in charge of the SDI aka Star Wars project, would say that it was a deliberate act by Cheney. It is not as if he said it years ago and has changed his mind since, as he is still saying it in 2012. Why would somebody like that risk losing their credibility over this issue?
Click to expand...

Might have something to do with the noteriety and monetary gain they receive from pedaling this to the moonbat liberals who WANT to believe it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top