Are Americans dumb?

Yes, there was risk of hijacking. But up until 9/11, the hijackings never resulted in ramming the planes into buildings. Add in the fact that we hadn't had a domestic hijacking in about 30 years? The threat was always deemed to come from outside in. 9/11 changed that.

So, the military was just inept. That alone is frightening. It is the one thing that has always perplexed me, how our highly trained military was ineffective and no one thought anything of it.

The whole investigation into what went wrong that day was inept.
 
So, the military was just inept. That alone is frightening. It is the one thing that has always perplexed me, how our highly trained military was ineffective and no one thought anything of it.

The whole investigation into what went wrong that day was inept.

So says many of the people who were in on the make-believe investigation.
 
Why do you avoid answering the questions I posed about the Moon landings and the North Tower?

I answered your question about the moon landings. I can't comment on the skepticism you mentioned without seeing the data for it.

You read one biased document regarding the power down. I commented on your assessment after your having read the one document. Was I unclear?


I am sorry but people like me operate from a logical point of view, most of the time anyway, and if you find that strange then I suggest that the fault lies with you.

No worries. The assessment I made regarding how a closed mind such as yours limits a discussion to shallow simplicity is handily demonstrated on this thread and others. That I bore quickly with such shallowness is a 'fault' I can easily accept in myself.
 
I suggest that you follow the bouncing ball my friend. The clues to how they did it abound.

And, as Bijou has asked, what makes you think this would take months?

Explain the explosions?

Explain how the transcripts from the ATC show they lost contact with United 175 and didn't know where it was.

The explosions were explained, you choose not to accept anything that doesn't fit your conspiracy theory.
 
Yes, there was risk of hijacking. But up until 9/11, the hijackings never resulted in ramming the planes into buildings. Add in the fact that we hadn't had a domestic hijacking in about 30 years? The threat was always deemed to come from outside in. 9/11 changed that.

August 17, 1994, novel. By Tom Clancy had a high jacked plane crashing into the Pentagon. Too bad. The military didn't think of such a thing and plane for it. Again, it is scary to think our military that inept.
 
So, the military was just inept. That alone is frightening. It is the one thing that has always perplexed me, how our highly trained military was ineffective and no one thought anything of it.

The whole investigation into what went wrong that day was inept.

How was the military inept?
 
What's with the resurgence in the 9/11 conspiracy? Everywhere I go I'm hearing about this bullshit again.

It distracts from the horrible leadership of the current Administration and gets people arguing about something other than the fact of the incredible number of people who don't have jobs while the "Private Sector is Doing Fine"...
 
August 17, 1994, novel. By Tom Clancy had a high jacked plane crashing into the Pentagon. Too bad. The military didn't think of such a thing and plane for it. Again, it is scary to think our military that inept.

LMAO... yeah, a NOVEL. There are 1000's of catastrophic occurrences in fictional novels.

To pretend they didn't think of it, is just an opinion. I can think up 100 scenarios, should they put manpower in place to cover all of them just because I can think them up? Or should they devote manpower to the most likely threat assessments based on our history? 30 years or so since the last hijacking in the US. No commercial hijacking in the US ever led to the plane ramming into the ground/buildings. Yet you wanted them to be on the look out it?
 
I suggest that you follow the bouncing ball my friend. The clues to how they did it abound.

And, as Bijou has asked, what makes you think this would take months?

Explain the explosions?

You just said it yourself controlled demolitions collapse onto their own footprint, now for that to happen then you would have to have charges on each floor or at least alternate floors. They would then be detonated in sequence from the top to the bottom, now if they just had explosives on say the 50th floor wouldn't the whole building just topple to one side?
 
I am sure that you can give me a few quotes to back up your premise? I have already said that I believe that there are legitimate questions to be answered and Robert Bowman is a very credible person. Now as far as I can see, he is saying that a series of exercises were deliberately planned for the period around 9/11. He doesn't say anything about controlled explosions because he is not a fool.

Or he doesn't say anything about controlled explosions because he doesn't know about that and can't confirm it.

I suggest you look into 'Crossing the Rubicon' if you want answers.
 
What happens to falling mass when it encounters equal or greater mass?

It slows down. Is that what you think occurred on 9/11? That the falling mass was less than the mass it hit? Are you suggesting that 10 falling floors is less mass than each subsequent ONE floor it hits?
 
You just said it yourself controlled demolitions collapse onto their own footprint, now for that to happen then you would have to have charges on each floor or at least alternate floors. They would then be detonated in sequence from the top to the bottom, now if they just had explosives on say the 50th floor wouldn't the whole building just topple to one side?

Are you a controlled demo expert?

Are you a controlled demo professional in the private sector?

Or are you a controlled demo expert for the military?
 
LMAO... yeah, a NOVEL. There are 1000's of catastrophic occurrences in fictional novels.

To pretend they didn't think of it, is just an opinion. I can think up 100 scenarios, should they put manpower in place to cover all of them just because I can think them up? Or should they devote manpower to the most likely threat assessments based on our history? 30 years or so since the last hijacking in the US. No commercial hijacking in the US ever led to the plane ramming into the ground/buildings. Yet you wanted them to be on the look out it?

Well, I think it is their job to be a step ahead of the bad guys. It is their duty to protect us and themselves. They had warnings of heightened activity, four planes go missing, and their response was abysmal.
 
I answered your question about the moon landings. I can't comment on the skepticism you mentioned without seeing the data for it.

You read one biased document regarding the power down. I commented on your assessment after your having read the one document. Was I unclear?




No worries. The assessment I made regarding how a closed mind such as yours limits a discussion to shallow simplicity is handily demonstrated on this thread and others. That I bore quickly with such shallowness is a 'fault' I can easily accept in myself.

How did you answer the question about the Moon landings, maybe I am slow so let me put it as simply as possible. Did man land on the Moon? Yes or no will suffice. As for the power down, you haven't explained why the North Tower behaved exactly like the South Tower.
 
Well, I think it is their job to be a step ahead of the bad guys. It is their duty to protect us and themselves. They had warnings of heightened activity, four planes go missing, and their response was abysmal.

Take a look at the transcript I posted of the ATC.

You are being completely unrealistic with your opinion on the military.
 
Back
Top