I just saw United Flight 93...

[REWahoo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by razztazz I'm not saying I belive in this particular conspiracy theory but I spent 20+ yrs on the controller side looking at the radar picture of the freindly skies, (and flying in it too) and I would disagree. Everything's really small up there. Nobody has to see nuthin'. And you don't have to shoot it down with a big-assed missile from the ground that leave a big smoke trail that gets a lot of attention from local farmers.

True, but many other people would know a weapon was fired even if they didn't acutally see it. In addition to the pilot and his wingman (who would obviously know what happened), you have the operations people in the squadron, several ground crew, a dozen or so weapons people on the ground who have to account for those $100K+ air-to-air missiles, and many more people up the chain of command. How do you keep that many people quiet for almost 6 years without someone talking?

Once again, way too many human beans involved to keep something this big a secret.

[razztazz]

Quote:

True, but many other people would know a weapon was fired even if they didn't acutally see it. In addition to the pilot and his wingman (who would obviously know what happened), you have the operations people in the squadron, several ground crew, a dozen or so weapons people on the ground who have to account for those $100K+ air-to-air missiles, and many more people up the chain of command. How do you keep that many people quiet for almost 6 years without someone talking? Once again, way too many human beans involved to keep something this big a secret

Not as difficult as one might think. Compartmentalize the operation. Don't let the militray fly it. (Remember Col Flagg from M*A*S*H?) Chain of commmand? Wing man? Ground crew?

All those people know is what THEY are doing. And none of it looks like a peice of "conspiracy" .It just looks like preping a routine mission. or special mission they havent been told any specifics about. They go on TV to say what they know and they can easily be shouted down or made to look foolish. Which of course they cant do or they'll be jailed just as I would be if I told you how I know these things, heh heh. Threats and intimidation... man's gotta earn a living. Or that small group of papered-over G Gordon Liddy types.

But I do think the "Grand Conspiracy" theory is so Rube Goldberg nobody really thinks that way. And there are so many moving parts up and down the line there's no way you can assure keeping a lid on things... OR perhaps it can all hide in plain sight. Call anyone talking conspiracy a "nut case" And always be ready to refute unwanted data and discoveries with other data .. might be true, might be BS, Both could reasonably be true so the waters are effectively muddied and the legend can become fact.

[samclem]

Quote:

Originally Posted by razztazz Not as difficult as one might think. Compartmentalize the operation. Don't let the militray fly it.

The infamous CIA Interceptor Squadron (shh--don't tell anyone--they fly fighters with Canadian markings!!) with autonomous GCI. Oh, and they are low radar signature so nobody see 'em on other civilian radar or military radar. And, and, and they fly from a secret underground airfield. And they jam selected civilian radio freqs so "nobody can hear you scream." Oh, and they are everywhere, ready to shoot down airliners.

I saw it on the internet--it must be true.

[Ed_The_Gypsy]

I'm into black helicopters, myself.

[REWahoo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by razztazz Not as difficult as one might think. Compartmentalize the operation. Don't let the militray fly it....

So you are saying the US govt. must have known in advance about 911? Why else would they have non-military aircrews in place ready to shoot down a commercial flight?

Now we've gone from "our military shot down flight 93 (diliberately or accidentally) and there is a conspiracy to keep that information from the public" to a full-blown tinfoil-hat-wearing Elvis-is-still-alive conspiracy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by razztazz They go on TV to say what they know and they can easily be shouted down or made to look foolish. Which of course they cant do or they'll be jailed just as I would be if I told you how I know these things, heh heh. Threats and intimidation... man's gotta earn a living. Or that small group of papered-over G Gordon Liddy types.

Yep, not hard to keep someone from standing in front of a TV camera. But damn near impossible to choke off a "Deep Throat" expose.

Quote:

Originally Posted by razztazz But I do think the "Grand Conspiracy" theory is so Rube Goldberg nobody really thinks that way. And there are so many moving parts up and down the line there's no way you can assure keeping a lid on things... OR perhaps it can all hide in plain sight. Call anyone talking conspiracy a "nut case" And always be ready to refute unwanted data and discoveries with other data .. might be true, might be BS, Both could reasonably be true so the waters are effectively muddied and the legend can become fact.

Yep again. There are always lots of inquiring minds who will buy, read and believe everything printed in the National Inquirer. :

[razztazz]

Quote:

So you are saying the US govt. must have known in advance about 911? Why else would they have non-military aircrews in place ready to shoot down a commercial flight?

I said no such thing. No, the Gov didn't pre-know abour 9/11 except on teh possib;le basis of the radar guy in HAwaii on Dec 7 1941. Somebody somewere had "The Golden Beebee" of information but sone a gun it didn't look like anything till afterwards.

Apparently you people like talking baout the whole conspiracy idea.

[samclem]

I don't know about REWahoo, but I don't "like" talking about the "whole conspiracy idea." It's a waste of time. But when people write wildly improbable/impossible things, then I feel somebody should point them out. Otherwise, somebody who had no background in such things might think the conspiracy was plausable. In this case, it clearly is not.

[razztazz]

Quote:

But when people write wildly improbable/impossible things, then I feel somebody should point them out. Otherwise, somebody who had no background in such things might think the conspiracy was plausable. In this case, it cearly is not.

See, here's where you keep screwing it up as far as I'm concerned. The technical crap I deliniated is not wild conspiracy stuff. It's all plausible. It's all physically possible. And history has shown means and methods of that sort are used. That's not wild conspiracy . Thinking that all that sht happened on 9/11 or 9/11 was "carried out" via those means...... THAT'S a wild assed conspiracy

[HFWR]

Based on what I've read, we were wholly unprepared air defense wise. Hell, a couple of our jets were half way to Europe...

Betcha next time though...

[eridanus]

'The F-16s were in position over Washington in time to have intercepted the fourth plane hijacked, the one that crashed in a Pennsylvania forest. Asked if rules of engagement would have allowed the Air Force to shoot the plane down, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said yesterday: "I think it was pretty clear at that point that that airliner was not under the pilot's control and that it was heading to do major damage." He said any military intervention would have ultimately been the decision of President Bush.'

http://tinyurl.com/rhuo8 <Washington Post article>

So there were fighters deployed and they could have intercepted 93. Further, Wolfowitz is quoted,

"I think it was the heroism of the passengers on board that brought it down but the Air Force was in a position to do so if we had to."

They were in the position to do so and he implies they would have done so, if needed.


I agree about conspiracies - it's hard to keep the truth. The Downing Street Memo, the secret CIA torture centers, etc. They all came out. That's not to say that it couldn't be done or hasn't been done.

U. S. Senate. Committee on Labor and Human Resources. Human subjects research : radiation experimentation. Washington : U.S. G.P.O. 1994. Hearing to determine "the magnitude of the radiation research, where these experiments took place, what records exist, how great the dangers were, if participants were informed of the risks and benefits of the radiation experiments and how much harm was done."

[Nords]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azanon Where's the plane wreckage at the pentagon too, for that matter, including the titanium engines (that wouldnt have melted). Sorry, but i'm just one of those people that doesnt necessarily believe everything i'm told without evidence.* It was at a rather young age that i discovered that sometimes people lie.

Az, I had a number of shipmates who'd like to show you what that airplane did to them.

Unfortunately they were cremated before they could satisfy your morbid conspiracy skepticism.

You display a charming naiveté in your belief that aircraft titanium won't be consumed in a fire.

[unclemick]

Titanium didn't always make on the plane - saw many a chip fire in the old plane factory - sure made believers out of a lot of surprised machinists.

heh heh heh heh heh heh

[Ed_The_Gypsy]

Old heat exchangers with titanium tubes are routinely cut apart with grinders, not torches. The few that have been torch-cut wind up in the lilterature. I think the lead line is usually, "Holy Sh*t!") When the Ti lights off, all you can do is stand back and watch it burn, and it burns HOT. It will suck the oxygen out of water and sand (SiO2), as will zirconium. But I ramble.

Ed The Gypsy
Will design heat exchangers for food.