What's new

A leading Japanese politician espouses a 9/11 fantasy

Communist

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Dec 28, 2008
Messages
3,489
Reaction score
0
A leading Japanese politician espouses a 9/11 fantasy

Monday, March 8, 2010

YUKIHISA FUJITA is an influential member of the ruling Democratic Party of Japan. As chief of the DPJ's international department and head of the Research Committee on Foreign Affairs in the upper house of Japan's parliament, to which he was elected in 2007, he is a Brahmin in the foreign policy establishment of Washington's most important East Asian ally. He also seems to think that America's rendering of the events of Sept. 11, 2001, is a gigantic hoax.

Mr. Fujita's ideas about the attack on the World Trade Center, which he shared with us in a recent interview, are too bizarre, half-baked and intellectually bogus to merit serious discussion. He questions whether it was really the work of terrorists; suggests that shadowy forces with advance knowledge of the plot played the stock market to profit from it; peddles the fantastic idea that eight of the 19 hijackers are alive and well; and hints that controlled demolition rather than fire or debris may be a more likely explanation for at least the collapse of the building at 7 World Trade Center, which was adjacent to the twin towers.

As with almost any calamity whose scale and scope assume historic proportions, the events of Sept. 11 have spawned a thriving subculture of conspiracy theorists at home and abroad. The only thing novel about Mr. Fujita is that a man so susceptible to the imaginings of the lunatic fringe happens to occupy a notable position in the governing apparatus of a nation that boasts the world's second-largest economy.

We have no reason to believe that Mr. Fujita's views are widely shared in Japan; we suspect that they are not and that many Japanese would be embarrassed by them. His proposal two years ago that Tokyo undertake an independent investigation into the Sept. 11 attacks, in which 24 Japanese citizens died, went nowhere. Nonetheless, his views, rooted as they are in profound distrust of the United States, seem to reflect a strain of anti-American thought that runs through the DPJ and the government of Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama.

Mr. Hatoyama, elected last summer, has called for a more "mature" relationship with Washington and closer ties between Japan and China. Although he has reaffirmed longstanding doctrine that Japan's alliance with the United States remains the cornerstone of its security, his actions and those of the DPJ-led government, raise questions about that commitment. It's a cliche but nonetheless true that the U.S.-Japan alliance has been a critical force for stability in East Asia for decades. That relationship, and its benefits for the region, will be severely tested if Mr. Hatoyama tolerates elements of his own party as reckless and fact-averse as Mr. Fujita.

washingtonpost.com
 
. . .
LOL look at the language used by the article to described him. Someone's not too happy about people realizing the hoax that is 9/11 official story.
 
.
Please...All the guy did was regurgitated all the nonsense that have been debunked many times over. He should stick to Japanese related issues.
 
. . .
What has been debunked? You mean by popular mechanics? That website contains contradictions and unreasonable explanations. You're telling me a small piece of metal - that a single person can carry and planet as evidence (hint, hint) - is proof that a plane crashed there? LOL.
 
.
What has been debunked?
All the main issues, especially the ones that obeyed the laws of physics.

You mean by popular mechanics?
That is one debunker.

That website contains contradictions...
Such as...???

...and unreasonable explanations.
Such as...???

You're telling me a small piece of metal - that a single person can carry and planet as evidence (hint, hint) - is proof that a plane crashed there? LOL.
No idea what this means.
 
.
Unreasonable explanation is the pentagon one. I don't know how a reasonable person can gobble up that **** and believe it. Point to point BS and lies. 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. Popular mechanics and the 'debunkers' I came mentioned are not debunkers, they are merely opinion pieces, made to look into some neutral article, with contradictions and unreasonable explanations as to why those people writing the articles think 9/11 was not a conspiracy. You seriously can't say a plane hit the pentagon with going into BS lies.
 
.
Unreasonable explanation is the pentagon one. I don't know how a reasonable person can gobble up that **** and believe it. Point to point BS and lies. 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. Popular mechanics and the 'debunkers' I came mentioned are not debunkers, they are merely opinion pieces, made to look into some neutral article, with contradictions and unreasonable explanations as to why those people writing the articles think 9/11 was not a conspiracy. You seriously can't say a plane hit the pentagon with going into BS lies.
Details please. I may, or may not, have some experience with radar detection and could use what little knowledge I have to 'illuminate', pun intended, the subject.
 
.
It was regarding why military planes were not sent to intercept the hijacked planes (planes actually being flown by CIA). The article mentioned that only 14 planes were on alert that day (done by US government again because that day many were on some sort of exercise) and that the hijacked planes could not be found because their radars were turned off. But then later on it is mentioned that the USAF was told (incorrectly) the planes were heading for DC.

But more importantly, I highly doubt that number of planes on alert are released to public information so that's something GoA is making up and lying about as well.

It also mentioned how USAF had to be manually dialed and could not reach them in emergency. That's another unreasonable explanation because airforces always have ways to reach them quickly and especially USAF. A textbook lie.

Btw, I haven't read all the 'myth debunking' done in that article, just the two about pentagon and why not hijacked planes were not intercepted, and both are full of BS. Pentagon one is completely full of BS - no question asked. The reason why hijacked planes were not intercepted - here I am looking at small things but it does add up to an overall BS 'debunking'.
 
.
It was regarding why military planes were not sent to intercept the hijacked planes...
In order to intercept a 'hijacked' airliner, we must first be certain that the aircraft is actually under control of other than the aircrew.

...(planes actually being flown by CIA).
Baseless assumption.

The article mentioned that only 14 planes were on alert that day (done by US government again because that day many were on some sort of exercise)...
It would help the readership if you would provide a link to this and quote the paragraph. The burden is upon YOU because you are the one making the argument. If I do it, I could be accused of providing the readers with sources biased to my own based upon your argument. In other words, you have to support your arguments with your sources and I have to support mine with my sources. Anyway...If there were only 14 aircrafts on alert that day, why is that unusual?

...and that the hijacked planes could not be found because their radars were turned off.
We do not need the airliners' radars in operation in order for ground controller radars to detect them. This is a clear technical error on your part.

But then later on it is mentioned that the USAF was told (incorrectly) the planes were heading for DC.
So?

But more importantly, I highly doubt that number of planes on alert are released to public information so that's something GoA is making up and lying about as well.
As a USAF vet, I can say that based upon my experience, not every USAF base is always on 'alert', whatever that mean.

It also mentioned how USAF had to be manually dialed and could not reach them in emergency. That's another unreasonable explanation because airforces always have ways to reach them quickly and especially USAF. A textbook lie.
You need to provide the readership with unambiguous proofs that air forces worldwide must always have armed fighters readied on the pad. Can you do that?

Btw, I haven't read all the 'myth debunking' done in that article, just the two about pentagon and why not hijacked planes were not intercepted, and both are full of BS. Pentagon one is completely full of BS - no question asked. The reason why hijacked planes were not intercepted - here I am looking at small things but it does add up to an overall BS 'debunking'.
That is fine with me. I am fully capable of debunking you based upon the few items you presented so far. All you need to do is be fair and provide the readership with sources from now on so I can examine them and provide either rebuttals or concessions. Remember...If you make a claim, the burden is upon YOU to provide sources, which in this case is the Popular Mechanics article, which you doubt. That means you must provide the readership with the exact paragraph that you find unacceptable, explain why you find it unacceptable, and provide sources to explain the norms. That is how reasonable debates works. Clear?
 
.
In order to intercept a 'hijacked' airliner, we must first be certain that the aircraft is actually under control of other than the aircrew.

Ah right, and of course tracking planes and radars were meant for nothing.

It would help the readership if you would provide a link to this and quote the paragraph. The burden is upon YOU because you are the one making the argument. If I do it, I could be accused of providing the readers with sources biased to my own based upon your argument. In other words, you have to support your arguments with your sources and I have to support mine with my sources.

Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - Popular Mechanics

It's right off the website:

On 9/11 there were only 14 fighter jets on alert in the contiguous 48 states. No computer network or alarm automatically alerted the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) of missing planes


Why is it unusual for 14 fighter jets to be on alert? The number is too low, and moreover those numbers are most likely not to be released to public because it gives an indication for the enemy as to what to expect in the future. That's a straight out of the book lie.

We do not need the airliners' radars in operation in order for ground controller radars to detect them. This is a clear technical error on your part.

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:

Why couldn't ATC find the hijacked flights? When the hijackers turned off the planes' transponders, which broadcast identifying signals, ATC had to search 4500 identical radar blips crisscrossing some of the country's busiest air corridors.


On one hand it's trying to show why the planes could not be found (the previous quote I quoted above), and then it's saying how it found them heading to the wrong place:

ATC facilities, called NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) three times: at 8:37 am EST to inform NEADS that Flight 11 was hijacked; at 9:21 am to inform the agency, mistakenly, that Flight 11 was headed for Washington (the plane had hit the North Tower 35 minutes earlier); and at 9:41 am to (erroneously) identify Delta Air Lines Flight 1989 from Boston as a possible hijacking.

As a USAF vet, I can say that based upon my experience, not every USAF base is always on 'alert', whatever that mean.

But there always are planes on alert, and there were most likely more than what is told (unless it was intentionally done by CIA to take the planes off alert which may well have been the case).

You need to provide the readership with unambiguous proofs that air forces worldwide must always have armed fighters readied on the pad. Can you do that?

This is a really desperate argument. It's like asking for proof that grass is green or sky is blue. You yourself mentioned that not all bases are on alert, which imples there are many bases which are ona lert.Any decent airforce, much less US, will have planes ready to take off within a few seconds at any given time. If you can't digest that it's not my problem.
 
.
This is going to be delicious...

Ah right, and of course tracking planes and radars were meant for nothing.
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...

Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - Popular Mechanics

It's right off the website:
On 9/11 there were only 14 fighter jets on alert in the contiguous 48 states. No computer network or alarm automatically alerted the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) of missing planes
Why is it unusual for 14 fighter jets to be on alert? The number is too low, and moreover those numbers are most likely not to be released to public because it gives an indication for the enemy as to what to expect in the future. That's a straight out of the book lie.
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? 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? 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.

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

Why couldn't ATC find the hijacked flights? When the hijackers turned off the planes' transponders, which broadcast identifying signals, ATC had to search 4500 identical radar blips crisscrossing some of the country's busiest air corridors.
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...

b7c4877c1dc7f246754e52c10b0e49bd.gif


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?

On one hand it's trying to show why the planes could not be found (the previous quote I quoted above), and then it's saying how it found them heading to the wrong place:
Of course...After a while when other airliners have positively ID-ed themselves and obeyed controllers' instructions, whoever remain unidentified would be the hijacked airliners. Their flight patterns and behaviors would be inconsistent with normal airliner operations.

But there always are planes on alert, and there were most likely more than what is told (unless it was intentionally done by CIA to take the planes off alert which may well have been the case).
Sorry...Another baseless assumption.

This is a really desperate argument. It's like asking for proof that grass is green or sky is blue. You yourself mentioned that not all bases are on alert, which imples there are many bases which are ona lert.Any decent airforce, much less US, will have planes ready to take off within a few seconds at any given time. If you can't digest that it's not my problem.
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.

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 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is an agency of the United States Department of Transportation with authority to regulate and oversee all aspects of civil aviation in the U.S. (National Airworthiness Authority). The Federal Aviation Act of 1958 created the group under the name "Federal Aviation Agency", and adopted its current name in 1967 when it became a part of the United States Department of Transportation.

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

Air Defense Identification Zone - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
An air defense identification zone (ADIZ) is an area of airspace defined by a nation within which "the ready identification, the location, and the control of aircraft are required in the interest of national security"[1]. Typically, an aircraft entering an ADIZ is required to radio its planned course, destination, and any additional details about its trip through the ADIZ to a higher authority, typically an air traffic controller.
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
His FAA experience includes planning, procedures, training, management, supervisory, military liaison, and control positions in Center, Tower, and Approach Control facilities and Regional Headquarters in the Southern, Great Lakes, and Pacific regions.
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.
 
.

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom