What's new

General of US Intelligence says No Plane Hit The Pentagon!!!

I have posted the vedios on Page 2. Seems like you missed it.
I watched it and Chandler produced nothing new. What he claiimed to have 'gotcha' NIST was addressed long before the final NIST report about WTC 7. What Chandlers dismissed was the fact, even videos showed, that WTC 7's internal collapse was underway a couple seconds before the outer facade began.

But he found pieces of tyres , seat covers, etc. I think his question makes sense.
No...It made no sense. Even in a normal house fire, the kind with exploding gas lines, there are things that survive the fire and explosion intact with only minor cosmetic damages. All firefighters know this to be the norm.

Are you comparing Twin Towers with Pentagon ?
No I am not...I am speaking about Sonnenfeld's absurd comment about the 'indesctructable' data recorders.

Some questions for you sir.

What are the odds of Plane hitting pentagon after 2 attacks in New York ?

AA77 was flown over the area P56. Isn't Area (P56) Prohibited ? How many minutes it takes F-16 to reach Pentagon from Andrews Military Base ?
Looks like you swallowed hook, line and sinker the loony conspiracy theorists about how NORAD should have scrambled fighters. News for you...Restricted airspace does not mean the US military can act on its own. If a pilot, either intentionally or unintentionally, violate restricted airspace, he would be contacted and escorted out. Inside US borders, the US military DOES NOT have jurisdiction over US airspace. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) does. Any acts of air piracy, aka hijacking, the FAA is the leading authority, not NORAD or any branch of the US military.

Have you heard Rumsfeld Sept 10, 2001 Speech ? Why suddenly the same documents and people related to that went missing ?
Source please.
 
xU4GdHLUHwU[/media] - 9/10/2001: Rumsfeld says $2.3 TRILLION Missing from Pentagon

Pentagon fatalities.
Killtown's:* Did Flight 77 really crash into the Pentagon? - Pentagon fatalities...

Some military site also have the list. I will post it later.
------

I will answer your questions after some time. GTG now.
You have got to be kidding me...

:rofl:

So now Fraud, Waste and Abuse (FWA) exposure is the reason why Rumsfeld remotely controlled an airliner to crash into the Pentagon. Why not just kill a couple here, a couple there to intimidate the rest? This is the reason why the '9-11 Truth' movement is slowly dying an embarrassing death. No one but the believers, and their numbers are dwindling, and the muslims in the ME really believe these illogical and utterly fantastic arguments.

Keep It Simple, Sh!thead (KISS)...Is the principle that apparently does not apply. The FBI, CIA, DoD, NSA and assorted spooky three-lettered organizations must be mighty busy hunting down website owners who exposed Bush, Rumsfeld and company. Becareful...They are coming for YOU next...

:rofl:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I watched it and Chandler produced nothing new. What he claiimed to have 'gotcha' NIST was addressed long before the final NIST report about WTC 7. What Chandlers dismissed was the fact, even videos showed, that WTC 7's internal collapse was underway a couple seconds before the outer facade began.


NIST and the World Trade Center
All the NIST records Above.
------------
Why the standard investigation protocols were not followed ?

So what's wrong if the victims are asking for a independent investigation ?

No...It made no sense. Even in a normal house fire, the kind with exploding gas lines, there are things that survive the fire and explosion intact with only minor cosmetic damages. All firefighters know this to be the norm.


World Trade Center (WTC) towers were designed to withstand multiple impacts by Boeing 707 aircraft, why did the impact of individual 767s cause so much damage ?

What was the reason given by the government for the WTC Towers collapse ?


Looks like you swallowed hook, line and sinker the loony conspiracy theorists about how NORAD should have scrambled fighters. News for you...Restricted airspace does not mean the US military can act on its own. If a pilot, either intentionally or unintentionally, violate restricted airspace, he would be contacted and escorted out. Inside US borders, the US military DOES NOT have jurisdiction over US airspace. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) does. Any acts of air piracy, aka hijacking, the FAA is the leading authority, not NORAD or any branch of the US military.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Folks,

Prior to Sept. 11, 2001, North American Aerospace Defense (NORAD) was responsible for checking on airspace OUTSIDE of continental US (CONUS) and some territories. Their radars were scanning outside of the US for ICBMs and aircrafts whose flight profiles do not match that of common airliners or general aviation. Prior to Sept. 11, 2001, NORAD never had any authority over internal US airspace.

But even after Sept. 11, 2001...

0e69610450ace6c5c39e2d8edcc9c71c.jpg

413a7f73339abb187d498c34de9ce00d.jpg

The FAA can be quite rude in informing pilots, commercial or general, of when an area is considered to be:

- Uncontrolled
- Controlled
- Special use
- Other

If the US President is airborne and land at Hicksville, TX, or Redneck City, OK. The airspace above each place is immediately classified as 'Controlled', to the detriment of commercial and general aviation pilots ALREADY airborne, for the duration of the Presidential visit.

The FAA issued what is called 'Notices to Airmen' daily and EVERY pilot is supposed to check for a notice PRIOR to take-off. This understanding that there are circumstances where a notice can be so short notice that there is no way to avoid restricted airspace violations that the US military does not shoot down any aircraft that may have crossed into 'restricted airspace'.

In the above GAO source, even after Sept. 11, 2001 and after NORAD was given authority over internal US airspace, the majority of restricted airspace violations are still overwhelmingly from general aviation. Should we expect to see more Cessna 172s being shot down by the USAF?

Next on the list of violators are the US military itself. Should we expect US pilots occassionally shot down by their compats? This would include helos. The reason why the military has such a high violations is simply because of their of unpredictable flight training.

Next set of violators of US restricted airspace is aliens at about %4. 'Nuf said about ETs.

The least amount of restricted airspace violators are airliners simply because their routes are predictable and are usually so weeks, months, or even years. Airliner captains do not deviate from file flightplans unless there is a genuine In-Flight Emergency (IFE) such as medical.

But even if there is a restricted airspace violation undergoing...

5bc20bd5248b851744b843b469afc6de.jpg

Every violator is given a generous level of benefit of the doubt, especially general aviation, before punitive actions are taken against the offending pilot. It could have been an honest mistake or a navigational error or an unexpected restricted airspace classification by the FAA that did not go on the daily 'Notice to Airmen'.

Even after NORAD was authorized to train its radars to internal US airspace, from Sept. 12, 2001 to current, the East Coast, where major US political institutions resides, there were still over 65% restricted airspace violations by general aviation.

Did we shoot them all down?
 
"Mineta said that that this final exchange occurred at about 9:25 or 9:26.47 According to Mineta's account, therefore, Cheney knew about an approaching aircraft more than 12 minutes before 9:38, when the Pentagon was struck. Assuming that Cheney would not have kept this information from his good friend Donald Rumsfeld, Mineta's testimony contradicts the claim of the Pentagon and the 9 / 11 Commission that there was no advance knowledge, at least not sufficient advance knowledge to have evacuated the Pentagon, which would have saved 125 lives. "

So why do you think 9/11 should not have a independent investigation ?
 
http://dsp-psd.tpsgc.gc.ca/Collection-R/LoPBdP/MR/mr134-e.htm

MISSILE DEFENCE AND THE
RENEWAL OF THE NORAD AGREEMENT


INTRODUCTION

Since the end of the Persian Gulf War, the United States has abandoned the Strategic Defense Initiative, also known as Star Wars, and has concentrated instead on defence against theatre ballistic missiles like the SCUDs used by Iraq. The deployment of missile defence systems in the late 1990s could have implications for Canada’s roles in NORAD, NATO, and the United Nations. As the 1994 White Paper on Defence states, the issue cannot be ignored because weapons of mass destruction, including missiles with nuclear, chemical or biological warheads "already or may soon threaten Canada’s friends and allies in Europe and elsewhere, and Canada may want to retain the option of deploying forces to areas where they could face such weaponry" (p. 21).

Thus, according to the White Paper, Canada is trying to gain a better understanding of missile defence through research and consultation with like-minded countries. This paper briefly examines recent developments in missile defence and the issues with which Canada will have to deal in the coming years.

THE U.S. COMMITMENT TO MISSILE DEFENCE

Buoyed by the performance of its Patriot missiles during the Persian Gulf War, the United States decided soon after to develop effective theatre missile defence systems. Some critics challenged this decision in light of more critical analysis of the Patriot’s effectiveness; however, the proliferation of small ballistic missile technology, the unstable nature of regimes in countries such as Iraq and Libya, and the ability of these countries to develop chemical, biological and nuclear warheads were cited to justify the proposed systems.

For the 1995-1996 fiscal year, the Clinton Administration’s proposed defence budget included U.S. $2.9 billion for missile defence research and development. Republican members of Congress advocate even more support for missile defence and made this a major commitment in their "Contract With America" platform during the 1994 legislative elections.

INTEREST IN EUROPE AND ELSEWHERE

European countries are also interested in missile defence because of the potential threat posed by rogue or unstable states in North Africa and the Middle East (for example, Libya and Iraq) which could develop missiles with enough range to reach European cities. As a result, major European countries have undertaken missile defence research, but still have to decide whether to rely on their own systems or participate in NATO systems with the U.S.

Meanwhile, Israel has been developing the Arrow missile for its own missile defence system while Japan is coming under increasing pressure to participate in missile defence research. Indeed, there is growing concern in the Pacific region with respect to the continuing development of new missiles by North Korea and China.

PROPOSED U.S. SYSTEMS

To meet the expected missile threat in the late 1990s and beyond, the U.S. has undertaken the development of three defence systems. The first is the Patriot Advanced Capability (third generation) or PAC-3, slated for deployment around 1998; this uses the new ERINT missile designed to destroy warheads as well as missiles. The other two elements are the U.S. Navy's Standard Block IVA missiles and the Theater High-Altitude Air Defense (THAAD) system.

The U.S. also plans to decide by 1998 whether or not to develop one of three proposed systems using more advanced technology. One is a ship-launched system similar to THAAD. Under the second proposal, which involves a Boost-phase Interceptor (BPI), aircraft could use missiles or airborne laser (ABL) weapons to intercept missiles shortly after launching. The third option is the Medium Extended Range Air Defense System (MEADS) which would provide defence against aircraft and cruise missiles as well as ballistic missiles. In view of the high costs, in early 1995 the U.S. reached an agreement with France, Germany and Italy to undertake joint development.

In early 1996, the U.S. Department of Defense modified its missile defence program slightly by increasing funding for the development of the PAC-3 system while significantly reducing the budget for the THAAD system. The U.S. appears to be concentrating on systems to deal with the threat posed by short-range missiles.

THE DEBATE ON THE EFFECTS ON THE ABM TREATY

In December 1995, the U.S. Congress called for the deployment of a National Missile Defence system by 2003 and in March 1996, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Senate Majority Leader introduced legislation to this effect, the Defend America Act of 1996. The strong support in the U.S. Congress for such a system is provoking more debate on the implications for the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty signed by the U.S. and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The treaty limits defences against Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) to one national site, in order to preserve the stability of the mutual nuclear deterrence. Although the Cold War has ended, arms control advocates and others, including the Canadian government, want the ABM Treaty maintained, if only to consolidate peaceful U.S.-Russian relations.

There is growing concern that, while defence systems in a theatre of operations outside the U.S. or Russia would not necessarily affect the Treaty, the same systems deployed within these countries could give protection against ICBMs as well as theatre missiles. This could prompt both countries to stop reducing their ICBM arsenals. To pave the way for the deployment of a national system that would not undermine the ABM Treaty, the U.S. has tried to negotiate an understanding with Russia on the differences between theatre defence and anti-ICBM systems.

In July 1995, however, Russia rejected U.S. proposals to identify theatre missiles as those with a speed of 5 kilometers per second or less and with a range of 3,500 kilometres and interceptor missiles as those with a speed of 3 kilometres per second or less. Indeed, a clear distinction could prove elusive because in response to missile defence, some countries might develop theatre missiles with the even greater speed and range of ICBMs. If there was no clear distinction between theatre missiles and ICBMs, the debate on the effects on the ABM Treaty would likely become more heated.

CANADA'S POSITION

As a strong supporter of the efforts to limit the spread of missile technology as carried out by the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) established by the G-7, Canada is well aware of the threat posed to the stability of many regions by the increasing number of ballistic missiles. The experience in the Persian Gulf War also leaves no doubt that our allies, as well as military forces in United Nations peacekeeping or other operations, may have to defend themselves against such missiles. However, while considering possible participation with its allies in theatre missile defence, Canada must carefully weigh the advantages of doing so with the disadvantages of becoming involved with national systems that could potentially undermine the ABM Treaty.

In its participation in NORAD over the years, while Canada has been mainly concerned with the detection of bombers and cruise missiles in North American airspace, it has seen the U.S. develop Defence Support Program (DSP) satellites and other sensors to detect ICBMs and other missiles. During the Persian Gulf War, these satellites provided information on SCUD launches to NORAD, which alerted the Patriot missile batteries in the Gulf area. Thus, NORAD could certainly play a role in currently planned U.S. theatre defence systems. Indeed, NORAD could make a major contribution to international stability and the monitoring of missile proliferation if it were to participate in a multilateral surveillance system involving NATO countries and even Russia.

However, the deployment by the U.S. of a national system without an arrangement to maintain the ABM Treaty and other arms control agreements, together with NORAD involvement, would present Canada with a difficult problem. Decisions concerning NORAD’s and Canada’s roles, if any, in theatre missile defence are still a few years away, but Canada will have to observe developments very carefully and make its concerns clear.

THE RENEWAL OF THE NORAD AGREEMENT

In discussions in 1995 and early 1996 with the U.S. on the renewal of the NORAD Agreement, Canada requested changes that would reflect the shift in NORAD’s mission from conducting air defence to warning of aircraft and missile attack and that would ensure Canadian participation in the planning and operations of the aerospace defence of North America. On 11 March 1996, during the debate in the House of Commons on the renewal of the agreement, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lloyd Axworthy, stated that the revised agreement makes provision for a more formal mechanism for consultations between the two countries on developments such as missile defence systems which have implications for NORAD’s missions.

On 25 March 1996, the government announced its decision to renew the NORAD Agreement. In a press conference, Mr. Axworthy stated that the ABM Treaty was still absolutely essential for international stability and claimed that the revised NORAD Agreement would give Canada a veto over the development of weapons systems that could have a negative effect on the treaty.

It remains to be seen, however, what impact the formal mechanism for consultations will have on the development of a national missile defence system in the U.S. Increased tensions with Russia or the development of threat from another country might prompt the U.S. to accelerate the deployment of a national system or to ignore the ABM Treaty. The real test for Canada may take place in 2001, when the NORAD Agreement will again come up for renewal, only a few years before the possible deployment of a national system in the U.S.
 
NIST and the World Trade Center
All the NIST records Above.
------------
Why the standard investigation protocols were not followed ?
What standard protocols were not followed? And do you think that airliners crashing into talll buildings are every occurrences so that there could be standard protocols established?

So what's wrong if the victims are asking for a independent investigation ?
Did anyone say there is something wrong about asking for such an investigation? The problem with you, like many here, is that you do not really think. You prefer to led about by these loony conspiracy theorists. Who is going to conduct this 'independent' investigation? Any hint of governmental involving, even in the most minute, should automatically disqualify the investigation, after all, it is the US government itself that is under indictment. So who is going to finance this independent investigation? I think Saudi Arabia or even Iran, especially Iran, might be more than happy to build a few tall buildings, spare a few airliners, and crash them in the chance that it might exonerate muslims and Islam from this taint. So why have no one outside the US taken up this challenge?

World Trade Center (WTC) towers were designed to withstand multiple impacts by Boeing 707 aircraft, why did the impact of individual 767s cause so much damage ?
Wrong...Like I said...You do not really think it through.

Here is what Leslie Robertson, lead structural engineer of the towers, said about what you merely regurgitated...

LERA | WTC - Sept. 11, 2001
We designed the towers to resist the accidental impact of a Boeing 707, perhaps lost in the fog while seeking to land. The impact of the Boeing 767s, commandeered by the terrorists, even though larger and flying much faster, was still unable to bring down the towers. The fire-resistive systems, however, did not and could not have contemplated the subsequent fire fueled by thousands of gallons of jet fuel.
That was what happened to a B-25 in bad weather and crashed into the Empire State building. That aircraft was at take-off/landing speed. So it was expected of ANY aircraft looking for an airport. I do not know where you come from, but in the US, airliners looking for an airport do not have their throttles at full forward, which would impart much more kinetic energy...

0cff6aafab7b77757d63beb31e155c89.jpg

And therefore do more damages to the vital support columns.

What was the reason given by the government for the WTC Towers collapse ?
A combination of structural damages at the impact point and fire. Or is that too hard for you to grasp?
 
Missile Defence and the Renewal of the NORAD Agreement (MR134e)

MISSILE DEFENCE AND THE
RENEWAL OF THE NORAD AGREEMENT


INTRODUCTION

Since the end of the Persian Gulf War, the United States has abandoned the Strategic Defense Initiative, also known as Star Wars, and has concentrated instead on defence against theatre ballistic missiles like the SCUDs used by Iraq. The deployment of missile defence systems in the late 1990s could have implications for Canada’s roles in NORAD, NATO, and the United Nations. As the 1994 White Paper on Defence states, the issue cannot be ignored because weapons of mass destruction, including missiles with nuclear, chemical or biological warheads "already or may soon threaten Canada’s friends and allies in Europe and elsewhere, and Canada may want to retain the option of deploying forces to areas where they could face such weaponry" (p. 21).

<snipped>
This must posted as clutter in trying to hide the fact that everything has been debunked.
 
That did not make sense to you ?

Shall i post the Canadian Military Journal Summer 2000 ?
You can post anything you like. But I see it as nothing but clutter. This is how people like you 'debate'. You merely copy/paste from other sources. Your thinking is not your own. You expect others to do the heavy mental work for you.
 
What standard protocols were not followed? And do you think that airliners crashing into talll buildings are every occurrences so that there could be standard protocols established?

Scientists, Scholars, Architects & Engineers respond to NIST | 911Blogger.com

WTC Technical Information Repository
Attention: Mr. Stephen Cauffman
National Institute of Standards and Technology
Stop 8610
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8610

September 15, 2008

Re: Public Comments on WTC 7 Draft Reports

Dear Mr. Cauffman,

I am writing on behalf of a group of scientists, scholars, engineers and building professionals who are dedicated to scientific research regarding the destruction of all three high-rise buildings (WTC 1, 2 and 7) on September 11, 2001. We have examined the draft reports recently released by NIST purporting to explain the demise of WTC Building 7 (collectively referred to herein as the “Report”). We have found many areas that need to be revised and re-examined by NIST personnel before they release a final report on this matter. We have provided our names and affiliations at the end of this document, in accordance with the guidelines for submittal of comments promulgated by NIST at (NIST and the World Trade Center : News and Events).
... read the entire letter.


Did anyone say there is something wrong about asking for such an investigation?

Check the link again http://www.nyccan.org/ the site is created by the victims of 9/11.

The problem with you, like many here, is that you do not really think. You prefer to led about by these loony conspiracy theorists.

Now Norman Mineta is a conspiracy theorists ?

what about Barry Jennings was he to a conspiracy theorist.


A combination of structural damages at the impact point and fire. Or is that too hard for you to grasp?

Really. I thought it could have survived even if two planes would have hit the building. Weren't those buildings built that way?
 

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom