9/11 what really happened?

Originally Posted by lynw

No please continue.

Why were normal NORAD operating procedure ignored that morning? WHay wree no fighter jets scrambled, even to Washington, more than an hour later than the Towers attacks?

[northwind]

Originally Posted by PatrickUK

People knew that the plane has been hijacked - WHY DID NOBODY ON THE PLANE DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT????

it's a good question... I suppose a big part of it is that you just don't know what the others will do. Say 20 people rush a gunman, they can stop him... But what if only 5 do? Or just you? They probably couldn't communicate or make plans easily either. Even getting out of an airline seat normally slows folk up too, so realistically the people on the aisle seats held the cards. Imagine trying to get 20 people just to run off a plane simultaneously, it'd be chaos even without a hijacker on the scene...

I think I'd have gone for it... But honestly, who knows? You don't know what everyone knew- even if some were sure they were going to die, was everyone? And I'm not even that sure how I'd jump in a situation like that, never mind 20 strangers on a plane.

Originally Posted by Viney

Look, no one knows what the hell happened as most of the people inside are dead. Its all down the theorys and suchlike, so whats the god damn point of arguing over something that NONE of us know about. Blimey

Viney is spot on!

Some of believe it was terrorist act, plain and simple.

Others believe that theres more to meet the eye, so be it.

As a mark of respect to those that lost there lives, I don't think digging up dirt of this will bring them back or makes matters better.

Lets leave it at that, please.

I seem to recall video of the plane hitting the pentagon being released recently. As for cameras on the WTC, I hardly think they would survive.

Lol at a video showing a commercial airliner hitting the pentagon. There was a video of 'something' hitting the pentagon, but not a commercial airliner.

I never mentioned cameras on WTC.

Re the CIA exercise - source please.

John Fulton, CIA.

Oh, and this article released by A.P.

Agency planned drill for plane crash last Sept. 11
Associated Press
August 22, 2002

WASHINGTON -- In what the government describes as a bizarre coincidence, one U.S. intelligence agency was planning an exercise last Sept. 11 in which an errant aircraft crashed into one of its buildings. But the cause wasn't terrorism -- it was to be a simulated accident.

Officials at the Chantilly, Va.-based National Reconnaissance Office had scheduled an exercise that morning in which a small corporate jet crashed into one of the four towers at the agency's headquarters building after experiencing a mechanical failure.

The agency is about four miles from the runways of Washington Dulles International Airport.

Agency chiefs came up with the scenario to test employees' ability to respond to a disaster, said spokesman Art Haubold. To simulate the damage from the plane, some stairwells and exits were to be closed off, forcing employees to find other ways to evacuate the building.

"It was just an incredible coincidence that this happened to involve an aircraft crashing into our facility," Haubold said. "As soon as the real world events began, we canceled the exercise."

Terrorism was to play no role in the exercise, which had been planned for several months, he said.

Adding to the coincidence, American Airlines Flight 77 -- the Boeing 767 that was hijacked and crashed into the Pentagon -- took off from Dulles at 8:10 a.m. on Sept. 11, 50 minutes before the exercise was to begin. It struck the Pentagon around 9:40 a.m., killing 64 aboard the plane and 125 on the ground.

The National Reconnaissance Office operates many of the nation's spy satellites. It draws its personnel from the military and the CIA.

After the Sept. 11 attacks, most of the 3,000 people who work at agency headquarters were sent home, save for some essential personnel, Haubold said.

An announcement for an upcoming homeland security conference in Chicago first noted the exercise.

In a promotion for speaker John Fulton, a CIA officer assigned as chief of NRO's strategic gaming division, the announcement says, "On the morning of September 11th 2001, Mr. Fulton and his team ... were running a pre-planned simulation to explore the emergency response issues that would be created if a plane were to strike a building. Little did they know that the scenario would come true in a dramatic way that day."

The conference is being run by the National Law Enforcement and Security Institute.

Originally Posted by akbarhussain

Fine, I will come back to your post and answer your points one by one.

But to start with, how do you explain the collapse of Building 7?

Im no engineer but I wonder how much of it has to do with the force of the collapse of two skyscrapers nearby.

I know you'll say this is biased but I thought a Popular Mechanics site would be the closest engineering objective site to hand.

A picture of the scene

The summary:

FIRE STORM: WTC 7 stands amid the rubble of the recently collapsed Twin Towers. Damaged by falling debris, the building then endures a fire that rages for hours. Experts say this combination, not a demolition-style implosion, led to the roofline “kink” that signals WTC 7’s progressive collapse. PHOTOGRAPH BY NEW YORK OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...tml?page=5&c=y should you wish to read further.

m still waiting for a plausible reason why an airline would record people checking in and boarding then allow 3 planes to take off empty and what happened to over 500 people. Sorry but I live in the real world where the balance of probability of the people dieing on the planes is sadly more probable than a mass kidnap, mass murder and government conspiracy.

Ok, how about planes take off with passengers intact. Some kind of gas released to subdue passengers and crew. Pre-installed remote controll equipment takes over and planes are crasehed into pre-determined targets.

Originally Posted by lynw

Im no engineer but I wonder how much of it has to do with the force of the collapse of two skyscrapers nearby.

I know you'll say this is biased but I thought a Popular Mechanics site would be the closest engineering objective site to hand.

A picture of the scene

The summary:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...tml?page=5&c=y should you wish to read further.

So I wonder why the official explantion does not follow this?

Originally Posted by akbarhussain

Ok, how about planes take off with passengers intact. Some kind of gas released to subdue passengers and crew. Pre-installed remote controll equipment takes over and planes are crasehed into pre-determined targets.

Do you really truly believe thats a probable action? In comparison to people board plane, fundamentalists hijack plane and fly it into two tall buildings which they could use GPS for exact co-ordinates?

I still the balance of probability lies with the simplest explanation which happens to be the "official" version.

lynw, do you know who wrote that article for PM?