|
Post by shred on Aug 31, 2013 11:26:46 GMT -5
I believe that in any law enforcement agency that there are some good men there to catch criminals rather than abuse their power. Besides it's not just the FBI, it's the German Police too. Zacarias Moussawi and Mohammed Atta were in Hamburg together.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Sept 5, 2013 10:58:34 GMT -5
When debunked you ignore the facts that proved you wrong, then you change the goal posts and tell another lie eh Bob is that it ?
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Sept 5, 2013 13:22:30 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by shred on Sept 7, 2013 5:04:22 GMT -5
Sorry but those threads of yours are complete fantasy.
Reality is that planes are easy to crash and an airliner used as a kamikaze weapon can do far more damage than any conventionally armed cruise missile. Four of the 9/11 hijackers had qualified as a commercial pilot and gained a licence to fly. It's almost impossible for a pilot to defend himself against an attack from the rear whilst flying a plane and so it was easy for the hijackers to storm the cockpits and kill the pilots. When the planes were crashed into the twin towers, they crashed with port wings down and starboard wings raised to maximise the number of floors damaged.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Sept 7, 2013 8:34:32 GMT -5
"Sorry but those threads of yours are complete fantasy."
And you are an alien from Pluto. It's easy to say that when you can't show what in a particular is a fantasy.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Sept 11, 2013 3:26:09 GMT -5
You are very a gullible person Bob if you still believe the 9/11 'truth' movement's bs, you're the one living in fantasy land.
Planes were hijacked, they turned off the transponders, NORAD's radar looked only outwards and the FAA did not immediately have commonality of radar information with them. It took time for fighter jets to get to New York and Washington, and by then it was too late as the hijacked jets had already crashed. Furthermore there was no shoot down order until the second tower was hit.
RIP the victims of Al Qaeda.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Sept 11, 2013 8:04:23 GMT -5
"You are very a gullible person Bob if you still believe the 9/11 'truth' movement's bs"
Yeah, I admit I am so incredibly gullible as to demand the truth. I should just swallow government's 9/11 story because everyone knows they would never lie about anything even when they admit they lied, but it's just not in my nature.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Sept 11, 2013 10:56:38 GMT -5
You don't know the meaning of the word truth, you SPAM cut & pasted conspiracy theories every day every week every month and every bloody year like a stuck record.
And on this of all days, you should give it a rest and stop making excuses for the terrorists who did it.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Sept 11, 2013 11:02:24 GMT -5
"on this of all days, you should give it a rest."
Not today (ESPECIALLY), not tomorrow, not ever. Neither will millions of others. Now that we got that out the way, what else are you going to try to do to try to shut me up? Post some more name calling?
|
|
|
Post by shred on Sept 13, 2013 4:53:46 GMT -5
I prefer to leave the name calling to you. Now back to the facts, 19 terrorists hijacked four planes and deliberately crashed them. Nothing you say changes the truth that terrorists did it and innocent people died because of them. Your government's response may have been heavy handed and the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was wrong but Al Qaeda did it. It's time you woke up and stopped making excuses for Mohammed Atta and his crew.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Sept 13, 2013 7:44:04 GMT -5
"It's time you woke up and stopped making excuses for Mohammed Atta and his crew."
What? They're my best buddies, Barry says that all the time.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Sept 13, 2013 13:27:07 GMT -5
Wake up.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Sept 13, 2013 21:01:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by shred on Sept 18, 2013 4:00:00 GMT -5
One thing NORAD could have done, though it would have needed the permission of the government, would have been to station one Air National Guard fighter, fuelled and armed and stood by to launch at every major airport in your country and NORAD liaison officers in the airport ATC rooms stood by to direct them. Precious time would have been saved, as phone calls between airlines, air traffic controllers, the FAA and NORAD liaison's would not have been necessary, the fighter pilots could immediately have been put on alert and scrambled the moment the hijacked airliners turned off transponders and changed course without authorisation. That would made intercepting the hijacked airliners much easier. There would have been commonality between FAA radar and NORAD radar and the increased costs of having ANG fighters at major airports could have been offset by closing a regular ANG air station or two.
There is still the risk that Islamist terrorists could gain pilots licences gain employment at an airline and crash an airliner into a building. The idea above would reduce the chances of such a plot succeeding.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Sept 18, 2013 7:12:06 GMT -5
The one thing NORAD could have and should have done is its job. The same is true of the US government, all its alphabet agencies and the entire $multi-trillion intelligence/defense system paid for by money stolen from Americans.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Sept 18, 2013 7:30:03 GMT -5
It's job was hampered by lack of funds due to the 1990's post cold war Clinton cuts, cold war era radar that only looked outwards, no commonality with the FAA and limited aircraft.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Sept 18, 2013 8:07:18 GMT -5
It's job was hampered by lack of funds due to the 1990's post cold war Clinton cuts, cold war era radar that only looked outwards, no commonality with the FAA and limited aircraft. Sure Mr. NORAD Apologist, it's the "no money", "big black hole known as North America" and "no communication with anyone" propaganda that NORAD was tasked to defend. Blind, deaf and dumb. You forgot the "failure of imagination", "who could have imagined" and "they did this because they hate our freedoms" propaganda. If you're always going to cite the official narrative, at least try not to leave things out.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Sept 18, 2013 8:32:20 GMT -5
Blame the Clinton government for the cuts not NORAD. They can't use resources they don't have.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Sept 18, 2013 9:14:48 GMT -5
Blame the Clinton government for the cuts not NORAD. They can't use resources they don't have. Yeah it was Clinton's fault. NORAD was left without resources. A few $trillion was just pocket change.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Sept 18, 2013 10:13:43 GMT -5
A few trillion ? Your evidence to back up your claims?
You blame Bush enough why not blame Clinton for failing in his duties? Al Qaeda's attacks against America started on his watch, they attacked the USS Cole, they attacked your embassies in Africa in 1998, the Millennium bomber Ahmed Ressam planned to bomb Los Angeles airport on New Years Eve 1999 (fortunately he was caught). Al Qaeda truck bombed the World Trade Centre in 1993. Clinton had the justification to militarily put a stop to Al Qaeda but he did not. Clinton had justification to increase airport security, increase funds to the air guard and give NORAD improved radar capabilities, he chose to cut spending and block the upgrade of NORAD's radar systems on the basis of cost.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Sept 18, 2013 10:24:30 GMT -5
"A few trillion ? Your evidence to back up your claims?"
I don't have any, just assume they have no money and are totally incapacitated and have worked as a volunteer organization for the last 57 years. They are after all blind as to what's going on in North America. So you're right, they're totally worthless, just an American ornament. After all, they did nothing on 9/11 because they had no resources. Everyone knows that.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Sept 18, 2013 10:42:40 GMT -5
They were heavily funded during the cold war, but once it ended the defence budget was slashed, they assumed that a massive fleet of air guard fighters were no longer important. Newer radar systems were not procured. They thought that as Russia wasn't going to be sending Tupolev Bears to bomb the USA why waste money on defences against them ? Clinton didn't consider other threats, stupidly he only considered the economy whilst the terrorists kept increasing the scale of their attacks. In 2001 whilst in prison Ahmed Ressam revealed that there were Al Qaeda sleeper cells in the USA. This warning was included in George W Bush's Presidential Daily Brief on the 6th of August 2001.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Sept 19, 2013 6:02:49 GMT -5
Clinton's defence cuts as well as cutting the number of Air National Guard fighters and scrapping an NORAD radar upgrade proposal also scrapped F111 Aardvarks, & EF111a Ravens. After 11th Sept 2001 NORAD's air warning centre's remit was expanded to cover the interior airspace of the USA as well as looking for exterior threats. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NORAD#Post.E2.80.93Cold_WarThe most crucial problem NORAD faced that day was the time delay in receiving information from the FAA about the hijackings, to scrambling fighters when so few were available and located too far away from the cities to intercept the airliners.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Sept 21, 2013 14:58:46 GMT -5
So now you've been proven wrong you're just going to ignore the evidence mounting against your conspiracy theories Bob ?
I know how you hate being proven wrong. So here's a video of a RB211-535e equipped 757 going at 'impossible' speed then climbing very steeply:-
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Sept 21, 2013 16:09:40 GMT -5
Yet more bulls**t.
"So now you've been proven wrong"
I haven't been proven wrong about anything. Your claim is not proof.
"you're just going to ignore the evidence mounting against your conspiracy theories Bob ?"
I can easily "ignore" what doesn't exist. What "mounting evidence"? What "conspiracy theories"?
"I know how you hate being proven wrong."
You don't know any such thing about me. When I'm wrong, unlike you, I'm not above admitting it.
"here's a video of a RB211-535e equipped 757 going at 'impossible' speed then climbing very steeply"
Where in the video does it show the speed of the aircraft? Planes usually fly fast but there is nothing in the video that shows the speed of the aircraft so the video is irrelevant to anything.
Like I said, more bulls**t.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Sept 21, 2013 20:11:27 GMT -5
You're the one posting bulls**t Bob and I've proven that.
Get a bloody life.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Sept 21, 2013 23:06:10 GMT -5
All you've proven is that you can't even keep your bulls**t remotely real. Here's a perfect example:
You claimed: "here's a video of a RB211-535e equipped 757 going at 'impossible' speed then climbing very steeply"
Then when I challenged you to show where in the video it says anything about the speed of the plane, your only response was:
"You're the one posting bulls**t Bob and I've proven that.
Get a bloody life."
Your immaturity is intellectually insulting. I've given you far too much credit for intelligence. If you have any intelligence, it's always masked by your childish posts.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Sept 22, 2013 2:54:45 GMT -5
You're the one spamming lies on this board every bloody day and frankly you are a rude obnoxious little liar happy to use character assassination techniques on anyone who doesn't support your 'truth' movement's unsubstantiated conspiracy theories.
The 757's speed and altitude proves that a 757 could easily have been flown into the Pentagon at speed. FAA's findings show the speed of the plane that hit the Pentagon was well below VNE. Debris still bearing AA Livery at the Pentagon proves that a 757 was flown into the Pentagon. 136 people saw the plane approach the Pentagon. 104 directly saw the plane hit the Pentagon. 6 were nearly hit by the plane in front of the Pentagon. Several others were within 100-200 feet of the impact. 26 mentioned that it was an American Airlines jet. 39 others mentioned that it was a large jet/commercial airliner. 7 said it was a Boeing 757. 8 witnesses were pilots. One witness was an Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower Chief. 2 witnesses were firefighters working on their truck at the Pentagon heliport. 4 made radio calls to inform emergency services that a plane had hit the Pentagon. 10 said the plane's flaps and landing gear were not deployed (1 thought landing gear struck a lamp post). 16 mentioned seeing the plane hit light poles/trees, or were next to to the poles when it happened. Another 8 mentioned the light poles being knocked down: it's unknown if they saw them hit. 42 mentioned seeing aircraft debris. 4 mentioned seeing airline seats. 3 mentioned engine parts. 2 mentioned bodies still strapped into seats. 15 mentioned smelling or contacting aviation/jet fuel. 3 had vehicles damaged by lamp posts or aircraft debris. Several saw other occupied vehicles damaged. 3 took photographs of the aftermath. 0 saw a military aircraft, global hawk or missile strike the Pentagon. 0 saw a plane narrowly miss the Pentagon and fly away.
If you're going to investigate 9/11, at the very least DO IT PROPERLY.
You, from the outset have sought to make it out to be an inside job, to this end you're willing to ignore every bit of evidence and every eyewitness that proves you wrong.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Sept 22, 2013 8:20:38 GMT -5
And a partridge in a pear tree. There's an enormous amount of stuff you can claim that lends support to the official narrative. So if you ignore the enormous amount of evidence that questions and/or contradicts it, all you have left is the official narrative. It's really simple logic.
"The 757's speed and altitude proves that a 757 could easily have been flown into the Pentagon at speed."
And again what was the speed of that plane in the video you trotted out? "impossible" is not a number.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Sept 25, 2013 13:48:58 GMT -5
email the RNZAF and ask them at what speed they perform their low pass ? No point me telling you you hate me, you'd just invent another conspiracy theory to deny what I'm telling you. Here you go, talk to them: forms.nzdf.mil.nz/airforce/pr.htmlAlso talk to the Airline TAP ask what speed their Airbus 310 performed this fly past (it's VNE is mach 0.84) : www.tapportugal.com/Info/en/Other/ContactUsYou could write to Boeing and ask them how fast their 757's & 767's can go ? www.boeing.com/boeing/contactus.pageYou could compare the speed of those planes with this one:
|
|