Is the 9-11 truther thread a bot attack

Are you joking? What is to hide? Almost 3,000 people were killed in NY, and we see that video over and over.

Why not release the videos?

Nope. No can do.

Do you have no empathy for the people that lost loved ones in that disaster?



So we should hide the videos?

"We must have empathy, we cannot release all the videos. Ya know. There cannot be an investigation, because, well, empathy and stuff. We must hide the videos."

and the videos you are referring to were shown in the public domain

...

Yet all you people


Who are all "you people"?

Thinkers?

and the videos you are referring to were shown in the public domain



Where? Got a link? I'd love to see those videos.

and the videos you are referring to were shown in the public domain



Where? Got a link? I'd love to see those videos.


Read carefully what I was responding to, the NYC WTC videos.

...

Well we must be carrying on with that...

The SAM sites that protect the Pentagon should have knocked it down, so whether a plane or something else hit it, the IFF transponder did not report the thing that did hit the Pentagon as a foe. So, it brings into question why nothing did knock it down.

[link to en.wikipedia.org]


I really don't see what the IFF transponder has to do with that. Missile systems don't "target" IFF transponders.

But this really goes back to my original question.

Once the aircraft was close enough to the Pentagon for these so-called missile systems to knock it down. Shooting it down at that point somewhere close to the Pentagon could well have produced much more casulties then having it actually hit the Pentagon would.

The Pentagons basic purpose is to protect US citizens. It seems to me that to kill US citizens to protect the Pentagon is just a bit wrong somehow.

As I also mentioned before as far as I know they've NEVER locked on to a civilian aircraft with those missile systems.

NORAD had in fact intercepted an aircraft within the continental US on only one other occasion prior to 911. When that happened it took about 45 minutes for the intercept to take place from the time of notification.

There is a no fly zone over the Pentagon (can't remember the exact area) and anything straying into that airspace needs to return an encrypted message to say it's a Friend otherwise it's shot down. Of course military planes or other allowed aircraft will tell the SAM's that its a Friendly (eg. Air Force One).

Yes it is, it's the heart of the command structure of the gov/mil, so it should be protected at all costs. Without that there is no defense. It might seem cold but that's how it is.

Nothing has ever strayed and stayed in there.

There is a AFB within 10 miles of the Pentagon, IIRC, less than 10 minutes away.

There is a no fly zone over the Pentagon (can't remember the exact area) and anything straying into that airspace needs to return an encrypted message to say it's a Friend otherwise it's shot down. Of course military planes or other allowed aircraft will tell the SAM's that its a Friendly (eg. Air Force One).

And they shot down how many aircraft?

Yes it is, it's the heart of the command structure of the gov/mil, so it should be protected at all costs. Without that there is no defense. It might seem cold but that's how it is.

It's just a building, ground casulties were low. Even though it was hit nothing of importance was taken out. The military infrastructure kept working just as it always did.

Nothing has ever strayed and stayed in there.

No, actually you are wrong in that regard. Anything that violated that airspace was talked to by the FAA controllers and tracked by the FAA controllers and upon landing people involved were "interviewed" by the FAA. That was the protocol in place at the time. Not shooting things out of the sky.

There is a AFB within 10 miles of the Pentagon, IIRC, less than 10 minutes away.



And you have an exact timeline and status of all available intercept aircraft from that airbase at the time in question?

There is a no fly zone over the Pentagon (can't remember the exact area) and anything straying into that airspace needs to return an encrypted message to say it's a Friend otherwise it's shot down. Of course military planes or other allowed aircraft will tell the SAM's that its a Friendly (eg. Air Force One).

And they shot down how many aircraft?

Yes, how after not responding did the aircraft evade this system?

Yes it is, it's the heart of the command structure of the gov/mil, so it should be protected at all costs. Without that there is no defense. It might seem cold but that's how it is.

It's just a building, ground casulties were low. Even though it was hit nothing of importance was taken out. The military infrastructure kept working just as it always did.

That is not the point, it has to function in all scenarios.

Nothing has ever strayed and stayed in there.

No, actually you are wrong in that regard. Anything that violated that airspace was talked to by the FAA controllers and tracked by the FAA controllers and upon landing people involved were "interviewed" by the FAA. That was the protocol in place at the time. Not shooting things out of the sky.

Not the same conditions though.

There is a AFB within 10 miles of the Pentagon, IIRC, less than 10 minutes away.



And you have an exact timeline and status of all available intercept aircraft from that airbase at the time in question?


No, but why weren't they there?

OK, now that I've looked into it I've discovered there IN FACT were no missile defense systems in place at the Pentagon when 911 took place.

There is a no fly zone over the Pentagon (can't remember the exact area) and anything straying into that airspace needs to return an encrypted message to say it's a Friend otherwise it's shot down. Of course military planes or other allowed aircraft will tell the SAM's that its a Friendly (eg. Air Force One).

And they shot down how many aircraft?

Yes, how after not responding did the aircraft evade this system?

Yes it is, it's the heart of the command structure of the gov/mil, so it should be protected at all costs. Without that there is no defense. It might seem cold but that's how it is.

It's just a building, ground casulties were low. Even though it was hit nothing of importance was taken out. The military infrastructure kept working just as it always did.

That is not the point, it has to function in all scenarios.

Nothing has ever strayed and stayed in there.

No, actually you are wrong in that regard. Anything that violated that airspace was talked to by the FAA controllers and tracked by the FAA controllers and upon landing people involved were "interviewed" by the FAA. That was the protocol in place at the time. Not shooting things out of the sky.

Not the same conditions though.

There is a AFB within 10 miles of the Pentagon, IIRC, less than 10 minutes away.



And you have an exact timeline and status of all available intercept aircraft from that airbase at the time in question?


No, but why weren't they there?


OK, now that I've looked into it I've discovered there IN FACT were no missile defense systems in place at the Pentagon when 911 took place.

Oops, I meant anti-aircraft defenses, same arguments apply.

Oops, I meant anti-aircraft defenses, same arguments apply.


You mean the guards with small arms?

Yeah, they just weren't on the ball at all, One determined guy with a .45 or an M4 could surely keep a 757 from hitting the building.