It has happened in my long experience on the net [overall when I was moderator of a world wide political forum on a US social network] to discuss the events of 9/11. The general impression is that there is something not totally clear in what happened. But what? The US Government, meaning not only the Administration at the White House, could have got something embarrassing not to underline properly. And since 9/11 happened during the first months of a new administration, also the previous one could be a bit embarrassed ... Actually there isn't a secret related to 9/11, but an inefficient management of the crisis, unsuitable, wrong. What I can infer is that, American authorities were used to deal with hijackers, not kamikaze teams, that is to say the risk that someone hijacked a civil plane to use it as a bomb was considered, but not among the most possible threats. This actually left a weak point, a vulnerability of the US security system. From Italian journalistic sources I get that NORAD knew of the hijacking about half a hour before of the first crash. It seems that they had difficulties in finding the planes in that time. This could be real, but they could also have excluded the kamikaze option, making an error of evaluation of the situation, following the planes, waiting for the requests of the hijackers ... Those minutes were crucial, pivotal. If at NORAD, or at other defense organizations, someone thought to a kamikaze attack ... may be 9/11 didn't happen ... may be ...
Emphasis mine. That's not true. Almost 13 years after the fact many documents, either known to exist or that are likely to exist, which are relevant to 9/11 remain unavailable to the general public. And it is difficult to say that the U.S. security apparatus & agency responsible for aerial flights in the U.S. didn't recognize or know about the al Qaeda plot to hijack planes and then use them as weapons without seriously contorting one's ability to tell the truth.
Where have I said they didn't know? I'm not saying they didn't know about Al Qaeda plot to hijack planes to use them as bomb, I'm saying that they didn't give to such information a great credibility, putting the threat of the bomb plane at a low level in the scale of risk, otherwise, if this wasn't the case, they would have reacted in a well different way to the hijacking of the planes on 9/11.
Your whole argument is based on a false presumption. There were no hijackers. The 9/11 attacks were planned and carried out by the US government. The proof is crushing. Here's a link to some of it. http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=348380&p=1063729867#post1063729867
To address the no hijackings point, I agree, there were no hijackings, in addition, there were no airliners if anything at all hit the Pentagon & WTC, it had to have been missiles. ordinary airliners do not penetrate walls like the examples of FLT77 or FLT175 There is also the problem of hitting a building that has been rigged for demolition, the aircraft hits had to have been fake in order to make sure that the demolition could go as planned. Just a bit of logic.
Just a bit of opinion....wrong,I might add....Missiles don't leave large ,plane shaped holes,and you have any other examples of airliners hitting buildings at high speed to qualify your statement 'ordinary airliners don't penetrate walls like flt 77 and 175?
Airliners did hit the towers. I addressed the no-plane theory in posts #'s 6 and 8 of this thread. http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/358288-truthers-us-government.html No airliner hit the Pentagon though. Whatever hit the Pentagon, it was too small to be a 757 as this analysis shows. http://0911.voila.net/index4.htm (5th picture from top) September 11 -- The New Pearl Harbor (FULL) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DOnAn_PX6M (2:13:36 time mark)
So two airliners struck skyscrapers, and each left an plane shaped impression without loosing a wing in the process? really good trick.
Wait, the planes didn't penetrate walls [like the impressive walls of a fortress], but architectural facades. And this is a quite great difference to underline. Then, coming to a bit of analysis: a great plane at considerable speed has got a very important kinetic energy to discharge. In the moment of the impact some things happen. The rare parts of the planes push on the frontal areas and since the plane is structurally weak [planes have to fly so that they are light with a lot of light materials] it will be deformed by the kinetic energy IF the front of the plane stops meeting a concrete resistance. But the facades of the Twin Towers weren't armored, so they offered a not so high resistance to the impact. Do planes penetrate the facades of the skyscrapers? I think they do. We had an experience with an incident in Milan. A little tourism plane crashed against the facade of Pirelli skyscraper, it entered the building, despite it was a little plane. The skyscraper is not a giant but ... And this was the plane
See: http://cdn.doyouremember.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/construction-workers-high-manhattan.jpg "architectural facades" Right ......
For accuracy, the architectural facades of the Twin Towers presented * an estimated quantity of about 2,000,000kg of anodized 0.09" aluminum sheets [they were the exterior cladding of WTC 1 & 2, and as for I know aluminum is not exactly a choice to give resistance to impact ... but let's go on ...] * the 30% of their surface made by windows. The highest layers saw a higher percentage of windows to grant a better panoramic visual. In my humble opinion similar facades didn't offer a great resistance to the impact of a big plane at considerable speed ... in my humble opinion ...
It's a common misdirection of truther propaganda to speak of the WTC facades as if they were traditional constructed walls with greater strength. Or generally ignore different buildings have different construction: http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=80008 "Italian firefighters said they doubted the tower was structurally affected, because it is held up by two large cement pylons at opposite ends of the building, and the plane crashed into the center. "
as for the WTC towers, there was a load bearing wall that supported at least part of the weight of the tower and it was constructed of steel box columns, this is not a trivial wall, this is something that it would take a lot of force to break through, and yet FLT175 was said to have cut through like a hot knife through butter. there is something very wrong with this picture.
And you've been given proof in the forms of math and an FEA analysis that shows the jets should have penetrated. You have completely ignored this. I have yet to see ANY truther, engineer or otherwise, provide a rebuttal to either the math OR the FEA analysis. You have nothing.
So what's your rebuttal to this then? An engineering analysis (FEA) that shows that what actually happened was possible. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYJ1IePcgVU
In all of the "FEA" bits that have been released, who has published the source data for the "FEA"? where is it? These alleged "FEA" studies are no more than cartoons unless the foundational data is also published so people can see the conditions that were set-up for the analysis. Lets face it, everybody knows that 9/11 was an inside job its just that some people so desperately want for it to have no been, that they are going to great lengths to "prove" it was not. have fun with that, History will sort it out, eventually.
