Alex, alex, alex, where to start...
NORAD didn't have any responsibility to react outside the ADIZ, but did so anyway on the day, despite the poor flow of information from the FAA. I've seen no genuine explanation of how they could be expected to respond and intercept those hijacked planes. I accept that things could have been organised far better between departments for a more effective response, and that NORAD's responses to the 9/11 commission are downright weird, but I don't accept that given the circumstances their response was in any way suspicious.
As you should know, emmergency proceedure is to scramble to get a visual on any plane which looses transponder signal, radio contact, or changes course - you've heard the quoted figures time and time again - they did this many times as a routine in the year before 9/11 and every other year.
The 9/11 Commission focussed entirely on the highjack proceedure, which is more complicated, and did not mention the fact that before the first plane was even determined a hijacking a jet should have been along side it trying to figure out why it was causing massive danger to everything else in the sky by veering radically off course.
This did not happen.
Your problem, as ever, is you accept the answer given, without interrogation. They say "its all the FAAs fault" so you mimic it and take this as an answer. Norad have access to the FAAs radars, and it is their responsibility to protect air space. The idea that the entire defence of the US airsprace is the duty of civilian air traffic controllers is one of the many nonsenses you have to swallow in order to follow the official story. You eat it up and ask for more.
You should know, otherwise you shouldn't be here, that the first story Norad gave is they did not know about any plane off course until after the last one came down in shanksville. This caused even the MSM to ask serious questions, then they came out with a second story - a set of times the FAA informed them of the flights and said that they tragically couldn't get there in time. Then people looked at those figures and said "hold on a second - there is enough time there to stop at least some if not all of the flights" they then changed their story AGAIN - with the FAA giving them even later notice which they couldn't respond to.
The 9/11 Commissions absurd response, and yours, was to say "well I don't know why you lied to us about it being your fault, but we're glad you've come clean and admitted it was all someone elses fault and there's nothign you could have done".
This is pure hearsay - the truth movement has proven absolutely NOTHING about war games on the day either imparing or deliberately obstructing a proper response.
We have asked for disclosure.
Mineta's testimony disagrees with every other witness to the events and all the logs. His testimony, for example, contradicts Bush's actions in staying in the school classroom, which he did on camera. Even if you take Mineta's testimony as the truth, there is no indication that what he saw or heard indicated a conspiracy anyway.
No he didn't assert a conspiracy - he said he assumed but didn't know that the order was to shoot down the plane, not let it hit.
However it indicates a conspiracy in that it indicates a lie - cheney maintains he wasn't there, and as you indicate has found people to back him up. But the testimoney which is more salient is the one which refutes that story. Minetta has repeated on record he was there - why, in your mind, is he lying and the noble Cheny telling the truth.
And why, with the knowledge the plane was approaching, was the area it was heading towards not evactuated, or the whole upper levels of the pentagon not evactuated. This is gross negilence at the least, manslaughter or murder at the most.
Anyone with critical faculties could also make the reasonable assumption, since the plane was not shot down, that the order was to let it hit.
Not really true - they offer analysis up to the point that they considered global collapse inevitable.
It could only be demonstrated "inevitable" through analysis. Why do a NIST report at all? Their reasoning for not explaining the collapse is "well we all saw it collapse in TV - obviously the initiation led to collapse" when they could just write a single line "we all saw the planes hit, obviously they caused the collapse".
NO. Alex. Please engage the intellegence I credit you with. Almost every single claim of "conspiracy theorists" regarding the towers collapse happened within the period NIST refused to discuss - they side stepped explaining the speed, the squibs, the pulverisation, the symetry, the explosive effects and every thign else by saying "oh it was inevitable".
How the fuk is that going to help building standards?
Independent structural engineers have offered explanations to the scientific community for time and method of collapse, and these remain unchallenged.
I take it you are referring to the paper released two days after 9/11 by Bazant, which was torn apart and replaced by a new paper, which was torn apart and now we are on Bazants THIRD crack of the whip?
Yes it has been challenged - the entire scientifc, arhitectural and engineering factions of the truth movement challenge it.
It does not calculate a time of collapse - and that is the main bone of contention.
It in fact just says "take this weight and drop it onto this weight, can it resist". Ignoring the fact that Gordon Ross has shown their calculations to be wrong - it relies on the metal beams all hitting each other perfectly - it does not take account of or describe a collapse which resembles what we saw.
An explanation is due, as you know. Is a delay evidence of a cover-up?
No, simple logic is. It was due long ago, has been delayed and then contracted out - and they have no new evidence to work with which others have already used to conclude CD. We've gone through this before and it's getting boring...
It's true that this was outside the remit of the NIST reports. The truth movement have offered no serious explanation of these temperatures either.
Why should this have been outside the remit of the NIST report?
Alex, again, PLEASE USE YOUR BRAIN. The NIST report decided everythign which disproved gravitational collapse - incluidng the COLLAPSE OF THE TOWERS THEMSELVES and the temperatures afterwards was outside of their remit.
Why are you so pliant in letting them getting away with this. And why do you ignore it your self? WHY?
Such temperatures, the lengths they persisted, the reports of molten steel all REFUTE THE IDEA of gravitiational collapse. The only answer is "the truth movement" haven't explained it -
Why should they? Some theories have been put forward by Jones and the like - but that is not our job - it shows something other than GC happened.
Your response is to just ignore that? UNBELEIVABLE???
Again, the truth movement offers no serious explanation as to why these would be either impossible for the OT, or why they definitely suggest a controlled demolition. Pulverisation is considered a natural result of such a collapse.
IS IT? Then offer some examples? I state it is inhernetly not on this scale - absolutley not - now please prove me wrong.
Bodies disintegrated and tiny shards of bone blown hundreds of meters away natural for a collapse powered by gravity? Remember in your collapse scenario the speed means next to no energy was used in anythign but the fall of the top part of the building - yet all this explosive destruction is normal? Nonsense!
This point makes my blood boil, because it largely refers to the innocent explanations of many witnesses to the day, that have been twisted out of their own context by the truth movement for their own ends. 99% of these reports of explosions are of witnesses trying to offer comparisons for the sounds they heard. Barely any of these quotes come from witnesses who believe that the twin towers were destroyed by controlled demolition, and it is utterly reprehensible to suggest otherwise IMO.
Do your research. There are many, many reports of explosions where the people are adamant they were explosions and felt phsyical blast effects to go with them.
That, in my opinion, is exactly what the truth movement has done.
Yet then you go onto say....
There is no coherent combination of events that has been put forward by the truth movement - no grand vision that would explain the impossibilities of this being an inside job. This is why the truth movement says they are 'asking questions' rather than be faced with the assignment of actually explaining their impossible theories.
Which is the exact opposite.
What we are doing is bringing to light evidence which shows the official story to be wrong, and exposing clear deceptions in that story as well.
Why should we propose a "grand vision" or "theory" for what happened? We don't know.
If there were temperatures over 100degrees under ground zero for days and multiple credible people said there was molten metal flowing like lava down there, that suggests something capabale of generating EXTREME temperatures was active in the collapse.
If huge pieces of steel weighing tonnes are hurled like darts into neatby buildings, bodies are blown to tiny pieces, concrete turned to the texture of talcum powder and cars blown onto their backs at the base of the tower - that suggests some extreme force pushing outward and not just down.
At the same time - we are told, by you and the government - to accept that gravity acheived all of this - and that it took so little energy that the speed of collapse was only negliably slowed down from freefall speed -
Unless of course we can describe EXACTLY what did happen - we have to accept an account which is so clearly wrong it makes you brain blister and ignore anything which doesn't fit into as as "outside our remit"... Jesus!
The truth movement are peddling a fable. They have no serious scientific backing for their claims. The truth movement is riddled with inveterate bullshitters, free on the internet to pursue their beliefs, but of no serious standing in the real world. Outside of D-list celebrities, they have convinced nobody of any real influence or standing of their preposterous theories! THAT is the undeniable truth!
Well, here's the laws of physics being broken again - I deny it. Wow. I just deneid the undeniable.
The truth movement are simply the people brave enough to ask questions in the public arena about an issue we're supposed to just shut up and accept the official line on.
The official story is a myth, a fable, a conspiracy theory so absurd that to lay it out from beginning to end it sounds like a fairy tail.
But, to you, unless we can propose an alternate story - we should just keep on trucking along with the wrong one...