The Conspiracy Files 9/11 : First 12.5 minutes
12/04/08 11:42 Filed in: Personal
I've just found a bit of time to watch the first 5th of "The Conspiracy Files: 9/11" made by the BBC.
So far, after just 12.5 minutes I've ended up with a few questions that the BBC seem to have created and washed over. Something I'm finding really very odd.
1) The show states that nobody expected such an attack. Yet this is plainly false as drills for such an attack had not only been carried out prior to 9/11 but according to testimony to congress were taking place ON 9/11.
The WTC is shown in cross-hairs on a number of anti-terrorism documents (which contradicts Condoleezza Rice's statements they they never expected the WTC to be a target) and drills since the 1980's in the Pentagon for a jet liner being flown directly into it.
2) The show states that jets headed east towards potential foreign attackers. Who would that be? Surely the most likely origin of attack would be north west or west; TOWARDS Russia. Is is likely that Greenland would attack?
After all, on that same day, we are told that Russian bombers had triggered an alert and intercept, giving the most likely direction of attack to be the west.
Given the sheer performance of the F-16, it's unlikely it wouldn't be able to cover the 150-250 miles or so in a matter of a few minutes. Top speed at sea level of an F-16 is 915 mph and at altitude this would rise to 1,500 mph. That would average out at a performance of a one mile every three seconds. Not to mention to sophisticated radar and targeting system.
3) "They turned off the transponder and could not be found". "4500 aircraft across the country". Frankly this is the strangest claim.
Now as the aircraft were known to be last detected in the North East of the states, why would ATC be looked at the rest of the country in the first place?
Essentially air traffic control systems are built up a overlay of transponder signals and radar tracks. This is known as Secondary Surveillance Radar (SSR). Unlike Primary Radar Systems (PRS) this system not only detects and measures and position of an aircraft, it also requests additional information (such as aircraft identification).
So position and bearing are provided by Radar. Altitude and identification are provided by the Transponder.
As for ATC identifying the aircraft. Well, they would be the ones on radar and without Transponders. Which the ATC systems automatically flag up. It works the same for light aircraft not fitted with transponders. This a known application.
Of course, given the F-16 is capable of being fed this very same information. But given the first plane would have hit the WTC before they were scrambled, wouldn't you fly TOWARDS the obvious targets and not away from.
It also doesn't explain why aircraft from bases considerably close to New York or Washington were not scrambled or why the defences on the Pentagon were never put into operation.
4) In the demonstration of the floors collapsing, it shows the trusses failing and the floors falling away from the central core. With the central core being left standing. But this didn't happen on 9/11. Thus rendering such models inaccurate at best.
Of course, they could just be being very lazy and not commissioning their own model. But then that just adds credence to conspiracy theorists.
So what do I think? Well, it's a poor effort to try and rebut some of the many serious questions regarding 9/11. So much so that it enforces them. Fighter aircraft too far away. Couldn't be found because of lack of transponders. It's all pretty easy to knock down when a more suitable and potentially accurate explanation would be that those expected to take charge in such an event, were negligent in their duties.
But if that was the case; why has nobody been court marshalled over the events?
The theories of on...
So far, after just 12.5 minutes I've ended up with a few questions that the BBC seem to have created and washed over. Something I'm finding really very odd.
1) The show states that nobody expected such an attack. Yet this is plainly false as drills for such an attack had not only been carried out prior to 9/11 but according to testimony to congress were taking place ON 9/11.
The WTC is shown in cross-hairs on a number of anti-terrorism documents (which contradicts Condoleezza Rice's statements they they never expected the WTC to be a target) and drills since the 1980's in the Pentagon for a jet liner being flown directly into it.
2) The show states that jets headed east towards potential foreign attackers. Who would that be? Surely the most likely origin of attack would be north west or west; TOWARDS Russia. Is is likely that Greenland would attack?
After all, on that same day, we are told that Russian bombers had triggered an alert and intercept, giving the most likely direction of attack to be the west.
Given the sheer performance of the F-16, it's unlikely it wouldn't be able to cover the 150-250 miles or so in a matter of a few minutes. Top speed at sea level of an F-16 is 915 mph and at altitude this would rise to 1,500 mph. That would average out at a performance of a one mile every three seconds. Not to mention to sophisticated radar and targeting system.
3) "They turned off the transponder and could not be found". "4500 aircraft across the country". Frankly this is the strangest claim.
Now as the aircraft were known to be last detected in the North East of the states, why would ATC be looked at the rest of the country in the first place?
Essentially air traffic control systems are built up a overlay of transponder signals and radar tracks. This is known as Secondary Surveillance Radar (SSR). Unlike Primary Radar Systems (PRS) this system not only detects and measures and position of an aircraft, it also requests additional information (such as aircraft identification).
So position and bearing are provided by Radar. Altitude and identification are provided by the Transponder.
As for ATC identifying the aircraft. Well, they would be the ones on radar and without Transponders. Which the ATC systems automatically flag up. It works the same for light aircraft not fitted with transponders. This a known application.
Of course, given the F-16 is capable of being fed this very same information. But given the first plane would have hit the WTC before they were scrambled, wouldn't you fly TOWARDS the obvious targets and not away from.
It also doesn't explain why aircraft from bases considerably close to New York or Washington were not scrambled or why the defences on the Pentagon were never put into operation.
4) In the demonstration of the floors collapsing, it shows the trusses failing and the floors falling away from the central core. With the central core being left standing. But this didn't happen on 9/11. Thus rendering such models inaccurate at best.
Of course, they could just be being very lazy and not commissioning their own model. But then that just adds credence to conspiracy theorists.
So what do I think? Well, it's a poor effort to try and rebut some of the many serious questions regarding 9/11. So much so that it enforces them. Fighter aircraft too far away. Couldn't be found because of lack of transponders. It's all pretty easy to knock down when a more suitable and potentially accurate explanation would be that those expected to take charge in such an event, were negligent in their duties.
But if that was the case; why has nobody been court marshalled over the events?
The theories of on...
Just spent 20 minutes shouting at the TV
03/02/08 12:09 Filed in: Personal
Just spent about 20 minutes shouting at the TV. So this blog post is therapy 
The BBC are asking the people of New York about the major issues of the 2008 election campaign. The question was; "What are things that concern you most?"
We had a mixed bag
But then we had some rent-a-cop saying he was most concerned about the immense levels or terrorism in New York (state). Excuse me? What terrorist attacks have there been since 9/11?
Then the reported interviews a Vietnam vet. who said that the war on Iraq was just because "They killed nearly four thousand people in 2001". Iraq?
UNBELIEVABLE! the majority of the 9/11 terrorist came from Saudi Arabia! Not one of them was Iraqi!
How has America become so easily fooled?
The BBC are asking the people of New York about the major issues of the 2008 election campaign. The question was; "What are things that concern you most?"
We had a mixed bag
- people complaining that wages had fallen so low that they could not afford to live in the city they worked.
- people who pointed out the loss of the middle classes, there are just rich, super rich and poor people due to the area zonings.
But then we had some rent-a-cop saying he was most concerned about the immense levels or terrorism in New York (state). Excuse me? What terrorist attacks have there been since 9/11?
Then the reported interviews a Vietnam vet. who said that the war on Iraq was just because "They killed nearly four thousand people in 2001". Iraq?
UNBELIEVABLE! the majority of the 9/11 terrorist came from Saudi Arabia! Not one of them was Iraqi!
How has America become so easily fooled?