The 9/11 Anniversary Came and Went and After 17 Years, We Still Don't Have Answers! [F5 014]
September 11, 2018 The 911 Commission Report versus common scientific sense
In 2001 the United States of America was successfully attacked on its own soil. Over 3,000 people were killed, and the dust from the WTC towers endangered tens of thousands of people and especially the first responders.
The 911 commission was underfunded and pressure to produce a report on 911. This report didn't even cover the gravity collapse and fall of WTC 7. That building wasn't hit by anything, and it somehow caught fire while the buildings around it were untouched.
The steel from WTC 1 and 2 was collected and immediately sold to China in record time. When a plane crashes the FAA sends out teams to find out why it crashed. And when two planes hit two buildings and collapse at the speed of gravity they get rid of the evidence that could explain what happened to cause it to fall in hours.
Add to that that these three steel skyscrapers are the only ones that have ever failed because of fire. The point is that we don't really know what happened. If for no other reason we should want to know just to prevent all the other steel skyscrapers around the world from having fire bring them down.
The suspicion of doubt from the government story starts with the choice of targets. The WTC 1 and 2 buildings were built in the 1970s and they were already deteriorating and the owner might have found that their collapse on 911 was a good thing for him.
The Empire State Building would have been a better target to send a terrorist message, along with what used to be the Old Pan Am building along Park Avenue. These buildings are in the heart of Manhattan and the damage would be far more extensive to them and the surrounding buildings than WTC.
Running a "plane" into the Pentagon building did little damage to it. In fact, the one section that was hit had been pretty much vacant because of remodeling. The CIA building in Virginia would have been a better target, and it would have hit the people that terrorists fear. Even the NSA building along with the CIA building would have crippled our country for decades.
The fourth plane never made it to anywhere, and to this day we can only speculate as to what was its intended target. Which target would you pick if you were those "terrorists?" Maybe the White House, or the Capital Building or ?
As for the "plane" that hit the Pentagon building after circling it, how many experienced 757 pilots could duplicate it?
According to Snopes who debunked the possibility that it wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon, it still said that the plane was traveling at 530 miles an hour. That is about 795 feet a second. At that speed a mile would only take 6.6 seconds. The height of the Pentagon Building is about 77 feet. It hit the first floor.
Here is the report of that crash
"9/11 Commission reports, as Flight 77 was 5 miles W/SW of the Pentagon, it made a 330-degree turn. At the end of the turn, it was descending through 2,200 feet, pointed toward the Pentagon and downtown DC. Hani Hanjour advanced the throttles to maximum power and dived toward the Pentagon. While level above the ground and seconds from the crash, the wings knocked over five street lampposts and the right wing struck a portable generator, creating a smoke trail seconds before smashing into the Pentagon. Flight 77, flying at 530 mph over the Navy Annex Building adjacent to Arlington National Cemetery, crashed into the west side of the Pentagon at 09:37:46. The plane hit the Pentagon at the first-floor level, and at the moment of impact, the airplane was rolled slightly to the left, with the right wing elevated.The front part of the fuselage disintegrated on impact, while the mid and tail sections moved for another fraction of a second, with tail section debris penetrating furthest into the building. In all, the airplane took eight-tenths of a second to fully penetrate 310 ft into the 3 outermost of the building's 5 rings and unleashed a fireball that rose 200 ft above the building."
B: You don't have to think conspiracy theory, what you should think that this is an unbelievable feat for an experienced 757 pilot while being tremendous odds for a person that could barely fly a single engine small plane. This is not a conspiracy theory, it is a lesson in logic and physics. Yet snopes debunked anything but the government story.
I understand that most people are not pilot, not physicists, or even in engineering, but this crash was an affront to all those people that are pilots, physicists and in engineering. Science exists to define, follow and make scientific laws. When something violates those laws, that is when they investigate the hell out of it. Yet, that didn't happen with the 911 anomalies.
Some people say, these buildings were hit and destroyed so it must be true. But that is a false logic view. And that logic doesn't extend to WTC 7 that wasn't hit by a plane but saw the same free fall as did WTC 1 and 2.
Using symbolic logic as an example.
P = It rained
Q = the sidewalks get wet.
If P then Q
If it rained then the sidewalks get wet.
Now lets reverse that logic
If Q then P
If the sidewalks are wet
then it must have rained.
That is the fallacy, because the sidewalks could have been wet from any number of reasons. For example, they could have been washed with a hose to clean them.
The point here is that just because something the WTC 1 and 2 and the building was destroyed by the alleged 757 plane, doesn't lend even providing the answer to WTC 1 and 2 collapse, much less when it also happens to WTC 7 that wasn't hit by a plane.
How do we know the truth, when science is not used to determine it here?
This is not a conspiracy theory, it is an event analysis
How pathetic was 911 for the most powerful and best military in the world could be so successfully attacked by 19 Muslim Terrorists. They ran their attack on a very small budget using the passenger planes they flew on as the weapon.
- Is there anyone that would argue against these statements as facts?
It is a FACT that there was zero resistance much less defense against the 911 attackers.
The Article asks a serious question, where were the defenders of the United States. These government defense agencies over the years have received trillions of dollars for their existence, their technology, and their people.
Would anyone like to contract these statements?
- On 911, they were not to be found. There was not a single defensive action against the 911 attackers, and that is a fact.
To answer this question, you don't even have to consider how the attackers got into the country, or how they got control of the four passenger airliners. To make it even easier, you can even ignore the first tower hit.
- From that point on, where were the defenders of the United States?
- What was the president of the United States, the commander and chief of the US Armed Forces doing during the 911 attack?
These were the facts. They don't need figures or statistics.
Where was NORAD? on 911
These are also facts.
Has NORAD outlived its usefulness for protecting the US Homeland?
Where was the US Military
Why didn't president Bush, the Commander in Chief take control of the Chaos, direct some defense as the three planes were still in the air?
Once again, can anyone deny these statements?
Trillions in taxes to protect the US, But on 911 there wasn't a dimes worth of protection to be foundClick thumbnail to view full-size
The anniversary of 911 is coming once again
It has been 16 plus years, and I still don't understand how the United States of America didn't have a single defense to protect the country.
The scope and size of the US Government increased slowly from the end of WWII, And it has grown even larger and increased its scope since 911.
- Its HUGE size, and
- well fed budgets, and
- large and elite military
- ---------------------- were no match for 19 terrorists.
The above are facts that are self evident and the specific figures don't lend any more substance to the statement.
- These terrorists didn't spend hardly any money for their successful and unopposed assault on the most powerful nation in the world.
- They outwitted the politicians, the military masters, and the named and unnamed three letter government agencies
Once again, those statements are factual even without figures and statistics. The essence of those statement cannot be contradicted, it is therefore factual.
Osama Bin Laden
- It took almost nine and half years to track down Osama Bin Laden the one time Allie of the US against the Russian in Afghanistan, turned enemy of the United States.
- This demonstrated the continued flaw in the government, coupled with failures in accomplishing closure in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
This continues today, only IRAQ has been squatted on by ISIS, and along with captured territory in Syria, they now have geography ISIL. The update to this statement is since Trump became president ISIL has lost that territory and ISIS has been on the retreat.
- These statements can be verified, but they are not important enough to digress with figures and statistics. For the purpose of this article they are factual.
As in the Vietnam War, the government failed to make closure.
- The people of the United States were divided, and didn't support the troops, and allowed the enemy to take advantage of the inner turmoil occurring in the US. Divide and conquer is the same effect that has happened since our invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq.
- The government and the people are divided, and that is ironic as we are the UNITED States of America.
- As in Korea and Vietnam, the US lost their military gains from the negative feeling of the people that just wanted us to get out.
- This latest negative feeling got us to abandon Iraq, and allowed the formation of a Terrorist State ISIS. It really doesn't matter whether it is ISIS or ISIL, as the terrorists exist.
It has always been the people in the military that have paid for the politics and the lack of support of the people. The military went in harms way for the US, and yet the Congress and the people didn't support them during the wars, and didn't care about them after they came back home.
- The above statements is an opinion of the author, but he welcomes any comment on it.
911 Conspiracy Theory or Cover Up?
What don't we still know about 911, and could a captured alive Obama Bin Laden told us what really happened from his view point?
The United States government lost their bet that passenger planes wouldn't be used to crash into buildings.
The following are basically the facts that we know about the passenger planes used to attack the WTC and the Pentagon on 911. What could of happened is not reflected in the list, only the facts of what happendded are on the list.
There are many conspiracy theories, and myths about what happened on 911.
Conspiracy Theory is being used anytime that the US Government wants to hide something and or it hasn't been able to give factual or plausible answers to questions about an event.
Conspiracy is used to determine the Who was responsible but it is the What or the How that has to be answered.
- We don't know Who was really responsible for the success of 911?
- But as important, we don't really know How three WTC buildings went down in free fall?
Fact: The 911 Commission Report didn't even include the WTC 7 building.
- We don't know why there wasn't a forensic investigation on what was left of the building even to ensure protecting fires from taking down more iron skyscrapers.
- We don't know what happened to the passengers or even the plane engines and other plane parts on the plane that crashed.
- The same is true of the plane that hit the Pentagon.
To answer the how is not a conspiracy theory, it is an investigation process as when a passenger plane crashes somewhere. The FAA sends an investigative team to get answers.
The answers from 911 Commission Report don't explain what or how it happened.
1. Three WTC buildings went done at the speed of free fall, and that is a fact.
2. But only WTC 1 and 2 were hit by a plane.
3. Building WTC 7 was not hit by a plane yet this building fell free fall. Can we apply the NIST report of how the WTC 1 and 2 fell at free fall to the WTC 7 free fall?
No because WTC 7 was only 47 stories tall and didn't have the same architecture. The basis of the NIST report on WTC 1 and 2 was the result of the jet fuel burning and melting the iron support pillars. WTC 7 had no burning jet fuel and it wasn't hit by a plane.
The facts however are clear on the result of the attack on 911. I am going to just mention the results that were verified
- Both World Trade Center towers were hit each by a large commercial passenger jet. World Trade Center Building 7 also went down the same way as buildings 1 and 2, although building 7 was not hit by anything.
- The Pentagon Building was damaged when something hit it.
- A passenger jet went down and crashed in Shranksville, but no passengers, luggage, or plane was found at the crash site.
- The US intelligence agencies and law enforcement in the nation didn’t find out about the hijackers or their weapons or didn't share them..
- No military fighter jets encountered these planes when they were in the air, and on their way to their destinations.
- President George W Bush was in Florida at a grade school at the time of the first attack, on the World Trade Center Building 1.
- President Bush remained at the school, even after he was notified of the first attack.
- The FAA manages the air traffic for the United Stats.
- NORAD defends the airspace in the United States
- There were planned war games on the days before and after 911. On 911, the US and Canada armed and ready fighter jets and pilots that could in less than 15 minutes take off and defend 10 locations. There were two fighter jets per location. According to NORAD: Massachusetts (2 pairs), Virginia (2 pairs) and Florida (2 pairs), Canada(?), Alaska(?), the West Coast(?) and Texas(?). The information here is not detailed enough to add up correctly.
- These fighter jets locations were remnants of the cold war when the USSR would come from a distance.
- The logic for hijackers didn’t include any of the planes crashing into anything, they would as in the past choose a destination they wanted to have the hijacked plane land.
- The FAA notified NORAD of the two hijacked planes just minutes before AA11 hit the North Tower WTC.
- Two F15s from Otis Air National Guard Base in Massachusetts took of ten minutes before UA175 hit the South Tower WTC.
- A few minutes after the F15s took off AA77 broke its scheduled course, and the plane no longer had a transponder signal.
- It would be 45 minutes before AA77 would hit the Pentagon, and there would be no engagement of it by the military even though Andrews Air Force Base was only minutes away from the Pentagon.
- During those 45 minutes the FAA thought that about 11 planes might have been hijacked. Fighter jets were taking off unarmed with the possibility of ramming any hijacked passenger planes.
- The ramming would have needed presidential authorization, and president Bush didn’t give that order until after the Pentagon was hit. The F16s from Langley AF Base needed to have been launched sooner. The fighters didn’t One of the fighter jets was armed but, it was hundreds of miles from the Pentagon when it was hit by AA7. receive their scramble order until thirty minutes after AA75 made its departure from its schedules flight plan.
- NORAD never launched all available fighter jets
- The FAA didn’t order all non military planes in the sky to land until twenty minutes after the Pentagon was hit.
- UA93 crashed landed in Pennsylvania three minutes later. At that time there were fighter jets circling over Washington DC waiting to see where that flight would head. To this day we don't know the target of the plane that went down in Pennsylvania?
- The reason that Andrews was not a NORAD base, and that is why Langley AF Base in Virginia deployed the three fighter jets. Unfortunately, they headed in the wrong direction because of bad communications.
- There were no Alert Aircraft at Andrews Air Force Base. However, there was a controversy about that in the information. There was talk about two combat ready squadrons at Andrews, but they were not part of NORAD and didn’t get the order to go. Ready also doesn’t mean available in minutes. There is a difference between Combat Ready and Ready. Langley was Combat Ready, but Andrews was just Ready.
- Prior to 911 the Secret Service had requested alert aircraft for Andrews Air Force Base to protect the Capitol, but that never happened.
- Prior to 911 there were intelligence reports that Al Qaeda had plans to use private aircraft to crash into buildings, but these were thought to be not pertaining to the United States. Even though a private plane had gone down on the White House lawn.
- On 911 there were several war games going on under NORAD. The details of these games, which were halted after the 911 attack, are in controversy.
- Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from Ground Zero. Most of the steel has been recycled as per the city's decision to swiftly send the wreckage to salvage yards in New Jersey. The city's hasty move has outraged many victims' families who believe the steel should have been examined more thoroughly. Last month, fire experts told Congress that about 80% of the steel was scrapped without being examined because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage. 1
The bulk of the steel was apparently shipped to China and India. The Chinese firm Baosteel purchased 50,000 tons at a rate of $120 per ton, compared to an average price of $160 paid by local mills in the previous year. 2
Mayor Bloomberg, a former engineering major, was not concerned about the destruction of the evidence:
To whomever inserted this in my article.
To whomever slipped this gem in to my article.
Stick to the Facts
Pretty much anyone can share his or her opinion on a political or social issue whereas only a select few online content creators have the acumen and ability to share objective facts,
On the 911 topic what are the objective facts that I haven't mentioned in it?
Acumen - can you name any hubbers in the political category that have this acumen?
This is not a political or social issue per se. Political issues especially in the media are all opinion, and mainly biased opinions. On hp most of them are biased to the left, is that an example of acumen?
That means that there is nothing objective when it comes to politics.
hence those who make an effort to do the latter have a fantastic strategic advantage.
I s strategic really meaningful here. How do you see strategic and what is the advantage?
To provide a truly valuable resource, we strongly recommend that you:
- Do your research
I did my research
- Refer to trusted resources
On 911 who are the trusted resources?
That is one of the reasons that I wrote this article.
- Cover both sides of an argument
I covered both sides, but I don't have to support the other side.
- Utilize concrete facts, figures, and statistics
What is a concrete fact for this article?
We are not writing a text book, we are writing an article.
Statistics are not facts, they are representations of data, and they can be swayed to make a point.
4 out of 5 doctors recommend Brand X.
What are the concrete facts, what are the figures, and what does this statistic tell us?
The bottom line is that the United States failed to protect the homeland on 911
The purpose of this hub is to remind us that we didn't really get the answers about why 911 was a success for 19 terrorists, while a failure for the entire United States of America and the 20 fighter jets that were on ready to protect it. On he surface, it seems like an even fight. 19 terrorists in 4 planes against 20 fighter jets across the country and Canada.
On September 10, 2001 what odds would you have given if someone posed the possibility of the US being successfully attacked by terrorists? Think of the sequence of events that had to occur for what happened to actually be allowed to happen
The terrorists came into the United States from Canada. They would have gotten their weapons, the thought is box cutters. That means two inspection points plus Customs. Four of the terrorists would have to hav a rudimentary knowledge of the aircraft to even navigate to their targets, and as we have seen from TV footage there was no second chance. They went right for the target and hit it perfectly. Especially the Pentagon because they could have hit the ground way before they got to the building. Traveling at hundreds of miles per hour that is pretty good for a first time flight.
- Yet, we know that it happened, but isn't it incredible that the terrorists did better than the entire defense of the US? At any point along their trip from Canada to the planes they could have been caught. We see things like this on TV and Movies, but in real life it is amazng. There is no mention whether any of the flights had air marshals on them.
Isn't it strange that only the plane that went down in Pennsylvania had any passengers that called people on their cell phones. With a plane as large as these, how could five terrorists hold that many people at bay. At least one, possibly two had to be in the cockpit. Two or three with box cutters, holding 33 to 76 passengers. Also odd was that the load factors on these 767s and 757 passenger jets were very low, as they could have held about 175.
- The point is that any of these logistics could have failed the attack, or at least some part of it. The plane that went down in Pennsylvania didn't reap much information. We still don't know what its target destination was because it didn't reach it
It seems to me that the Pentagon was not a real good target, as I said it was low profile and it would have been difficult for an inexperienced person to make it on the first try. I know that it did, but you still have to ask how?
- The White House and the Capitol Building would have made a better target and it would have been more devastating to the country The White House would have been a small target, but a bigger payload.
Have we learned anything since 911 that would have shifted the US into being proactive? Having the TSA do more inspections is not proactive, it is reactive to the previous attack. There are so many soft targets in the US that planes are just one method of attack.
Even the airports are not secure. It was just a couple of years ago that a gunman was running a muck at LAX. If there had been several instead of one gunman, there would have been more than one person dead. Even before that the LAX International Terminal also had a single gunman running loose in it. So don't get a false sense of security that the TSA measures are really working and the reason why there haven't bee new attacks.
You can spin it anyway that you want to/ but the United States government failed to protect the country on 911.
It wasn't just one agency like the FAA or NORAD, it was every US agency that has to do with defending the sovereignty of the US. The US government has been protected from scrutiny of how it handles military matters by using the conspiracy theory defense. When the conspiracy theory is invoked, the credibility of attacks on the government are shunted to ground. When in fact he reason that there are conspiracy theories is because the explanation given by the government is inadequate to intelligently explain the incident, or it doesn't provide the necessary facts, or it simply doesn't make any sense.
This doesn't mean that all conspiracy theories are correct or even plausible, it just means that they are filling in for the missing explanation given by the government.
As the time runs the conspiracy theory lingers on, but the government story hasn't changed. The government lets the theory look ridiculous even if it might have been true.
Without any conspiracy theories that exist for the 911 attack, we factually state that the United States Defense didn't prevent or lessen any of the damage from the terrorist attack. Look through the facts listed above and it is clear that for whatever reason the defense of our air space was lacking.
- The FAA,
- Andrews Air Force Base,
- President Bush,
- Air National Guard,
- and others FAILED on 911.
There is a lot of similarity between the 911 attack, and the attack on Pearl Harbor n 1941.. There was no existing plan at the time of these attacks that predicted they were possible much less probable. Both attacks had intelligence information available to indicate an attack was imminent, but the decision makers didn't see it, or didn't react on it.
For all intents and purposes both attacks were executed to completion as if the United States was blind, deaf and dumb. The US was reactive in 1941, and asleep since the end of WWI. they had over twenty years to figure out what Japan and Germany were doing in the world. Germany was no surprise as they were already at war. Japan had already made war moves in China. The US was trying to sit this war out, or so they thought.
The same is true about 911. It was less than ten years before 911 that there was a bomb attack on the WTC. There were attacks on the US overseas, and although the attacks didn't included passenger jets, there was information scattered about the world that an inference or a supposition could have been made by the US Military.
We can only hope that the US government is now doing a better job of out thinking the terrorists instead of thinking that they will return to the same plan that worked before?
what has 911 done for the defense of the United Stat?
It has been over thirteen years since 911, and how much have we changed and how much have we learned that will better protect us?
Are we different today?
It took a decade after the first attempt on the World Trade Center was attacked by terrorists. In the early 1990s, the terrorists bombed the WTC in an attempt to cause mass destruction. That attempt failed to do much damage.
The next attempt on the WTC buildings was a success on September 11, 2001. Why was this attack successful? The simple reason is that the United States doesn't act proactively when defending the homeland. No one in the government, at least not the decision makers had an idea that terrorists would be able to not only hijack four planes, but actually fly them into high value soft targets.
The US Government depends as in the case of 911, on shoring up the holes in the same system that the terrorists have already used, but the terrorist have been shown to be not only patient, but very creative in their terror plots.
In my opinion, the large commercial airports in this country as a vulnerable as ever.I would elaborate on how, but that would just give the wrong people the right ideas. What the TSA has done to improve the airport security is minimal. It costs a lot of money and it inconveniences the bulk of the passengers, but is it really protecting the country from terrorist attacks, I would say very little.
The United States didn't learn their lesson from the attack on Pearl Harbor, on December 7, 1941 because those same types of gaps in communications existed in both that attack and 911. And the former was when the World was already in a war.
The "War" that we started in 2004 with Afghanistan and Iraq while it is still ongoing, Has I believe had put the terrorists in a defensive mode on their own soil. That is any soli outside of the US that they can be terrorists.
This was a costly distraction for us in both financial, and lives. The terrorists are now getting bolder, and maybe in the near future they will try again to attack us where we live. And you probably believe that the invasion of our privacy by the US government is going to protect us from these terrorists. The real question is who is going to protect us from our own government?
Sadly, the only one that is reading this hub is the NSA. It is one thing to give up your constitutional right to privacy during a war, but there are no wars, at least wars signed off by the US Congress. The last such war was WWII.
The entire military defense system of the United States failed miserably on 911, while they may have patched the system that failed, smart terrorists are planning to find new holes that our defenders might not seem credible, as they did for 911. When the terrorists can claim land in foreign countries, things are looking stronger for them and weaker for us.
We probably have the smartest security people in the world, but unfortunately they work under mediocre old dogs that can't learn new tricks.