So, you definitely subscribe to the 'hijack theory'. Do you also subscribe to the 'cock-up theory' (which I would argue is intrinsic to the 'hijack theory'), or do you believe that such catastrophic multiple agency errors are a common occurrence and only to be expected once in a while?
*The evidence for the 'hijack' theory of 9-11
- Thread starter Jazzz
- Start date
- Status
Hmmmmm....... Okay I'll bite. Just to clarify.
I think that the planes were hijacked and flown by members of Al-Qa'eda to their destinations. There are various reasons why I think that and not something else, but that's not germane to your question.
I think that the hijacking scenario is compatible with letting it happen, making it happen, or incompetence.
To be honest, I think that there was a mixture of people being told to leave Bin Laden alone, because he was still considered a useful asset, and a lack of vision. I also think that a lot of priorities shifted during the changeover between the Clinton and Bush administrations, and that a great number of things slipped off the radar. And in amongst all the bureaucratic manoeuvering, the significance of the intel pertaining to the threat was missed.
I'm far from convinced that NORAD did any less than it could that day, from my knowledge of the system, the flight times, and how the military works.
But can I prove anything? No. I don't have access. Neither does anyone else here.
I think that the planes were hijacked and flown by members of Al-Qa'eda to their destinations. There are various reasons why I think that and not something else, but that's not germane to your question.
I think that the hijacking scenario is compatible with letting it happen, making it happen, or incompetence.
To be honest, I think that there was a mixture of people being told to leave Bin Laden alone, because he was still considered a useful asset, and a lack of vision. I also think that a lot of priorities shifted during the changeover between the Clinton and Bush administrations, and that a great number of things slipped off the radar. And in amongst all the bureaucratic manoeuvering, the significance of the intel pertaining to the threat was missed.
I'm far from convinced that NORAD did any less than it could that day, from my knowledge of the system, the flight times, and how the military works.
But can I prove anything? No. I don't have access. Neither does anyone else here.
I'm tired lately of 9-11 discussion, as I suspect you are, editor. For much the same reasons, I guess. So I won't be entering debate on it for a little while (you might care to join me!
). But - that doesn't mean I think all discussion on it should be censored should other posters wish to discuss it. And it's still a topic I am extremely interested for future discussion.I would guess we only take part in a minority of threads, it's really no sweat to ignore one if one is finds the discussion unsatisfying, for whatever reason.
As you have announced, 'nothing has been censored' - a very clear statement. And for anyone else getting grumpy about this, if I find a thread gets bogged down in circular arguments, I'll just ignore it! That's got to be a sensible course of action.
editor
hiraethified
Fine for you perhaps, but not for someone struggling to keep the bandwidth down (that's why the 'kittens' threads bit the dust, amongst others)
And - for a host of reasons - I can not ignore any large thread on my own boards, even more so if they're attracting a slew of reported posts (I believe you became very acquainted with that facility not so long ago).
pk
drink flounce rinse repeat
Joe Vialls was wholly incorrect in his claim that all 757 and 767 aircraft are equipped with computerized remote flight control systems for the purposes of rescuing the planes from attempted hijackings.
It's absolute bollocks, only a fool would use Vialls as proof of conspiracy.
It's absolute bollocks, only a fool would use Vialls as proof of conspiracy.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
Bing
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
