Conspiracy-Forums - View Single Post

**In Lak'esh** · 01-30-2008, 03:23 AM

Flight 175
United Airlines Flight 175 left Boston at 8:14. At that time, FAA was learning that Flight 11 may have been hi-jacked. At 8:42, the radio and transponder went off and the plane flew off course. By then, FAA knew Flight 11 had definitely been hi-jacked, so FFA would have be ready to contact the military immediately. They did, in fact, notify NORAD at 8:43. There is no excuse for no interception between a fighter jet and the airliner. Am I supposed to believe that NORAD was grossly disorganized and massively incompetent? Perhaps it was the “shocke and awe”.

This would have been 7 minutes after the first plane crashed the North Tower, so, fighter jets would have been quick to intercept Flight 175. Accordingly, if this plane did not follow the orders of jet, the plane would have likely been shot down before it reached the WTC. However, this was not the case. Nothing intercepted Flight 175 and @ 9:03 it crashed into the South Tower.

Another disturbing feature of 9/11 is the fact that at 8:55 a public announcement was reportedly broadcast inside the South tower, saying that the building was secure, so that people could return to their offices. These announcements reportedly continued on until a few minutes before the crash. The announcements alone may have contributed to the deaths of hundreds. Paul Thomson asks: “Given that at 8:43 NORAD was notified flight 175 was hijacked and headed toward New York City, why weren't people in the building warned? Again, this is beyond the realm of “incompetence”. Perhaps someone other than the hi-jackers was seeking to ensure that a significant number of lives were lost? That might just be too hard to believe, but I cannot simply believe all of these problems were mere coincidences."

Furthermore, Flight 175 hit the WTC 17 minutes after the first crash. You can speculate as to why standard procedures broke down with regard to the first plane—such as inattentive air traffic controllers, pilots at military bases not on full alter, or just the assumption that the plane's behavior did not mean that it had been hijacked—They could be used to explain why Flight 175 was not shot down or even intercepted.

Another disturbing detail is that NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector “had their headsets linked to the FAA in Boston to hear about Flight 11,” so NORAD must have been fully aware of the seriousness of the situation. Even more disconcerting is the fact that 35 minutes afterwards, at 9:38, the Pentagon was hit. I'll discuss the Pentagon later on. The task I'm giving you all is to consider the official account of the first two flights and the critics response.

So, which is more plausible? The "Global Incompetence" theory or the "Stand Down" theory?

01-30-2008, 03:23 AM	#9 (permalink)
In Lak'esh Conspiracy Buff Posts: 91 Rep:	Flight 175 United Airlines Flight 175 left Boston at 8:14. At that time, FAA was learning that Flight 11 may have been hi-jacked. At 8:42, the radio and transponder went off and the plane flew off course. By then, FAA knew Flight 11 had definitely been hi-jacked, so FFA would have be ready to contact the military immediately. They did, in fact, notify NORAD at 8:43. There is no excuse for no interception between a fighter jet and the airliner. Am I supposed to believe that NORAD was grossly disorganized and massively incompetent? Perhaps it was the “shocke and awe”. This would have been 7 minutes after the first plane crashed the North Tower, so, fighter jets would have been quick to intercept Flight 175. Accordingly, if this plane did not follow the orders of jet, the plane would have likely been shot down before it reached the WTC. However, this was not the case. Nothing intercepted Flight 175 and @ 9:03 it crashed into the South Tower. Another disturbing feature of 9/11 is the fact that at 8:55 a public announcement was reportedly broadcast inside the South tower, saying that the building was secure, so that people could return to their offices. These announcements reportedly continued on until a few minutes before the crash. The announcements alone may have contributed to the deaths of hundreds. Paul Thomson asks: “Given that at 8:43 NORAD was notified flight 175 was hijacked and headed toward New York City, why weren't people in the building warned? Again, this is beyond the realm of “incompetence”. Perhaps someone other than the hi-jackers was seeking to ensure that a significant number of lives were lost? That might just be too hard to believe, but I cannot simply believe all of these problems were mere coincidences." Furthermore, Flight 175 hit the WTC 17 minutes after the first crash. You can speculate as to why standard procedures broke down with regard to the first plane—such as inattentive air traffic controllers, pilots at military bases not on full alter, or just the assumption that the plane's behavior did not mean that it had been hijacked—They could be used to explain why Flight 175 was not shot down or even intercepted. Another disturbing detail is that NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector “had their headsets linked to the FAA in Boston to hear about Flight 11,” so NORAD must have been fully aware of the seriousness of the situation. Even more disconcerting is the fact that 35 minutes afterwards, at 9:38, the Pentagon was hit. I'll discuss the Pentagon later on. The task I'm giving you all is to consider the official account of the first two flights and the critics response. So, which is more plausible? The "Global Incompetence" theory or the "Stand Down" theory?