New 9/11 truth documentary among 'most watched' on PBS this week

[lxskllr]

But it's also important to note that it's very hard to keep track of a country's own air as you don't exactly have radars all over the place, and the only monitored air is usually around military bases and airports. Or at least that's how it would've been until post 9/11. I'm guessing they've taken pretty extreme measures in that sense by now...

You might be surprised. We do have radar all over the place, and I'd be surprised if there was a square inch in the continental USA that was uncovered. I imagine we've had it for decades due to the cold war.

[texastorm]

But how would you like to be the president that shot down two to four commuter planes based on the fact that they were hijacked and might have been intended to crash into a building. So far in history no one had ever rammed a 767 plane into a 100+ story building.... could anyone have truly seen that one coming and made a proper call.

In the very same situation I would probably not have sent the fighters out either.

That being said you know the people that were informed of the planes (and you know there were) the very people that chose not to take action, now look like dunces for trying to not look like killers. SO I am betting everyone claimed to know as little as could be proved. I know I would have tried to cover my own ass.

Now that is a true no win situation. Either your blamed for murdering lives by shooting down a plane, or your blamed for the murders by letting the plane stay in the air. It hurts my head just thinking about trying to make a call like that.

[Frosted]

Actually it's quite unlikely that they would be able to respond within minutes - It takes a long, long time to prep a fighter jet. But still, the fact that it could happen is insane - But I find that the 9/11 conspiracy is weird as it has no winners as Texas pointed out. But it's also important to note that it's very hard to keep track of a country's own air as you don't exactly have radars all over the place, and the only monitored air is usually around military bases and airports. Or at least that's how it would've been until post 9/11. I'm guessing they've taken pretty extreme measures in that sense by now...

Mate, that statement is so wrong. There are jets prepped up and ready to go right 24 hours a day - in fact, armed jets are constantly flying over the UK. There is radar covering the whole of the UK and way beyond. With the greatest of respect you have no idea how good it is as it's a hangover from the cold war.

[Frosted]

But how would you like to be the president that shot down two to four commuter planes based on the fact that they were hijacked and might have been intended to crash into a building. So far in history no one had ever rammed a 767 plane into a 100+ story building.... could anyone have truly seen that one coming and made a proper call.

In the very same situation I would probably not have sent the fighters out either.

That being said you know the people that were informed of the planes (and you know there were) the very people that chose not to take action, now look like dunces for trying to not look like killers. SO I am betting everyone claimed to know as little as could be proved. I know I would have tried to cover my own ass.

Now that is a true no win situation. Either your blamed for murdering lives by shooting down a plane, or your blamed for the murders by letting the plane stay in the air. It hurts my head just thinking about trying to make a call like that.

Fair points but there are protocols and those protocols are carried out to the letter and to the death. I cannot believe that there wasn't a policy for this. There wasn't even a military jet flying with the planes after contact was lost as would certainly be the norm.....which I think is shameful. The second plane should certainly have been shot down before it got over city air space. I also find it hard to believe that a plane got anywhere near the Pentagon....I mean who'se organising intelligence and security in the US? Chimps?

Now I'm only a Joe on the street. But the WTC had already been bombed a couple of times and they couldn't bring it down that way. Even I could figure out their next move - two big sticky uppy things right into the sky. Hmmmm - I'd fly a plane into it. Don't tell me the US 'intelligence' services didn't think of that. It's not hard - and it's not just hindsight.

[texastorm]

My point was protocol or not, the order would have to come from the top. If there was hesitation about shooting down a hijacked plane, I concede that there should have been. Who shoots down a plane full of people? As stated at no time in history had anyone ever intentionally flown a 767 or anything similar into a skyscraper on purpose.

Doesn't anyone remember the angry accusations of the people here who "thought" that maybe the flight 93 was shot down. The government admits to going after it, they were going to ram it kamikaze style or some bullcrap, but denies finding it. That was the first "conspiracy". People were so pissed our own government would shoot a plane down. I remember all the conspiracy talk over that flight, then on to the next one. That's why I know 10 years from now it will be something else.

So with that knowledge I have to concede that if all 4 planes were shot down saving lives, that we would have been in a far worse place. This country would be in total revolt. No amount of assurances of the hijackers intentions would make people understand. We can all say the apparent decisions made were wrong, but none of us had to make them.

[Frosted]

If the security forces had 'let' the first plane hit the WTC then shooting down the second plane would be tolerated. But they weren't even there - not even close. Why?

[texastorm]

As I just stated up there, likely for the same reason they did not shoot any of them down. If our own government had killed its own citizens in those days based on the assumption that the plane "might" be headed into a building, even if one of them hit a building, us gun toting Americans would have revolted. The aftermath and the outcries about us even talking about shooting down flight 73 make it obvious the American mindset in those days. It would have been a revolt, maybe not to the point of government overthrow, but Americans would have turned on its government. Things are different over here though... Americans do not hold our government in high regard anyway, we distrust the government as a whole. So given the choice to shoot down a plane and save a few lives or let it hit the building, I can say with assurance back then I would have probably let it hit the building. Today of course I would say shoot the bastards down.

Thats all hypothesis, and I of course have no way of knowing if anyone had known anything. But I can't believe no one knew anything. I can only place myself in those shoes without foresight of what happened, with only things that have already happened as guidance.

I will say that I do not believe for a second a plane would have made it to our capital building, even if it was filled with babies, that plane would have been shot down regardless.

But this conversation is about the aftermath, the cause is known... apparently empty planes were not involved and were only used as a diversion for the nanothermite bombs, the real passengers were all taken to area 51 and killed, thousands of people are involved and no one is talking, and we Americans want some GD answers!

[Mdisch]

Mate, that statement is so wrong. There are jets prepped up and ready to go right 24 hours a day - in fact, armed jets are constantly flying over the UK. There is radar covering the whole of the UK and way beyond. With the greatest of respect you have no idea how good it is as it's a hangover from the cold war.

Talking about the US here, but in the UK most flights aren't monitored unless they cross major cities or airports - But I must admit I don't have that great knowledge of the radars in the UK but I know that according to flight protocol you can easily fly over UK airspace without having to identify yourself.

[Mdisch]

Also the issue regarding whether or not they were allowed to shoot down the planes is whole other matter - I think it's somewhat unlawful to request your pilots too shoot down innocent civilians. It quickly becomes a matter of politics instead of casualties during such events. It reminds me of a little Theory of Knowledge theory I've worked a bit with ;

If say, a minecart is hurtling at immense speed down a rail towards 5 workers, and there is no way that they would survive, should it hit them - But you have a choice, you can redirect the minecart towards a different rail where only 1 worker is standing - Would you redirect it? If you redirect it you've saved 4 more lives, but you're, in a legal sense, responsible for the homocide of an innocent man. So the question is, will you be the bystander and let the 5 workers die without any involvement or will you take action and only kill one? Basic human nature would dictate that you would actually let the 5 of them die to preserve yourself, so it's about what your morals dictate.
In a sense I think it can relate as this is about minimizing human casualties but by directly killing other innocents - It's a moral choice that you only have the brink of a second to decide upon.

[Frosted]

so how do they identify a Russian military jet heading towards the UK hundreds of miles away from UK air space? Which happens all the time as there's a gentlemans agreement between Russian and UK pilots that they play their games.

[Frosted]

Also the issue regarding whether or not they were allowed to shoot down the planes is whole other matter - I think it's somewhat unlawful to request your pilots too shoot down innocent civilians. It quickly becomes a matter of politics instead of casualties during such events. It reminds me of a little Theory of Knowledge theory I've worked a bit with ;

If say, a minecart is hurtling at immense speed down a rail towards 5 workers, and there is no way that they would survive, should it hit them - But you have a choice, you can redirect the minecart towards a different rail where only 1 worker is standing - Would you redirect it? If you redirect it you've saved 4 more lives, but you're, in a legal sense, responsible for the homocide of an innocent man. So the question is, will you be the bystander and let the 5 workers die without any involvement or will you take action and only kill one? Basic human nature would dictate that you would actually let the 5 of them die to preserve yourself, so it's about what your morals dictate.
In a sense I think it can relate as this is about minimizing human casualties but by directly killing other innocents - It's a moral choice that you only have the brink of a second to decide upon.

During the Olympics in London, pilots were ordered to shoot down ANY unidentified planes. They were flying all over London armed to the teeth - saw them all the time. What do you think they're there for?
There were also surface to air missiles placed on civilian buildiings. Are you listening yet?

[Mdisch]

so how do they identify a Russian military jet heading towards the UK hundreds of miles away from UK air space? Which happens all the time as there's a gentlemans agreement between Russian and UK pilots that they play their games.

Okay, military jets are a bit more obvious than passenger flights. All the flights from Europe flying over UK aren't contacted by flight controllers - But I suppose it's different for military planes.

[Mdisch]

During the Olympics in London, pilots were ordered to shoot down ANY unidentified planes. They were flying all over London armed to the teeth - saw them all the time. What do you think they're there for?
There were also surface to air missiles placed on civilian buildiings. Are you listening yet?

Okay the olympics are a different case - But I must admit that there is no chance that I have as much knowledge of UK airspace as you do. I know my fair share about the US airspace, and the Danish airspace.
But I must surrender, I guess you're right that a lot of cold war paranoia still covers the UK.

[Frosted]

Okay, military jets are a bit more obvious than passenger flights. All the flights from Europe flying over UK aren't contacted by flight controllers - But I suppose it's different for military planes.

Trust me - ALL air traffic is monitored ALL of the time. How do you think that they can see a military jet over a civilian jet. Shouldn't it be the other way around? No?

[texastorm]

I agree with Extreme here after seeing what happened here in the USA, they would have shot down anything that moved over the Olympics. Thats simply because hindsight is 20/20.


Before 911, I think it would have been a tougher call to shoot down a flight full of it's own UK citizens that "might" have been headed into a building. We can argue that fact til we all pee our pants and still without a time machine and a 767 the argument is irrelevant. No one knows what decisions would be made prior to 9/11, but we damn sure know what to do now. Just like in life we learn as we go.