Plane Crazy

oscarBravo

Catcher86 wrote:

Secondly your post raises another discussion, which is probably best avoided. However can we know for sure that flight 93 was not shot down? It is clear from the evidence that it is a clear possibility. The debris was scattered of too wide an area. Eyewitness reports say they saw another plane, which looked like an unmarked military plane. Another eyewitness who was a Vietnam Vet said he heard a missile, and that he knows what one being fired sounds like.

There's a Conspiracy Theories board for that sort of nonsense.

pclancy

Im in general no fan of conspiracy theories even though I am very liberal/open minded. However flight 93s ending is very strange, afaik no recorder data has been released and its debris pattern corresponds to an explosion/missile.

I think the missile defence system at key population centres would be a much more cost effective option to any threat of terrorist controlled big jet crashes, though I think that threat is tiny now and the next big terrorist attack on a city wont be of the style we've seen before. Next time they'll do something new...

JayDee68

Gentlemen, (yes, a presumption I know but how and ever)

Regarding your lively debate, just a few points to put things in context. We need to get over this 'sovereign state' whinge-fest.

If we really believed in such crap we'd never have joined the EU and changed our currency etc etc ad nauseum. The fact is, a state cannot always exist in splendid isolation.

New Zealand got rid of its jet intercept capability for economic reasons. Australia now cover that gap. Canada is an integral part of the US air defence umbrella of North America.

Instead of believing we can do a better job than the UK in air defence let's just recognise reality and leave the RAF to do a job they are trained, resourced and well able to do.

We're already happy to have them help us out with air-sea-rescue.

Other posters are right when they point to the proliferation of low-intensity threats. Building up intelligence resources and partnerships with state's that have expertise and hardware we lack....that is the best method of protection of our state and citizenry.

Incidentally (I'm finishing my longwinded rant now, Phew!), don't be so complacent about Ireland being so insignificant. I'm sure most of you posters with military service know, a terrorist looks for the soft target, not necessarily the best target.

Never mind flying a jet into Intel or the US Embassy, think of the psych damage done by detonating a simple device on a bus load of aged Irish-American tourist visiting the Ring of Kerry!

Intelligence and Vigilance are the keys to defence. Complacency and Smugness wrapped in the outdated cloak of neutrality (which never bloody existed anyway!) point the way to disaster.

Semper Paratus!

pclancy

Good points, yes maybe we should be more vigilant to possible internal threats as you mention, the key to that would be more funding for the garda anti-terrorism unit. We do have a good intelligence service, probably under resourced like all garda operations but its had 30 years of the troubles to hone its skills so helping those guys along would certainly be a better defence.

cp251

As Jaydee says, but as I said on the military forum. I would lay any money that there is an agreement with the British that in the event of a rogue airliner. The RAF would be here as fast as a supersonic dash can bring them. Any Irish government that is serious about security must have considered the possibility. We'll never hear about this agreement unless it is invoked.

By the way for those of you who do not believe in the threat from Islamic terrorism to Ireland. If you have any friends in Special Branch, ask him what he spends his day doing. As ever, we never hear the half of it.

As for flight 93, tsk tsk. If it was shot down, there would have been no cover up. The debris pattern corresponds exactly to a missile strike because that is what it became, a missile. Aircraft are in fact quite delicate items. They disintegrate completely when hitting the ground at high speed.

On another forum, someone posted something claiming that the Pentagon airliner was a missile as there were no aircraft parts seen in the Pentagon. It took me precisely five minutes to search and post pictures via google which showed plenty of aircraft parts in the Pentagon. Suggest you google for evidence on flight 93. It won't take long. All of these stupid conspiracty theories are easy to debunk.

Catcher86

JayDee68 wrote:

Regarding your lively debate, just a few points to put things in context. We need to get over this 'sovereign state' whinge-fest.

If we really believed in such crap we'd never have joined the EU and changed our currency etc etc ad nauseum. The fact is, a state cannot always exist in splendid isolation.

This has to be the most ridiculous statement I've heard in a long time. Joining the EU had nothing to do with our sovereignty. It was for purely economical reasons. We still are'nt a member of Nato and I think you need to look up the full meaning of sovereignty. I don't mean this in a rude way.

JayDee68 wrote:

New Zealand got rid of its jet intercept capability for economic reasons. Australia now cover that gap. Canada is an integral part of the US air defence umbrella of North America.

I will remind you that Ireland's economy is much stronger and healthier than New Zealands. Canada does have its own airforce and patrols its own airspace. Here is its website if you want to check it out.

www.airforce.forces.gc.ca

I do agree with the rest of your post.
Just a hunch but are you in the coastguard?

Catcher86

cp251 wrote:

As Jaydee says, but as I said on the military forum. I would lay any money that there is an agreement with the British that in the event of a rogue airliner. The RAF would be here as fast as a supersonic dash can bring them. Any Irish government that is serious about security must have considered the possibility. We'll never hear about this agreement unless it is invoked.

No need to lay any money. Its well known that the Raf patrol our airspace and that they would be hear in the case of an emergency. They came a few months ago when a plane suspected of having a bomb had to emergency land in shannon.

cp251 wrote:

As for flight 93, tsk tsk. If it was shot down, there would have been no cover up. The debris pattern corresponds exactly to a missile strike because that is what it became, a missile. Aircraft are in fact quite delicate items. They disintegrate completely when hitting the ground at high speed.

In the official report they said that the debris that was found eight miles away was blown there on the ground by the wind. There are also discrepancies in the report with regards the length of tape of the flight recorder and the time of the crash.

cp251 wrote:

On another forum, someone posted something claiming that the Pentagon airliner was a missile as there were no aircraft parts seen in the Pentagon. It took me precisely five minutes to search and post pictures via google which showed plenty of aircraft parts in the Pentagon. Suggest you google for evidence on flight 93. It won't take long. All of these stupid conspiracty theories are easy to debunk.

Tell us were this photos are I can't find them. Go to this website www.ae911truth.org these are highly qualified architects and engineers showing us substantial evidence that the World Trade Centre buildings were brought down by controlled explosions.
Speaking subjectively on the matter I'am not entirely convinced on either side of the argument but the website above is quickly changing my views. Lets remember that what the CIA were doing in Cambodia, Africa and South America were once called conspiracies, and they have now owned up to what they did.
I hope people do have informed opinions and don't just say the first thing to pop into their heads.

Steyr

Catcher86 wrote:

No need to lay any money. Its well known that the Raf patrol our airspace and that they would be hear in the case of an emergency. They came a few months ago when a plane suspected of having a bomb had to emergency land in shannon.

Sure Tornado F3,s have been seen buzzing along the Cork/Kerry Coastlines.

cp251

Oh dear Catcher please, I typed 'Pentagon crash' into google and got this. Plenty of conspiracy sites and a few reality sites.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ppfinal.html Look at the pictures, read the eyewitness statements. They saw an aeroplane hit the building.

It didn't even take me five minutes.

As for the WTC itself, stop for one minute and think. We all saw the pictures, two airliners flew into the towers. If you were organising a conspiracy and had two airliners lined up to crash into the buildings. Why on earth would you need to make sure of the job by using controlled demolition? In any case have you ever watched a programme on TV where they demolish a building? It's an enormously complex operation. Use your own common sense.

Read this

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml

I can never understand why need to find conspiracy theories when the most obvious answer stares them in the face.

Catcher86

cp251 wrote:

Oh dear Catcher please, I typed 'Pentagon crash' into google and got this. Plenty of conspiracy sites and a few reality sites.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ppfinal.html Look at the pictures, read the eyewitness statements. They saw an aeroplane hit the building.

It didn't even take me five minutes.

As for the WTC itself, stop for one minute and think. We all saw the pictures, two airliners flew into the towers. If you were organising a conspiracy and had two airliners lined up to crash into the buildings. Why on earth would you need to make sure of the job by using controlled demolition? In any case have you ever watched a programme on TV where they demolish a building? It's an enormously complex operation. Use your own common sense.

Read this

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml

I can never understand why need to find conspiracy theories when the most obvious answer stares them in the face.

Listen cp, I never denied that a plane hit the pentagon. I just asked to see the photos.
With regards the Trade Centre. Go to the website I listed above and look at building 7 collapsing, its at about the 30 min mark. The video is 2 hours long and it is scrutinizing the every piece of evidence on all the world trade centre buildings. This may be too long for you to watch. If so, you do not have a truly informed opinion.
Building 7 contained a lot of documentation on wall street affairs and Enron that was heading for the courts. Police are heard on tape telling people to move away because it was going to collapse before it did. Firemen are also heard saying it sounded and looked like a demolition. A BBC news reporter reports that is has already collapsed, when it is still to be seen behind her.

With regards the twin towers. A hydrocarbon fire burns at 13000-1500 degrees sometimes getting up to 1800 degrees.
MOLTEN metal was found at the bottom of the towers. This burns at 2700 degrees.
Another reason that the collapse cannot be attributed to the fire from the fuels, is that one side would have been much hotter and would have caved in first, causing an implosion.
Instead the building came down like a pancake. It also exploded outward which should not have happened.

It is clear from your comments that you don't really know alot on the matter bar what google tells you.
Use your common sense and educate yourself. Iam done educating.

pclancy

Catcher86 wrote:

Joining the EU had nothing to do with our sovereignty. It was for purely economical reasons.

Well not quite, we did lose a lot of control over agriculture and trade as well as joining the euro. You'll see a large number of changes over the next 5-20 years that will bring us closer to losing more sovereignity leading us towards a federal US of E. Not the end of the world its done wonders for us so far but defence is something that its easy see the countries with the larger defence budgets being tasked to look after. Whats wrong with letting the British, French, Spanish or German airforces waste billions on their airforces and we keep our money for stuff that helps humanity instead of blowing it up....

I would think New Zealand would be a very good comparison, yes they havnt experienced the celtic tiger but their population, land mass and politcal standpoint are very similar to ours, allthough we probably are a more valid target seeing as we are so economically reliant on the US and UK. Intel, Microsoft, Symantec, HP, Dell, Pfzier and Wyeth being US owned companies that provide huge employment and contribution to our GDP would show a terrorist that we side with the US when we want thier money! Its a scarey thought if they were all to pull out because of security reasons, it would be a serious economic catastrophy for Ireland.

9/11 conspiracies are to be taken with a pinch of salt, some are wacky some are plausible. Having fully loaded 757s and 767s smash into the twin towers looked very much to me like it did happen and cause them to collapse. I dont go for the remote control theory. The pentagon to me is an unsolved mystery, it just doesnt look to me like what should happen when a 757 crashes and flight 93 again, to me, looks like it was shot down by a fighter. There are so many unknowns though, we'll probably all find out the truth in 50 years time when they release the secrets they know now. A terrible loss of life and Bush's reaction has caused thousands more to die across the world.

Catcher86

pclancy wrote:

Well not quite, we did lose a lot of control over agriculture and trade as well as joining the euro.

This is a slightly grey area. If you deem entering an agreement losing control. Well fine then. In return for the exports which we got high prices for. We were also given the largest share of regional grants as the least developed region in Europe.

pclancy wrote:

You'll see a large number of changes over the next 5-20 years that will bring us closer to losing more sovereignity leading us towards a federal US of E.

Any change that is made, will be partly ours, given the fact that we do have a say in Europe.

cp251

You asked for the pictures. I gave you the pictures. The Pentagon is not an unsolved mystery. It was hit by a hijacked airliner as seen by many witnesses and as evidenced by aircraft wreckage seen in photos. Check the website I linked to. No mystery.

The WTC collapsed because it was hit by two airliners and burned. I didn't need google to notice that.

WTC7 collapsed for some reason. If we are to believe the conspiracy nutters. Someone took advantage of the day and demolished it to cover up some unknown badness they were involved in.

You know, if I saw that in a movie, I would laugh out loud. In real life it's pure BS.

The whole 911 conspiracy thing is nonsense from the word go. To say the same Bush administration, that mishandled everything it touched before or since, pulled off one of the most perfectly carried out conspiracy ever in the history of mankind is really too far fetched to be credible.
:rolleyes:

On September the 11th, four groups of terrorists, hijacked four airliners. Three got to their targets, one didn't because the passengers found out what was going on and rushed the cockpit, forcing the hijackers to crash the aircraft in a field.

It's as simple as that.