International France apology after history textbook links CIA to 9/11

jgarner said:
I'm just pointing out that there WASNT previous to the 9/11 attacks. So you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. The National Guard was scrambled and they were unarmed. This isn't fucking Hollywood and your spreading lies and misinformation about the murder of thousands of people. I'm just pointing out that you're being a giant douchebag for casually spreading nonsense.
Click to expand...

Are you sure about this? I recall fighter jets being scrambled and followed Payne Stewart's until it crashed and I think that was 1999. I though the US had an active national defense strategy that had fighter jets armed and ready to go at all times. Thought this was part of the nuclear triad too.

Regardless, I don't see why they would shoot the plane down. If there was a 9/11 CT they would just crash it via remote operation. Certainly all Boeing planes can be controlled remotely. They already make the guidance systems for drones and all planes have auto pilot. It only makes sense they can be remotely operated, it would only take a bit of software to allow this.
 
jgarner said:
Then what fighter group was responsible for internal armed security of American airspace?

I know because I was in the military and I understand how things operate. What the fuck do you know about it besides what you feel in your gut? I can go as far as telling you which two pilots were flying to respond to Flight 93 because I've listened to them talk about the experience in an auditorium. We did not have armed jets on standby for incidents like this over American soil until after 9/11. Before the attacks, everything was pointed towards external threats.
Click to expand...
Again, settle down.

I'm glad you were in the military, so was I. I was just pointing out that being able to scuttle an armed fighter jet basically instantly was not a new thing, no matter what happened on that day.
 
HomeCheese said:
Are you sure about this? I recall fighter jets being scrambled and followed Payne Stewart's until it crashed and I think that was 1999. I though the US had an active national defense strategy that had fighter jets armed and ready to go at all times. Thought this was part of the nuclear triad too.

Regardless, I don't see why they would shoot the plane down. If there was a 9/11 CT they would just crash it via remote operation. Certainly all Boeing planes can be controlled remotely. They already make the guidance systems for drones and all planes have auto pilot. It only makes sense they can be remotely operated, it would only take a bit of software to allow this.
Click to expand...

National Guard jets were scrambled to observe him, but as far as I can tell they weren't armed either. Just like on 9/11, the military can get a jet into the air decently quick if it needs to, but arming it is a completely different story.

There was some speculation in the media that military jets were prepared to shoot down the Lear if it threatened to crash in a heavily populated area.[citation needed] Officials at the Pentagon strongly denied that possibility. Shooting down the plane "was never an option," Air Force spokesman Captain Joe Della Vedova said, "I don't know where that came from."[4]


Never an option. Meaning they didn't have armed jets up in the air. They had jets that they diverted to observe and scrambled other jets to escort.
 
well, everybody in europe thinks it.
a lot in america think it too but it's not so comfortable to talk about it. just like the jfk thing
in europe you even have people in high politics and high academia that talk about it.
 
volodya said:
Again, settle down.

I'm glad you were in the military, so was I. I was just pointing out that being able to scuttle an armed fighter jet basically instantly was not a new thing, no matter what happened on that day.
Click to expand...

On US soil, it absolutely was a new thing. The fact that you can't name which unit would have been the unit to respond shows how little you know about it. It's one thing to have jets ready to scramble on deployment. It's another to have them ready over US soil prior to 9/11, which there wasn't.

If you actually served in the military you should realize how fucking insanely stupid it is to pretend like a jet could fire a missile on a US base and keep that a secret.
 
HomeCheese said:
Are you sure about this? I recall fighter jets being scrambled and followed Payne Stewart's until it crashed and I think that was 1999. I though the US had an active national defense strategy that had fighter jets armed and ready to go at all times. Thought this was part of the nuclear triad too.

Regardless, I don't see why they would shoot the plane down. If there was a 9/11 CT they would just crash it via remote operation. Certainly all Boeing planes can be controlled remotely. They already make the guidance systems for drones and all planes have auto pilot. It only makes sense they can be remotely operated, it would only take a bit of software to allow this.
Click to expand...
You are correct. He is wrong.
 
jgarner said:
On US soil, it absolutely was a new thing. The fact that you can't name which unit would have been the unit to respond shows how little you know about it. It's one thing to have jets ready to scramble on deployment. It's another to have them ready over US soil prior to 9/11, which there wasn't.

If you actually served in the military you should realize how fucking insanely stupid it is to pretend like a jet could fire a missile on a US base and keep that a secret.
Click to expand...
Which branch of the military did you serve?
 
jgarner said:
National Guard jets were scrambled to observe him, but as far as I can tell they weren't armed either. Just like on 9/11, the military can get a jet into the air decently quick if it needs to, but arming it is a completely different story.

There was some speculation in the media that military jets were prepared to shoot down the Lear if it threatened to crash in a heavily populated area.[citation needed] Officials at the Pentagon strongly denied that possibility. Shooting down the plane "was never an option," Air Force spokesman Captain Joe Della Vedova said, "I don't know where that came from."[4]


Never an option. Meaning they didn't have armed jets up in the air. They had jets that they diverted to observe and scrambled other jets to escort.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I remember reading they they were prepared to shoot it down if they thought the plane would crash in a populated area.

It just makes sense that the US would have planes armed and at the ready should an emergency occur. What would be the point of a national air defense then? I also though part of the nuclear triad was to have planes armed with nuclear missiles ready to go at any minute. For example, a country launches a ballistic missile at the US. Armed jets need to take off immediately as part of the strategy.

Moving on though, if the US was able to get jets to Stewarts plane, why weren't they scrambled and escorted the highjacked planes?

As for a potential 9/11 CT, shooting the planes down would be problematic. It would be easy to observe this happening from the ground.
 
volodya said:
Which branch of the military did you serve?
Click to expand...

I was in the Marine Corps. Served infantry, was a battalion Forward Observer for two years working with the Battalion FAC calling in ordinance from jets. I worked with pilots out of Cherry Point and Charleston Air Force Base. And of course my best friend's father spent a career as an Apache pilot, with my best friend now being..... get this.... a 15J. For entertainment I shot him a text asking how easy it would be for a missile to disappear from a jet and he laughed.

Happy Man said:
Here’s a start

https://www.mintpressnews.com/newly...-mossad-foreknowledge-of-9-11-attacks/258581/
Click to expand...

I see where they were arrested on suspicious behavior by a concerned citizen. I see nothing about them having advanced knowledge of the attacks. It's also speculation as to what their suspicious behavior actually was.
 
HomeCheese said:
Yeah, I remember reading they they were prepared to shoot it down if they thought the plane would crash in a populated area.

It just makes sense that the US would have planes armed and at the ready should an emergency occur. What would be the point of a national air defense then? I also though part of the nuclear triad was to have planes armed with nuclear missiles ready to go at any minute. For example, a country launches a ballistic missile at the US. Armed jets need to take off immediately as part of the strategy.

Moving on though, if the US was able to get jets to Stewarts plane, why weren't they scrambled and escorted the highjacked planes?

As for a potential 9/11 CT, shooting the planes down would be problematic. It would be easy to observe this happening from the ground.
Click to expand...

Canada reportedly claimed they would have been prepared to shoot it down if it breached their airspace and moved towards their cities. American military officials strongly denied that claim entirely on their own end saying it was never a possibility. The point of the United States military air defense before 9/11 was to defend against external threats. Russia or China trying to invade our airspace to attack. We weren't concerned with an attack within so everything was pointed out, including military radar. There's a difference in nuclear deterrence and regular fighters. That deterrence is ready for external threats too.

The US had good and timely information where Stewart's plane was. They had planes nearby in the air already that diverted and started tracking the plane almost immediately. When 9/11 occurred, the pilots were getting information that was relayed from several people before it was given to them, so it was old information. They were scrambled, but even that takes time. By the time they knew where to look for the plane, it had already been crashed.

You're also thinking with that post-9/11 mindset. Before 9/11 the idea that we really needed to be spending millions on looking internally wasn't very appealing.
 
jgarner said:
Canada reportedly claimed they would have been prepared to shoot it down if it breached their airspace and moved towards their cities. American military officials strongly denied that claim entirely on their own end saying it was never a possibility. The point of the United States military air defense before 9/11 was to defend against external threats. Russia or China trying to invade our airspace to attack. We weren't concerned with an attack within so everything was pointed out, including military radar. There's a difference in nuclear deterrence and regular fighters. That deterrence is ready for external threats too.

The US had good and timely information where Stewart's plane was. They had planes nearby in the air already that diverted and started tracking the plane almost immediately. When 9/11 occurred, the pilots were getting information that was relayed from several people before it was given to them, so it was old information. They were scrambled, but even that takes time. By the time they knew where to look for the plane, it had already been crashed.

You're also thinking with that post-9/11 mindset. Before 9/11 the idea that we really needed to be spending millions on looking internally wasn't very appealing.
Click to expand...
Thank you.
 
jgarner said:
Canada reportedly claimed they would have been prepared to shoot it down if it breached their airspace and moved towards their cities. American military officials strongly denied that claim entirely on their own end saying it was never a possibility. The point of the United States military air defense before 9/11 was to defend against external threats. Russia or China trying to invade our airspace to attack. We weren't concerned with an attack within so everything was pointed out, including military radar. There's a difference in nuclear deterrence and regular fighters. That deterrence is ready for external threats too.

The US had good and timely information where Stewart's plane was. They had planes nearby in the air already that diverted and started tracking the plane almost immediately. When 9/11 occurred, the pilots were getting information that was relayed from several people before it was given to them, so it was old information. They were scrambled, but even that takes time. By the time they knew where to look for the plane, it had already been crashed.

You're also thinking with that post-9/11 mindset. Before 9/11 the idea that we really needed to be spending millions on looking internally wasn't very appealing.
Click to expand...

Well it seems a stretch that the US was not able to arm planes and scramble them in case of an emergency. Certainly this is a pillar of the nuclear triad, to be able to do this. Many or trillions of dollars went into this. Further, wouldn't a fighter jet have a cannon or gun of some sort? Would it really need a missile to shoot a passenger jet down?

If what you are suggesting is accurate, anyone with a Cessna could have flown right into the presidents inauguration prior to 9/11. I just don't buy it.
 
Theres no point arguing with military personnel about this. They're literally deployed to sherdog and everywhere else to debunk anything that strays off the beaten path.
 
HomeCheese said:
Well it seems a stretch that the US was not able to arm planes and scramble them in case of an emergency. Certainly this is a pillar of the nuclear triad, to be able to do this. Many or trillions of dollars went into this. Further, wouldn't a fighter jet have a cannon or gun of some sort? Would it really need a missile to shoot a passenger jet down?

If what you are suggesting is accurate, anyone with a Cessna could have flown right into the presidents inauguration prior to 9/11. I just don't buy it.
Click to expand...
He knows he's wrong, but he's never gonna admit. Of course there's been armed fighter jets on the ground at all times since, well, there were fighter jets.

The nuclear triad is the common point here that he won't address.

LMAO at that stupid piece of shit @jgarner
 
volodya said:
He knows he's wrong, but he's never gonna admit. Of course there's been armed fighter jets on the ground at all times since, well, there were fighter jets.

The nuclear triad is the common point here that he won't address.

LMAO at that stupid piece of shit @jgarner
Click to expand...

Just to be clear, me and him were debating the point only. I don't think the planes were shot down. Why shoot a plane down when it can be controlled remotely? Certainly all Boeing planes can be remotely operated. Why shoot a plane down when you can simply crash it? If there was a 9/11 CT this is a far more likely scenario.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

650lb Sumo
Law France becomes the only country in the world with Constitutionally Guaranteed Abortion. UK considering relaxing Abortion Laws.
6 7 8
Replies
141
Views
4K
BigDeadFreak
BigDeadFreak

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,236,669
Messages
55,433,168
Members
174,775
Latest member
kilgorevontrouty

Share this page

Back
Top