To everyone: I was trying to change topics, since this debate is futile.

Beautochs: I don’t really care for another discussion, but do you really think that someone has an incredible eyewitness account of an object traveling over 500mph that flew right by.  I for one, probably in this order, would duck, cover myself in any way possible, say HOLY FUCK along with many other curse words, and then try to figure out what just happened, based off of assumptions, since I ducked and tried to cover myself.  Besides, debating based off of what other people have said is about as usefull as… well fill in the blank with whatever saying your used to.

Last Hussar: every time preceeding 9/11, NORAD has called out fighter jets when a plane has veered off course.  In fact there was a baseball player whose jet veered of course and fighter jets were scrambled in minutes to try to figure out why.  It is simple protocol.  The question is just asking why protocol wasn’t followed.  At least that is why I ask the question, I cannot speak for anyone else.

So… now let me try this again.

I tend to shift to another topic instead… check out this clip.

Funny as Hell!!

In general, conspiracy theorists are desperate to prove that they’re smarter than everyone else.  They want to show off their Special Knowledge.  They want to be Right.  And no amount of facts will deter them.

Hmmm.  What other group does this remind you of?

Goddidit == Governmentdidit

A superpowerful entity whose motives can only be guessed, where absence of evidence is claimed to be clear proof of its existence.  “I saw it, and I feel it to be true, therefore it is true.” “It just has to be this way, nothing else makes sense to me.” And so on.

Nunya has become the very thing he normally rails against.

In general, conspiracy theorists are desperate to prove that they’re smarter than everyone else.  They want to show off their Special Knowledge.  They want to be Right.

Some might also prefer an unpredictable universe.  If things happen for comprehensible reasons, our responsibility is increased.

I was trying to change topics, since this debate is futile.

Here’s a hint. The way to successfully change the topic is to stop pursuing that what you consider futile to debate.

1. Was NORAD aware of the four hijacked planes veering off course even before being reported by the FAA? If not, please explain why NORAD, which monitors 7000 flights a day, was unable to track the four aberrant flights.

According to the 9/11 Commission Report, no, NORAD was unaware of the hijacking before being alerted by the FAA.  It is not uncommon for planes to veer off corse, so NORAD likely though nothing of the plane failing to climb from 26k to 29k ft, although its turn to the south at 8:27 should have been noted.
NEADS (the NorthEast Air Defense Sector, part of the NORAD hierarchy of control centers) was alerted to the hijacking of AA Flight 11 at 8:37am.  The hijacking of the flight had begun at 8:14 and FAA flight controllers had pretty much confirmed this by 8:25.
NORAD did try to track the flights, but their timing and communication with FAA was poor- they apparently did not start manually looking at the radars for Flight 11 until after it had struck the WTC north tower, and the FAA kept giving them conflicting information on where the flight was.

2. At precisely what time was NORAD notified of each plane being hijacked? What was their response?

See the 9/11 Commission Report- chapter 1.  AA Flight 11: 8:37, United Flight 175: 9:03, AA Flight 77: 9:21, United Flight 93: 10:07
They scrambled F-15s from Otis AFB (in MS) at 8:46 but did not know where to send them.  The fighters initially went off the coast of Long Island (from 9:09 to 9:13) but the pilots thought they were trying to intercept cruise missiles and did not know about the hijackings.  Langley AFB (in VA) prepared their fighters at 9:09 to provide backup to the Otis fighters around NY.  The Langley fighters were launched at 9:30 and sent the Baltimore area to intercept United Flight 11 (based upon a miscommunication that it was heading towards Washington) The Langley fighters were not given a direct flight path order, so they headed out to sea for about 60 miles before turning north.  At 9:36 they were alerted that a hijacked aircraft was headed into DC airspace- NEADS took control of the airspace and cleared a path for the fighters to race back to guard the White House (AA 77 hit the Pentagon at 9:37).  At 9:41, NEADS scrambled fighters from OH and MI to intercept Delta 1989, which was throught to also be hijacked.  When NEADS was informed of United Flight 93 at 10:07, it had already crashed.

3. Who determined from which bases the F-16s should be scrambled? Why were fighter jets scrambled from such distant bases such as Langley Base in Va. instead of Andrews Air Force Base, a mere 10 miles from the Pentagon? Who were the pilots of these F-16s?

NEADS determined which fighters should be scrambled, but they were working off of erroneous information about the location and direction of the hijacked airplanes.  In addition, most of the AF fighters in the continental US were participating in a training exercise in Alaska at the time (although this was not reported in the 9/11 CR for some reason).

4. Why weren’t the jets able to intercept the hijacked planes if they were airborne within eight minutes of notification? What was their airspeed?

They were headed to the wrong locations, looking for the wrong threats, and/or scrambled too late.  Their air speed is not reported, but it was definately fast- the F-15s from Otis were low on fuel by the time they got into position off of Long Island, which would indicate they were using their afterburners for extended periods of time.  When the Langley fighters were ordered into the DC airspace, they were definately going over Mach 1, as the ground controler gave them the okay to shatter as many windows as necessary in order to get on location as fast as possible.

5. It is reported that there were two F-15s off the coast of Long Island while Flights 11 and 175 were in the air. If there were indeed fighters off Long Island, why weren’t they diverted to investigate Flights 11 and 175? Were any other military planes flying routine missions on the morning of September 11th which could have responded?

See above- they were first looking for the wrong threat, then sent to the wrong locations.  Communication between the FAA and the various military bases seems confused at best, as the fighters were chasing phantom planes and being sent to the wrong locations.  Most other military aircraft were in Alaska.

6. Why did NORAD wait until after the second plane hit the WTC to try and prevent possible further attacks? Why weren’t the fighter jets that tailed flights 11 and 175 as they crashed into New York’s WTC, immediately rerouted to intercept flights 77 or 93, before they crashed into the Pentagon and Pennsylvania?

See above.  And try reading the 9/11 Commission Report, it has most of the answers you’re looking for.

It would be much more worrying if the official story had absolutely no holes in it.

Like the Bible, eh?   That’s exactly it, elwed: for any happening of this magnitude and complexity, both technical and human, there will always be questions thrown off which cannot be completely answered.  That leaves the door open, for anyone with an axe to grind, to artistically arrange the imponderables so that they seem to imply shadowy forces at work.  And the attractive thing about conspiracy theories is that they have a built-in escape clause for any criticism: it’s just misinformation spread by the conspiracy- that’s how pervasive and powerful the conspiracy is.

Another large, complex recent event was Katrina.  Was that a conspiracy too?  Depends on whether or not God was acting alone, I guess.  GM nailed it: Goddidit=Governmentdidit.  Of course, sometimes the Government does do it.  But not in this case.

DWangerin: According to the 9/11 Commission Report

Thanks for the reminder. Like they say in Real Genius - always check your references.

It takes a while to plow through the report, but it makes a more compelling story than governmentdidit. And indeed, many “stumper” questions asked by conspiracy apologists are mooted or answered by the report.

zilch: Of course, sometimes the Government does do it.  But not in this case.

It’s debatable whether or not sufficient advance warning was available, but fell between the cracks or was outright ignored. It’s debatable whether or not one should plan for the previously unthinkable to happen. It’s debatable whether the current-day DHS can avert another major attack - the attacker has to succeed but once, the defenders all the time - and after Katrina, there is grave doubt about the capability to cope with the aftermath of another successful attack. It’s debatable whether or not 9/11 was seized upon by the Neocons to push their despicable agenda and do what they planned to do anyway.

What is debatable most of all is why the hunt for bin Laden seems to have dropped to the bottom of BushCo’s to-do list.

And to flog a dead horse some more, this paragraph from the report sums it up:

The details of what happened on the morning of September 11 are complex, but they play out a simple theme. NORAD and the FAA were unprepared for the type of attacks launched against the United States on September 11, 2001. They struggled, under difficult circumstances, to improvise a homeland defense against an unprecedented challenge they had never before encountered and had never trained to meet.

Elwed: >“What is debatable most of all is why the hunt for bin Laden seems to have dropped to the bottom of BushCo’s to-do list.”

Have you checked their “Do When It’s Most Politically Advantageous” list. It might be penciled in there.

And if you guys consider this administration and their friends too dumb to accomplish, or to assist, an event such as 9/11, how do you explain the myriad travesties of justice they’ve executed successfully? Scare tactics? How far will a band of criminals go when scaring is the goal?

Also, one building might freakishly fall quite neatly onto it’s on footprint when struck by a plane, but two skyscrapers and a minimally-damaged-by-fire-high-rise? There MUST be a god looking out for New York.

Question authority!

Related link: This might be what PBS does best.

And if you guys consider this administration and their friends too dumb to accomplish, or to assist, an event such as 9/11, how do you explain the myriad travesties of justice they’ve executed successfully? Scare tactics? How far will a band of criminals go when scaring is the goal?

Simple. It’s outside of their area of expertise. What they have done is exploited the attack to the hilt, aided and abetted by their political opposition, the media, and the apathetic and gullible public. There’s enough blame to spread around…

Beyond a doubt, the Bush administration has spun 9/11 for all that it’s worth and then some. The attack was a golden opportunity and they would have faced something resembling an opposition to their more onerous designs if it weren’t for that enabler. Anybody can speculate whether they had advance and specific warnings about the attacks and let them proceed anyway, but I doubt it.

It is hard to see, though, that if the Neocons had staged 9/11, they couldn’t have pulled off something much less devestating, yet outrageous enough to rally the population behind them. All the while letting events play out in a manner that doesn’t catch them with their pants around their ankles. Hey, perhaps make them look like heroes by spectaculary thwarting a major attack, yet create enough collateral damage to get people really angry.

The attack was a golden opportunity and they would have faced something resembling an opposition to their more onerous designs if it weren’t for that enabler.

I agree that 9/11 was one of the best things that could have happened to Bush’s career, but I also disagree that he or his minions had anything to do with orchestrating the attacks. Even assuming for a moment that they did, why would they have planned for the attacks to occur so early in Bush’s first term?

Also, one building might freakishly fall quite neatly onto it’s on footprint when struck by a plane, but two skyscrapers and a minimally-damaged-by-fire-high-rise? There MUST be a god looking out for New York.

Not that I’m a structural engineer, but my understanding of what happened is that the buildings basically were weakened and collapsed under their own weight, and gravity ensured that they fell in their own footprints.  If one thinks about an upright stick, or a stack of bricks, being knocked over by a rock, of course one pictures it falling over with at least some sideways spill.  But skyscrapers are much less stiff than this, and much heavier in relation to an airplane that hits them.  So even if they are initially weakened on only one side, the whole structure will still collapse basically downward.  Imagine building a tall thin tower of sand: if you hit it with a rock, it won’t fall very far sideways, because it’s just not stiff enough to convert the downwards pull of gravity into sideways force.

That’s pretty much what I understood from the TLC/Discovery Channel/whatever special that I watched on it.  Structural engineers were able to figure out exactly what went wrong at each step of the way.  They were weakened by the impact and heat of the fires, and then as each successive stack of floors fell, the ones beneath them tended to give up the ghost from the added weight and momentum.  IANASE, though, and it’s been a couple of years at least since I saw the program, so forgive the lay explanation.

IANASE

“I am not a structural engineer”?  How specialized do these Internet acronyms get, anyways?

Given the ratio of structural engineers to regular people, the disclaimer is probably not necessary.  Most of our discussions take place at the level of “I am not an X, but this is still something that is interesting to me and I’m sharing what I know about it.”

Although of course, I am not a specialist in the study of specialist taxonomies.  Not sure what that is but there you go.

You are not a metataxonomist, DoF?

Another bit of unexpert testimony for footprint collapse of large buildings:  if I think back on all the films I have ever seen of buildings falling down, from war, earthquakes, or demolition, it is striking that the bigger the building, the straighter down it falls.  Probably most of you can remember such films too. 

Speaking of falling buildings- I heard somewhere once, and I cannot remember where now, that some architects in Japan were interested to know why so many large pagodas have survived earthquakes.  They were finally granted permission to inspect a pagoda (normally only accessible to priests) and found that the whole structure was suspended from a central wooden shaft, which bore the entire weight.  The story went that these architects were planning to apply similar ideas in the construction of modern skyscrapers.

Anyone know more about this?  Perhaps it is just an urban myth.

Off topic: no apostrophes in this post, because when I hit the apostrophe I get the “find” window.  What did I do wrong?  I am forced to be even more prolix without apostrophes!

What you did wrong was use Firefox, probably.  Every once in a while FF gets a bug up its butt when entering text in some text windows.  This is a ‘feature’ that FREAKING DRIVES ME NUTS but the good people at the Mozilla foundation have put far more effort into explaining why it is a good thing than into just giving us the option to turn it off before we Hulk out and ”Smash puny computer!!!”.

Short answer; yeah, it bugs me too when that happens.

Double-dipping just because I am too lazy even explain why laziness leads to double-dipping…

The WTC is an example of a modified trussed-core building, in which the core holds the building up and the trusses only hold that floor’s loads.  Under failure conditions, the trusses can detatch, in which case they will fall to the floor below, by which time they’re moving pretty fast and have accumulated a lot of energy.  It is far easier for the trusses to fail than the core, but once you get a disintegrating mass exploding its way down the core will fail too.

Most people have seen the picture of the small hospital - can’t remember where - that fell over into the ground without serious deformation.  That is the way small, familiar objects fall over and it’s what we expect to see.  But your description of the tower of sand is right on - once any part of it passes its moment of inertia, the whole thing starts to fall down.  You can’t tip it over.

Not only am I not a metataxonomist, but I don’t even know what one is. 

Another bit of unexpert testimony for footprint collapse of large buildings:  if I think back on all the films I have ever seen of buildings falling down, from war, earthquakes, or demolition, it is striking that the bigger the building, the straighter down it falls.  Probably most of you can remember such films too.

Actually, the South Tower did not collapse straight down. See the pix at:

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

By the way, the building the Boing moved its HQ into in Chicago is literally suspended from a central column. Not just supported by, suspended from.