Conspiracy Theories.

[DogFox123 1,379]

Now I no most conspiracy theories are plain stupid but some really get me thinking.

 

The one for me are the 9/11 attacks, not on the Trade Centre but on the Pentagon.

 

How can a place with such security be hit by a passenger plane of all things? I bet the technology and weaponry to protect the place is the most advanced on earth. Just doesn't add up to me.....

[kanny 21,755]

Muslim terrorists didn't pilot two jumbo jets into the World Trade Center. Chuck norris actually piloted the Twin Towers into the path of two jumbo jets in order to kill the Muslims on board.

[Born Hunter 17,960]

Why would the Pentagon have had a particularly advance air defence system? Pre 911 I don't think the yanks ever considered such an aerial attack on the mainland at all plausible. I'd of thought the risk associated with having a system like what our warships have too great in such a commercially busy domestic area. The risk of accidentally shooting down a commercial airline would probably be too great to justify it. Dealing with aerial threats in peace time is the USAFs job with their fighters. The purpose of the Air Defense Identification Zone is in theory to stop any aerial threats ever penetrating as far as DC.

 

The only conspiracy theory I've really found that I give any credence is the JFK assassination.

[DogFox123 1,379]

Why would the Pentagon have had a particularly advance air defence system? Pre 911 I don't think the yanks ever considered such an aerial attack on the mainland at all plausible. I'd of thought the risk associated with having a system like what our warships have too great in such a commercially busy domestic area. The risk of accidentally shooting down a commercial airline would probably be too great to justify it. Dealing with aerial threats in peace time is the USAFs job with their fighters. The purpose of the Air Defense Identification Zone is in theory to stop any aerial threats ever penetrating as far as DC.

 

The only conspiracy theory I've really found that I give any credence is the JFK assassination.

Why would it? Do I need to answer that question? I do not know the protocol for air travel near the area. But like you said surely they are not allowed to breach these restrictions, how it entered this airspace without getting shot down is hard for me to accept.

[Born Hunter 17,960]

 

Why would the Pentagon have had a particularly advance air defence system? Pre 911 I don't think the yanks ever considered such an aerial attack on the mainland at all plausible. I'd of thought the risk associated with having a system like what our warships have too great in such a commercially busy domestic area. The risk of accidentally shooting down a commercial airline would probably be too great to justify it. Dealing with aerial threats in peace time is the USAFs job with their fighters. The purpose of the Air Defense Identification Zone is in theory to stop any aerial threats ever penetrating as far as DC.

 

The only conspiracy theory I've really found that I give any credence is the JFK assassination.

Why would it? Do I need to answer that question? I do not know the protocol for air travel near the area. But like you said surely they are not allowed to breach these restrictions, how it entered this airspace without getting shot down is hard for me to accept.

 

 

Yes, why would it specifically have a particularly advanced air defence system when the System that defends the entire US was probably considered suitable?

 

I'm not sure where the nearest USAF QRA base is for the DC area but commercial aircraft operate around DC. If such an imminent threat pops up how effective will the F-16s really have been?

 

When you said such a high level of protection, I assumed you meant specific systems deployed at the Pentagon, like a CIWS or SAM. I don't think those things could have been politically justified pre 911.

[Born Hunter 17,960]

When I was last on a flight coming into Heathrow, the pilot gave us a bit of a tour of London, lol. Doing a big circle low enough to point out the houses of parliament if i recall. No typhoon would have been able to stop him obliterating any of the most important government buildings in London! The systems in place were supposed to stop that ever occurring. I think 911 showed how mistaken they were.

[Accip74 7,112]

Although a lot are pure madness, conspiracy theories are a good thing, it's questioning.

 

I may have the odd afternoon where I can waste a couple of hours watching utube videos & allow myself to get sucked in to some theory or other, but for the most part, I do not have the time or the inclination to arm myself with enough information to make an informed opinion......

 

......& that's exactly what governments or government agencies rely on, people like me not to bother & the masses to accept what they're being told.

[DogFox123 1,379]

 

 

 

Why would the Pentagon have had a particularly advance air defence system? Pre 911 I don't think the yanks ever considered such an aerial attack on the mainland at all plausible. I'd of thought the risk associated with having a system like what our warships have too great in such a commercially busy domestic area. The risk of accidentally shooting down a commercial airline would probably be too great to justify it. Dealing with aerial threats in peace time is the USAFs job with their fighters. The purpose of the Air Defense Identification Zone is in theory to stop any aerial threats ever penetrating as far as DC.

 

The only conspiracy theory I've really found that I give any credence is the JFK assassination.

Why would it? Do I need to answer that question? I do not know the protocol for air travel near the area. But like you said surely they are not allowed to breach these restrictions, how it entered this airspace without getting shot down is hard for me to accept.

Yes, why would it specifically have a particularly advanced air defence system when the System that defends the entire US was probably considered suitable?

 

I'm not sure where the nearest USAF QRA base is for the DC area but commercial aircraft operate around DC. If such an imminent threat pops up how effective will the F-16s really have been?

 

When you said such a high level of protection, I assumed you meant specific systems deployed at the Pentagon, like a CIWS or SAM. I don't think those things could have been politically justified pre 911.

I don't believe the Americans were naive enough to believe that an aircraft could be destroyed by a fighter in time before it crashed into the building. I'm assuming the pentagon had missiles in 2001....

 

If like you say the building had standard defence measures then surely the no-fly zone should have been adequate enough to enable a fighter to reach a threat in time? I cant accept they didn't know this all at the time...

Edited August 2, 2016 by DogFox123

[DogFox123 1,379]

I've just read that the Pentagon didn't have a no-fly zone which is very surprising if true....

Edited August 2, 2016 by DogFox123

[Born Hunter 17,960]

 

 

 

Why would the Pentagon have had a particularly advance air defence system? Pre 911 I don't think the yanks ever considered such an aerial attack on the mainland at all plausible. I'd of thought the risk associated with having a system like what our warships have too great in such a commercially busy domestic area. The risk of accidentally shooting down a commercial airline would probably be too great to justify it. Dealing with aerial threats in peace time is the USAFs job with their fighters. The purpose of the Air Defense Identification Zone is in theory to stop any aerial threats ever penetrating as far as DC.

 

The only conspiracy theory I've really found that I give any credence is the JFK assassination.

Why would it? Do I need to answer that question? I do not know the protocol for air travel near the area. But like you said surely they are not allowed to breach these restrictions, how it entered this airspace without getting shot down is hard for me to accept.

Yes, why would it specifically have a particularly advanced air defence system when the System that defends the entire US was probably considered suitable?

 

I'm not sure where the nearest USAF QRA base is for the DC area but commercial aircraft operate around DC. If such an imminent threat pops up how effective will the F-16s really have been?

 

When you said such a high level of protection, I assumed you meant specific systems deployed at the Pentagon, like a CIWS or SAM. I don't think those things could have been politically justified pre 911.

I don't believe the Americans were naive enough to believe that an aircraft could be destroyed by a fighter in time before it crashed into the building. I'm assuming the pentagon had missiles in 2001....

 

If like you say the building had standard defence measures then surely the no fly area should have been adequate enough to enable a fighter to reach a threat in time? I cant accept they didn't know this all at the time...

 

 

I understand what you are saying. But I can't find anything that says that the Pentagon had any such systems in place. Even in the immediate aftermath of the attacks, weren't soldiers deployed with Stinger MANPADS to high value buildings to defend against further aerial attacks? That's pretty desperate when you think what systems our naval ships operate. I honestly think 911 caught the yanks/NORAD etc with their pants down.

 

It's my understanding that using AF fighters to deal with potential hijackings is favored because they can more certainly assess the situation before causing such a historic incident that shooting down a commercial airline over the US Capital would be. Systems like what naval ships have, CIWS and SAMs or the Patriot missile systems are far more difficult to justify. The risk of them dropping a civilian plane in error, even as small a chance as that is, would probably make them unjustifiable considering the perceived threat level.

 

JMO

[DogFox123 1,379]

 

 

 

 

Why would the Pentagon have had a particularly advance air defence system? Pre 911 I don't think the yanks ever considered such an aerial attack on the mainland at all plausible. I'd of thought the risk associated with having a system like what our warships have too great in such a commercially busy domestic area. The risk of accidentally shooting down a commercial airline would probably be too great to justify it. Dealing with aerial threats in peace time is the USAFs job with their fighters. The purpose of the Air Defense Identification Zone is in theory to stop any aerial threats ever penetrating as far as DC.

 

The only conspiracy theory I've really found that I give any credence is the JFK assassination.

 

Why would it? Do I need to answer that question? I do not know the protocol for air travel near the area. But like you said surely they are not allowed to breach these restrictions, how it entered this airspace without getting shot down is hard for me to accept.

Yes, why would it specifically have a particularly advanced air defence system when the System that defends the entire US was probably considered suitable?

 

I'm not sure where the nearest USAF QRA base is for the DC area but commercial aircraft operate around DC. If such an imminent threat pops up how effective will the F-16s really have been?

 

When you said such a high level of protection, I assumed you meant specific systems deployed at the Pentagon, like a CIWS or SAM. I don't think those things could have been politically justified pre 911.

I don't believe the Americans were naive enough to believe that an aircraft could be destroyed by a fighter in time before it crashed into the building. I'm assuming the pentagon had missiles in 2001....

If like you say the building had standard defence measures then surely the no fly area should have been adequate enough to enable a fighter to reach a threat in time? I cant accept they didn't know this all at the time...

I understand what you are saying. But I can't find anything that says that the Pentagon had any such systems in place. Even in the immediate aftermath of the attacks, weren't soldiers deployed with Stinger MANPADS to high value buildings to defend against further aerial attacks? That's pretty desperate when you think what systems our naval ships operate. I honestly think 911 caught the yanks/NORAD etc with their pants down.

 

It's my understanding that using AF fighters to deal with potential hijackings is favored because they can more certainly assess the situation before causing such a historic incident that shooting down a commercial airline over the US Capital would be. Systems like what naval ships have, CIWS and SAMs or the Patriot missile systems are far more difficult to justify. The risk of them dropping a civilian plane in error, even as small a chance as that is, would probably make them unjustifiable considering the perceived threat level.

 

JMO

I'm sure such information would be classified. Saying that, if the Pentagon did have missiles at the time someone would have spilled the beans by now creating another conspiracy theory.....

[ChrisJones 7,975]

I think if anything qualifies as a conspiracy it's the fact that the media is controlled by a handful of corporations.

 

If they control the information, who knows what's truth and what isn't?

[Lab 10,979]

You'd have thought a high security place like the Pentagon would have state of the art cameras that would have captured the plane hitting the building. Funny that it didn't.

[ChrisJones 7,975]

Unless it was a model of the Pentagon made to look like it had been attacked?

[WILF 51,132]

I think if anything qualifies as a conspiracy it's the fact that the media is controlled by a handful of corporations.

 

If they control the information, who knows what's truth and what isn't?

You don't know mate, you have to look very, very hard to seperate the good guys and the bad guys.

 

I don't think it's a theory that big corps control the media or that government, media, corporate are all hand in glove.....not only would it be logical for all concerned it seems as plain as the nose on your face to me.

Edited August 2, 2016 by WILF