Zeitgeist, 9/11, and Other Conspiracies

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

The story about Pane Stewarts' plane is FACT, and Jesse is discussing it with the interviewer.............he is not throwing anything out here, just questioning the events that took place.

I'm looking for a link to a non-crack-pot cite that states that NORAD tracked and deployed jets to track Payne Stewarts plane in 1999. Not a non-linked quote to Jessie Ventura.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by User Name

As much as I dont really believe the stuff that mikey is talking about, I DO find the jesse ventura quote/interview kind of intersesting... does anyone else not? I haven't taken the time to research anything, so i'm not making a stance, its just, interesting.... most people have to admit that i would imagine.

Most people would agree with the governer if he said this made him sad.

What about that interview had never occurred to you before? I'm not knocking you or Jesse, but I didn't gain any new insights from that quote.

Originally Posted by User Name

EDIT: Just read someone saying that norad did screw up, that makes more sense to me than a consipiracy.

I'm not even sure if screw up is the right term. The first plane was suspicious but hardly worth shooting down because they were off course and not answering their radio (I'm speculating).

The second plane may not have been very far off course (again, I don't know) but I do know that shooting down a plane over NY has a lot more potential to be a gigantic mistake then not shooting it down.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

He is simply a respected public figure raising some questions about 9/11. He was talking about a past NORAD response to a private jet that was in distress. What is the big deal?

"Just because the guy is a big mouth doesn't mean he knows anything"

Well..............you have a big mouth. Does that mean you don't know anything?

Except for the fact that I'm fairly while rooted in reality?

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The interview points to flaws in a system that involves both civilian and military controls and how badly that system mishandled that situation. Not about any conspiracy.

Well the question is why did NORAD almost instantly respond to some private jet in distress(Payne Stewart), but failed to even show up on 9/11......where there were 4 planes involved.......

That is waht you call an EPIC fail.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Well the question is why did NORAD almost instantly respond to some private jet in distress(Pane Stewart), but failed to even show up on 9/11......where there were 4 planes involved.......

That is waht you call an EPIC fail.

And with nothing resembling evidence of how the situations are similar this remains borderline trolling.

Jesse said this....think about it.

[Locke]

Well....99% of the time they sit around with SFA to do so it stands to reason the one time something does happen they're sitting around tapping the monitor to see if its actually hooked up to anything.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Well the question is why did NORAD almost instantly respond to some private jet in distress(Pane Stewart), but failed to even show up on 9/11......where there were 4 planes involved.......

That is waht you call an EPIC fail.

Which was more chaotic?

A situation where 4 planes were in distress, there were communication failures, probably mass confusion on muliple levels?

Or one plane that dropped into distress.

Its like asking the cops which would have a more effective and quicker decision making response

A purse snatcher in a small town

Or a riot at madison square gardens?

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by Clever_Iggy

I'm looking for a link to a non-crack-pot cite that states that NORAD tracked and deployed jets to track Payne Stewarts plane in 1999. Not a non-linked quote to Jessie Ventura.

http://www.airsafe.com/stewart.htm

Right there Clever.

[Thor]

My guess is 1 plane while the country is not under attack is pretty easy to react to.

While the chaotic day that was 9/11 when it took some time to realize it was an attack, the chaos and problems with communication between civilian and military authorities have been in the 9/11 report, spoken in depth about on various news reports and interviews.

Its not like we were under attack with russian bombers, they used our own planes and you may be aware that during the attack there were 1000's of commercial planes in the air and trying to figure out who was hijacked and who was friendly amidst this chaos would at best be a difficult proposition.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Most people would agree with the governer if he said this made him sad.

What about that interview had never occurred to you before? I'm not knocking you or Jesse, but I didn't gain any new insights from that quote.



I'm not even sure if screw up is the right term. The first plane was suspicious but hardly worth shooting down because they were off course and not answering their radio (I'm speculating).

The second plane may not have been very far off course (again, I don't know) but I do know that shooting down a plane over NY has a lot more potential to be a gigantic mistake then not shooting it down.

Gozer........the planes went WAY off course.
It is graphically shown in Loose Change:Final Cut (which is much better than the first Loose Change I watched).
They show where the planes reportedly took off from, and the flight pattern they took.

[User Name]

Originally Posted by Gozer

What about that interview had never occurred to you before? I'm not knocking you or Jesse, but I didn't gain any new insights from that quote.

Sorry, wasn't clear... was basically just saying I had never heard it before and it was interesting...wasn't saying whether I believed it or not. I'm usually the farthest guy I know from conspiracies, but for some reason I do like hearing them.....strange.

edit: Just had never thought about how norad should have done that and didn't... that thought was new to me.

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

http://www.airsafe.com/stewart.htm

Right there Clever.

Where? I know fighter planes intercepted it, but where does it say NORAD?

Edit: I suppose I'm suppose to assume that because fighter jets intercepted the plane, it was at the command of NORAD, correct?

[Gozer]

As I recall when I looked into this seven years ago, it was actually Dick Cheney that had the military stand down. If this was a massive gov't conspiracy why would these madmen drunk on power include such a show of weakness (from a national security perspective).
It makes more sense to me that they didn't want a fighter pilot up there with an itchy trigger finger causing an international scene that included the gov't murdering its people. Then, they were so angry and ashamed they rushed into a war.

(Hey, Mikey - look - a cohesive theory. It's not so hard).

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Which was more chaotic?

A situation where 4 planes were in distress, there were communication failures, probably mass confusion on muliple levels?

Or one plane that dropped into distress.

Its like asking the cops which would have a more effective and quicker decision making response

A purse snatcher in a small town

Or a riot at madison square gardens?

This is the almighty NORAD we are talking about.

Are you saying they could not track these 4 planes even with their network of radar and air traffic control?? You would think they could atleast track ONE of them.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by Thor

My guess is 1 plane while the country is not under attack is pretty easy to react to.

While the chaotic day that was 9/11 when it took some time to realize it was an attack, the chaos and problems with communication between civilian and military authorities have been in the 9/11 report, spoken in depth about on various news reports and interviews.

Its not like we were under attack with russian bombers, they used our own planes and you may be aware that during the attack there were 1000's of commercial planes in the air and trying to figure out who was hijacked and who was friendly amidst this chaos would at best be a difficult proposition.

NORAD and air traffic control in general has these things called radar and technology which allows them to track a plane going off course and not answering to contact efforts.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

NORAD and air traffic control in general has these things called radar and technology which allows them to track a plane going off course and not answering to contact effortsand promptly fires missiles at them.

fixed

[arsenal]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

This is the almighty NORAD we are talking about.

Are you saying they could not track these 4 planes even with their network of radar and air traffic control?? You would think they could atleast track ONE of them.

And can they be 100% sure that plane had been hijacked?
Honestly, with the 1000's of planes in the air, and a very high possibility of making a mistake and taking down a commercial plane that was not hijacked is too much of a risk.

If there was an error, it was made on side of caution, instead of the very real possibility of loosing more innocent lives.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by Gozer

As I recall when I looked into this seven years ago, it was actually Dick Cheney that had the military stand down. If this was a massive gov't conspiracy why would these madmen drunk on power include such a show of weakness (from a national security perspective).
It makes more sense to me that they didn't want a fighter pilot up there with an itchy trigger finger causing an international scene that included the gov't murdering its people. Then, they were so angry and ashamed they rushed into a war.

(Hey, Mikey - look - a cohesive theory. It's not so hard).

Except I highly doubt a trained military pilot would have an "itchy trigger finger" when dealing with a commercial plane in particular. It's not like they will be shot down by an American Airlines flight. Give our service members more credit........

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by arsenal

And can they be 100% sure that plane had been hijacked?
Honestly, with the 1000's of planes in the air, and a very high possibility of making a mistake and taking down a commercial plane that was not hijacked is too much of a risk.

If there was an error, it was made on side of caution, instead of the very real possibility of loosing more innocent lives.

Well they were WAY off course for a sustained amount of time........

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Except I highly doubt a trained military pilot would have an "itchy trigger finger" when dealing with a commercial plane in particular. It's not like they will be shot down by an American Airlines flight. Give our service members more credit........

Ok, if it was a false alarm then they still had a military fighter plane escorting a civilian aircraft and it looks bad.

I was speculating on the rationale used by decision maker(s). I didn't say they were right, in fact I specifically stated they regretted the decision.