I know based on what happened on 9/11/01 that planes were not scrambled by our military in a timely manner.
You "know" this, based upon what?
Which tells me there was in fact a conspiracy to make that so, as it is routine...
How do you know what the 'routine' procedure, steps, and standards for scrambling military aircraft are?
...as we all saw the year before when Paine Stewart's plane lost contact, that the military routinely intercepts planes that have lost contact and are off course in a matter of minutes.
I don't know that the military "routinely" intercepts planes, or that it's necessarily "a matter of minutes" before they scramble aircraft.
Put another way, how do you know that the "matter of minutes" - which I haven't seen any proof of, by the way - it took to 'intercept' Paine Stewart's plane wasn't exceptional, and the time it took to get planes into the air on September 11, 2001 may have been more along the lines of a normal response time?
I don't buy that it was incompetance [sic]
That's not terribly surprising; you've spoken with praise of several aspects of socialism. It would be uncharacteristic for you to believe that government can, or would, fail catastrophically at junctures.
Certainly you might believe that, but I'm not surprised that you "don't buy" incompetence as one explanation for the apparent shortcomings of a military response.
Failing to scramlbe [sic] planes to protect DC, and to protect some of our most sensitive government buildings in DC, after NYC was hit by airplanes an hour earlier, and it was know that a plane that took over from DC was also showing signs of being hijacked, isn't just some oversight.
No one "failed" to scramble planes to "protect some of our most sensitive [?] government buildings"; the issue appears to be that conspiracy theorists are making assertions as to the length of time it took to get those planes in the air.
My question is: upon what standard, or by what stated guideline, are they basing that judgement?
Now, I don't buy into some of the more far-flung conspiracy stuff about holographic planes. There's no indication that that was the case.
Agreed.
But, as far as the twin towers being rigged to collapse, there are serious scientific questions surrounding those building collapses. The fact that siesmographs [sic] picked up shock waves in the vicinity of the WTC before the towers collapsed points to an explosion at ground level and the fact that the towers fell as quickly as an object falls due to gravity is also a red flag that required further investigation.
Do you have any links to these seismological reports?
Certainly a building that collapses from the top down would take more time to fully collapse than just the time gravity takes to pull a piece of steel and concrete to the earth...
What do you mean, "certainly"? And where is it claimed - or who has asserted - that the building fell in a way inconsistent with the force of gravity acting upon it?
...due to all the friction with the structural intact parts of the building.
I'll have to take a look at these 'gravity' assertions to make a judgement. This is the first I'm reading of them.
I'd say, while I don't fully buy into the explosion conspiracy, which certainly makes 9/11 a conspiracy of the 1st order...
Huh?
...there are lingering questions about how those buildings collapsed, which require answers to put the theory that they were brought down by explosives to rest.
My first statement regarding speculation upon "how [the] buildings collapsed" is: how would one have expected them to collapse? And, if different than the way they actually collapsed, then based upon what?
My second goes back to the talk about explosives: why would the conspirators (!) have rigged the buildings with explosives and undertaken the time, effort, and indeed risk - of being discovered, as each additional node of the conspiracy exposes one to more potential randomness - to fly planes into the buildings in addition to, as the theory has it, using explosive charges?
e |
