View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

Skeptics, 3 tough questions for you about 9/11

Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.

Skeptics, 3 tough questions for you about 9/11

Postby Scepcop » 07 Nov 2009, 07:29

http://www.911blogger.com/node/17001

Mark Roberts: 9/11 "Debunker" or just Dishonest?

By Arabesque

Mark Roberts is most well known as a 9/11 truth "Debunker". One of the more common statements that he repeatedly makes is:

"The 9/11 "Truth" movement has made a few hundred significant claims in the past few years, none of which have been true. Don't believe me? Then name a significant claim that you get right, and prove it."

I'd like to take up this challenge. While it is true that 9/11 activists have not always promoted credible information, it is also true that the official story is obviously problematic. I could sit here all day poking holes in the official "conspiracy theory" as many have done, but I will just ask Mr. Roberts three easy questions:

1. Name one single person fired or reprimanded within the U.S. government (FBI, CIA, NORAD, FAA, NSA, or Bush Administration) for the 9/11 attacks.

2. NORAD is responsible for air defense. Mr. Roberts, how many contradictory explanations did NORAD give for their failure to intercept any planes on 9/11?

3. It is an established fact that NORAD is responsible for air defenses and no planes on 9/11 were even intercepted despite the fact this is standard procedure.

* “Consider that an aircraft emergency exists ... when: ...There is unexpected loss of radar contact and radio communications with any ...aircraft.” —FAA Order 7110.65M 10-2-5 (6)
* “If ... you are in doubt that a situation constitutes an emergency or potential emergency, handle it as though it were an emergency.” —FAA Order 7110.65M 10-1-1-c (7)

Despite this fact, how many days later was the man in charge of the Pentagon promoted?

Answers:

1. Zero.According to testimony given to Congress: not one single individual within the CIA, FBI, and NSA has been reprimanded, punished, or fired for the events of 9/11.
2. Three contradictory versions. Senator Mark Dayton claimed that NORAD officials “lied to the American people, they lied to Congress and they lied to your 9/11 commission to create a false impression of competence, communication and protection of the American people.”
3. 3 days. Richard Myers, in charge of the Pentagon on 9/11 was promoted 3 days after the attack. Ralph Eberhart, in charge of NORAD on 9/11, was also promoted

Assuming that Mr. Roberts can answer these questions correctly, why isn't he a member of the 9/11 truth movement? I am at a loss, unless he believes that it is acceptable for NORAD to change their story three times without a criminal investigation to take place, no one to be fired or demoted, and Richard Myers, the person in charge of the Pentagon on 9/11 to get promoted 3 days later, along with the man in charge of NORAD.

As I explained,

To believe in the 9/11 “official story” is to believe in a massive, coordinated, and “coincidental” failure at many levels in which those most responsible for preventing the attacks were not fired or reprimanded and instead promoted.

Mark Roberts made the charge made that the 9/11 movement has made "a few hundred significant claims in the past few years, none of which have been true." I wonder how Mr. Roberts responds to the article entitled Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction published in The Open Civil Engineering Journal by members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice. The "debunkers" haven't paid much attention to this article for good reason--they would have to debunk the 9/11 official story, since these are points of agreement!

I wonder why Mark Roberts and other apologists for the 9/11 official story never go near facts such as these? I'll have to assume it's because they can't be "debunked".
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29






Re: Skeptics, 3 tough questions for you about 9/11

Postby Nostradamus » 07 Nov 2009, 10:57

So now that you have posted the challenge from Arabesque I notice that you did not post the response. There are probably some reasons behind this.

1. The poster did not present the questions to Mark Roberts
2. Mark Roberts kicked this dweebs butt all over the place and you are afraid to post this

I'd point out that:
1. Question 1 is pointless
2. I know that number 3 is false

Let me address this falsehood.

Changes to Norad defence strategy as a result of Sept. 11:

- For the first time in history, NATO radar planes from the 19-member alliance -- countries such as England, Germany and France -- are patrolling U.S. skies to assist Norad's AWACs.

- Air Force generals have been authorized to shoot down hijacked commercial jets threatening U.S. cities without consulting the president first.

- Norad now monitors 40,000 daily flights, adding domestic flights to the 7,000 international flights it formerly tracked.

- New computers in Norad headquarters Command Centre identify every internal North American flight.

- Federal Aviation Administration officials moved into the Command Centre in Cheyenne Mountain, Colo., to liaise round the clock with Norad.

- Now 100 fighter jets stand on constant alert as opposed to 14 in North America prior to Sept. 11.

- No inflight problem is considered routine. Fighter jets now scramble to "babysit" suspect aircraft several times daily as opposed to one or so a week before the attacks.

- About a dozen Norad mobile radars have been moved across the U.S. to expand the ability to monitor home skies.



After 9/11, NORAD said it adjusted to the new realities. In October, Gen. Eberhart told Congress that "now it takes about one minute" from the time that the FAA senses something is amiss before it notifies NORAD. And around the same time, a NORAD spokesofficer told the Associated Press that the military can now scramble fighters "within a matter of minutes to anywhere in the United States."

But lo and behold, earlier this month when 15-year-old student pilot Charles Bishop absconded with a Cessna and flew it into a Tampa skyscraper, NORAD didn't learn of it until it overheard FAA radio calls about the situation, and it wasn't able to launch its fighter jets until 15 minutes after Bishop had already crashed into the building. Those fighters didn't arrive on the scene until 45 minutes after Bishop took off.


LEVIN:

Thank you.

General Eberhart, there's been some confusion about the sequence of events on September 11 that maybe you can clear up for us. The time line that we've been given is that at 8:55 on September 11, American Airlines flight 77 began turning east, away from its intended course. And at 9:10, flight 77 was detected by the FAA radar over West Virginia heading east. That was after the two planes had struck the World Trade Center towers.

Then 15 minutes later, at 9:25, the FAA notified NORAD that flight 77 was headed toward Washington. Was that the first notification -- the 9:25 notification -- that NORAD or the DOD had that flight 77 was probably being hijacked? And if it was, do you know why it took 15 minutes for the FAA to notify NORAD?

EBERHART:

Sir, there is one minor difference. I show it as 9:24 that we were notified, and that's the first notification that we received. I do not know, sir, why it took that amount of time for FAA. I hate to say it, but you'll have to ask FAA.

LEVIN:

And do you know if that was the first notification to the DOD?

EBERHART:

Yes, sir. That's the first documented notification that we have.

LEVIN:

Either NORAD or any other component of the DOD?

EBERHART:

Yes, sir.

LEVIN:

If you could -- for the record, I have a number of other questions relative to that issue which should be clarified, and I'm going to ask you those questions for the record to clear that up. We should get -- it seems to me we all should have a very precise not only timetable, but a precise indication as to why other agencies, entities were not notified by FAA, if they weren't.

Perhaps you could make that inquiry for us, or we'll ask the FAA directly if you prefer; and also as to what notification was considered to the buildings in Washington once the concept was clear that this plane was headed toward Washington. But we'll save those for the record.

Senator Warner?

WARNER:

Mr. Chairman, you asked of our distinguished witness a very important question. I'm going to deviate from my planned opening here to say I guess I'm a little bit stunned that you don't know why that delay occurred. I would have thought by now all of you in this chain would have gone back, rehearsed these things, figured out what happened, what went wrong so that we ensure it won't happen again. If it was that significant delay and you can't tell us why, how do we leave with an assurance that you and you subordinates have taken steps so that it won't happen again?

EBERHART:

Sir, I assure you that we have, and we practice this daily now, and now it takes about one minute from the time that FAA sees some sort of discrepancy on their radar scope or detects a discrepancy in terms of their communication before they notify NORAD. So that certainly has been fixed.

I think at that time, the FAA was still thinking that if they saw a problem it was a problem that was a result of a mechanical failure or some sort of crew deviation. They weren't thinking hijacking. Today, the first thing they think is hijacking, and we respond accordingly.

WARNER:

So working with the FAA, NORAD had not rehearsed the possibilities of an aircraft being seized for some terrorist activity?

EBERHART:

Sir, FAA is charged with the primary responsibility in terms of hijacking in the United States of America. We are charged with assisting FAA once they ask for our assistance. As you know, the last hijacking of a commercial aircraft in the United States of America was 1991. So although we practice this, day in and day out, the FAA sees on their scopes scores of problems that are a result of mechanical problems, switch errors, pilot errors, et cetera, and that that's what they think when they see this.

Although we have exercised this, we have practiced it, in most cases it's a hijacking like most of the hijackings, all of the hijackings I'm aware of, where we have plenty of time to react, we get on the wing, and we follow this airplane to where it lands and then the negotiations start. We were not thinking a missile -- an airborne missile that was going to be used as a target -- a manned missile if you will.

And in most cases when we practice this, regrettably we practiced it -- the origin of this flight was from overseas and we did not have the time-distance problems that we had on that morning. We had plenty of time to react. We were notified that for sure there was a hijacking and we were notified that they were holding a gun to the pilot's head and telling him to fly toward New York City or Washington, D.C. So that's how we had practiced this, sir.

I certainly wish we had practiced it differently, but I really think that, for sure in the first two instances, and probably in the third, the time and distance would not have allowed us to get an airplane to the right place at the right time.


At the end of this Arabesque wonders why Roberts is not in the Truth movement. Well Arabesque he is and that is why he is not aligned with you. He simply seeks the truth.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: Skeptics, 3 tough questions for you about 9/11

Postby NinjaPuppy » 07 Nov 2009, 19:41

With all this, how on earth did this happen???

Associated Press
Two Northwest Airlines pilots failed to make radio contact with ground controllers for more than an hour and overflew their Minneapolis destination by 150 miles before discovering the mistake and turning around.

The plane landed safely Wednesday evening, apparently without passengers realizing that anything had been amiss. No one was hurt.

The Federal Aviation Administration said that the crew told authorities they became distracted during a heated discussion over airline policy and lost track of their location.

The National Transportation Safety Board does not yet know if the crew fell asleep, spokesman Keith Holloway said, calling that idea "speculative."


http://www.thehour.com/story/476889
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Skeptics, 3 tough questions for you about 9/11

Postby Scepcop » 07 Nov 2009, 20:21

What? Why is number one pointless? Your excerpts have nothing to do with those guys being promoted. Nor did they debunk that.

What are you smoking?

You didn't answer any of the questions.

What is Mark Robert's email? I will send him the list of questions.
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: Skeptics, 3 tough questions for you about 9/11

Postby Nostradamus » 07 Nov 2009, 20:55

What? Why is number one pointless? Your excerpts have nothing to do with those guys being promoted. Nor did they debunk that.

What are you smoking?

You didn't answer any of the questions.

What is Mark Robert's email? I will send him the list of questions.


Fired or promoted is a straw man argument. This is the sort of thing a pseudoskeptic like Scepcop gets involved in.
What am I smoking? It seems you've been smoking and not sharing.
The only thing that needed to be answered was question 3 and it turns out to be balderdash. NinjaPuppy pointed out that even today the FAA has failed to alert NORAD to a plane it has lost communications with for an hour. The claims of the CTers seem to be more nonsense especially in the times before 9/11.

Can't find Mark's email? Amazing. It must mean you never ever even made any effort whatsoever to find it. Probably too scared to use it. Arabesque appears too scared to have looked like a fool. Or maybe he received so much material that wasn't in the form of a dopey video that he couldn't handle it. :shock:

While you're looking for his email on this page
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/
you might read something and learn something. It would do you well.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: Skeptics, 3 tough questions for you about 9/11

Postby NinjaPuppy » 07 Nov 2009, 21:31

I can no longer recall any of the exact happenings of 9/11 in any sort of a timeline. I do recall jet fighters passing over my house headed toward NYC early on in the situation. I remember physically seeing them in the sky flying over the ocean coast line. There were at least two, maybe more, flying together. I can't remember how many I actually saw. I recall thinking to myself that we were at war at this point and the feeling of panic. I can't recall if it was based on the first plane or the second but it was early on in the situation.

I don't recall any news footage or any mention of these planes at all in any of the commentary, but there were up there. From where I was, it couldn't have taken more than a few minutes if even that, before they would have reached the WTC airspace.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Skeptics, 3 tough questions for you about 9/11

Postby ProfWag » 07 Nov 2009, 21:48

Scepcop wrote:What? Why is number one pointless? Your excerpts have nothing to do with those guys being promoted. Nor did they debunk that.

Number 1 is pointless because if there wasn't a government conspiracy, then why should anyone get fired? Question #1 is not only pointless, it's illogical.

Next, since I am a career, Air Force person who fell under the pervue of General Eberhart 2001, have met him many times, and was working officer promotions during the time, I feel I am probably about as well qualified as anyone to debunk the promotion issue which I will do now, complete with sources which CTers seem to know nothing about.

General Eberhart was NOT promoted after 9/11. This is a flat out lie. General Eberhart's date of rank to 4-star General was August 1, 1997. He was Commander of NORAD before 9/11 and remained there until his retirement. The name of his title changed from Commander in Chief to Commander, but his responsibilities did not change.
Source: http://www.af.mil/information/bios/bio.asp?bioID=5317

General Myers was promoted to 4-star General on September 1, 1997. His predecessor was Army General Hugh Shelton who was assigned to that position on October 1, 1997. Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff serve a 2-year term, but can be reappointed for another term and the effective date of Command is October 1. As such, General Myers, who was Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Gen Shelton, assumed those duties upon Shelton's retirement at the end of his 4-year term on October 1, 2001. (Not quite 3 days after 9/11, but hey, who's counting?)
Source for the Joint Chief's information: US Code, Title 10 USC 152. Chairman: appointment; grade and rank. Spelled out: (1) There is a Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, from the officers of the regular components of the armed forces. The Chairman serves at the pleasure of the President for a term of two years, beginning on October 1 of odd-numbered years. Subject to paragraph (3), an officer serving as Chairman may be reappointed in the same manner for two additional terms. However, in time of war there is no limit on the number of reappointments.
Source for General Myers date of rank: http://www.af.mil/information/bios/bio.asp?bioID=6123

Since the promotion facts were not presented accurately, it is clear that the rest of his statements and questions cannot be taken seriously. Scepcop, a very simple search on this issue would have prevented the spreading of false information,. You should really learn to start doing your research before spreading lies.
Prof Immature Wag
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Skeptics, 3 tough questions for you about 9/11

Postby Nostradamus » 08 Nov 2009, 00:43

Good post Prof I Wag.

I should also point out that there appears to be only 1 intercept of a civilian plane over the US in recent years. I'll let our friend Scepcop see if he can figure it out.

Repeating claims without thinking about them is a sign of a pseudoskeptic. To look at a claim and try to verify its correctness is an attribute of a skeptic. You might find no information, pros, or cons, but in many cases both pros and cons where you have to weigh the evidence. Do yourself a favor and look at the links and see what ProfWag used for evidence.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: Skeptics, 3 tough questions for you about 9/11

Postby ProfWag » 08 Nov 2009, 07:03

Nostradamus wrote:Good post Prof I Wag.

I should also point out that there appears to be only 1 intercept of a civilian plane over the US in recent years. I'll let our friend Scepcop see if he can figure it out.

Repeating claims without thinking about them is a sign of a pseudoskeptic. To look at a claim and try to verify its correctness is an attribute of a skeptic. You might find no information, pros, or cons, but in many cases both pros and cons where you have to weigh the evidence. Do yourself a favor and look at the links and see what ProfWag used for evidence.


Well ND, not to brag about myself, but there aren't very many people in the world that know more about Air Force promotions than myself. I worked the promotions section in the personell office off and on for the better part of 24 years. Even when I was working another section such as Assignments or Readiness (the section that selects those who have to go to war), I was always the "go-to" person when technical promotion situations came up. So, when I saw my old Commander's name and promotion in the same sentence, I took notice pretty quickly.
Of course, we won't be seeing Scepcop post on this subject again, but it would sure be "mature" of him to admit that these people he keeps referring to and making unsubstantiated claims either don't do their homework or flat-out lie. My guess is the latter. But either way, I would be willing to stay off this entire forum for a week if he'd admit that the guy who posted that false info on promotions intentionally misled those who read his blog.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Skeptics, 3 tough questions for you about 9/11

Postby ProfWag » 12 Nov 2009, 05:27

Thanks for the reminder Ciscop, I think I'll bumb this up also. Those three "tough" questions weren't very "tough" in my humble opinion. It would be like me saying something like "One tough question, how do you explain the thermite at the Pentagon?" Of course, what makes that question so tough is that it is a lie and there wasn't any thermite at the Pentagon, but I see little difference between that and in them posting lies about a General's promotions and trying to pass it off as a fact.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Skeptics, 3 tough questions for you about 9/11

Postby Nostradamus » 12 Nov 2009, 10:33

This post is kind of funny in a way. It is an unsubstantiated claim from a form or blog made by someone using the pen name of Arabesque. Doesn't that make this one of those a friend of a friend of a friend stories?
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: Skeptics, 3 tough questions for you about 9/11

Postby ProfWag » 14 Nov 2009, 05:19

Skepcop, in case you are only reviewing posts from the "View Your Post," link, please make sure you review my thread entitled "A Challenge for Scepcop." There's an opportunity to get rid of me for a while!
Thanks.
Wag
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Skeptics, 3 tough questions for you about 9/11

Postby astherS » 28 Jul 2011, 16:41

The Federal Aviation Administration has been running on a skeleton staff. This is since the government did not re-authorize the operating budget for the organization. The most important thing most vacationers were looking towards was a tax vacation. When the authority terminated, however, flight companies hiked their costs. This implies most air travelers will not see any price drop. Here is the proof: Airlines pocketing $25 million per day after government lockout
User avatar
astherS
 
Posts: 2
Joined: 28 Jul 2011, 16:36


Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron