Is this true?

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by GRO$$, Mar 13, 2002.

  1. GRO$$ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    304
    Saw this on another board in relation to 9 11:

    Anti-aircraft weapons are mounted on the tops of many buildings in New York, the planes easily could have been brought down. Someone ordered that the planes be ignored.

    Has anyone heard about this? Is that true?
     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2002
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Well, there's always the possibility that it's true, but personally I don't think it is. Why would they have ignored the planes? From what I undestand the U.S is very protective of its air space. For every event that ever happens, there's always a ton of conspiracy theories surrounding it. The trick is knowing what to believe and what to dismiss.

    Io
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. KneD Le Penseur Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    206
    I think it is logical, offcourse you don't bring down commercial airplanes, everybody in that situation would have thought it was a mistake, and have given the orders to 'ignore' them.

    The defence system is/was just for being able to defend against militairy aircrafts.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,644
    I find it hard to believe. Also, if the planes <i>had</i> been shot down, surely they would have hit something anyway (i.e. other sections of the city).
     
  8. GRO$$ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    304
    The other post (i cant find it again, sorry, or i would post link), went on to say that it was to provoce military presence and excuse action in the east, also comparing the event to pearl harbor.
     
  9. Xev Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,943
    No. There are not anti-aircraft weapons on the tops of many NY buildings, to my knowledge.

    Think about it.....why would they be put there? And who would man them? And what if some nutcase used them?

    We Americans may seem a little....strange about weapons, but we do not go that far.

    The 'Roosevelt knew about Pearl Harbor' theory is far from proven. And again, I am very sure that NY dosen't have anti-aircraft weapons mounted on its buildings.
     
  10. wet1 Wanderer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,616
    We are not really set up for such a thing as AA guns on building tops. Why would we? Why waste soldiers, who have to clean and maintain those guns, practice with them to be effective in it's use, for the just-in-case scenerio that a plane is going after a building? These soldiers would still not be effective without advance warning to expect a target. The reaction times will be very slow without that warning. As a free society, that is not something you normally plan for in day to day operations.
     
  11. Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,109
    Building-top AA units are far more expensive than building-top anti-collision RF beacons working in unison with cockpit based building collsion-avoidance receivers.

    We don't have any of those on top of our skyscrapers, either.
     
  12. TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,162
    Originally posted by Io Ardena:
    For the same reason they ignored the submarines in Pearl Harbor, I suppose...

    Originally posted by KneD:
    ...Though, that's true...
     
  13. GRO$$ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    304
    What submarines at pearl harbor?
     
  14. Xev Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,943
    Allegedly, Roosevelt knew about the attack at Pearl Harbor in advance and let it happen in order to let the Japanese bring America into the war.

    There are a few things that suggest this

    Roosevelt wanted the US to enter the war, many Americans wanted to stay out. The attack left no choice.

    By a lucky coincidence (or by design, take your pick) much of the fleet at Pearl Harbor was away during the attack.

    However, correlation is not causation. Simply because my rich grandmother dies and leaves me all her money does not mean that I killed her. Coincidence is possible, even likely.

    The other factor is that, if true, this conspiricy has been covered up for over fifty years. I don't know about you, but I don't think my government is that competent.

    Furthermore, I do not think, if Roosevelt knew, he would have allowed the deaths of the ~1600 people who died at Pearl Harbor. He would have done somthing.

    Never attribute to conspiricy that which can be as easily explained by incompetance.
     
  15. TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,162
    Xev,

    I don't thing the US really cares about the lives of innocent people...

    Love,
    Nelson
     
  16. Xev Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,943
    We do.

    Besides, the rest stands.
     
  17. TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,162
    I'm talking about the government...
     
  18. GRO$$ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    304
    US cares about lives of US people, innocent or not, and does not care about lives of other people, innocent or not... or at least thats the opinion iver been experiencing.
     
  19. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,644
    Truthseeker,

    Don't you people have a <b>democracy</b> over there? You know - where the people <b>elect</b> their government? Doesn't that mean "the government" <b>is</b> "the people", in a sense?
     
  20. GRO$$ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    304
    i'm sorry i am answering a question aimed at another, but I think the people that are elected here are the people with the best funded campaighns, and those are the ones that suck up to the big companies the most...
     
  21. TruthSeeker Fancy Virtual Reality Monkey Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,162
    James R,

    That's the ideal democracy. But the democracy put in practice in the US is NOT this democracy.
    The same the old communism in the USSR...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Love,
    Nelson
     
  22. goofyfish Analog By Birth, Digital By Design Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,331
    As you are not in the pseudoscience arena, please provide factual evidence of this statement. What do you cite as the parallels?

    Peace.
     
  23. wet1 Wanderer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,616
    At times I feel that we are in much the same state as the Romans were during their heyday. What I mean is that we have gotten too big and forgot our roots.

    Much of the day to day populous is disenchanted with the government status quo. A large percentage doesn't vote. Doesn't feel that their voice is important to the running of the country. At the end of every campaign is the drive to get voters to the poll. Or as it is called turn out the vote.

    Response is slow in government, often to the point that it is held hostage to prevailing politics. A good example is the annual budget process, where every politician that can gain enough support for his hair brained ideas of what the country should do, will hold the fiscal process hostage to what he wants.

    Off and on through our history have been those cover-ups, some which occasionally make it into the public's attention. Enough that the general populous is skeptical of the government body at large. So many deals have been cut in the process of legislation, that it is apparent that special interest groups have more pull than they should. More influence to affect what should be a ruling for the majority than they should be able to wield. This is not been inspiring for the country as a whole.

    Do not get me wrong here. To my line of thought it is still the best system going and we live under it's umbrella of influence. It just looks like it needs some fine-tuning.

    The country, as a whole does care about individual rights. Does care about the dignity of each and every single life that lives within its scope and obeys the rules that society has set forth as laws to live by. It gets confused, (the idea), in the mess of general hubbub of day to day bs. Look around you when there is a tragedy and you will see it. People pulling together to send what aid they can spare. Not just in this country but where ever in the world that there is tragedy we send help. Grass roots say, "We should help". Across the country, independent groups spring up to gather and send supplies and aid. People gather together and doctors and relief workers offer to go to the site. Happens quite a bit when you think of it. Government does not say this group can not go. Usually in the background they to assist or some of the help would not make it. Transportation is provided by military to get that aid there. Something you should think about when you ask if the country really cares for others...

    I started this out as a note that maybe we don’t get the job done we need in government. That we don’t get our dollars worth out of our politicians. In the writing of this note I wandered into the area where we as people and as a country do make a difference. It is still a great country with all of its faults.

    ****gets off soap box*****
     

Share This Page