Posted On: Saturday - September 11th 2021 3:11PM MST
In Topics:   General Stupidity  History  US Feral Government
Actually, that only goes for the bloggers (which is like, just me). I have not deleted any comments other than the large-scale spam of almost 4 years back, along with a couple of unfortunate accidental deletes while that was going on. You all can write about this as much as you like, of course.
Obviously the attack or demolition, depending on your view, of the World Trade Center towers (and don't forget building 7) 20 years ago was a major event in American history. As people who were cognizant during the assassination of President Kennedy recall what they were up to at the time, it is the same for me. (It involved aviation - that morning.) Our title here* was not meant to make light of anything - it's just that this post is an explanation of our policy of not discussing the speculation about the actual happenings. We have a big interest in the Totalitarian response to 9/11, as, for example, in our 16th year anniversary of 9/11 post 16 Years of Spreading Democracy - They still hate us for our freedoms(?) We don't discuss the reason for 9/11 because we are simply not sure enough to do so.
Let me explain: I have ready dozens of web pages and watched dozens of videos that try to show us the real conspiracy of the US Feral Gov't or Deep State in perpetrating the attack. I will state right now that, the more I have learned about the current state of the US Government and the psychopaths who inhabit it, the more I don't put ANYTHING evil past them. However, as I read and watch, I have not yet found the ultimate explanation to convince me of the details.
I have watched a video by Jim Corbett, a video-blogger who I respect and enjoy listening to, and another couple of them that start off with the aviation portion of the story. My problem is that when I get to a subject that I DO know lots about, and I realize the the writer/speaker does NOT know the subject, I don't feel that the rest of his story is something I should just believe. I understand that Jim Corbett (just as an example, mind you) can't be an expert in all the subjects involved in figuring out the true 9/11 story. However, if he has not gotten the right people to explain to him the part that I see flaws in, how do I know he's gotten a good explanation on the other parts, which I cannot myself claim to be an expert in.
Let's start near the beginning. Yes, those Moslem "guests", "students'", whatever, could indeed have learned to at least operate an airliner in a simulator, for their purposes.** I am told that it's not possible they could have operated those aircraft at those speeds and hit those buildings. Let me tell you, it's a lot easier if:
1) you don't care about the aircraft operating limitations. The aircraft can do a lot more outside of its normal envelope. Passenger comfort was obviously not a factor.
2) you don't care about Federal Aviation Regulations.
Here are my main point of contention with the 9/11 skeptics on their aviation related doubts. I have listened to and read from those who maintain that there was no way these planes could have been let to go on these wayward paths for that long, unless it were intentional - or, it was all made up. People didn't, and still don't, understand the airspace system. I had many paragraphs with some nice explanation, but I will try to keep this fairly short and still interesting. (I apologize for not giving more explanation, but I could do that later.)
I have the feeling that most people think that Air Traffic Control is about determining where each airplane will go and when. That is not the point at all. Air Traffic Control at the ground/tower level is about using the runways efficiently and safely for take-offs and landings. However, it's the en-route level where the misunderstandings are the greatest. The purpose of Air Traffic Control, and the 25 ARTCC's (Air Route Traffic Control Centers) is to separate IRF aircraft from each other. The "IFR" means Instrument Flight Rules, as opposed to VFR (Visual Flight Rules).
I would love to digress about the latter even more than I will for a minute. An aircraft flying VFR, if he doesn't fly above 18,000 ft above sea level, and go in certain areas near bigger airports***can go with no radio communication whatsoever, does not need to identify himself in any way, and can even go with no electrical system.**** That still leaves a lot of room to travel in freedom. Please don't tell too many people, as, the way Americans have been brainwashed now, I think that knowledge would cause them to demand "somebody do something!"
Airlines are flying under the IFR system of rules most of the time.***** However, that doesn't mean there are some guys in some big room in Washington, FS deciding "we'll send this one here" and "bring that guy out over here and send him to here". Flight plans are filed and the role of Air Traffic Control is to clear airspace for aircraft to fly on their routes at the altitudes they want to fly at. There are lots of changes and corrections, of course, due to either impending traffic conflicts seen well in advance, weather, and short cuts requested by the pilots.
The tools for traffic separation are 2-way radio communication, the oldest one, radar, and, as of late, the technology called ADS-B (Automatic Dependent Surveillance - Broadcast). As with most of the changes in aviation the newer technology has been implemented by rules "written in blood". Regarding that, I could go on with some history of a couple of crashes that led to important changes, but I gotta stop with this and get (closer) to the point.
The reader may be surprised to learn that even airliners aren't under "radar contact" all the time. Of course that's true on the ocean routes, but there are places within the US too. It's a matter of terrain (13,000 over Wyoming by the Wind River range - no radar contact). Modern radar coverage has been based on the aircraft transponders. (I wrote "has been" because ADS-B is different - but it was not around on 9/11/01.) It's not the primary radar return, as in, a reflection off the plane, that the controllers use. Those "Mode C" transponders "squawk" out a 4 digit in base-8****** code that can be used for tracking - VFR aircraft not in radio contact or under ATC can squawk the code 1200 to show they are VFR and to help in collision avoidance. Mode C stands for the transmission of aircraft altitude (msl) to the hundred foot. Yes, the ATC radar can sometimes see those primary returns, but not so easily. It's not at all what they rely on for the system to work - radio position reports may be better than primary radar if the normal radar is down.
On that day in 2001, the story was all in the busy northeast airspace. I gather from the videos that skeptics of the story think it's ludicrous that Air Traffic Control could have let these planes get "out of control" like this. It's not. A lot is happening, and most of it is routine: frequency changes, altitude changes for traffic, vectors for traffic and short-cuts, etc. Plenty of aircraft every day accidentally get off the right frequency for a while. Once those 9/11 airplanes had their transponders turned off - I'm sure one of the first things the hijackers would have done - it's wasn't easy for the controllers to see them. The aircraft aren't being watched as if by hawks, and one can get well off a route before anyone notices.
It's not that the US Air Force was primed for an event like this. The concern has been the external air threats. There was the old DEW line (Distant Early Warning) looking for Soviet nuclear bombers. Even after the Cold War, defense of the country involves searching the airspace off the coasts - well, and the southern border mainly for those tree-top flying drug runners too.
I could easily see 15 minutes and maybe even a half hour go by before anyone was not just miffed by these aircraft but seriously concerned. Then there were the phone calls and the confusion ... I'm not familiar with military flying, so I don't know how long it could take them to really get a mission going to intercept an aircraft and find the thing if the only guidance is possible primary radar returns to begin with, at least.
In an area that I do know about, it's the general gists of the skeptics' concerns that don't sit right with me. Therefore, I have a hard time following them from that part on. Besides that, with too many passengers/families involved, I have a hard time believing any "no airplanes"******* theory. That does not mean I don't think there could not have still been a planned demolition with the airplanes as a cover story, purposefully LET to happen.
However, that comes to areas I DON'T know so much about, which is the combination of the engineering - combustion, impact of a structure half full of liquids, the complicated fluid flow, structures (with a little knowledge of the latter). If it were Osama bin Laden who planned this deal, there's no way HE could have known whether those planes could take down the buildings or not. I've heard all sort of explanations of simple physics showing it to be impossible. I don't feel confident enough to write here whether I agree. I lose confidence in others telling me how sure they are about what really happened when they botch the story about something I do know about.
There are the other avenues of inquiry, circumstantial, personal reports of strange happenings, and political happenings that may well show the motivations of the people who may have perpetrated the attack differently than per the official narrative. I admit I have not spent the time to make myself sure on any of that, and I am in no position to know about the high level politics.
Therefore, because it's such a divisive topic, whether Americans were attacked by foreign or domestic enemies, we will leave the 9/11 speculation alone.
I'll just state here that Peak Stupidity does not have the sure answer on the real 9/11 attack of 20 years ago today. The politics of the response to it, however, are something we will gladly comment on, as we have been doing for the response of the Kung Flu. Both have been taken advantage of to "never let a crisis go to waste", whatever the real cause, and whoever the real perpetrators.
* OK, and yes, it's also to make fun of Fight Club, a movie that we happen to think sucks (opinions may vary). See Movie Review - "Fight Club" still sucks.
** I put the quotes there to point out the stupidity of it - now, 20 years later, American universities and even high schools invite students from all very foreign parts of the world to come and study(?) mostly for the money, but also for the DIE-versity credit.
*** A little more detail: There's an exception from that 10,000 ft. msl for flying over terrain which is itself over 7,500 ft msl, i.e. if one is within 2,500 ft. of the ground. The 37 "Class B" airports are ones in which said non-communication or non-IDing aircraft must stay 30 nautical miles from the center of, and there are a larger number of "Class C" airports in which the distance is lower - not worth a whole explanation here.
**** That last is not very common anymore, but there are a few old-timers and even low-timers with those Cubs, Champs, etc.
***** The exceptions are for coming and going into uncontrolled fields (many towers also close for the night at some point), in good weather. Communication for the IFR clearance may be difficult on the ground and a timely cancellation of a clearance coming in can save another aircraft from being held up.
****** Hence the old term "4096-transponder". BTW, these transponders evolved from the military IFF (Identify Friend or Foe) equipment.
******* At least as far as New York City goes.