The Most Comprehensive Minute By Minute Timeline On 911

Bob Hubbard

Retired
MT Mentor
Founding Member
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 4, 2001
Messages
47,245
Reaction score
772
Location
Land of the Free
The Most Comprehensive Minute By Minute Timeline On 911
http://911timeline.net/

Found this. VERY! interesting read. I didn't know the top speed of an F-16 was 1,500 MPH. I think some of this contradicts the 'official' report quite a bit.....

 
Interesting read indeed. Hindsight is a wonderfull thing. Up until now, hijackers did not crash planes. There was no reason to scramble fighters because of a hijacking.

Jet fighters going at full speed burn a stagering amount of fuel. If those fighters would have gone on full AB from takeoff, they would not have had enough fuel left to maneuver a whole lot.

You can indeed 'lose' a plane inside the US. The airspace inside the US is not fully covered by radar. IFF is the main way to fix a plane's position. Only larger airport have radar, and most of those are of limited range and generally do not extend all the way to the ground.

There was concrete at the scene. The sheer weight of those buildings would have crashed them very quickly. Remember that the top of the building was a large concrete slab, designed to stabilize the structure. Modern skyscapers are wonders of engineering in that so loiitle structure can support so much weight and withstand so mu force. Once you upset that balance however...
 
Ok, let's see... it says an F-15 was scrambled to New York, but didn't stop the plane? Also states that it looks like bombs were planted underneath the structures? Flight 93 was attacked by an American fighter jet? At the bottom, we also seemed to have provoked Pearl Harbor. The guy who made the timeline also seems to be an environmental extremist, if you check his network. Umm, I'm just wondering, why is it that we should believe this guy's website, which seems to written by a Michael Moore wanna-be, instead of a bi-partisan commission that worked hard on an extensive document for several years? I'm sorry, but I'm just not buying it.
 

Latest Discussions

Back
Top