It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NORAD, the FAA and the Terrorists

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2006 @ 12:10 PM
link   
I haven't read anyone mention this before so here it goes.

We all know that NORAD and the FAA screwed up royally on 9/11. Whether intentionally or not is not what this thread is about.

Now, if you were a mastermind behind 9/11 (assuming that it was terrorists), why would you highjack airplanes knowing that the USA has NORAD and fighter jets at the ready to intercept you? I mean, it's like they knew that NORAD and the FAA would fail on 9/11.

Do they have moles at these agencies that would have known that these suppossed 9/11 like operations (reason given that NORAD was unavailable to do anything about it) were going to happen on 9/11? That's the only thing I can up with to answer why they would even attempt a highjacking (let alone 4 or more) on US soil.

The other thing that can explain this is government compliance in some way or other. Am I missing something here?

Would you as a mastermind plan something that you know isn't going to work because your highjacked planes would be intercepted or worse, shot down?

Does any of this make sense?




posted on May, 23 2006 @ 12:41 PM
link   
It's no secret that the USAF has been standing down fighters from Alert duty since the early 1990s. We went from dozens of bases, to less than 10 on 9/11. Most hijackers also think that Americans are squeamish about killing innocents, and probably wouldn't shoot down the planes. We'd try to force them to land, and if that didn't work would just follow them until they hit their targets.



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 12:46 PM
link   
That makes sense Zaphod but still doesn't explain why they would take the chance in the first place. They had to have known about NORAD and interception jets, so again why would they take a chance on it in the first place? Unless they knew somehow that our defense was absolute crap that day.



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 12:50 PM
link   
Well the view of the terrorist would probably be 'Well if we get shot down, that's still a plane full of dead people for the infadels to mourne'.



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Good point but wouldn't make much of a terror statement would it? Wouldn't it be better to actually make then shoot you down? Then they could be like...look at what the infidels would do to their own people. IMO that would make a better statement for their cause don't you think?



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
Now, if you were a mastermind behind 9/11 (assuming that it was terrorists), why would you highjack airplanes knowing that the USA has NORAD and fighter jets at the ready to intercept you? I mean, it's like they knew that NORAD and the FAA would fail on 9/11.

Do they have moles at these agencies that would have known that these suppossed 9/11 like operations (reason given that NORAD was unavailable to do anything about it) were going to happen on 9/11? That's the only thing I can up with to answer why they would even attempt a highjacking (let alone 4 or more) on US soil.


Let me give you the whole thing in a nutshell. The moles don't belong to the terrorists, the moles belong to intelligence agencies. These moles (or spies) have been established in terrorist organizations like Al Queda for a long time. Intelligence agencies knew that terrorists had devised this attack on the WTC and the powers that be ("they") simply helped the terrorists by standing down and yada yada yada. In all likelihood the terrorists never even knew they were being helped.

To say our government is directly responsible for the WTC attack is not correct. What they are responsible for is facilitating the attacks that they knew were coming.

It was a real honest to goodness terrorist plan, but the whole web of smoking guns, i.e. the flight school training, was weaved by nefarious people with connections to intelligence. Without help these terrorists probably would have had a hard time knocking over a Stop 'n' Go much less flying planes with deft precision into the WTC.

Peace



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 01:22 PM
link   
Dr. Love, I agree with you. I could still see terrorist moles in the government agencies though. It wouldn't be that hard to have al Qeada members in the government agencies IMO.

I'm glad people are responding to my thoughts....helps clear up the grey areas that I have no clue about. Thanks all.



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
but wouldn't make much of a terror statement would it?


Certainly not when compared to the events of 9/11. But if you took yourself back to that morning before it all happened and instead the news was "4 airliners full of american citizens hijacked and crshed/shot down" it would be quiet a shock. Just like the Underground bombings in London. They didn't kill thousands of people, but the death toll isn't all that counts. Terrorists want to scare people by showing them they can be attacked in places where safety is taken for granted.



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 03:23 PM
link   
Good point. I guess it would have been a win/win situation for them either way. That's why I posted my thoughts, so that others could further my thinking. Thanks for contributing.



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Norad should have been able to respond correclty Unfortunately those exercises in NY and Washington didn't help matters. But it's these exercises at the exact same moments and exact same scenarios which lead me to believe that a portion of the government/military was intimately involved in 9/11.

It's just too much of a coincidence that the military was conducting hijacking drills and building collapse scenarios that day.

If 9/11 was a legit terrorist attack then all those planes should have been shot down. Heck even Guiliani knew 20 minutes beforehand that an aircraft was inbound. yet did nothing.

Saying the government stepped aside and let it happen isn't going far enough. Although that is still enough for the government to be guilty of treason by letting it happen.

9/11 was definately a military operation though.



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 05:10 PM
link   
Our defenses sucked EVERY DAY before 9/11. Just how much defense do you think a MAXIMUM of 21 fighters spread throughout the country is going to give you? To put it bluntly, not bloody much. There was absolutely no need for a mole to tell them when exercises were going on, or anything of the sort. There were between 14 and 21 fighters ready to go at any time, on any day before that day happened. It would be a MINIMUM of two hours to have more fighters armed, fueled, and ready to launch.



posted on May, 30 2006 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
It would be a MINIMUM of two hours to have more fighters armed, fueled, and ready to launch.


Well you are a little off thier. Fighters that are setup for interceptor missions are kept loaded with a light weapons load (to be able to quickly intercept an aircraft)and they are kept fully fueled.

I was at a interceptor base and they had F-4's that were kept fueled and had 4 missiles on them and 650 rounds in the gun. the light weapons load makes them faster for interceptor missions.



posted on May, 30 2006 @ 10:39 PM
link   
That's what I have said time and time again. ALERT fighters are armed and ready to launch, HOWEVER on 9/11 there were A MAXIMUM OF 21 ARMED FIGHTERS THROUGHOUT THE NATION. For a NON-ALERT fighter you are looking at 2 hours to arm, preflight, refuel, align the nav system, etc.



posted on May, 30 2006 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
That's what I have said time and time again. ALERT fighters are armed and ready to launch, HOWEVER on 9/11 there were A MAXIMUM OF 21 ARMED FIGHTERS THROUGHOUT THE NATION. For a NON-ALERT fighter you are looking at 2 hours to arm, preflight, refuel, align the nav system, etc.


Why weren't there any alert fighters at the DC Air National Guard station at Andrews near the Pentagon? And I guess some of the fighters there that were flown down to N. Carolina that morning before the attacks started was just a coincidence?



posted on May, 30 2006 @ 10:49 PM
link   
Andrews AFB had their Alert fighters stood down back in the 90s. There were once dozens of bases that had alert fighters, until the fall of the Soviet Union. And I have also said this before many times. Alert fighters DO NOT take part in an exercise. EVER. They are completely seperate from the rest of the unit when they are on alert. The ONLY fighters on Alert on the East Coast were at Otis AFB Cape Cod, Langley Virginia, and Tyndal Florida. The rest of the bases were spread throughout the country.



posted on May, 30 2006 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Andrews AFB had their Alert fighters stood down back in the 90s. There were once dozens of bases that had alert fighters, until the fall of the Soviet Union.


I can't believe an "Air National Guard" station wouldn't have any alert fighters, especially one that is susposed to protect the most important area of the USA; D.C. They didn't have any assault helicopters to patrol DC after the 2nd crash?



Alert fighters DO NOT take part in an exercise. EVER. They are completely seperate from the rest of the unit when they are on alert.


Maybe there were taken off alert for the exercise? Weren't these fighters the ones that eventually came back to Andrews to refuel before taking off to guard the DC area?

There are just too many coincidences about that day.



posted on May, 30 2006 @ 11:10 PM
link   
It's a documented fact that there were A MAXIMUM of 21 fighters on alert that day. NONE were stood down. Why is it so hard to believe that an ANG base didn't have alert fighters? MOST of the ANG bases didn't have them. DC DID have alert fighters, until the early to mid 1990s when most of them were stood down to save money. I don't know how they chose what bases would be stood down, but once a fighter is on alert, they are NOT stood down, moved for an exercise, and then put back on alert. They're on alert until they are removed from alert. The bases that were on alert STAYED on alert.



posted on May, 30 2006 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
It's a documented fact that there were A MAXIMUM of 21 fighters on alert that day. NONE were stood down. Why is it so hard to believe that an ANG base didn't have alert fighters? MOST of the ANG bases didn't have them. DC DID have alert fighters, until the early to mid 1990s when most of them were stood down to save money. I don't know how they chose what bases would be stood down, but once a fighter is on alert, they are NOT stood down, moved for an exercise, and then put back on alert. They're on alert until they are removed from alert. The bases that were on alert STAYED on alert.


Well the ANG base there touted how "ready" it was and you think since it's in the MOST IMPORTANT AREA of the US that there would be alert fighters there.

You didn't find it interesting how those fighters there sent south were the 1st ones to eventually patrol DC after the Pentagon attack?

And why wasn't the DC area patrolled after the 2nd crash at the WTC when the entire country knew we were under attack?



posted on May, 30 2006 @ 11:30 PM
link   
They were on a routine training mission. Since they had already been flying they were able to cut 45 minutes to an hour off the response time because their navigation systems were already aligned. If the nav system isn't aligned it can take up to an hour to align. That's why they were turned around and back in the air so fast.



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
They were on a routine training mission. Since they had already been flying they were able to cut 45 minutes to an hour off the response time because their navigation systems were already aligned. If the nav system isn't aligned it can take up to an hour to align. That's why they were turned around and back in the air so fast.


Boy you sure seem to know it all. Where do you get your sources from? I also notice that you avoid answering a lot of question asked of you. Feel free to go take the challenge on the UA 93 thread I started too.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join