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 & 9/11

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 11:50 AM
link   
All these years later info has been released, maybe we can determine the use of such. Following is what has been reveiled. Let's see were it leads shall we?


How did the U.S. Air Force respond on 9/11? Could it have shot down United 93, as conspiracy theorists claim? Obtaining 30 hours of never-before-released tapes from the control room of NORAD's Northeast head-quarters, the author reconstructs the chaotic military history of that day—and the Pentagon's apparent attempt to cover it up.

COM/POLITICS/FEATURES/2006/08/NORAD200608
9/11 Live: The NORAD Tapes




posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 02:22 PM
link   
I've read a couple pages in, it's an interesting read. I'll continue to read it over the next couple days as I get time.

So IF this was an attack staged by the gov't, was it that high up that even NORAD had no knowledge of it, or could this be faked to quell the CTs? Because it took seven months to get the authorization to obtain these recordings, it seems a bit funny.



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 02:28 PM
link   
I doubt NORAD would have been involved. Operations need to be as compartmentalized as possible, and involving as few people as possible. Thats not to say there weren't individuals within NORAD that were involved however..



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
I doubt NORAD would have been involved. Operations need to be as compartmentalized as possible, and involving as few people as possible. Thats not to say there weren't individuals within NORAD that were involved however..


I agree and subscribe to this notion.

Haven't read everything but so far it's an interesting read and listen.



08:43:06
FOX: I've never seen so much real-world stuff happen during an exercise.

source

Love that one.



posted on Aug, 4 2007 @ 02:46 PM
link   
OK, this bit caught my eye;


As the tapes reveal in stark detail, parts of Scott's and Arnold's testimony were misleading, and others simply false. At 9:16 a.m., when Arnold and Marr had supposedly begun their tracking of United 93, the plane had not yet been hijacked. In fact, neads wouldn't get word about United 93 for another 51 minutes. And while norad commanders did, indeed, order the Langley fighters to scramble at 9:24, as Scott and Arnold testified, it was not in response to the hijacking of American 77 or United 93. Rather, they were chasing a ghost.


This is on page 6. It strikes me as interesting, because two people have conflicting testimony, which suggests one isn't telling the truth.. if you want my personal opinion, this is some kind of smoking gun in regards to Flight 93 not even being a real plane (no plane theory).



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 06:57 PM
link   
This issue was widely discussed at the time of the Vanity Fair article. Some people believe it is what Webster Tarpley would call a "limited hangout".

A lot of Vanity Fair's journalism is like that. They will fill in all but a few of the key dots because if they filled in all of the dots the conclusions readers would reach would be so horrifying that in no time black vans would be carting away the editorial staff. There is a whole art to reading Vanity Fair. You have to know the rules of the game they are playing.

David Ray Griffin took a look at these tapes and used that methodical mind of his to make a thinly sliced pile of confetti of them. The link to the interview is here:

reprehensor.gnn.tv...

Elsewhere on the page there is a link to Paul Thompson (Terror Timeline) discussing the same VF article.

[edit on 7-8-2007 by ipsedixit]



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 09:59 PM
link   
that's how the military is....nothing reported is right, and you dont get the right reporting till it's too late...

"flight 93 is hijacked"1007am



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
this is some kind of smoking gun in regards to Flight 93 not even being a real plane (no plane theory).


But of what you quoted I see something suspiscious but nothing that makes me think no plane. How do you come to this conclusion?


Just noticed that shrunkensimon is banned. Anyone know why? I used to enjoy debating with him.



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 07:13 AM
link   
the part quoted is called CYA....you do it to look good....make it look like you've got some sort of controll on things...and then when people start getting in trouble....you dont because, "you did everything you could"



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join