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.

 

911 Conspiracy Facts - Incriminating

page: 8
77
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 24 2008 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by pinch
I've also tried to educate them about point-missile defense, and how you would *never* put your main defensive missile batteries directly at the point being defended, in this case the Pentagon.

We know for a fact that four allegedly hijacked airliners managed to defeat the entire USAF and National Guard during a couple of hours.

We know that Stephenson, sitting in a control tower, was allegedly not aware of the incoming Flight AA77 until about a minute before it struck.

It appeared that on that morning, there was no defense against any of those alleged planes. Not unless you count Rumsfeld stating that the alleged Flight 93 was shot down. Straight out of his mouth, huh? Nice way to shoot down your own official story, Donny Boy, by shooting off your own mouth.

[edit on 24-10-2008 by tezzajw]




posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 12:12 AM
link   
I see, not one of you disinfo had anything to say about the people in congress asking question that nothing adds up and a new investigation is needed. Lets see now, THEY ARE ALL LAIRS TO! YA! They wouldn’t know the truth if it hit them in the face right!

Ya! That’s right, they don’t know anything that goes on in Washington, they are to stupid.
Ya! “only” some of you disinfo know the truth about 911 because, uh! A UFO pick you disinfo up with little green men on board their space craft. They had CIA who only told you disinfo OPS the truth and no one else, just you and now you come to ATS with your story, that you know what the truth is on 911 and if you don’t like what I have to say then you are all DILUSIONAL.

Some of you have discredited every one, including the government officials, who are asking question that 911 needs to be investigated.



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by pinch
 


Are these sites in DC, or are you referring to the Patriot Missile system I believe I saw somewhere in the southern US? I always am on Google Earth or Maps, and I still havent found many AA sites around the DC area. I'll have to look harder.

As for the hijackers being able to "penetrate our entire Air Force" nonsense, these people think we are still living during the Cold War with fighters and bombers on 24/7 standby with 5 minute prep and go time, armed and ready. Maybe if Clinton didn't do all those military cut backs, and kept us at a war footing after the fall of the USSR, maybe this could have been prevented. MAYBE. But, can you imagine the cost of doing this for another 15 years? lol!

Maybe if they could point to a clause in NORAD where they are required to track aircraft inside our borders and have fighters ready to intercept on five minute notice, they'd have something. But alas, facts are being ignored, and lies perpetuated by (of all people) "truthers".



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 12:05 PM
link   
911blimp.net...



The 9-11 Omission Report

The 9-11 Commission was created to substantiate the official U.S. government explanation for 9/11.

It performed what we call a "faith-based investigation": it started out by accepting as gospel truth the official explanation, and set about in search of supportive evidence, discarding all contradictory (what a defense attorney would call exculpatory) evidence along the way.

In other words, virtually every piece of evidence and bit of data which did not fit the report's pre-ordained conclusion was simply omitted from the report. It is so full of omissions that it may be more correct to think of it as the 9-11 Omission Report!

Please do not become diverted by other critiques of the report, which concentrate on its conclusions or focus on its failure to assign blame. Such critiques, while correct, totally miss and distract from the real story about the bogus report:

To someone already thoroughly familiar with 9/11, the report is a kind of map, and the report's omissions are like arrows pointing to some of the most serious holes in the official government conspiracy theory of 9/11!

How could anyone not take seriously such a valuable treasure map?

Some major omissions from the 9-11 Commission Report (click on each for more info):

The Pentagon Video Evidence
The missing/impossible seconds
Willful Destruction of WTC 7
The word "explosions"
How, when Bush learned of the attack
Norman Mineta's Astounding Testimony
The Secret Sibel Edmonds Testimony
The Many War Games on 9/11
No NASA Video Enhancements
The Strange Case of John Podesta


The Warren Report concerning the Kennedy assassination was constructed in the same fashion as the 911 Commission Report.

1. Assume the persons responsible for the act (terrorism, assassination) appointed the members on the respective commissions.
2. Directed the assigned commissioners to find the Offical story to be true and correct.
3. Ignore and omit any and all evidence, testimony, that contradicts the Offical Version.
4. Direct media to support the commission report as the way it happened.
5. Ridicule, discredit, marginalize, and attack viable opposition to Official version.
6. Assassinate personalities and actual persons involved with inside knowledge and moral convictions to harm the Official Version.
7. Profit hugely in the aftermath of the event via military/industrial mechanisms.
8. Prohibit release of documents and evidence for fifty years into the future.
9. I will stop there.


edited to add url, fmcanarney

[edit on 25-10-2008 by fmcanarney]



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 12:38 PM
link   
reply to post by GenRadek
 


Maybe if they could point to a clause in NORAD where they are required to track aircraft inside our borders and have fighters ready to intercept on five minute notice, they'd have something. But alas, facts are being ignored, and lies perpetuated by (of all people) "truthers

NORAD has SOP of interception of errant flights and responds in line with the SOP @40 times each year in USA.

Flawlessly, even though cold war is gone.

They did not on 911 respond with SOP.



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 01:36 PM
link   

posted by fmcanarney

To someone already thoroughly familiar with 9/11, the report is a kind of map, and the report's omissions are like arrows pointing to some of the most serious holes in the official government conspiracy theory of 9/11!

How could anyone not take seriously such a valuable treasure map?

Some major omissions from the 9-11 Commission Report (click on each for more info):

The Pentagon Video Evidence
The missing/impossible seconds
Willful Destruction of WTC 7
The word "explosions"
How, when Bush learned of the attack
Norman Mineta's Astounding Testimony
The Secret Sibel Edmonds Testimony
The Many War Games on 9/11
No NASA Video Enhancements
The Strange Case of John Podesta


The Warren Report concerning the Kennedy assassination was constructed in the same fashion as the 911 Commission Report.

1. Assume the persons responsible for the act (terrorism, assassination) appointed the members on the respective commissions.
2. Directed the assigned commissioners to find the Offical story to be true and correct.
3. Ignore and omit any and all evidence, testimony, that contradicts the Offical Version.
4. Direct media to support the commission report as the way it happened.
5. Ridicule, discredit, marginalize, and attack viable opposition to Official version.
6. Assassinate personalities and actual persons involved with inside knowledge and moral convictions to harm the Official Version.
7. Profit hugely in the aftermath of the event via military/industrial mechanisms.
8. Prohibit release of documents and evidence for fifty years into the future.
9. I will stop there.

Excellent comparison of the 9-11 WhiteWash Commission Report to the Warren Kennedy WhiteWash Report



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
As for the hijackers being able to "penetrate our entire Air Force" nonsense,

It's not nonsense because it actually happened. What part of that don't you understand? For a couple of hours that morning, those four alleged airplanes were allowed to do whatever they liked in US airspace. That's the facts, GenRadek. If you don't choose to believe it, then ask yourself how the alleged planes were allegedly able to strike their targets.

NORAD was inept. It did not send up interceptors in time to shoot down any of the alleged aircraft.



Maybe if they could point to a clause in NORAD where they are required to track aircraft inside our borders and have fighters ready to intercept on five minute notice, they'd have something.

Weren't the Langley interceptors (for the alleged AA77) scrambled at 9.24am and took off at 9.30am? Yet, they were scrambled to the wrong location... hmmm...

NORAD failed. But, of course, we're lead to believe that an Indiana ATC was not doing his job properly by noticing that AA77 was 'missing' at around 8.54am. It's great how NORAD tried to take down the FAA with it, in a bunch of lies.



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 

NORAD failed. But, of course, we're lead to believe that an Indiana ATC was not doing his job properly by noticing that AA77 was 'missing' at around 8.54am. It's great how NORAD tried to take down the FAA with it, in a bunch of lies.



a. For the purpose of clarity and conciseness in this regulation, the term "hi ack" will coversituations in which aircraft control is seized in order to go somewhere other than the scheduleddestination and when an aircraft is stolen or used without permission of the owner and or FederalAviation Administration (FAA) or Transport Canada (TC) authorities. The term 'fescort aircraft" appliesto any military aircraft assigned to the escort mission.

b. Escort missions are requested by the FAA or TC. The Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) or CanadianChief of Defence Staff (CDS) may task NORAD to escort aircraft in the event of a hijacking. Escortmissions are coordinated between NORAD units and other military and civilian agencies to preventinterference with military operations, avoid possible international incident and provide safety of flight. NORAD REGULATION 55-7



At what time did the FAA alert NORAD about the hijacked airliners?

What did NORAD lie about?



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 06:55 PM
link   

posted by GenRadek
Maybe if they could point to a clause in NORAD where they are required to track aircraft inside our borders and have fighters ready to intercept on five minute notice, they'd have something.


posted by fmcanarney
NORAD has SOP of interception of errant flights and responds in line with the SOP @40 times each year in USA.

Flawlessly, even though cold war is gone.

They did not on 911 respond with SOP.


posted by tezzajw
Weren't the Langley interceptors (for the alleged AA77) scrambled at 9.24am and took off at 9.30am? Yet, they were scrambled to the wrong location... hmmm...

It looked like they were sent off into the Atlantic to attack the Bermuda Triangle.

Yep, NORAD's SOP was not followed, and 9-11 War Games were placing false signals on the radars, and radio and radar signals were being jammed, and fighter pilots were ordered to proceed to destinations at minimum speeds.




posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by SPreston
 

Yep, NORAD's SOP was not followed


Which SOP was not followed?

Provide links with the relevant SOP's, please.



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
At what time did the FAA alert NORAD about the hijacked airliners.

That's exactly what I would like to know, Boone.

It's hard to find the facts amongst all of the BS.



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 

That's exactly what I would like to know, Boone.

It's hard to find the facts amongst all of the BS.


Flight 11 - 8:37 a.m. (9 minutes before impact)

Flight 175 - 9:03 a.m. (same time as impact)

Flight 77 - 9:36 a.m. (2 minutes before impact)

Flight 93- 10:07 a.m. (4 minutes after crash)

The NORAD fighters were on 15 minute alert, the Otis fighters matched this time and the Langley fighters beat it. Looks like NORAD was not so inept after all.



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
Flight 77 - 9:36 a.m. (2 minutes before impact)

Why did General Larry Arnold, the head of NORAD's US Continental region, state in open testimony to the Commission in 1993, that NORAD knew about AA77 being hijacked at 9.24 am?

Why did Laura Brown state something like "NORAD logs indicate that the FAA made formal notification about American Flight 77 at 9:24 a.m., but information about the flight was conveyed continuously during the phone bridges before the formal notification."



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by tezzajw
 

Why did General Larry Arnold, the head of NORAD's US Continental region, state in open testimony to the Commission in 1993, that NORAD knew about AA77 being hijacked at 9.24 am?

Why did Laura Brown state something like "NORAD logs indicate that the FAA made formal notification about American Flight 77 at 9:24 a.m., but information about the flight was conveyed continuously during the phone bridges before the formal notification."


I'm not sure why Arnold said what he said. But I do know this; the commission felt that they were being deceived and subpoenaed all the audio recordings from NORAD and put NORAD representatives under oath for their next appearance in front of the commission.

The commission recommended that the DOD investigate the false claims made by NORAD representatives. They did, no wrongdoing was found.

I'm not familiar with the Laura Brown memo. Do you have a link?



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870

The commission recommended that the DOD investigate the false claims made by NORAD representatives. They did, no wrongdoing was found.



I will say this I dont know much about where NORAD did or didnt go wrong but I will say this about this comment. In a lot of the investigations into 9/11 the government found no wrongdoing in many areas but yet 9/11 still occurred. So someone somewhere did something wrong wouldnt you think? My point being I dont believe a damn thing the government says. Also you say "investigate the false claims" instead of "investigate the claims" Its obvious with this speech you are trying to mind *SNIP* the person you are responding to. Sean Hannity and other TV personalities uses this type of speech to gain an upper ground.

Heads needed to roll on 9/11 for the mass failures on many fronts on the government, military, and even the civilian side. None did however.


Mod Edit: Profanity/Circumvention Of Censors – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 10/28/2008 by Hal9000]



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 10:06 PM
link   

posted by tezzajw
Why did General Larry Arnold, the head of NORAD's US Continental region, state in open testimony to the Commission in 1993, that NORAD knew about AA77 being hijacked at 9.24 am?


posted by Boone 870
I'm not sure why Arnold said what he said. But I do know this; the commission felt that they were being deceived and subpoenaed all the audio recordings from NORAD and put NORAD representatives under oath for their next appearance in front of the commission.

The commission recommended that the DOD investigate the false claims made by NORAD representatives. They did, no wrongdoing was found.

Yeah, Boone. Why were you being deceptive here? How do you know they were false claims?

Is this not another example of the primary suspect investigating itself?


Mod edit: Removed previously posted image.

[edit on 10/28/2008 by Hal9000]



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 10:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
Why did General Larry Arnold, the head of NORAD's US Continental region, state in open testimony to the Commission in 1993...


Ummm....yeah. Funny, such an error coming from someone who sees conspiracy in every misstatement made by anyone, especially Rumsfeld.


Originally posted by tezzjaw
Nice way to shoot down your own official story, Donny Boy, by shooting off your own mouth.


Nice way to shoot down your own credibility, Tezz Boy, by not knowing what year it is.

[edit on 25-10-2008 by pinch]



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by tezzajw
It's not nonsense because it actually happened. What part of that don't you understand? For a couple of hours that morning, those four alleged airplanes were allowed to do whatever they liked in US airspace. That's the facts, GenRadek. If you don't choose to believe it, then ask yourself how the alleged planes were allegedly able to strike their targets.

NORAD was inept. It did not send up interceptors in time to shoot down any of the alleged aircraft.


Nonsense it is. If you know anything about alert postures and launch procedures for alert fighters, perhaps you wouldn't embarrass yourself so often by talking about things you know nothing about.


Weren't the Langley interceptors (for the alleged AA77) scrambled at 9.24am and took off at 9.30am? Yet, they were scrambled to the wrong location... hmmm...


Where would you have vectored the alert fighters at 0930? Did you have prescient knowledge of where the hijacked aircraft were going? Did you know exactly where to send the fighters? Did you have perfect situational awareness at 0930 about everything? Of course you did. Not only are you an expert on errors of locution, but you are also an expert on NORAD Alert procedures and on 9/11 clairvoyance.

That's what is amazing to me about most of you Troofers - you know *exactly* what should be done, but you know it on Wednesday 12 Sept instead of Tuesday, 11 Sept. I think that's called Monday-Morning Tactical Decision Making. Its also very funny.

The fact of the matter is the aircraft were launched as soon as they possibly could, when the intelligence and information was solid enough to know something needed to be done. Data was lacking regarding exactly where to vector the fighters, and coupled with the fact that you *don't* vector fighter aircraft into FAA controlled NYC airspace with a slew of aircraft heading into LGA and JFK and EWR, the same way you don't vector fighter aircraft into a airliner low/high altitude jetroute going up and down the east coast without knowing something about what is going on - called situational awareness.

So what do you do? You launch, and get the aircraft to hold in an area that doesn't contribute to the confusion. Which is exactly what was done.



posted on Oct, 25 2008 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by pinch
Nice way to shoot down your own credibility, Tezz Boy, by not knowing what year it is.

Typo, pinch. Everyone makes them. The year was 2003, not 1993. Wow, you can claim the find of the century on that mistake, huh? Now, you've set the precedent, pinch, you better make certain that everything you ever type is perfect, otherwise you'll be as bad as me.

By the way, how is your search going to provide the proof that the FBI have all the parts and serial numbers from all the crashes but are not releasing them? Care to provide proof to back-up your credibility???


Originally posted by pinch
Nonsense it is. If you know anything about alert postures and launch procedures for alert fighters, perhaps you wouldn't embarrass yourself so often by talking about things you know nothing about.

I've got nothing to be embarrassed about, pinch. I didn't monumentally stuff things up on that morning.

The entire air defenses of the USA were not able to stop four alleged hijacked planes for around two hours. You can try and 'spin' it anyway that you like, but it doesn't change the fact that it happened.

According to General Arnold, NORAD knew about the alleged Flight AA77 at 9.24am. That wasn't recorded in the Commission Report - why not? There has been no proof of the 'phantom' Flight AA11 story, with the Commission Report admitting that they don't know who the voice was from the FAA who made that report. The entire US air defense was useless, depending upon whom you believe.

[edit on 25-10-2008 by tezzajw]



posted on Oct, 26 2008 @ 03:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by pinch
Did you have prescient knowledge of where the hijacked aircraft were going?


you might think this is a rhetorical question, but it is in fact a trick question, as there were no commercial airliners hijacked and used as weapons on 9-11. This is called misdirection.


[edit on 10/26/2008 by JPhish]



new topics

top topics



 
77
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join