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 How Could Al-Qaeda Have Known?

page: 8
19
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 04:49 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 05:16 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 06:02 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 06:14 PM
link   
I am looking forward to debating you. Here, let me give you a link to what backs up the majority of my posts here. It is not that difficult to read.

www.gpoaccess.gov...

Please go take a look and read it. It is even broken down in separate sections. It reveals the the ideology of the attacks. It covers most of what I have posted which is not top secret or in need of out of the box thought. It is just knowledge if you open a book.

Why do you discredit when you have no proof? Man, seems to me you are speaking in circles....


[edit on 21-6-2009 by esdad71]



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 06:14 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 06:31 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 10:32 PM
link   
The Topic is:::

"911 How Could Al-Qaeda Have Known?"

Now that that is established, let's cease with "How Well One Can Debate" and any other Off Topic Banter and Insults...

Any further and the poster may be warned.

Fair Enough?

Thank you

Semper



posted on Jun, 21 2009 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


It is difficult, for me, to allow a lie like this to go unchallenged:


I know for a fact, the moment those planes changed their courses, and their flight altitude, and their heading without contacting Tower control; the FAA will immediately dispatch NORAD!


You seem to know nothing as fact, nor do you speak the correct terminology in the above quote. You see, that makes your original premise, "How Could Al-Qaeda Have Known" lacking any merit whatsoever. The quoted boast, lacking any source to back it, destroys your credibility, and therefore, your original point.


You make a comment with a bit of snide sarcasm thrown in:


One would think that FAA and NORAD were behaving as if this occurrence was normal as if four commercial airliners do this all the time.


I fail to see how this in any way bolsters your credibility; in fact, it damages you further. Because, is the very substance of your thread based on Al-Qaeda knowing in advance of the "exercises" of that day? NO, you are, even in your OP, trying to make a case for such an "incredible" coincidence to be impossible.


Your bias shows here:


Furthermore, the wild conspiracy of 19 hijackers flying four commercial airplanes...


Then, again you demonstrate lack of understanding of the "real world" of things in aviation, and how they operate:


...for an hour over highly restricted air space without a single military jet intervening,



Now, here's a really odd bit. Referring, again, to the first quote of yours I cited, this part -- "...the moment those planes changed their courses..." -- seems to contradict your use of the word "alledge" (sic) in another sentence:


However, these alledge airliners changed their courses rapidly and did not radio the Tower for permission.


I took the liberty of making the word bold.

AND, of course, last reason for your credibility being almost non-existent is the hyperbole you used, about changing course rapidly, etc. The facts don't correspond. There is also, once again, a lack of understanding of aviation terminology.

It appears, as I read many of your works, that there is an intent to twist any way possible in order to 'pigeon hole' a pet theory, no matter how convoluted it has to be.

[edit on 6/21/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 02:15 AM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


My information is correct and I have posted sources wherever needed

My OP was aimed at those who believe Al-Qeada pulled off 911. I wanted to know, out of this group, who thought Al-Qeada infiltrated our systems for information, which I find impossible to believe, and who thought we gave them classified up-to-date intelligence instead, something I also do not believe. The actual question “911 How Could Al-Qaeda Have Known?” was rhetorical. Anyone who didn’t pick that up needs to learn the English language. Oh, I guess you missed it too.

You have listed absolutely no sources for any of your assertions in your entire post so don’t preach to me about credibility!

*Snip*

Mod Edit: Removed unnecessary Off Topic Snide Comments

Mod Note: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 6/22/2009 by semperfortis]



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 



The actual question “911 How Could Al-Qaeda Have Known?” was rhetorical.


You're being a little disingenuous there, mate. No one has been fooled, I think we all could see what your intent was; hyperbole and innuendo. Since your mind seems to be made up regarding the 19 terrorists, you resort to ridiculing others with that "rhetorical" question. It is loaded, and a little bit akin to asking "Are you still beating your wife?" !!!


Anyone who didn’t pick that up needs to learn the English language. Oh, I guess you missed it too.


Fall back to ad hom, OK. A very powerful debating tactic I see often.



You have listed absolutely no sources for any of your assertions in your entire post so don’t preach to me about credibility!


My assertions? What assertions? Oh, that you made some statements and attributed them to be factual, when indeed the very use of certain terminology (with no support evidence) showed your ignorance on the subject. No, Sir. It were your assertions that must withstand the 'smell' test.


EDIT:

Just to refute one of your claims regarding NORAD:

www.popularmechanics.com...

Intercepts Not Routine

Claim: "It has been standard operating procedures for decades to immediately intercept off-course planes that do not respond to communications from air traffic controllers," says the Web site oilempire.us. "When the Air Force 'scrambles' a fighter plane to intercept, they usually reach the plane in question in minutes."

FACT: In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999. With passengers and crew unconscious from cabin decompression, the plane lost radio contact but remained in transponder contact until it crashed. Even so, it took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach the stricken jet. Rules in effect back then, and on 9/11, prohibited supersonic flight on intercepts. Prior to 9/11, all other NORAD interceptions were limited to offshore Air Defense Identification Zones (ADIZ). "Until 9/11 there was no domestic ADIZ FAA spokesman Bill Schumann tells PM. After 9/11, NORAD and the FAA increased cooperation, setting up hotlines between ATCs and NORAD command centers, according to officials from both agencies. NORAD has also increased its fighter coverage and has installed radar to monitor airspace over the continent.



I added some bold.

Also, it would just waste server space to attempt links to refute your 'most sensitive airspace in the Country' nonsense, so I'll have to just explain in words. (Well, and one link). Here on the Eastern seaboard there are a few 'Prohibited Areas', most prominent being P-56A and P-56B in Washington, DC, that are associated with the WH, Mall and the Naval Observatory.

Look:
flightaware.com...

Please note, on this particular chart they are simply both referred to as 'P-56'. ALSO, note that, unlike some other Prohibited Areas on certain Aeronautical charts, these do not go to 'infinity', but only to 18,000 feet (the note explaining that is at the top of the planview).

Reason: VERY busy corridors, here in the NorthEast.

Again, I wish I could link to all sorts of other Aeronautical information, but most of it isn't online, since it is all time sensitive. AND the USGS, NOAA and Jeppesen (a Time/Warner company) like to make money by selling the 'hard copies' and not allowing folks to download for free. In any case, the charts are quite large, so it would be unwieldy anyways.




[edit on 6/22/0909 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 08:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


My information is correct and I have posted sources wherever needed

My OP was aimed at those who believe Al-Qeada pulled off 911. I wanted to know, out of this group, who thought Al-Qeada infiltrated our systems for information, which I find impossible to believe, and who thought we gave them classified up-to-date intelligence instead, something I also do not believe. The actual question “911 How Could Al-Qaeda Have Known?” was rhetorical. Anyone who didn’t pick that up needs to learn the English language. Oh, I guess you missed it too.

You have listed absolutely no sources for any of your assertions in your entire post so don’t preach to me about credibility!

*Snip*

Mod Edit: Removed unnecessary Off Topic Snide Comments

Mod Note: Terms & Conditions Of Use – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 6/22/2009 by semperfortis]


First, if you asked a rhetorical question, it means you were not looking for an answer. So get it straight. Were you making a statement maybe. If you do not understand it do not tell others to learn the language. It can only lead to mod warnings.

So, you are asking of people believe intel was given or it was stolen. Ok, I gave you a reason it could have been stolen (with a link as requested) and gave you a reason that they truly did not care. Do a quick google search for Global Guardian and Vigilant Guardian. They were in the papers prior to 2001.

Maybe they were reading this paper, a very small one, a few days before 9/11 and said lets do it...

link


I mean, the NYT was printing about military exercises in 1989...

google search

There is your proof that you asked for. First, the information is readily available and second, they had someone in the military since the late 80's.


[edit on 22-6-2009 by esdad71]

[edit on 22-6-2009 by esdad71]



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Apparently, nobody in this thread seems to think Al-Qaeda needed any intel to pull off the most unthinkable invasion of this country by 19 mystery men. Actually, make that 20, I forgot about the magician.

No one has found one single piece proof that the military announced, in advance that there were going to be war games above NYC on 911. In fact, it doesn’t really look like there were any war games above NYC that day.



Tape of Air Traffic Controllers Made on 9/11 Was Destroyed
by Matthew L. Wald

WASHINGTON — At least six air traffic controllers who dealt with two of the hijacked airliners on Sept. 11, 2001, made a tape recording a few hours later describing the events, but the tape was destroyed by a supervisor without anyone making a transcript or even listening to it, the Transportation Department said Thursday.
The taping began before noon on Sept. 11 at the New York Air Route Traffic Control Center, in Ronkonkoma, N.Y., where about 16 people met in a basement conference room known as the Bat Cave and passed around a microphone, each recalling his or her version of the events of a few hours earlier. The recording included statements of 5 or 10 minutes each by controllers who had spoken by radio to people on the planes or who had tracked the aircraft on radar, the report said.
Officials at the center never told higher-ups of the tape's existence, according to a report made public on Thursday by the inspector general of the Transportation Department.


www.commondreams.org...


If this was not an inside job then way did air traffic controllers destroy the tapes of the transmission of the communications between the tower control and the hijackers?


The quality-assurance manager told investigators that he had destroyed the tape because he thought making it was contrary to Federal Aviation Administration policy, which calls for written statements, and because he felt that the controllers "were not in the correct frame of mind to have properly consented to the taping" because of the stress of the day.
None of the officials or controllers were identified in the report.

So in a nut shell when traffic controller are under stress they have a right to destroy their tapes.
This is the worst excuses I have ever heard! It is obvious that air traffic controllers are hiding something. I know when I am being lied to, life teaches me that! Now we do not have any proof on record of what really happened between the tower controllers and the alleged hijackers.
Is it possible that there were no hijackers?
Is it possible that FAA is only telling a scripted story?

The inspector general, Kenneth M. Mead, said that keeping the tape's existence a secret, and then destroying it, did not "serve the interests of the F.A.A., the department, or the public," and would raise suspicions at a time of national crisis.

This stinks of cover-up! This is the sorriest excuses I have ever hear of to destroying information of one of the biggest attacks on our country.
Looks to me, someone is lying to the American people.




[edit on 22-6-2009 by impressme]



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 04:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
Apparently, nobody in this thread seems to think Al-Qaeda needed any intel to pull off the most unthinkable invasion of this country by 19 mystery men. Actually, make that 20, I forgot about the magician.

[edit on 22-6-2009 by impressme]


Well, you are going off topic but I will bite.

First, no one here said they had NO intel. I gave links to the intel and the networks that were used to funnel money, the Bank accounts,rental homes, DL #, pictures. All associated with the commission report. It was not an unthinkable plan either since the US has trained for this contingency for years during Vigilant Guardian which is a subset off Global Guardian.

So, if they wanted operational intel in early 2001, they could have looked for this one the Internet...

Just about any military publication that has a unit involved with this ANNUAL event will talk about it. The above is one of many links but again it was accessible. As a side note, the hijacked plane contingency was something that was added. The operation had been in effect for over a week prior to 9.11.

Now you are blaming the FAA. You see, there is more to the story.



www.nytimes.com...

TThe tape had been made under an agreement with the union that it would be destroyed after it was superseded by written statements from the controllers, according to the inspector general's report. But the quality-assurance manager asserted that making the tape had itself been a violation of accident procedures at the Federal Aviation Administration, the report said.

The inspector general, Kenneth M. Mead, said that the officials' keeping the existence of the tape a secret and the decision by one to destroy it had not served "the interests of the F.A.A., the department or the public" and could foster suspicions among the public.


Written statements were made and the tape destroyed. No cover up. No lying. Just perception and how one digests information.



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by esdad71
 



Written statements were made and the tape destroyed. No cover up. No lying. Just perception and how one digests information.


Yes. And, just before the OP topic takes back over, a bit more to understand how things work. There is the Rulebook, and the Gov't bureaucratic procedures, then there is the way the controllers really have to do things, in normal day-to-day operations, just to keep traffic flowing smoothly. I have seen the link to the written statements sorry, it's been a while...it exists somewhere in an ATS thread...)

Essentially, one thing that jumped out at me was a "CYA" statement at the end of each person's narrative. The statements had nothing to do with 9/11, I only mention it because it was so obvious -- and written statements are far, far better than an off-the-cuff recording, where you may incriminate yourself accidentally if you broke one of the normal "rules".

Since I am not a controller, the details will escape me, but it is obviously an on-going issue, and the Union likely recommends the 'CYA' comments to its members.

Sorry if these strayed too far -- but it does go to explain destroying the tapes....



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 

originally posted by impressme
I know when I am being lied to, life teaches me that!


Me too, for example:

originally posted by impressme
If this was not an inside job then way did air traffic controllers destroy the tapes of the transmission of the communications between the tower control and the hijackers?


You're claiming that the recordings on the destroyed tape were made between "tower control and the hijackers" but that clearly is not what the article states.


The taping began before noon on Sept. 11 At the New York Air Route Traffic Control Center, in Ronkonkoma, N.Y., where about 16 people met in a basement conference room known as the Bat Cave and passed around a microphone, each recalling his or her version of the events of a few hours earlier.



So, impressme, are you intentionally lying or is this a case of poor reading comprehension?



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 08:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


Thanks, Boone...this one slipped by me:



originally posted by impressme
If this was not an inside job then way did air traffic controllers destroy the tapes of the transmission of the communications between the tower control and the hijackers?


It is a perfect example of what I've said in my recent posts on this thread regarding terminology.

"...communications between the 'tower control' and the hijackers?"

Firstly, 'tower control' is gibberish, except maybe to laypeople. The airplanes, ALL four of them, were in contact with ARTCC facilities prior to being taken over.

Secondly, and this just occured to me, (another thing I had missed) there were no communications between ATC and the hijackers!!!

Comprehension, indeed. Nature of the beast, methinks.




posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


It’s not that I am a liar, I made a mistake. Don’t you ever make mistakes?



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by impressme
 


Yes, I make mistakes. It's completely understandable.

Now, how about your claim of there being "military exercises over NYC on 9/11?" I read the link you provided on page one or two of this thread and didn't see any sourced claims of there being an actual exercise on 9/11 that involved the military and New York City.



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 09:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 



Now, how about your claim of there being "military exercises over NYC on 9/11?" I read the link you provided on page one or two of this thread and didn't see any sourced claims of there being an actual exercise on 9/11 that involved the military and New York City.

I believe this might help you.


9/11 War Games during 9/11
by the US military & CIA
paralysis of air defenses to ensure the attack succeeded?
who coordinated these efforts?
There has been virtually no media coverage of the issues of the 9/11 war games, the "amazing coincidence" of a "plane into building" exercise being conducted that morning, or the alleged role of Vice President Richard Cheney in overseeing the war games that morning.

www.oilempire.us...

War Games
Multiple War Games Were Being Conducted on 9/11/01

911research.wtc7.net...



posted on Jun, 22 2009 @ 09:56 PM
link   


The military releases that information frequently, especially when they are going to be in or near a city/town, so that the public is informed.

Yeah that's why some military drills on 911 ARE STILL CLASSIFIED? We can't have them NOW, EIGHT YEARS after the fact? But somehow, they could have them beforehand?

Ridiculous.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join