Flight 11 hijacked before take-off?

reply to post by weedwhacker


So 9/11 wasn't an air defense failure? Then you think it was a success. Or is there some 'gray' term your going to use so absolutely no one can be punished or reprimanded for this non-success?

Actually all of those exercises I linked to would have put the air defense network in an even BETTER position to respond to and prevent the attacks.

Which begs the question, with all of that training, why did the attacks of 9/11 succeed in the first place? Things that make a rational person go hmmmmm.

reply to post by Swing Dangler


Did you even read your own (alleged) blog???

OOOPS so much for the looking outward excuse.

I love how these conspiracy theorists just shoot themselves in the feet.

The scenarios above:

London to New York

Tokyo to the U.S.

Seoul to the U.S.

Havana to the U.S.

How am I doing so far??? Are THOSE within the USA???

Oh...well, there were offered two examples from...let's see....JANUARY 1999!!!

Miami/Oklahoma City.

San Diego/Anchorage (You do realize where Anchorage is, right? AND, how to get there from San Diego, right?)


Oh, then there was the gem...London-Cairo.

Yup! NORAD was all over that one.



I say again: Those sorts of isolated exercises have no bearing on the real-world events of 9/11. FOUR nearly simultaneous, unexpected hijackings that were so audacious in thought that it had the inevitable time lag in recognizing the fact.

Those other imaginary exercise scenarios are PRE-PLANNED!!!! Everyone, going into them, is EXPECTING them!!!!!

Can't you see the vital difference there???

reply to post by Swing Dangler

Which begs the question, with all of that training, why did the attacks of 9/11 succeed in the first place?

"All of that training"???

A few isolated exercises, and as I KEEP repeating, designed more for co-ordination practice than with actually dealing with the implied threats....

But, the 9/11 attacks succeeded BECAUSE of the impracticality of locating a jet that doesn't want to be found, combined with the time delay in actually recognizing the threat.

Airliners routinely lose radio contact with ATC. Happened all of the time then, still does now (to a lesser extent, of course). At first, when there is a communication failure, it is seen by the controller involved as a minor inconvenience.

Which leads me to....WHY was the Northwest airliner that overflew Minneapolis recently not intercepted???

It meets all of YOUR criteria!

But, inconvenient facts shouldn't get in the way of your twisted "logic"...

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by truthquest

 

Back to the claim though, it seems ridiculous that the hijackers would be allowed to take off after entering the cockpit.

This will turn out to be just another in a long line of steaming piles of moose droppings.

This is ludicrous from the get-go, it is so outrageous it doesn't even bear examination.

There is NO WAY this is true. Absolutely not. Zero possiblity.

If you are so confident, as it seems, then prove it to us......or have somebody else prove it...

Otherwise you are just another noise in the universe that is not needed...

reply to post by LucidDreamer85

....then prove it to us....

Really? This is the response?

It's easier, then, to believe this other claim, by one Mike Bellone, than to look into it and ask other (besides me) airline pilots???

No, the burden on you 'believers' is to show how it is POSSIBLE for the hijacking of American Airlines 11 on the ground, that it was subsequently operated perfectly normally, no hint whatsoever of distress or subjugation, noting out of the ordinary UNTIL the hijacking took place while in cruise flight...

The burden, dear conspiracy believers, is in proving this absurd claim.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Swing Dangler

 

Did you even read your own (alleged) blog???

OOOPS so much for the looking outward excuse.

I love how these conspiracy theorists just shoot themselves in the feet.

The scenarios above:

London to New York

Tokyo to the U.S.

Seoul to the U.S.

Havana to the U.S.

How am I doing so far??? Are THOSE within the USA???

Oh...well, there were offered two examples from...let's see....JANUARY 1999!!!
Miami/Oklahoma City.
San Diego/Anchorage (You do realize where Anchorage is, right? AND, how to get there from San Diego, right?)
Oh, then there was the gem...London-Cairo.
Yup! NORAD was all over that one.

I say again: Those sorts of isolated exercises have no bearing on the real-world events of 9/11. FOUR nearly simultaneous, unexpected hijackings that were so audacious in thought that it had the inevitable time lag in recognizing the fact.
Those other imaginary exercise scenarios are PRE-PLANNED!!!! Everyone,going into them, is EXPECTING them!!!!!
Can't you see the vital difference there???

I can't believe I'm responding to this nonsense.

Go back and read what was happening on 4/15/00, 4/19/00,10/21/00, and as early as July 1, 2001. Do you understand what inside-inside means?

Now do you understand why Meyers was lying to the 9/11 Commission and the public?

Your the only debunker I know who claims NORAD Exercises Hijack Summary are exercises that DO NOT prepare the participants to respond to a hijackings. Explain to me how that is not twisted logic?


Now do you have an example of a black box that was never found after a land based aircraft crash/accident? I'm still waiting.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Swing Dangler

 

I say again: Those sorts of isolated exercises have no bearing on the real-world events of 9/11. FOUR nearly simultaneous, unexpected hijackings that were so audacious in thought that it had the inevitable time lag in recognizing the fact.
Those other imaginary exercise scenarios are PRE-PLANNED!!!! Everyone, going into them, is EXPECTING them!!!!!
Can't you see the vital difference there???

Hijackings during 9/11/01

The exercises included a version of 'Vigilant Guardian' in which a suicide hijack targeting New York took place two days before 9/11; the document details 9 versions of Vigilant Guardian which took place the week before 9/11, all of which involve hijacking. A version on 9/6/01 involved a shoot-down by fighter jets.

Hijacking Exercise on Day of 9/11

Although it is not listed in the document, there is evidence of a simulated plane hijacking scheduled to take place in the Northeast US on the day of 9/11! The schedule of this exercise overlapped with the real-world events causing confusion amongst air traffic controllers and NORAD personnel. According to Vanity Fair, "The day's exercise was designed to run a range of scenarios, including a 'traditional' simulated hijack in which politically motivated perpetrators commandeer an aircraft, land on a Cuba-like island, and seek asylum." Vigilant Guardian appears to have simulated attacks within the continental United States. NORAD personnel in Rome, New York who received first reports of hijackings within NORAD'S Northeastern sector, including Col. Robert K. Marr and Lt. Col. Dawne Deskins, are reported to have asked if this was "real world or exercise." This implies that the scenarios for the wargames on September 11 were strikingly similar to the actual attacks that unfolded that morning.

When NEADS was informed of the first real-world hijacking on 9/11/2001, members of its staff thought that alert was part of the exercise. For example, Master Sergeant Maureen Dooley, the leader of the ID section, told the other members of her team: "We have a hijack going on. Get your checklists. The exercise is on." Major Kevin Nasypany, the mission crew commander, actually said out loud, "The hijack's not supposed to be for another hour."

Remember this: "Is this real world or exercise?" In reference to the 9/11 attacks...
Is this real world or exercise?

reply to post by Swing Dangler


I can't believe I'm responding to the intransigence of a believer, and his unwillingness to see logic.

This is about Mike Bellone's claims, anyway.

WHY do the conspiracy theorists pick and choose what they wish to believe, the parts that only fit their "pet" notions, and ignore the rest?

Truly, it is apparent that ANY exercise of the nature being used to "prove" (whatever it is you're trying to "prove") these allegations of the "inside-jobby job) claims shows a complete lack of understanding of the nature of such events.

It is taking a situation that from the outset is KNOWN and PLANNED (the exercise) and trying to claim that the same tactics would magically and immediately result in a satisfactory and successful resolution to ANY, EVERY and ALL similar scenarios in the real world. It just ain't so.

"Another question is did someone or some group hijack the mocked hijack aircraft using remote? How many of these live fly planes were actually flown by live pilots?"

"And this...now it's just more of the silliness that has infected the topic."

April 24, 2001
Global Hawk Makes Historic First Unmanned Flight To Australia

www.spacedaily.com...

How 'silly' to believe that remote control aircraft may have been used on 9/11, when four and one half months earlier, a Global Hawk made a successful unmanned flight across the Pacific Ocean from California to Australia. If you're wondering, that is a 22 hour flight and quite a bit longer than the approximate half hour flight from Boston to NYC.

"1. The administrations excuse that no one could anticipate an event like this taking place was a lie."

Yep, that is one whopper of a lie alright. Check out this article from the USA Today where NORAD admits to hijacking exercises responding to such scenarios taking place prior to 9/11:

"In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties. One of the imagined targets was the World Trade Center."

www.usatoday.com...

"2. If 9/11 is an inside job as it appears to be, the terrorist event was masked by the exercises and drills to confuse the air defense system, to slow and even prevent in time an air defense response, and to give plausible denialbility to the chain of command whether they were involved or not."

These drills were not only done to confuse air defense, but they were also done to prevent a "hero" pilot from disobeying official orders not to shoot down the attacking aircraft, and thereby ruining the entire operation. The perps could not be assured 100% the AF pilots would obey such a stand down order, so they needed to be sure by taking these pilots out of shoot down range, until the attacking aircraft struck their intended targets. The military drills on that day were not just a coincidence, they were a large part of the plan to assure a successful attack.

Gotta hand it to those pesky cavemen. Not only were they able to concoct a plan to successfully hijack four airliners simultaneously and fly them with pinpoint precision into their targets, they were able to schedule American military exercises on that day which assured their success. Or at the very least, they were able to gain this top secret exercise information well in advance and proceed to coordinate their attacks around the drills. Ever heard of the saying, a snowball's chance in hell?





[edit on 22-12-2009 by SphinxMontreal]

[edit on 22-12-2009 by SphinxMontreal]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Swing Dangler

 

I can't believe I'm responding to the intransigence of a believer, and his unwillingness to see logic.

This is about Mike Bellone's claims, anyway.

WHY do the conspiracy theorists pick and choose what they wish to believe, the parts that only fit their "pet" notions, and ignore the rest?

Truly, it is apparent that ANY exercise of the nature being used to "prove" (whatever it is you're trying to "prove") these allegations of the "inside-jobby job) claims shows a complete lack of understanding of the nature of such events.

It is taking a situation that from the outset is KNOWN and PLANNED (the exercise) and trying to claim that the same tactics would magically and immediately result in a satisfactory and successful resolution to ANY, EVERY and ALL similar scenarios in the real world. It just ain't so.

Do you play for the Dodgers? Because you are very good at it. Hence the re-direct back to the OP which is fine by me.

1. I proved there was no "lack of imagination" surrounding the attacks as the NORAD hijack exercise shows and the above poster pointed out.
2. It proves the administration lied about this lack of imagination and its preparedness.
3. It begs the question, with this training, why were the 9/11 attacks successful? Why was the response too late? I offered a plausible reason why. The exercises of the day confused the air defense network with regards to the attacks themselves.
4. As far as the inside job issue, I offered a plausible scenario in which a covert operation was taken live duringthe attacks, thereby successfully confusing and slowing the air defense network. This also offers plausible denial to anyone who may have been involved or responsible for the failure of the defense system.

Now do you have any black boxes from an aircraft crash/accident on land that was never found??

Or back to the OP. Your choice.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Swing Dangler

 

I can't believe I'm responding to the intransigence of a believer, and his unwillingness to see logic.

This is about Mike Bellone's claims, anyway.

WHY do the conspiracy theorists pick and choose what they wish to believe, the parts that only fit their "pet" notions, and ignore the rest?

You mean like getting a list of INSIDE the US exercises and listing the ones that were outside to pretend it did not fit?
You mean like ignoring when the truth is pointed out to you in order to get around having to admit you were wrong with something you demanded was a verified fact?
How about being asked by several people to back up this claim about black boxes not being found and then supplying info on a black boxes being destroyed and not realizing that being FOUND to identify as destroyed means that they had to be FOUND which is what you were asked to begin with?

I know, cherry picking gets annoying.

reply to post by Lillydale

You mean like getting a list of INSIDE the US exercises and listing the ones that were outside to pretend it did not fit?

Focus please, Lilly.

See the words....'exercise'....'exercise'...'exercise'...

Understand what that means, and how it actually applies to real-world scenarios.

I have to repeat, I see....they practice such 'drills' in order to ascertain that they can communicate effectively, to look for problems, to "imagineer" what might possibly happen....those sorts of planned and staged events are NOT supposed to be realistic, as in, to predict and completely respond in every way possible to real threats. They are scripted, and practiced...

It's like, in any training scenario. When we had to do the life raft drills, at the airline. In a swimming pool. In broad daylight, nice weather. It was to acquaint everyone with the raft, the equipment that is supplied, where it's located, how to put up the rain tent, etc.

The USAir landing in the Hudson, last January....we train for ditchings, we talk about it, we can intellectually imagine it...we are taught about how to read ocean swells (not needed in this case, of course) and I daresay, in very rough seas, bad weather, any number of less than ideal scenarios, a ditching can go horribly wrong. Even Sully's event went poorly, when a panicked passenger opened a rear door (well, tried to...but just cracking it open was the mistake, as it alowed the cabin to flood much quicker than it should have).

The Flight Attendants know this...but they can't watch every nutjob who panics, and stop them in time.

Really, that was just to provide examples for why this panacea of "Well, they conducted some drills for hijacked airplanes" isn't all it's cracked u to be, if it's being used by the conspiracy side to point a finger and say...well, not sure exactly WHAT they're trying to say, it gets so muddled.

reply to post by SphinxMontreal


Sphinx....you cannot seriously think that comparing a UAV, a machine DESIGNED from the beginning to be unmanned and remotely operated has any similarity to a production model Boeing 767....do you???

You obviously have no concept of the incredible amount of difficult work that would be needed to attempt to modify a passenger airliner to remote control, when it was not originally designed for it.

You also should look into the SPEEDS that UAVs operate at. I mean the regular, day-to-day Predators and such being used in the theater in the Middle East today, no some proof of concept vehicle that flew to New Zealand as a publicity stunt.

Look....you gotta settle on ONE conspiracy story and theme...

Some say that the Boeing 767 can't possibly go as fast as they were tracked doing before hitting the Towers. Well, that's been shown to be wrong.

THEN we have some alleged "expert pilots" say, even IF you got to those speeds, claim that even they couldn't hit the Towers, flying simulators, going that fast (although airshow pilots routinely do even MORE precise flying...). YET, it is far, far, far easier to fly an airplane when you're sitting in it than it is to fly it remotely. Remotely is far, far more difficult, you miss a whole host of sensory cues.

There is just no way out, you gotta pick on:

Holograms?

Magic 'remote control' jets that were developed with no one knowing or reporting the work, that came from no where (no paper trail, they had to be built somewhere, and so far only Boeing builds them out there in Washington State)?

Regular jets that were fitted for R/C, and the poor regular pilots were unable to wrest control away? (Pick that one, I love to tear apart stupid concepts)??

AND, the big one..."Pilots" for "Truth" (really, by now, just about one 'pilot', and he's looking less and less stable) who have fallen on their faces so often, first they can't go that fast (but we show they can, especially as they dove from altitude) but even IF they go that fast, even these "professional" pilots can't steer accurately to hit the broadside of the Tower (yet you want to believe that a Remote pilot, hampered by not being onboard and having full sensory cues) could do it with ease???

Really?????

Originally posted by weedwhacker

it seems ridiculous that the hijackers would be allowed to take off after entering the cockpit

whats so hard to believe? You think the US military and the PERPS wouldn't have been able to obtain access prior to the flights?

9/11 had to have been PLANNED and orchestrated (scripted) many months or years before 9/11/01.

If AA/UA upper management was IN ON the hoax and they didn't necessarily have to be, then any scenario you perceive couldn't have occurred or be accessible is IRRELEVANT.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
This will turn out to be just another in a long line of steaming piles of moose droppings.
This is ludicrous from the get-go, it is so outrageous it doesn't even bear examination.
There is NO WAY this is true. Absolutely not. Zero possiblity.

and I'm sure those who were told the earth was round, reacted in a similar manner.

denial is the first reaction when the ego confronts an uncomfortable and inconvenient truth.

But if there were no real planes aka actual flights 11 or 175 at the wtc, this scenario and part of the puzzle begins to make perfect sense in conjuction with the fakery/nrpt debate.

the only question then remains,,,

were the hi jackers really just military perp pilots who appeared to be AA/UA pilots (imposters put there and given access) who then flew the planes filled with REAL and/or imposter passengers to an unknown location/airfield and a mid-air plane/transponder swap occurred and a military imposter "plane" (remote controlled), or a drone, took its place.







[edit on 23-12-2009 by Orion7911]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
post by Klaatumagnum

So your only problem is that the Hijackers flew the planes from takeoff?

Not my 'only problem'. BUT, in this one aspect, there is certainty that the hijackers were NOT in the cockpit for take-off.

which is nothing more than mere SPECULATION.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I can only speak from experience. NO airline pilot would let that airplane take-off under those circumstances. No way. It is just obvious logic,

unless of course those pilots were on the perp payroll or murdered and then the plane pirated.

many scenarios are possible, but since you weren't there, you CANNOT say NO AIRLINE PILOT would do this or that.

NO WAY.

thats OBVIOUS LOGIC and experience has nothing to do with this issue. Its irrelevant.

your logic is just PURE SPECULATION, OPINION and CONJECTURE.

So please stop giving the appearance as if it were fact.

Originally posted by bowlbyville
I've worked in the airline industry for 25+ years...the flight wasn't hijacked before takeoff...the guy is either listening to someone who is pulling his leg or he's simply full of it.

whether or not you've worked or work in the airline industry for a 100+ years is totally irrelevant and means nothing in this situation.

You're not in any position nor does your opinion have any credibility when it comes to determining whether or not bellone or his sources are telling the truth... and i'd consider his opinion long before i'd consider yours or others that haven't put themselves and lives OUT THERE in the lions pit to expose an area of 9/11 that everyone with a brain who's done a real investigation already knows is being covered up.

[edit on 22-12-2009 by Orion7911]

Originally posted by Swing Dangler

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Swing Dangler

 

Did you even read your own (alleged) blog???

OOOPS so much for the looking outward excuse.

I love how these conspiracy theorists just shoot themselves in the feet.

The scenarios above:

London to New York

Tokyo to the U.S.

Seoul to the U.S.

Havana to the U.S.

How am I doing so far??? Are THOSE within the USA???

Oh...well, there were offered two examples from...let's see....JANUARY 1999!!!
Miami/Oklahoma City.
San Diego/Anchorage (You do realize where Anchorage is, right? AND, how to get there from San Diego, right?)
Oh, then there was the gem...London-Cairo.
Yup! NORAD was all over that one.

I say again: Those sorts of isolated exercises have no bearing on the real-world events of 9/11. FOUR nearly simultaneous, unexpected hijackings that were so audacious in thought that it had the inevitable time lag in recognizing the fact.
Those other imaginary exercise scenarios are PRE-PLANNED!!!! Everyone,going into them, is EXPECTING them!!!!!
Can't you see the vital difference there???

I can't believe I'm responding to this nonsense.

Go back and read what was happening on 4/15/00, 4/19/00,10/21/00, and as early as July 1, 2001. Do you understand what inside-inside means?

Now do you understand why Meyers was lying to the 9/11 Commission and the public?

Your the only debunker I know who claims NORAD Exercises Hijack Summary are exercises that DO NOT prepare the participants to respond to a hijackings. Explain to me how that is not twisted logic?

Now do you have an example of a black box that was never found after a land based aircraft crash/accident? I'm still waiting.

Me too, I wouldn't hold out too much hope though We have a 'weakest argument cherry picker' !

Abductee

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Lillydale

 

No....the Flight recorders do NOT 'always survive', nor are they 'always recovered'.

The issue and key word in this case is RECOVERED.

And the likelyhood in this particular scenario that BOTH were NOT and could not be AT ALL, is next to IMPOSSIBLE and ZERO... except of course on 9/11.

Once again we have pretty much another example where the physical laws that govern this universe or logic and reason, were suspended on 9/11.










[edit on 23-12-2009 by Orion7911]

Originally posted by Orion7911

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Lillydale

 

No....the Flight recorders do NOT 'always survive', nor are they 'always recovered'.

The issue and key word in this case is RECOVERED.

And the likelyhood in this particular scenario that BOTH were NOT and could not be AT ALL, is next to IMPOSSIBLE and ZERO... except of course on 9/11.

Once again we have pretty much another example where the physical laws that govern this universe were suspended.

In any case I should assure you, that suspension started, in weedwhackers mind long ago.. 2nd post in this thread

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by truthquest

 

Back to the claim though, it seems ridiculous that the hijackers would be allowed to take off after entering the cockpit.

This will turn out to be just another in a long line of steaming piles of moose droppings.

This is ludicrous from the get-go, it is so outrageous it doesn't even bear examination.

There is NO WAY this is true. Absolutely not. Zero possiblity.

could there be a psychic in the room, or just a time waster??

Suspension of logic indeed:

doesn't even bear examination.

Abductee

[edit on 22-12-2009 by UFOabducteebe]

Originally posted by Shadow Herder exercises on 911 using real aircraft and fake signature 'blips' on radar.

The level of debunking going on here really points to this theory as possibly true.

the level of debunking on the tv fakery issue far surpasses the hijacked B4 take off theory which also points to that theory as being even more highly probable.

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
Understand that it has been admitted that there are people employed to come to forums just like this one to obsefucate the truth and protect the agencies involved i.e USAF, Norad, ect.

Yup. But I won't mention any names.....errr Jthomas, Good ol disinfo dave and the list goes on.