NRO's 9/11 'mock' plane crash set for 9:32am, drill included a smoke generator!

"The Pentagon is right in the middle of an industrial park and hordes of eyewitnesses specifically saw the passenger jet hit the Pentagon"

Please direct me to copies of the signed witness statements from these hordes of individuals so I can determine:

1) if these people really existed
2) how thoroughly they were interviewed

Sorry, but watching some person giving a ten second interview on TV or reading a couple of lines of what they had to say on the web is not what legal professionals would label as legitimate evidence. Since, according to your account, there were hordes of eyewitnesses, their official signed statements of the event should not be too difficult to locate.

Do these signed statements even exist...or...are these witness statements considered classified evidence because they do not jive with the Official Fantasy?

reply to post by SphinxMontreal


I take it you have never been anywhere near DC, or Arlington at rush hour in the morning. If you have, then you wouldnt be spouting off such incredulity.

I had the oppertunity last year to travel to DC, of all times, on Memorial Day weekend. We spent about 3-4 days in DC, which included weekdays, and I got to see first hand the thousands and thousands of people in and around the DC area, and especially around the Pentagon. I even had to fun of getting stuck in traffic next to the Pentagon, on the I-395 eastbound and westbound. Also drove and rode down VA-27 / South Washington Blvd in the mornings. Also been to the Arlington National Cemetary at Lee's house overlooking the Pentagon. You have NO idea just how many eyes would have been able to CLEARLY see a 757 AA flying into the Pentagon. Its just IMPOSSIBLE that only a handful would have seen it, as traffic around the Pentagon in the morning is incredible.

There really are most definately thousands of witnesses that saw the plane plunge into the Pentagon, whether it thundered right over their car on Columbia Pike/244, flew right in front of their noses on VA-27 or I-395, if for whatever reason they didnt feel to get interviewed, or told anyone about it, that is their perogative. If what they saw was so horrible, why would they want to repeat it if we are to relive that day for years to come on TV, internet, or print? So because these people didnt come forward to tell everyone what they saw, you take it as if nothing happened? Well what if they didnt see a plane hit the Pentagon, and yet they had a ringside seat on say I-395 eastbound, VA-27 south or northbound, why havent they stepped forward right after the event? Or later? If there were thousands that saw the plane hit the Pentagon, well then if there wasnt a plane, then there should be thousands of them too. But there arent. There are majority-wise those that SAW the plane hit the Pentagon. No matter how you try to dodge the facts, or twist them, or ignore them, they will always be there staring you in the face. A plane DID hit the Pentagon, and many many many people DID see it happen right in front of them. Its too bad YOU ignore the majority that did and focus on the ones who may ever so slightly suggest it might have impacted. I mean damn, even CIT's star witnesses ALL saw the plane hit the Pentagon, so I mean come on. How desperate are you to ignore the facts and stick your head in the sand ever so deeper?

[edit on 6/11/2010 by GenRadek]

reply to post by GoodOlDave


" ...and yet otherwise intelligent people still believe this fantasia that it was a cruise missile and a bunch of burning tires. "

Don't know if that was directed at my previous post , so , for the sake of clarity , I was rebutting those who are implying that the smoke coming from the direction of the tractor-trailer was being produced by a pre-planted 'smoke-generator' .

I was simply pointing out the foolishness of the 'smoke-generator' by mentioning some of the more plausible explanations for the smoke coming from the trailer .

Maybe David Copperfield orchestrated the events of that day ?



[edit on 11-6-2010 by okbmd]

double post

[edit on 11-6-2010 by okbmd]

Reasons to run drills in parallel:

Get military personnel to pull of the feats with military precision, all while thinking that similation interface is still just a simulation interface (and thus having no idea that interface is controlling a real world excercise). This allows military-skilled personnel to similate and impact into, say, WTC 1 & 2, and actually cause it to happen in real life unwittingly. Though after the fact you'll have some loose ends to tie, for if they were to find their simulation perfectly mimicked a real life incident they may just come to a dangerous realization. I recommend claiming them to have been on the plane, or a covert op, or death in an unrelated practice exercise...or whatever really, that part doesn't matter at this point.

Get military defenses, NORAD, and the FAA to behave as needed in order to prevent the events from being stopped. As noted, the so frequently successful protocol to intercept under the slightest of trouble failed every time that day (except maybe the last?). The FAA was informed of the drills. When a real problem came to light it was noted that mass confusion arose, insuring further delay in the problem being properly identified and addressed, opening a window for completion despite the large time window. The Pentagon made no effort to intercept in order to protects its facilities and personnel because the point of the drill was to simulate an impact. The real impact was able to succeed because the drill was allowed to succeed, as the drill and the real event were one of the same.

Does that help, or does someone need to know the type of toilet paper used in the control tower in order to complete the story?

Something many don't seem to realize is that when people are near an event like this and see any part, even an aspect so incomplete it couldn't be usable as evidence, they will be speaking with others throughout the day. What may start as "I saw a flash out of the corner of my eye and turned to see smoke pouring out of the Pentagon" often turns into "I saw Flight 77 fly right into the Pentagon!" by the time they're ecstatic in front of the TV camera to play their important role in documenting the day's events.

Do you really not understand how? Well, after not really witnessing the event people will be heavily interacting with one another, and pieces of information will get tossed around and suddenly become part of that person’s claim to what they saw or heard, and eventually some more "official" information starts spreading, such as whatever is on the TV, and if such information even remotely fits with the little pieces they were actually exposed to it will adhere, in their minds, to what they witnessed, and suddenly their testimony has little if any real representation to what they actually experienced. What they will be claiming to have experienced will actually be mostly, or even entirely, what others have told them to have happened. Sometimes this is a subconscious process, other times dismissed from the consciousness in order to rise above as more in-the-know (and thus more important) than the others around you.

If you have a good understanding of this type of human behavior you would be well suited for a DOD or Intelligence Psyop department.

reply to post by Nefarious


A couple of practical quibbles with your post :-

(a) The proposed NRO exercise was purely in-house. It was intended as an evacuation exercise for staff. It did not involve any arm of the military in any way.

(b) In view of developments elsewhere that morning the exercise was cancelled.

So the impact of this drill which never happened on the terrorist attacks was what exactly ?

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by Nefarious

 

A couple of practical quibbles with your post :-

(a) The proposed NRO exercise was purely in-house. It was intended as an evacuation exercise for staff. It did not involve any arm of the military in any way.

I seem to be missing where that was shown. If it was here I apologize, but can you point me to that kind sir, as I can't further elaborate on that remark without a little more insight else I may stick my foot in my mouth.

(b) In view of developments elsewhere that morning the exercise was cancelled.

Um, yeah, after the plane impacted.

So the impact of this drill which never happened on the terrorist attacks was what exactly ?

I'm having a real hard time understanding you which makes me want to insult you, but I digress. Can you be more verbose in your communications, as I really don't get what your argument is. Or maybe the above requested information will take care of that for me.

reply to post by Alfie1

So the impact of this drill which never happened on the terrorist attacks was what exactly ?

Let me venture a guess since its quite obvious you won't get a straight answer here - the impact was.....

0.

Nothing, nada, zilch. Its really quite simple - go paging through the internet and find anything to do with the military and/or aviation and was dated 9/11/2001 and POOF! instant conspiracy. Never mind that there military exercises constantly being conducted and the ones conducted by the Air Force (which I know is not directly related to this mid morning fire drill) involve - amazingly - airplanes.

reply to post by Nefarious


Plenty of info. and sources here :-

www.911myths.com...

Please note never envisaged that a real plane would be used so no involvement of military or FAA >

And drill never happened anyway.

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by Nefarious

 

A couple of practical quibbles with your post :-

As with yours as per usual.

(a) The proposed NRO exercise was purely in-house. It was intended as an evacuation exercise for staff. It did not involve any arm of the military in any way.

There were multiple exersices taking place on the morning of 911 that involved MULTIPLE live-fly and simulated airliner hijacking exercises, cruise missile intercepts, and many other exercises that shadowed the attack, or were part of the attack, It was a good cover.

b) In view of developments elsewhere that morning the exercise was cancelled.

They cancelled the exercise I am sure but after the targets were hit. Was it a fail or a success of the exercise?

So the impact of this drill which never happened on the terrorist attacks was what exactly ?

Probably the same impact having FEMA all set up an prepared for a major attack at pier 92 on September 10th, 2001. They cancelled their simulation chemical terrorists attack exercise and became the command center for the morning of 911 having hundreds of fema agents on site the night before.
[

A small slice of brilliance - government attacks you, but says it was someone else, and is waiting to take you in its arms to help with FEMA on standby. You come away hating the countries they want to better control and pillage and hold on to a happy dream of a government standing by your side.

O_o

Originally posted by Nefarious
A small slice of brilliance - government attacks you, but says it was someone else, and is waiting to take you in its arms to help with FEMA on standby. You come away hating the countries they want to better control and pillage and hold on to a happy dream of a government standing by your side.

O_o

FEMA on standby ? You have been looking at too many conspiracy sites :-

www.wnd.com...

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by Alfie1

The Baby Seal Club & harrytuttle

I cannot believe you guys !

Please explain to me how a planned drill at the NRO, which never happened because of the drama unfolding elsewhere, is evidence of anything darkly sinister.

Wow, Alfie can't see the amazing coincidence with the NRO's plane-crash-into-building drill planned for the same day and same time that the Pentagon would be allegedly hit by a plane along with both having generators emitting smoke.

Can you spell D-E-N-I-A-L?

It is a coincidence, but coincidences happen all the time. You need far more than that to prove a conspiracy to mass murder.

In the case of this specific incidence of a planned drill it seems that some people are suggesting it is significant proof of something without being able to articulate how a cancelled drill had anything to do with anything.

Please give me a plausible reason how a cancelled drill at the NRO helped the plot along and I will look at it again.

I personally know a Detective on our local police department and he has told me more than once that if there is death involved the first thing they look at is any coincidences.
In a criminal investigation of deaths or murder there is no such thing as a coincidence.
Regards, Iwinder

reply to post by impressme



As you peel the layers of the 911 onion, it becomes more and more evident that the whole thing was just a made for TV movie, with quite possibly the towers built as props for their spectacular destruction in the biggest snuff film of all time.

S&F

Originally posted by Alfie1


FEMA on standby ? You have been looking at too many conspiracy sites :-

www.wnd.com...

FEMA was set up the night of September 10th,2001 in Lower manhatten blocks away from the wtc. They were preparing for a mock terrorist attack in lower Manhatten on September 11th 2001. There were hundreds of fema agents brought in for this exercise. A real terrorist attack occurred. Fact.

You have to stop visiting those damned fool anti truth sites. They are proven ignorant of the facts.

Originally posted by Shadow Herder

Originally posted by Alfie1


FEMA on standby ? You have been looking at too many conspiracy sites :-

www.wnd.com...

FEMA was set up the night of September 10th,2001 in Lower manhatten blocks away from the wtc. They were preparing for a mock terrorist attack in lower Manhatten on September 11th 2001. There were hundreds of fema agents brought in for this exercise. A real terrorist attack occurred. Fact.

You have to stop visiting those damned fool anti truth sites. They are proven ignorant of the facts.

edit on 8-4-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)

What evidence have you got for that beyond one guy making a mistake over dates in a Dan Rather interview please ?

Originally posted by Alfie1

What evidence have you got for that beyond one guy making a mistake over dates in a Dan Rather interview please ?

Please show us where Mr. Kenney, himself, said he mixed up the dates.

NY OEM rescheduled the Sept 12, 2001 drill (TriPOD) to May 22 when 9-11 changed Peir 92's priorities.

www.nyc.gov...

Though they don't mention what federal agencies were participating there, only the local agencies involved. Though here is an official document that does:

bussafety.fta.dot.gov...

September 11 was going to be a busy day at the OEM. Staff members arrived early to prepare for Operation Tripod, an exercise that would test the plan to distribute antibiotics to the entire city population during a bioterrorism attack. The exercise was planned for September 12, with police and fire department cadets to be used as the simulated civilian population. Pier 92 was set up as a model distribution station where the “victims” of the mock attack who needed to receive antibiotics would be treated.

The OEM staff heard a plane fly over their building, an unusual sound at that location, then they heard a popping noise. The kevlar-lined walls of the Emergency Operations Center deadened the sound of the plane crashing into the 110-story North Tower, directly across from the OEM offices in World Trade Center Building 7.
...
at 9:40 A.M., it grounded all flights in U.S. airspace.

The OEM staff was ordered to evacuate Building 7 immediately as a precaution, but interview sources indicate they did not initially respond with a sense of urgency. They calmly collected personal belongings and began removing OEM records, but they were urged to abandon everything and leave the building quickly.
...
A plan was developed to reestablish OEM’s functions at an alternate EOC located in the library of the Police Academy on East 20th Street, but this space was quickly outgrown. Because Pier 92 had already been set up for the September 12 exercise, OEM staff members moved there and quickly converted the space into a large EOC adequate to support the complex tasks of managing the nation’s largest catastrophic building collapse. In 31 hours, OEM staff had a functional facility just over 4 miles north-northwest of the WTC.

Ultimately, 175 agencies were represented at Pier 92. Each agency had its own emergency response plan, but not all the plans were integrated. There was a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) representative at Pier 92, but FEMA also took over Pier 90 for its own EOC; Pier 94 became the family assistance unit, where the American Red Cross set up shop.
...
The Pier 92 EOC not only was a work site but also had 50 beds for staff members who could not
get home, and the facility served more than a thousand meals each day. The pier was protected by
a Coast Guard patrol, and cement barges were positioned to protect working areas from access from the water. The Jacob Javits Center served as headquarters for Urban Search and Rescue Teams (including the search dogs), Disaster Medical Assistance Teams, Disaster Mortuary Teams, and Veterinary Medical Assistance Teams arriving from across the United States. These teams were deployed by FEMA as part of the Federal Response Plan to support New York City’s own emergency responders.

Here's another interesting bit from that document:

People inside the South Tower felt the floor vibrate as if a small earthquake were occurring. Instinctively, they sought shelter behind the massive pillars in the lobby, then everything went black. The vibration lasted for about 30 seconds. The doors were knocked out, and a huge ball of flame created by the exploding diesel fuel from the building’s own supply tank shot from the elevator shaft and out the doors of the South Tower, consuming everything in its path. Minutes later, at 9:59 A.M., the tower collapsed.

A 30 second rumble from the lowest levels with an explosion bringing up a fireball, and then minutes later total collapse. Hmmmmm

"reminiscent of those pictures we've all seen ... have to get at the under-infrastructure of the building to bring it down"

Originally posted by ATH911

Originally posted by Alfie1

What evidence have you got for that beyond one guy making a mistake over dates in a Dan Rather interview please ?

Please show us where Mr. Kenney, himself, said he mixed up the dates.

Bump for Alfie.

And also, why did Mr. Kenney start off by saying "To be honest with you, we arrived on..." as if he knew he was about to reveal something?