US Gov envisions hijacked aircraft used as missiles Pre-1961

I found this quite interesting, and I thought I'd share it with you all.

We are all well aware of Bush Jr.'s statements that he or no one on his Administration could ever have concieved of people useing hijacked aircraft and crashing them into buildings.

Well not only do we have the little model pictures, pre 9/11; of a crashed airliner in a scaled down version of thepentagon, but now we also have an incident I just found out about watching the ID (Investigation Discovery) Channel.

An incident that happened just prior to Watergate (which is probably why it has never been mentioned, and forgotten by the American people, but government Intelligence agencies were well aware of it from 1961-2001) where taped they played conversations of a very scared Richard Nixon talking about a hijacked passengernger jet possibly targetting the Whitehouse, and that everyone should be evacuated!!!

I found this quite stunning.

I mean how can OS people believe in these people when they are caught Red handed time and time again.

Heck they were training THAT day to intercept hijacked airplanes that could possibly be flown into buildings. One report with the Twin Towers in Crosshairs.

Yet they lie to our faces over and over.

Tell me OS believer, what is the purpose of this lieing? To seperate themselves as much as they can from the 9/11 attacks? or to make them look just like liars? I don't quite get it....

Also why should we trust them on matters of significant importance if the Bush Administration is so ready to lie about minor things, that no one would have cared? I mean If they would have just come out and said, yes were were aware that hijacked passenger jets might be used a missiles, and flown into buildings, but we just dropped the ball on that day due to the confusion. Why not say that?

Why go into this whole lie about "never imagining large passenger jets being flown into buildings", when it's obvious , on many occasions you/the CIA, and prior Administrations did?

There's only one reason they didn't tell the truth, because like I said they wanted to seperate themselves as far away from 9/11 as humanly possible, even though back in 1961 (some 40 YEARS prior to 9/11) our government HAD envisioned and were even takeing precautions against large passenger jets being used as a missile, and flown into the White house.

Really they should have just told us all the truth, and admitted to what went wrong. But no they couldn't, because that would place a select few in Bush Administration, sitting right in the drivers seat; controlling the events of 9/11.

Every little lie they tell just compounds that fact more and more as I hear them. New ones like this still popping up to this day.

reply to post by Nola213


I think what you are referencing is "Northwoods". It was a think tank charged with coming up with ways to justify a war with Cuba. They had proposed things like attacking Guantanamo, faking Cuban jets taking out a US passenger liner, etc..

2PacSade-

The government isn't some disembodied brain sitting in a tub of fluid, nor is it some super computer that everyone goes to for leadership decisions. It's a collection of people, like you and me, and none of them are any more immortal than the rest of us are.

The point is that it doesn't make any difference if someone in the gov't came up with the idea of planes being used as missiles back in 1961. This was forty years before the 9/11 attack and it's a given that the people who came up with that are long gone. All that matters is if the Bush administration knew about what that guy wrote, and it's not humanly possible for anyone to read every single page written by every single gov't analyst for the past forty years. I'm the first one to agree that Bush is horribly incompetent, but even I can't criticise him on that failing.

You're really grasping at straws to justify the existance of this secret conspiracy of yours with this bit. You know that and so do I.

Hi everyone,

I am inclined to partially agree with goodoldave inasmuch as the government is a collection of people and it is inconceivable that the report in the OP would be remembered from 40 years past. However, I seem to recall war game planning for 9/11 included a light aircraft being flown into the Pentagon, I am pretty sure I have seen the image, can we link to it because it would destroy goodoldave's argument on this topic.

Here is a little quote i just found from JOHN J. LUMPKIN, Associated Press Writer

In a promotion for speaker John Fulton, a CIA officer assigned as chief of NRO's strategic gaming division, the announcement says, "On the morning of September 11th 2001, Mr. Fulton and his team ... were running a pre-planned simulation to explore the emergency response issues that would be created if a plane were to strike a building. Little did they know that the scenario would come true in a dramatic way that day."

So, to the 'trusters' on this site, go figure.

Originally posted by yyyyyyyyyy
In a promotion for speaker John Fulton, a CIA officer assigned as chief of NRO's strategic gaming division, the announcement says, "On the morning of September 11th 2001, Mr. Fulton and his team ... were running a pre-planned simulation to explore the emergency response issues that would be created if a plane were to strike a building. Little did they know that the scenario would come true in a dramatic way that day."

So, to the 'trusters' on this site, go figure.

..to which I would respond, I am strongly, STRONGLY suspecting you are quoting this out of context. I say this becuase those damned fool conspiracy web sites are notorious for constantly taking quotes deliberately out of context to get people all paranoid over shadows. The context of saying, "I love children" makes all the difference in the world depending on whether it's being said by Santa Claus or Michael Jackson.

The fact is, the Pentagon is right outside Washington D.C. which has TWO major airports (Reagan and Andrews) so I will wager anything you want that the rest of this half-quote refers to planning to deal with an accidental plane crash, rather than a terrorist attack. The fact that your own "included a light aircraft" statement tells me there's some embellishment going on right away. What the heck would a light aircraft do against a structure like the Pentagon, anyway?

I will henceforth presume that if I hear no evidence to the contrary, it is an acknowledgement that the statement is correct.

Goodoldave,

I copied and pasted the entire paragraph as written by JOHN J. LUMPKIN, Associated Press Writer, if the paragraph is out of context then a big whoops on my part, but after all are we not all on the same side, we are all human and all want to know the truth.

more info here: letsrollforums.com... about half way down the page, best to do a word search for fulton to find it.

nl.newsbank.com... p_text_advanced-0=%28%22john%20fulton%22%29&xcal_numdocs=20&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date&xcal_useweights=no - again about half way down.

Agency planned exercise on Sept. 11 built around a plane crashing into a building
Author: JOHN J. LUMPKIN Associated Press Writer
Date: August 21, 2002
Publication: Associated Press Archive

Now, do you still strongly suggest it's out of context? Hard to tell for sure cause it looks like the AP article is a pay article. If you have any more probs then it's an issue with the work of John Lumpkin. So I take it the Associated Press and The National Law Enforcement and Security Institute are foolish conspiracy sites?

Peace, as I said, we are all ultimately on the same side.

Originally posted by yyyyyyyyyy
Now, do you still strongly suggest it's out of context? Hard to tell for sure cause it looks like the AP article is a pay article. If you have any more probs then it's an issue with the work of John Lumpkin. So I take it the Associated Press and The National Law Enforcement and Security Institute are foolish conspiracy sites?

I wasn't saying John Lumpkin was quoting it out of context. I was saying that YOU were quoting it out of context, and after looking through your own links I found out that you *are* quoting it out of context. Literally not a few paragraphs down from what you're quoting, we see the following:

Agency planned drill for plane crash last Sept. 11

Associated Press
August 22, 2002

WASHINGTON -- In what the government describes as a bizarre coincidence, one U.S. intelligence agency was planning an exercise last Sept. 11 in which an errant aircraft crashed into one of its buildings. But the cause wasn't terrorism -- it was to be a simulated accident.
Officials at the Chantilly, Va.-based National Reconnaissance Office had scheduled an exercise that morning in which a small corporate jet crashed into one of the four towers at the agency's headquarters building after experiencing a mechanical failure.

The agency is about four miles from the runways of Washington Dulles International Airport.

So yes, it WAS to practice for a simulated accident. What I find incredible is that I got this from your own links, which means that you didn't even bother to read your own information. The very second you came across some sentence that kinda-sorta appeared to claim what you wanted it to say, you stopped reading and blindly cut and pasted it. If that ain't "quoting out of context" then I don't know what is.

Now, before you get all defensive, please know I'm not here to insult you or embarass you. I'm here to show you how these damned fool conspiracy web sites are putting out all sorts of stupid innuendo exactly like this into people's heads to get them all paranoid over nothing. If you're seriously out to learn the truth as you claim, then hopefully you'll have learned Dylan Avery, Alex Jones, Morgan Reynolds, and the rest of those conspiracy con artists are NOT part of the solution. They're part of the problem.

Goodoldave,

I hear ya, it was imagined that a plane was to be crashed into a building. It's only a small step away from terrorists using planes as weapons, and terrorism did not start in 2001. WW2, the Japanese army used planes in suicide attacks. On on 9/11 a drill was planned that were similar to the attacks. Sorry for taking it out of context, did you read the rest of the the let's roll forum information, esp the stuff on physics and how they buildings did not come down from planes alone? But yeah, I am not a journalist so I apologize for getting the details of the story wrong. And thanks for being gentle with me, it's all to easy to be caught up in emotion of arguments on the 'net.

Peace,

The take-home message, it's hard to prove the US government did imagine hijacked planes being used as weapons, and IMHO, you have to give folks the benefit of the doubt, on this issue it seems that truthers (or just me) may have dropped the ball.

Originally posted by yyyyyyyyyy
Goodoldave,

I hear ya, it was imagined that a plane was to be crashed into a building. It's only a small step away from terrorists using planes as weapons, and terrorism did not start in 2001. WW2, the Japanese army used planes in suicide attacks. On on 9/11 a drill was planned that were similar to the attacks. Sorry for taking it out of context, did you read the rest of the the let's roll forum information, esp the stuff on physics and how they buildings did not come down from planes alone? But yeah, I am not a journalist so I apologize for getting the details of the story wrong. And thanks for being gentle with me, it's all to easy to be caught up in emotion of arguments on the 'net.

Peace,

The take-home message, it's hard to prove the US government did imagine hijacked planes being used as weapons, and IMHO, you have to give folks the benefit of the doubt, on this issue it seems that truthers (or just me) may have dropped the ball.

I think that there is really a huge difference between imagining a light aircraft crashing due to engine failure and a large airliner being deliberately flown into a building at full throttle.

Another important point, which conspiracy theorists prefer to ignore, is that as soon as the real life drama of 9/11 began to unfold the NRO exercise was cancelled. It was only ever intended as an evacuation drill for staff, who would have some of their usual exits blocked off to simulate damage from the plane crash.