Another seriously undeniable flaw in the 'official' 9/11 story.

reply to post by hooper


I apologize for misspeaking (typing?) - seems a little "nit-picky" to me, but that's okay - no problem with being held to a high standard. You seem to have spent alot of time on ATS over the last couple of months trying to "prop up" the official story - are you NEW at the office in Virginia, or what? I actually feel good that you didn't find anything else to beat on me about....did I do that good a job, or cat got your tongue? oh wait -
No Sense Asking.... lol

reply to post by TopsyTurvyFuture


A little nit-picky? You describe NORAD taking a defensive posture due to Russian military activities as a joint exercise between the US and Russia as pretty much a typo. Its the kind of "typo" that gets repeated and before you know it, the "typo" has become factified.

You provide a partial list of military exercises and operations and point to just a few and pretty much say "inside job" all the while ignoring the fact that on any given day every branch of the military is conducting some kind of drill or exercise somewhere. Its what they do. If the military is not actually involved in war they are training for war.

As to your smarmy remark about working in "Virginia" - don't flatter yourself, nobody down there gives a damn about you or your opinions.

hi i am new here and i cant make a new post for my self but very interesting indeed i also came across this

www.wnd.com...

new details about twa flight 800 ..

makes me rly wonder whats going on ..


sry if it has been posted like i said i am new ..many thanks

How many flaws and anomalies are there in the Official 9/11 Fairy Tale? Hundreds? Thousands?

I can't believe ANYONE (including ATS' professional debunkers) still believes this enormous pack of lies.

reply to post by hooper


Well well - looks like hooper got up on the wrong side of the bunk this morning...maybe some MEDITATION exercises would help....Thanks for pointing out the obvious BTW - of course there is training everyday at every military base around the world, but we're only talking about the exercises that were involved with this particular scenario, aren't we - not the NBC training taking place at Fort Bragg that day. Pretty weak comeback, my friend. But just for your edification, there were no other NORAD monitored exercises that day that involved external components. Got anything else? Sounds to me like you need you may need some rebuttal re-training....so let's just review the public information that you have no answer for:
(1) UBL ties to the CIA (2) Several training operations that day that conveniently provided cover for the attack to take place (3) several operations that day putting military and FEMA first responders into place for the aftermath. You got anything for these hooper?
Oh, thank you SO much for your compliment - so the "people down there" in Virginia have no interest, but one slip in typing and I change history forever...gee, I guess I'm really important after all.
Since you have no answers for the information I posted that actually matters, if you want to criticize my grammar or spelling - please feel free to waste the thread's time further. Have a nice day - wherever you are.

reply to post by TopsyTurvyFuture


I don't know why you think I am attacking you because I ask you a question.

I noticed, on page 1, that you referred to an exercise on 9/11 which was " very nearly the same scenario as the actual event ." As I hadn't heard of such an exercise I asked you what you had in mind.

In response you have given me sources for various military exercises, none of which is out of the way and which taxpayers expect their forces to be doing. But, you describe as " most importantly " the NRO exercise.

I thought you were probably referring to that so I consider it appropriate to correct your misleading description. The imagined scenario at the NRO was of a light plane with engine failure impacting their building. Bearing in mind that the NRO is only a few miles from the runways of Dulles Airport not a far-fetched idea. Can you seriously suggest that this is " very nearly the same " as deliberately flying hi-jacked fully laden airliners into buildings ?

No aircraft were actually involved in the NRO proposal. It was purely imaginary and was called off when the real life dramatic events unfolded elsewhere. You say this imaginary and called off exercise was "being monitored by NORAD " Can you substantiate that please ?

Here is a link to further info :-


www.911myths.com...

reply to post by LieBuster


The tapes at the gas station were taken as well as the tapes on top of the Sheraton Hotel right across the street from HQ Marine Corps Henderson Hall. That big Sheraton hotel had the tapes from their rooftop cameras confiscated within 10 minutes of the "crash". Why would those tapes be of such crucial TIME SENSITIVE concern???????

reply to post by Imightknow


just out of curiosity, how is it that you have such a precise (10 minutes) timeline of when the tapes were aquired?

reply to post by TopsyTurvyFuture

(1) UBL ties to the CIA

You have some proof for that directly linking the CIA and UBL? I mean direct links, not the usual CIA was in Afghanistan during the Soviet occupation and so was UBL, ergo they are linked.

(2) Several training operations that day that conveniently provided cover for the attack to take place

Please explain how any military exercise that day provided "cover" and also please explain what you mean by "cover".

(3) several operations that day putting military and FEMA first responders into place for the aftermath.

Where and how? FEMA has offices in NYC and of course Fort Dix is just over the river in New Jersey, where it has been since near the end of World War I. Nothing special there. You mean the Pentagon? You find it suprising that there was a military presence at the Pentagon or a FEMA presence in Washington, DC?

reply to post by brokedown


Actually, there was a very thorough investigation. Admittedly not all of it is open because we are dealing with criminal matters as well as matters of national security.

But 10,000 plus page report done by the NIST on the collapse of the WTC buildings, a building analysis done by the ASCE on the Pentagon, millions of manhours invested by the FBI, CIA, DOJ, NSA, etc. Not to mention the 9/11 commission report.

If by "thorough" you mean that every conspiracy theory that found its way to the internet should be given an open vetting and afforded the same respect as any other avenue of the officail investigation, then by all means you are correct. It was not by that definition, "thorough'.

reply to post by TopsyTurvyFuture

Since you have no answers for the information I posted that actually matters, if you want to criticize my grammar or spelling - please feel free to waste the thread's time further. Have a nice day - wherever you are.

Sorry, not going to let you slip on this one. You want to chalk this open misrepresentation up as a typo, grammar or spelling mistake, but that is not what it was. By refering to the operation was a "joint operation" with the Russians you are implying, and hoping that the reader will infer, that the US military chose the timing and the date. However, it appears that the US role in the operation was a direct response to a military exercise conducted by the Russians at a time and place of their choosing, not ours.

reply to post by Alfie1


Okay Alfie - MY description is not misleading, I correctly identified the NRO drill as involving an errant aircraft crashing into the building - I find it interesting however, since the only acknowledged public account of the drill characterizes the drill exactly as I do, that you added details such a "light plane with engine failure". That's not anywhere in the acknowledged account. The link you provide correctly points out problems with other accounts that characterize the NRO drill as having to do with hijacked planes or terrorist activity, and since my description has none of those elements - your link is not germain to this discussion.
As for my suggestion that - not this one exercise - but the combination of the exercises being very nearly the same as the actual event, since that's what I put in the post its reasonable to assume that this is my opinion.
Some info - very few training exercises involved actual aircraft before 2001, because its not necessary - as is the case with your reminder. As for NORAD monitoring the drill, there is no way to substantiate that with a link - because none exists. The only people that know this for sure are people who were in the chain of command or in one of 12 rooms around the Country on that day - I will leave it at that.
Let's find a little "common ground" here - (1) we can agree that there was what can only be described as "chaos" in NORAD control rooms on that morning. www.vanityfair.com... - these tapes show that and even the 9/11 commission report says that. (2) Much of the confusion had to do with exercises being conducted on that day - agreed? I refer you again to the tapes at the link above ("Is this exercise or real world" is heard more than once on the tapes - mainly talking about hijacked planes). (3) The person credited with being behind the attacks was in Afghanistan, leading the fight against the Soviet occupation in the 80's - the US government supported and helped fund these "freedom fighters" - agreed?
Now - given these things that we can agree on, can we logically deduce that there may be more than coincidence here? I have given my opinion (as stated in my original email) and now you have to make up your own mind. I have given what I can offer - and there will be no more.

reply to post by hooper


(1) As stated previously - I suggest that you Google the name "Tim Osman"
(2) Please re-read my posts - if you read them, you would have your answer
(3) Again, please re-read the posts. FEMA set up a Command Center at pier 29 the day before the attacks, supposedly as part of an exercise that was to take place on 12 Sept 01, and the closest military base to the towers also had a similar exercise that was to occur on the morning of 11 Sept 01 which involved gathering first responders.

reply to post by TopsyTurvyFuture


I googled "Tim Osman"

It's hilarious!

Thanks for the laughs...

Oh, almost forgot....here:

forums.randi.org...

reply to post by hooper


Well, according to the flashing warning at the bottom of the page - it looks like this thread is in danger. Probably because we're very close to "hijacking" this thread - no pun intended. SO I will answer one more question and then I'm gone. I ask you to consider the "Occam's Razor" test for my faux pas - is it REALLY that I wanted people to think the Russians were in on this, or did I simply misspeak? Or is it that the timeline for this attack (including the rescheduling of a annual NORAD exercise) was chosen BECAUSE the Russian exercise was scheduled for that time and it fit perfectly into what the planners needed?
Good luck !

reply to post by hooper


I'm not selling anything to you...
I'm just saying I want to see those videos from the Pentagon.

reply to post by TopsyTurvyFuture

1) As stated previously - I suggest that you Google the name "Tim Osman"

I did just as you suggested, lot of links to conspiracy websites, just as I suspected. No real information.

(2) Please re-read my posts - if you read them, you would have your answer

Again, did as you suggested, still don't know what you mean by cover.

(3) Again, please re-read the posts. FEMA set up a Command Center at pier 29 the day before the attacks, supposedly as part of an exercise that was to take place on 12 Sept 01, and the closest military base to the towers also had a similar exercise that was to occur on the morning of 11 Sept 01 which involved gathering first responders.

Better check your facts, FEMA was planning to set up a command center on Pier 92 on September 12th as part of a bioterror drill. There was no command center in place on September 11, in fact, even with those assets in place it still took three days to set up the center after September 11.

reply to post by TopsyTurvyFuture


Hello
I am not sure if you know but when the bombs were exploded on the London underground on July 7th ,there was an "exercise going on that day aswell"same type of scenario .

Hmmmm 2 attacks / 2 training exercises both exercises with the same scenario as what happened

"I am not sure if you know but when the bombs were exploded on the London underground on July 7th ,there was an "exercise going on that day aswell"same type of scenario."

One who has a functioning brain may conclude that since similar training exercises were taking place on both dates, the chances of the military thwarting both attacks would have been much better. But no, this is 9/11, where 19 cave dwelling terrorists had absolutely no problems bypassing a defense system which employs thousands of well trained personnel and consists of equipment which is worth mega bucks.

Or maybe, the U.S. Defense system is just a huge money pit which is not capable of defending the country. Anyway you look at it and for whatever reasons, those in power dropped the ball big time.

[edit on 19-4-2010 by SphinxMontreal]

Originally posted by -Blackout-
I ran upon this website and these theories/facts within this link below. Its some interesting stuff.

www.salem-news.com...

Thoughts?

My thoughts:

First and foremost...
A new term has been developed "theories/facts".... What is that??

Now, moving to the article mentioned.
The author is clearly in denyal.
First let´s see who he is:

""Anthony Lawson is a retired international-prize-winning commercials director, cameraman, ad-agency creative director and voice over. He used to be known for shooting humorous commercials.""

Let´s note that:
He is neither a structural engineer, physicist, expert on demolition or explosives, nor military expert, or aviation expert.

Very significant quote:
""After recovering from the shock of seeing the Twin Towers collapse, on subsequent showings, I developed a strong feeling that what I was seeing and what I was being told were quite different things.""

Simply put.- DENIAL.

Now let´s do some "debunking" shall we??

He says that:

""The 9/11 Commission failed to ensure that at least one of the appropriate government agencies: the NTSB, the FBI or the FAA was commissioned to positively identify the aircraft which were allegedly involved in the murders of nearly 3,000 people, on Sept, 11, 2001.""

Well. He lies here because the aircraft involved in the 9/11 attacks were identified, positively. The matter of aircraft identification was never in doubt. There´s a huge amount of information about this.
And we must also note:
After the total ground stop was ordered, only 4 pax. planes were not accounted for:
AA11, AA77, UA175 and UA93.
So. Through that simple bit of information, the problem of identity is solved.

Another quote:

""There is absolutely nothing which firmly connects the four allegedly-hijacked planes to any of the 9/11 crash sites.""

This is such a big LIE.
There is HUGE amounts of evidence of the identity of the flights, plus debris, eyewitnesses, DNA identification of remains, etc.


Another jewel by Mr. Lawson:

""However the NTSB has confirmed that—apparently for the first time from its inception, in 1967, since when it has investigated more than 124,000 other aviation accidents—it took no part in investigating any of the air crashes which occurred on September 11, 2001.""

Now. The ones who have read through this thread know by now that this is false. It´s been explained (debunked).
The NTSB did work "with the FBI" assisting on the investigation.

A little more:

""The FBI, backed up by a separate letter from the Justice Department has refused to release any information, under the Freedom of Information Act, about any debris recovered from the crash sites.""

Could this have anything to do with national security, or with an "ongoing investigation"?? And what does he mean by "any information"??
The fact is LOTS OF INFORMATION is publicly available from all the crash sites!!!

And here:

""It may be recalled that a transcript taken from this recorder formed the basis for several TV dramas and one Academy-Award winning feature film.""

Mr. Lawson was very close to the truth. However, he missed the only point that was directly involved with his profession. Minor thing, but still caught my attention. United 93 was nominated, but didn´t win.

So, basically and sadly, what Mr. Lawson shows us is denyal, and also that he has fallen under the "truther movement" spell.
Denial is a normal defense mechanism. But takes away our objectivity.

My 2 cts.




[edit on 19-4-2010 by rush969]