Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

UNDEBUNKABLE 911 Facts = Complicity

page: 1
15
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 10:38 AM
link   

On the very morning of 9/11/01, five war games and terror drills were being conducted by several U.S. defense agencies, including one "live fly" exercise using REAL planes.

Then-Acting Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force General Richard B. Myers, admitted to 4 of the war games in congressional testimony -- see transcript here



Norad had run drills for several years of planes being used as weapons against the World Trade Center and other U.S. high-profile buildings , and "numerous types of civilian and military aircraft were used as mock hijacked aircraft". In other words, drills using REAL AIRCRAFT simulating terrorist attacks crashing jets into buildings, including the twin towers, were run. www.mdw.army.mil..." target="_blank" class="postlink"> official military website showing 2000 military drill, using miniatures, involving a plane crashing into the Pentagon.

Moreover, there are indications that some of the major war games previously scheduled for October 2001 were MOVED UP to September 11th by persons unknown.

Interestingly, Vice President Cheney was apparently in charge of ALL of the war games and coordinated the government's "response" to the attacks. See this Department of State announcement; this CNN article; and this previously-cited essay.

And while the government has consistently stated that it did not know where the aircraft were before they struckthis short video clip of the Secretary of Transportation's testimony before the 9/11 Commission shows that Cheney monitored flight 77 for many miles as it approached the Pentagon. How could one of the most heavily-defended buildings in the world have been successfully attacked, when the Vice President of the United States, in charge of counter-terrorism on 9/11, watched it approach from many miles away?

Moreover, a former air traffic controller, who knows the flight corridor which the two planes which hit the Twin Towers flew "like the back of my hand" and who handled two actual hijackings says that that planes can be tracked on radar even when their transponders are turned off, and that Donald Rumsfeld and the Pentagon tracked three of the four flights from the point of their hijacking to hitting their targets (also, listen tothis interview).


Additionally this diagram shows that the hijacked planes flew over numerous military bases on 9/11 before crashing. See also this essay regarding the stand down of the military; and see this war game proposal created before 9/11 revolving around Bin Laden and including "live-fly exercises" involving real planes, later confirmed by this official Department of Defense website.


Which scenario is more likely from a strictly logistical perspective:
(1) An outsider sitting in a cave defeating the air defense system of the sole military superpower; or
(2) Someone like Cheney -- who on 9/11 apparently had full control over all defense, war game and counter-terrorism powers -- rigging and gaming the system?
Remember that for the attacks to have succeeded, it was necessary that actions be taken in the middle of the war games and the actual attacks which would thwart the normal military response. For example, Cheney watched flight 77 approach the Pentagon from many miles out, but instructed the military to do nothing (as shown in the testimony of the Secretary of Transportation, linked above). Could Bin Laden have done that?
www.911proof.com...

Fighter jets were also sent far off-course over the Atlantic Ocean in the middle of the attacks (testimony of Senator Mark Dayton), so as to neutralize their ability to intercept the hijacked airliners.



And air traffic controllers claim they were still tracking what they thought were hijacked planes long after all 4 of the real planes had crashed. This implies that false radar blips remained on their screens after all 4 planes went down, long after the military claims they purged the phantom war-game-related radar signals. Could Bin Laden have interfered with the full purging of false radar blips inserted as part of the war games? In other words, could Bin Laden have overridden the purging process so that some false blips remained and confused air traffic controllers? The answer is clear.
www.911proof.com...








[edit on 10-6-2010 by Shadow Herder]




posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 11:05 AM
link   
Great thread. I've never once seen an adequate explanation for how 19 hijackers could have possibly known about military war games, when the existence let alone details of which were highly classified.

Coincidence I guess.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 11:14 AM
link   
Don't forget to add quotes from Rice, Bush and the many others who said "we never thought of planes being used as weapons".

Include the many times they were warned by foreign intelligence services of just that, a plot to use planes as weapons.

Include the Pentagon MASCAL exercise.

It boggles me with all the warnings, exercises and drills how they could say they never had that idea, boggles me even further that hardly anyone questions the statement.

Things like this go a lot further at suggesting complicity, knowledge, or involvement than any no plane theory does. I guess thats why things like this are widely ignored.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 12:27 PM
link   
You really need to learn to stop going to these damned fool conspiracy web sites for your information. Their agenda has absolutely nothing to do with researching the events of 9/11 and everything to do with getting people all paranoid over shadows.

Example # 1- the "NORAD ran drills of planes being used as wepons" claim. This person omits the fact that planners always believed such planes would be flying in from outside the country. The posters own sources says that there was never any drill that was identical to the events of 9/11. This is classical conspiracy monger innuendo dropping.

Example # 2 - the "Cheney was in charge of the wargames" claim. The false claim is made that "the secret service is in charge of the air force" (only in matters of presidentiual security can the secret service influence Air Force planning), which then leads to "Bush was out of commission at a florida school leaving Cheney in the White House" overlookign the fact that Bush was still president regardless of where he was, which is then perverted into becoming, "cheney was in charge of the war games". This is classical five degrees of separation, Kevin Bacon game playing.

Example # 3- the "interceptors were sent out over the ocean" claim. What isn't being pointed out is that out by Long Island there's a military aircraft staging area, where miliitary planes are put into holding patterns so they won't collide with commercial aircraft. This is classical cherrypicking information out of context.

Whether you're a truther, debunker, researcher, realist, or just a stamp collector, it doesn't matter. If someone has to play these mind games to manipulate their material to get the rest of us to believe what they want us to believe, and then pass it off as "undeniable facts", it's a de facto admission they know what they're saying is false, regardless of who it is that's doing it.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Have you ever read Crossing the Rubicon? War games on 9/11 aren't just about "getting paranoid over shadows". What about the insider trading, the warnings from every intelligence agency on earth, the fact that a jerk off doofus reporter managed to find Bin Laden but our intelligence agencies (with the highest budget of any intel agency on earth) have been looking for him for years, and can't find him...
Just a few more nails in the coffin of the OS. The only option left that saves the government from being complicit is that the "terrorists" have been running our intelligence agencies for years.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by time91
Have you ever read Crossing the Rubicon? War games on 9/11 aren't just about "getting paranoid over shadows".


Yes it is, once it's pointed out that these wargames are conducted *every* year, before and since 9/11. There's no coincidence about it.

This whole wargames bit is a conspiracy monger red herring anyway. Once the ground controllers announced it wasnt a drill, they knew the hijacking was real.


What about the insider trading, the warnings from every intelligence agency on earth, the fact that a jerk off doofus reporter managed to find Bin Laden but our intelligence agencies (with the highest budget of any intel agency on earth) have been looking for him for years, and can't find him...


If you're referring to Hamid Mir, he "didn't find bin Laden". Bin Laden sent his people to bring the reporter to him.

Interesting that you should bring him up, as during the interview, Bin Laden says that it was his mujahadeen who fought US troops in Somalia, rather than the Somalians, the US will be beheaded, and that the next century will be the century of the muslims. THIS is the guy you people keep insisting is innocent?



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 02:29 PM
link   

NORAD had drills of jets as weapons

By Steven Komarow and Tom Squitieri, USA TODAY WASHINGTON — 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. In another exercise, jets performed a mock shootdown over the Atlantic Ocean of a jet supposedly laden with chemical poisons headed toward a target in the United States. In a third scenario, the target was the Pentagon — but that drill was not run after Defense officials said it was unrealistic, NORAD and Defense officials say.

www.usatoday.com...

It's obvious that the exercises were used as cover to execute the attack.

Until Sept. 11, 2001, NORAD conducted four major exercises a year. Most included a hijack scenario, but not all of those involved planes as weapons. . NORAD has conducted more than 100 exercises, all with mock hijackings.

[edit on 10-6-2010 by Shadow Herder]



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Amalgam Virgo
Amalgam Virgo is a joint-service, cruise-missile defense exercise at Tyndall AFB.

Fast, low-flying cruise missiles are hard to detect. To practice their part in defending the U.S. from these missiles, members of the 513th Air Control Group deployed to Florida for the "Amalgam Virgo" cruise missile defense exercise. The multi-service exercise tested the defense and response capabilities to a cruise missile attack on Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla., June 1-4, 2001.

www.globalsecurity.org...



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 



Until Sept. 11, 2001, NORAD conducted four major exercises a year. Most included a hijack scenario, but not all of those involved planes as weapons. . NORAD has conducted more than 100 exercises, all with mock hijackings.


So, basically, NORAD conducts exercises every year and had so for years before 9/11 including hijack scenarios, ergo, the fact that they were conducting exercises on or about 9/11 is meaningless.



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
You really need to learn to stop going to these damned fool conspiracy web sites for your information. Their agenda has absolutely nothing to do with researching the events of 9/11 and everything to do with getting people all paranoid over shadows.

Example # 1- the "NORAD ran drills of planes being used as wepons" claim. This person omits the fact that planners always believed such planes would be flying in from outside the country. The posters own sources says that there was never any drill that was identical to the events of 9/11. This is classical conspiracy monger innuendo dropping.

Example # 2 - the "Cheney was in charge of the wargames" claim. The false claim is made that "the secret service is in charge of the air force" (only in matters of presidentiual security can the secret service influence Air Force planning), which then leads to "Bush was out of commission at a florida school leaving Cheney in the White House" overlookign the fact that Bush was still president regardless of where he was, which is then perverted into becoming, "cheney was in charge of the war games". This is classical five degrees of separation, Kevin Bacon game playing.

Example # 3- the "interceptors were sent out over the ocean" claim. What isn't being pointed out is that out by Long Island there's a military aircraft staging area, where miliitary planes are put into holding patterns so they won't collide with commercial aircraft. This is classical cherrypicking information out of context.

Whether you're a truther, debunker, researcher, realist, or just a stamp collector, it doesn't matter. If someone has to play these mind games to manipulate their material to get the rest of us to believe what they want us to believe, and then pass it off as "undeniable facts", it's a de facto admission they know what they're saying is false, regardless of who it is that's doing it.





Be so kind to cite your sources on this post !
Otherwise all i can see is empty claims.




Allow me to concentrate on 1 point at a time:





According to you,


They imagined planes to be used as weapons ,by terrorist.


But they never imagined terrorists hijacking planes.







posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Insider trading?

Just because exercises were conducted every year doesn't mean they weren't used to confuse people on 9/11. Also, how did EVERY intelligence agency on earth know an attack was coming but we ignored it?
???
How come we didn't intercept the jets if we knew they were hijacked?



posted on Jun, 10 2010 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder

NORAD had drills of jets as weapons

By Steven Komarow and Tom Squitieri, USA TODAY WASHINGTON — 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. In another exercise, jets performed a mock shootdown over the Atlantic Ocean of a jet supposedly laden with chemical poisons headed toward a target in the United States. In a third scenario, the target was the Pentagon — but that drill was not run after Defense officials said it was unrealistic, NORAD and Defense officials say.

www.usatoday.com...

It's obvious that the exercises were used as cover to execute the attack.

Until Sept. 11, 2001, NORAD conducted four major exercises a year. Most included a hijack scenario, but not all of those involved planes as weapons. . NORAD has conducted more than 100 exercises, all with mock hijackings.






Wich is only logical.


If terrorist where to use planes from outside the country they would be detected from miles away unless the terrorist boarded all these planes in a foreign country and waited for these planes to enter U.S airspace before actually highjacking them.

Wich is a unreleastic plan for anyone with a IQ of a hundred or above.
The longer these terrorist are sitting,waiting on these planes to overtake the more that can go wrong for them to carry out their plans before they even got out of their seats.


Think of engine mechanical faillures ,sick or misbehaving passengers or unsuspected ,unpredicted weather changes.Tihngs that would force one of these 4 flights to deviate of course.All of wich would ruin their plan during their flight towards the U.S. and are to likely to occur.


The only logical assumption for the anti-terrorist simulations was to asume they would highjack planes from within U.S airspace and strike as soon as possible.







[edit on 10-6-2010 by Rafe_]

[edit on 10-6-2010 by Rafe_]



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 01:14 PM
link   
I guess this thread stands undebunkable and avoided too.

The 911 debunkers love to camp at the energy weapons and hologram threads because it is an easy debunk.

Now get to the truth.

The people we were told caused 911 did not cause 911 and was planned from within and with other foreign allies.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rafe_
Be so kind to cite your sources on this post !
Otherwise all i can see is empty claims.


Certainly..

#1- the OP's own links, that go into the scenarios that NORAD was practicing. He's slectively cherry picking specific informastion out of context

#2 and #3- the 9/11 commission report, which documents who was doing what, and when. If the OP is a genuine researcher as he claims then it's his responsibility to have read the thing to know what the supposed "official story" is beforehand.


They imagined planes to be used as weapons ,by terrorist.

But they never imagined terrorists hijacking planes.


You people keep demanding that we read the information you post and I did. The "Bin Laden determined to strike the US" report Bush received theorized that al Qaida was going to hijack planes abroad. Whatever they did or did not plan for, they thought it was going to come in from overseas.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 01:22 PM
link   
So the majority agrees that the 911 attacks has shown that it has been planned withing the country and not from who the media claims caused 911.

The exercises taking place in 2001 were used as an operational cover to execute the attacks.



posted on Jun, 11 2010 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 



Originally posted by Shadow Herder
The 911 debunkers love to camp at the energy weapons and hologram threads because it is an easy debunk.


don't worry, debunkers will show up. trolls have already (as i grawl out as the sun begins to set).

umm, many of the so called "9/11 debunkers" only debunk far-fetched theories like mini-nukes, no plane and so on, which are quite fantastic. this theory however ain't so far fetched and i personally consider it as an option of substantial probability.

to me it seems that u.s has long "fed" the radical islamism by it's own actions. and to gain casus belli for war in middle-east, allowing some terrorist - whether mock or "real" - to strike controlled and precisioned within u.s seems like a viable option. after all, some people were warned not to go work that day, not to take plane and so on. someone(s) knew, someone(s) within "allies" - then there were the dancing jews with the van and faked id's taking photographs.

i don't blame jews in general, i am not antisemitic - if i have to label myself something, i would prefer anti-zionist. there are sinister people amongst that group, which have influence both in us and middle-east, influence... and interests.

by deception thou shalt make war.

[edit on 11-6-2010 by Geemor to add:]

as i see there are few options:

1) someone within allies planned the mock false-flag terror attack to gain justification for war - hence the defences failed so miserably as they were set to fail by deception and misinformation.

2) someone within allies knew the terrorist were planning to strike and they let it happen to gain, again the justification for war...

3) the terrorist were under protection of allah and succeeded in almost miraclous manner, thus proving that allah is greater god than jahve


[edit on 11-6-2010 by Geemor]



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
Moreover, a former air traffic controller, who knows the flight corridor which the two planes which hit the Twin Towers flew "like the back of my hand" and who handled two actual hijackings says that that planes can be tracked on radar even when their transponders are turned off, and that Donald Rumsfeld and the Pentagon tracked three of the four flights from the point of their hijacking to hitting their targets (also, listen tothis interview).

Robin Hordon hasn't worked at Boston Control since 1981, so he had been out of the loop for 20 years on 9/11. That also means he worked during the cold war, where there were a heck of a lot more fighters on intercept duty, and not when a lot of those fighters had been removed due to budget cuts. In 2001 the whole of the United States were down to 14 fighters on alert ready status, capable of taking off within minutes of being requested.

Second, while yes, airplanes can be tracked while their transponder is switched off, this is done with Primary Radar, which displays absolutely EVERYTHING it picks up. Birds, planes, everything. What ATCOs, especially enroute controllers, see on their screen is usually filtered, so it will only show elements with their transponder, and who are within a specific altitude/sector.

And third, the only 'tracking' of any of the hijacked planes that was done on 9/11, was the traffic monitoring system, which doesn't track anything at all, but merely shows a graphic representation of where an airplane system SHOULD be, based on a time & point of departure and a attival-point and -time. Someone at FAA guessed that UA93 might be heading for Washington DC and edited the route data to reflect that.


Originally posted by Shadow Herder
Additionally this diagram shows that the hijacked planes flew over numerous military bases on 9/11 before crashing. See also this essay regarding the stand down of the military; and see this war game proposal created before 9/11 revolving around Bin Laden and including "live-fly exercises" involving real planes, later confirmed by this official Department of Defense website.

Just because there is a military base, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are equipped to deal with an airborne hijacking. The only two airbases on the east coast, who were equipped and prepared to deal with airborne hijackings at a moments notice, would be Otis AFB and Langley AFB.



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Example # 3- the "interceptors were sent out over the ocean" claim. What isn't being pointed out is that out by Long Island there's a military aircraft staging area, where miliitary planes are put into holding patterns so they won't collide with commercial aircraft. This is classical cherrypicking information out of context.


Exactly, and the exact same standard operating procedures are exhibited with the aircraft that launched out of Langley.

These procedures had not been updated since the cold war era, 10 years prior. The threat for these NORAD interceptors was going to be external - long range Soviet Bears and Badgers pressing to 200 miles or closer to launch air to surface missiles at whatever targets they deemed were worthy along the coast.

Launching an alert section or aircraft would initially be sent to a marshaling point off the coast until a definitive vector was ready or the necessary intercept information was obtained.

The confusion or "fog" of 9/11 resulted in the Langley aircraft being sent out to the overwater warning area - nothing extraordinary about that to anyone who a) is familiar with the standard operating procedures or b) did the *barest* amount of research into the events that day.



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 02:12 PM
link   
Threads like this crack me up.


If 9-11 happened like you claim, there would have been no need for any exercises to draw off alert aircraft. They could have just issued orders for the alert aircraft to stand down. Why risk drawing attention to the plan?

If the events of 9-11 happened like you claim, there must have been dozens of people involved. Something this complex couldn't have been done by just a few people. Yet in almost nine years, nobody credable has come forward to reveal the plan. Amazing. Top Secret State Department documents are being posted all over the internet. Internal memos from BP are being posted all over the internet. The e-mails of Climate Scientists are being posted all over the internet, but nothing credable on 9-11.

If the events of 9-11 happened like you claim, what makes you think that the people who pulled it off, would leave any traces to be found? If they were good enough to have done this, they would have been good enough to have covered their tracks.

I have issues with the "official story" concerning 9-11. If somebody came up with some actual proof, my mind could be changed. I just haven't seen anything yet.

Let me ask one question. Are you one of the people that the DNC was paying to stir up controversy about 9-11?

Undebunkable? I bet I don't find that word in Webster's.

[edit on 14-6-2010 by JIMC5499]



posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 03:05 PM
link   
Your claim of "complicity" falls short because you have failed to present any evidence to back up that charge. While that may be your opinion which is fine, when you outright make the claim of complicit behavior in regards to conspiracy to commit mass murder by an act of terrorism. You'd better have some solid evidence.





new topics

top topics



 
15
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join