It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What Do The Sears Tower; WTC, and Terror Drills Have In Common?

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 

If you two wanted the truth you'ld look
im my last post i quoted an expert who knows what he is talking about
what are you?
you can't even use google?
www.911proof.com...
"WAR GAMES ON SEPTEMBER 11TH
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 or video here (6 minutes and 12 seconds into the video).
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. See also official military website showing 2000 military drill, using miniatures, involving a plane crashing into the Pentagon.
Indeed, a former Los Angeles police department investigator, whose newsletter is read by 45 members of congress, both the house and senate intelligence committees, and professors at more than 40 universities around the world, claims that he obtained an on-the-record confirmation from NORAD that ON 9/11, NORAD and the Joint Chiefs of Staff were conducting a joint, live-fly, hijack exercise which involved government-operated aircraft POSING AS HIJACKED AIRLINERS.
On September 11th, the government also happened to be running a simulation of a plane crashing into a building.
In addition, a December 9, 2001 Toronto Star article (pay-per-view; reprinted here), stated that "Operation Northern Vigilance is called off. Any simulated information, what's known as an 'inject,' is purged from the screens". This indicates that there were false radar blips inserted onto air traffic controllers' screens as part of the war game exercises.
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 struck, this 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 to this 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?
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. Could Osama Bin Laden and his sent-from-the-cave band of followers have exercised this degree of control over the military? Obviously not.
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.
Therefore, it is statistically much more likely that Cheney and/or other high-level U.S. government and military officials pulled the 9/11 trigger than that Bin Laden did it. At the very least, they took affirmative steps to guarantee that the hijackers' attacks succeeded.
As discussed previously, a former air force colonel and director of the Star Wars program stated "If our government had merely done nothing, and allowed normal procedures to happen on that morning of 9/11, the twin towers would still be standing, and thousands of dead Americans would still be alive. [T]hat is treason" "

what are you are defending?




[edit on 17-6-2010 by Danbones]




posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 10:39 AM
link   
So it was an aeroplane that hit the Pentagon?

Look, none of what you've written addresses what I wrote. Constantly asserting the same half-truths and internet rumours and avoiding questions and criticism are the major reasons why the TM is getting nowhere.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


There are so many erronious statements in that posted artical, the whole thing automatically loses credibility.

The biggest one:

How could one of the most heavily-defended buildings in the world have been successfully attacked,


First off, NO, it is not the most heavily-defended building in the world. Its not a military base, air force base, nuclear storage facility, nuclear missile silo. Its an office building. Militarily speaking, its nothing more than an office building for all the beurocratic paperwork for the DoD. No tanks, planes, or attack choppers.
Second, there are NO defenseive abilities in or around the Pentagon. No AA missiles, no AA guns, no lasers, no barrage balloons, no sharks with lasers on their heads. Its not a "James Bond" - style defended building. No stormtroopers. They do have a security force, as it is standard for government buildings, and yes soldier can be called on to assist in a big time crises. But there are no "defense capabilities" around the Pentagon.

Second, so what the aircraft flew over a couple military bases? This isnt GTA: VC or some video game where if you fly over a military base they start shooting at you with everything they have, from AA canons right down to their M-16s and Beretta 9 mils.
Also this not during the Cold War, and it wasnt a Tu-95 Bear Bomber coming toward DC.

The rest of this posted arguement has already been addressed and debunked in another thread, so there is no point in further beating the dead-horse.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 10:56 AM
link   
behind the US air defence shield is not heavily defended compared to what?
thats the best you can do?
the pentagon is not heavily defended? wtf ?

everybody funny now you funny too.
have a nice day

[edit on 17-6-2010 by Danbones]



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


Ok lets get around your personal incredulity, and tell me just how IS the Pentagon so heavily defended?

Any pictures or, I dont know, active areas where there are visual sightings of AA missile sites, radar sites, AA guns, mobile Stinger sites? How about a whole section of the military devoted to "defending the Pentagon" like its Berlin 1945 or Ploesti 1943?

Wait let me guess, you heard this from a guy, who knows a guy, who heard from another guy that this is true?


You guys always crack me. Next time, bring some real information and evidence of the "Special Pentagon Defense Force" that defends the Pentagon. I look forward to it.
I'm pretty sure there are some ex-military personnel that have served in this branch of service, so it shouldnt be too hard to find it SOMEWHERE online. Try the DoD database.

But let me guess, its all top secret, and thats why we never hear about it or see it, and thats why you wont be able to provide me with any evidence. Right? So you dont have to show me anything, because its all top secret, and nowhere to be found, but you just know it must be true and some guy, who knows a guy, that knows a guy, that heard something from another guy that that heard something about it, and "BINGO!" that is the ultimate proof it is so.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 11:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Hordon didn't work at Boston Centre on 9/11?

Which ATC centre was he working at?

I'm suspecting he wasn't working at all. We know he stopped working at Boston ARTCC in 1981, which is interesting given that 1981 was also the year of the PATCO strike - and the subsequent crushing of the strike by Reagan. A hell of a lot of ATCO's lost their jobs that year, and only some of them were allowed to be rehired after 1986.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Danbones
How could one of the most heavily-defended buildings in the world have been successfully attacke

Do me a favor, open up Google Earth or Maps, find the Pentagon and then look ~1 mile to the South-East.

Something tell me that shooting down any aircraft that approaches the Pentagon would make a bloody mess in very little time.


[edit on 17-6-2010 by roboe]



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 11:23 AM
link   
Weedwhacker, Genreddek, GoodoleDave, and hooper are the only ones that are the proponents of the official story and blindly ignore the facts that go against it. Do not feel discouraged because of their level of arguing. Its lame and weak. Do what most people do here at these forums and put them on ignore.

Bones, you have offered great information and good people have and will read it and share it. Dont be put off by the shenanigans of the 4 resident conspiracy haters here.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Ah yes Shadow, just stick your fingers in your ears the moment somebody dares to challenge your faith. Embrace ignorance. Go on ahead and put us on ignore. Its quite telling cause in my couple years here on ATS, I have NEVER put anyone on ignore. No matter how idiotic, annoying, crazy, paranoid the member is/was, I have never put them on ignore.

But you and the embracers of the TM faith, well, its a different story. Any questioning of your faith, no matter how valid the counter-arguements and facts are, your blind faith shuts out any reasoning or rational thought. So enjoy your life in the dark closed circle. The rest of us out in the open world will continue to discuss, argue, compromise, learn and get closer to the truth. Heck even I have learned some useful info from some "truthers". And I'm sure some "truthers" have learned some valuable information from the "debunkers." Its too bad you choose to shut it out and miss it all.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 11:42 AM
link   
dble posting. sorry



[edit on 17-6-2010 by Shadow Herder]



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


"Weedwhacker, Genreddek, GoodoleDave, and hooper AND THE REST OF THE HUMAN RACE are the only ones that are the proponents of the official story....."

There, fixed that up for you.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Danbones
reply to post by TrickoftheShade
 

If you two wanted the truth you'ld look
im my last post i quoted an expert who knows what he is talking about
what are you?
you can't even use google?
www.911proof.com...
"WAR GAMES ON SEPTEMBER 11TH
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.






That is too surreal to be considered a coincidence and really points to complicity. There is no way around it.

[edit on 17-6-2010 by Shadow Herder]



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


"Weedwhacker, Genreddek, GoodoleDave, and hooper AND THE REST OF THE HUMAN RACE are the only ones that are the proponents of the official story....."

There, fixed that up for you.

*** That statement is not accurate and I think it maybe should be taken back, but I don't want to use strong language because we all need to be polite. Where are the MODS when you need them? Remember the 9/11 poll where only 6% believed the OS? Yet reading through other threads you would never guess.

Peace out and be happy



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by yyyyyyyyyy
reply to post by hooper
 


"Weedwhacker, Genreddek, GoodoleDave, and hooper AND THE REST OF THE HUMAN RACE are the only ones that are the proponents of the official story....."

There, fixed that up for you.

*** That statement is not accurate and I think it maybe should be taken back, but I don't want to use strong language because we all need to be polite. Where are the MODS when you need them? Remember the 9/11 poll where only 6% believed the OS? Yet reading through other threads you would never guess.

Peace out and be happy


I was speaking with a little hyperbole. Of course there are those few that also follow the tangle of the conspiracy trails, however, the statement is accurate, but may not be precise.

Also, please note that I had no activity in this thread and the respondent saw fit to bring me in so I responded accordingly.



posted on Jun, 17 2010 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
That is too surreal to be considered a coincidence and really points to complicity. There is no way around it.

[edit on 17-6-2010 by Shadow Herder]


Why? Seriously, why? I keep asking this in these threads and no one can give me anything except a muddled answer. Sometimes it's so that participants unwillingly perpetrate the crime, and other times it's actually part of the coverup, a way for materials and evidence to be planted. None of these makes any sense to me.

Furthermore, I regularly am given numbers about the number of drills on September 11, as though it's large. And yet I have never heard anyone give the number of drill son, say, September 4th 2001. The US army is pretty big. I imagine it was doing a lot of practicing around then.

I imagine you'll ignore this. Perhaps you'll even put me on ignore because you find the question a bit challenging.



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 08:38 PM
link   
u say kroll where known to have a hand in the London 7/7 bombings, well word on the streets where them bombers were known reckon they where jus revenge attacks by UK resident Muslims for attacks on civilian targets in Iraq. what evidence links the London attacks to this kroll group? And does any other evidence link them to the 4 or 5 failed failed terror attacks in the UK that the authorities uncovered and stopped!
I've read quite a lot of conspiracy claims about the London bombings but i tend to believe none of them whilst believing 9/11 was an inside job. It is true that the UK govt where expecting an attack on iconic London public transport but that's cause loads of other similar attacks had already occurred globally, they where preparing for every possible outcome and covered and expected these attacks.



posted on Jun, 19 2010 @ 10:06 AM
link   

Second, there are NO defenseive abilities in or around the Pentagon.


They knew planes were hijacked before 9 am and the pentagon was attacked when?


8:46 A.M. At the time of the first WTC crash, three F-16's assigned to Andrews Air Force Base 10 miles from Washington are flying an air-to-ground training mission on a range in North Carolina, 207 miles away. Eventually they are recalled to Andrews and land there at some point after Flight 77 crashes into the Pentagon. Aviation Week and Space Technology, 9/9/02


Saying that it was the most heavily defended building is a fallacy, however painting the picture as the opposite is quite fallacious also.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


Just having a few F-16s at an Air Force base does not mean they are armed and fueled on 5-minute alert like they used to be during the height of the Cold War. Also does not mean they are the defenders of the Pentagon either.



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 10:26 AM
link   
double post deleted

[edit on 6/21/2010 by GenRadek]



posted on Jun, 21 2010 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


Why didn't you answer this question:


They knew planes were hijacked before 9 am and the pentagon was attacked when?


Oh, wait...you did. With the link to the AW&ST snippet.

In any case, the dawning of the understanding of the hijackings didn't happen immediately...AND, the connection between the disparate (at that point in time) two hijackings (which, BTW, was not fully known to every facility in the country, including NORAD yet) wasn't until UAL 175 impacted, at 0903 EDT.

One of the "Common Strategy" techniques, that were fairly consistent and trained for, from airlines to ATC to FBI was to NOT react quickly, to hijackings. Confirmation first, of course...then the "Strategy" to follow...and mostly it was, in a way, to take a "wait and see" approach.

Suicidal 'guided missiles' were so far out in the psyche of everyone's mindsets...it simply was NOT something that had been heavily suggested, nor seriously considered, in repeated recurring training, and briefings on the topic. ALL of the Strategy was geared to response based on prior experience.

There WAS a tremendous amount of energy and effort, AFTER UAL 175 impacted, and the realization sank in, to mount a defence. The defensive posture WITHIN the Lower48 was sorely inadequate...and the OP'S implication that any "drills" had some sort of deleterious affect on response time is laughable.


You should look into the actions of Major General (retired) Larry Arnold. He was CMDR of the 1st Air Force and the Continental U.S. North American Air Defense Command (CONR) Region located at Tyndall AFB, Panama City Florida. His direct chain-of-command 'boss' was Gen. Ed Eberhart, CMDR of NORAD.

Gen. Eberhard, ulitmately that day, declared SCATANA -- Security Control of Air Traffic and Navigational Aids -- and he began, as reports came in, considering it as early as 1130 that morning. (There were STILL a few flights up, and some inbound from international destinations. ALL were 'suspect', to be on safe side).

He ordered ESCAT first -- Emergency Security Control of Air Traffic --
and later, during the duration of the airspace shut-down, General Arnold was responsible for implementing SCATANA.

General Arnold recounts that some accounts of events that day in the 9/11 Commission Report WERE different from what really happened. The 9/11 Commission clearly had a political agenda --- hence the cropping up of all these ridiculous "conspiracy" theories since.

INCLUDING this nonsense notion of a "Stand-Down" (no such thing occured) and the other silliness about "Drills" being so "distracting" to the military that they couldn't respond to the threats.

MANY people stepped up and had to think "outside the box" and be innovative, and to react very, very rapidly to a situation that was unanticipated. They almost literally had to re-write the "rule book" and institute off-the-cuff procedures, to adapt. Vital problems existed with communications systems compatability, between NEADS, NORAD, the military, and FAA.

Gen. Arnold, in months prior to 9/11, was frustrated by the continuing efforts, by Congress, and some military brass, to CUT funding for defense!! For the type of air defense that protects the borders, and the ADIZ, form airborne intruders form OUTSIDE...the key brass felt those days were behind us, more threats came from ICBMS, which F-15s and F-16s could do nothing to defend against.

It was a lack of imagination on the part of the people in charge of Defense...and this political truth, this "hot potato", was not something that the 9/11 Commission would be willing to address publicly, and overtly.

So, that's just the tip of the iceberg...rest of the "conspiracy" theories are made up by people who don't know what the crap they're talking about, they just make it up based on what they THINK should have happened, without understanding the reality, and the limitations, to how it truly worked.

General Arnold:

"We had only 44 radar machines along the perphery of our borders to monitor incoming traffic, with about the same number of radios available for us to talk to our airborne fighters from our command and control facilities. The computer command and control system that allowed us to display the radar returns on scopes for our weapon controllers could not accept any more radars or radios.

When a Russian general officer visited the Southeast Air Defense Sector at Tyndall AFB, Florida, nearly eight years after the collapse of the Soviet Union he said, 'Okay! Now show me the real facility.' Our preparedness was that limited."

Afterword, written by Gen Arnold for the book Touching History, by Lynn Spencer. c-2008




[edit on 21 June 2010 by weedwhacker]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join