9/11 WAR GAMES Allowed the Attacks to Happen - Video

page: 1
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 05:01 PM
link   
On the morning of September 11th there were multiple military exercises taking place.
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 -- link




There were Hijacking exercises that involved aircraft that would go in and out of radar. The would appear real to those involved

" We fought many phantoms that day and we got many calls that turned out to be phantoms." - Richard Myers

Watch the videos and share. I dont want to here one thing about controlled demolition in this thread please.



On page 17 of the 9/11 Commission Report when Boston center calls NEADS (Northeast Air Defense Sector), the response from NEADS was "is this real world or exercise?". According to the 9/11 Commission's staff statement No. 17,[1] for instance, page 26 of the Commission's final report documents FAA's report of a "phantom flight 11" at 9:21,[2] 35 minutes after the real flight 11 crashed into the WTC and even longer after the war games are alleged to have been aborted. However, General Ralph Eberhart told the 9/11 Commission “it took about 30 seconds” to make the adjustment to the real-world situation (note 116 to chapter 1).
Source



For images of the exrecise view PDF below.
Please view this www.ratical.org...


This should get you started.

Odd that Bin Laden is the poster boy for this exercise. Saddam is in there as well.



edit on 11-10-2011 by Shadow Herder because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 05:06 PM
link   
What I dont get, why are the wargames fed into the actual workplace? Wouldnt it make more sense, to take the personell involved off duty and seat them at a simulator, that is not relevant for the surverillance, to avoid just such a situation? Again the wargames is old news. You could have dug up the old thread, however the pics are a nice visual addition. A PDF needs to be compiled with all the info avaiable on the forum.

Also I dont quite get this slide o.O



edit on 11-10-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
What I dont get, why are the wargames fed into the actual workplace? Wouldnt it make more sense, to take the personell involved off duty and seat them at a simulator, that is not relevant for the surverillance, to avoid just such a situation?


If they did that, what excuse would they have had for not responding fast enough?

It's too much of a coincidence surely? A bunch of Arabs (some still living and breathing in Saudi Arabia) manged to hi-jack four planes on the very day that the U.S were playing War Games. If it was the Arabs, then they would have had inside information of said war games, or they were the luckiest bunch of terrorists to ever commit such atrocious acts.



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 05:22 PM
link   
I recall reading somewhere that the war games had not started yet and got cancelled when the North tower was hit, and I also share the doubt about the games being in the actual workplace. I mean, there were still plenty of normal commercial flights that needed tracking. It just doesn't make sense.



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 05:38 PM
link   


Video of Amalgam Virgo.



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
I recall reading somewhere that the war games had not started yet and got cancelled when the North tower was hit, and I also share the doubt about the games being in the actual workplace. I mean, there were still plenty of normal commercial flights that needed tracking. It just doesn't make sense.


The workplace is being used for the wargames. I didnt put that in doubt. In the 70s a training tape loaded into surveillance gear that simulated a Soviet Russian first strike caused panic in the missile command. Of course nothing happened, because the Radarstations tracked nothing (Confidence was low). Flight 175 was tracked on radar after it had strucked the tower, either it wasnt flight 175 that strucked the tower, or the data was simulated and intermingled with live data, for training purpose (or so the low ranks were told).

edit on 11-10-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 06:06 PM
link   
if you watch the richard clarke video, it gets really really maddening to think the CIA lnew there guys were here, and who knows maybe they even helped it happen that day

that's the conspiract thoery that makes sense to me



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
if you watch the richard clarke video, it gets really really maddening to think the CIA lnew there guys were here, and who knows maybe they even helped it happen that day

that's the conspiract thoery that makes sense to me


"Helped"? Thats the most unlikely scenario that they "let it happen". If they were involved, it is far more likely they funded and trained them. We know they all trained in the us, with debatable success. It might as well have been a computer which flew the airliner into the tower. Or all they had to do was learn how to feed the autopilot the correct data for it to strike the tower, but I am not sure if that is possible. Of course interference from the ground is also possible. Systems to Highjack highjacked airplanes from the ground were in place in 2001.

Look at the second video. The military brass itself says their surveilance was fubar. Faux data or a lucky technical glitch, you be the judge.
edit on 11-10-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


What do you think of the Canadians (Red Team) having something to do with it?


Charles Bouchard:

'Bouchard has had a long career in Tactical Aviation within Canadian Forces Air Command, which included flying positions in several squadrons, command of 444 Tactical Helicopter Squadron at Lahr in Germany, and command of 1 Wing Kingston. Bouchard has served in the United States as Deputy Commander for Continental NORAD Region and was standing duty at Tyndall Air Force Base conducting Air Operation on September 11, 2001' -Wikipedia

I'll let you all Google just what Charles Bouchard is in charge of right now...

Also, the white jet just may be a Bombardier jet... involved in either the war games or the 9/11 attack.


Cheers



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   
One of the few theories in regards to 9/11 that I still hold on to is the belief that the exercises that day were somehow involved with the events that took place.

While many people focus on the accounting personnel that were lost and that were claimed to be looking for the "missing $2.3 trillion," many of the people were also Naval operations personnel if I can recall correctly, the same type of people who would likely be involved in coordinating "wargames."

I did have a site that listed the positions/jobs of those killed in the Pentagon, but I cannot find it in my mass of links that have accumulated over time.

While much of the information regarding the exercises/wargames that were ongoing that day is still muddled in confusion, it is my belief, and as far as I know I haven't heard anything to the contrary, that the exercises were ongoing up to and until the attacks began.

Here is an audio snippet from ATC in Boston asking for help in regards to the situation, and the person on the other line enquiring as to whether it is "real world or exercise."




posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Cassius666
 


Do we know what kind of tracking algorithm radar uses? It may rely on a kind of ping-based prediction model, which casts the object as still moving until it is re-pinged. Maybe I'm thinking of sonar... Gonna need someone with more knowledge to explain how the system works.



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by Cassius666
 


Do we know what kind of tracking algorithm radar uses? It may rely on a kind of ping-based prediction model, which casts the object as still moving until it is re-pinged. Maybe I'm thinking of sonar... Gonna need someone with more knowledge to explain how the system works.


It might be the case, but the other flights should be on the screen as well. However that is unrelevant at this point. If you watch the second video you will see military brass talking about how the training exercise made an effecient identification of highjacked flights impossible. Needle in the haystack that day.

edit on 11-10-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


This video got me thinking about the 9/11 war games all over again when I first saw it years ago:


"Just to get this right - you were actually working today on an exercise that envisioned virtually this scenario?"

"Almost precisely."



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 09:05 AM
link   
Doesnt this incident alone pretty much prove it was an inside job? Intercepting the correct airplane was made pretty much highly unlikely for NORAD.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666
Doesnt this incident alone pretty much prove it was an inside job? Intercepting the correct airplane was made pretty much highly unlikely for NORAD.


Actually, it was always highly unlikely without regard to any exercises.

8:14 AM - flight 11 fails to listen to ATC direction, first hint something is wrong
8:47 AM - flight 11 crashes into the north tower
9:03 AM - flight 175 crashes into the south tower
9:38 AM - flight 77 crashes into the pentagon
10:03 AM - flight 93 crashes in pennsylvania

So, between the first hint that something is amiss 8:14 AM and the last crash, 10:03 AM you have a total of 109 minutes to respond and to be honest until 8:47 AM nobody could have had any idea what was really going on so the actual time frame for response, at best, was about 76 minutes. And that response must include figuring out which of the 1000's of aircraft in American airspace at the time are potential targets.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper

Originally posted by Cassius666
Doesnt this incident alone pretty much prove it was an inside job? Intercepting the correct airplane was made pretty much highly unlikely for NORAD.


Actually, it was always highly unlikely without regard to any exercises.

8:14 AM - flight 11 fails to listen to ATC direction, first hint something is wrong
8:47 AM - flight 11 crashes into the north tower
9:03 AM - flight 175 crashes into the south tower
9:38 AM - flight 77 crashes into the pentagon
10:03 AM - flight 93 crashes in pennsylvania

So, between the first hint that something is amiss 8:14 AM and the last crash, 10:03 AM you have a total of 109 minutes to respond and to be honest until 8:47 AM nobody could have had any idea what was really going on so the actual time frame for response, at best, was about 76 minutes. And that response must include figuring out which of the 1000's of aircraft in American airspace at the time are potential targets.


Watch the second video where the military brass comments. I am talking about active obfuscation of the system, or a unique series of glitches that happened to coincide with the attack, depending on to what point you are willing to have faith in coincidence. What you said might still be true, but an surveillance system that was being jammed pretty much doomed any attempts to react in time.

With that said I seriously doubt that a modern airforce like the USAF with everything in working order would take 76 min. to identify and intercept an off route airliner. But like I said, we have testimony of the system being actively jammed, this means it was an inside job, a series of computer glitches, or Alquaeda was able to jam the NORAD infrastructure.

AND ON TOP OF THAT for the first time ever a vice president, Dick Chenney, took direct control over NORAD, when it has always been under the authority of its appointed generals. And on July first, a mere 3 months before 911. And just to make it all superobvious, control of NORAD was turned over to the generals again in the weeks after the attack.
edit on 12-10-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 10:53 AM
link   
www.911myths.com...

The conclusion pretty much sums up the OP:

One of the most common approaches with regard to the "war games" is to present you with some huge list, and then argue that this is too many exercises to be coincidental. But as we've seen, these lists aren't always an accurate reflection of what was going on.

Of the nine exercises we've listed here, for instance, two weren't running on 9/11 (Amalgam Virgo, Tripod II), and a third probably doesn't exist (Vigilant Warrior). Three of the remaining six have no obvious relevance to NORAD (Timely Alert II, Operation Northern Guardian, NRO Drill). Of the remaining three, one was a real operation in response to a Russian exercise and not a "war game" at all (Operation Northern Vigilance). That leaves us with only two NORAD-related exercises, which are intentionally run at the same time: Global Guardian and Vigilant Guardian. This perhaps isn't quite the staggering coincidence that some would have you believe.

Even more importantly, there’s a distinct lack of evidence for any of these exercises adversely affecting the response to 9/11, or even to contradict the NORAD and 9/11 Commission view that they actually helped. 9/11 researchers need to deliver something more than their current empty speculation on this topic if the argument is to move any further.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cassius666AND ON TOP OF THAT for the first time ever a vice president, Dick Chenney, took direct control over NORAD, when it has always been under the authority of its appointed generals. And on July first, a mere 3 months before 911. And just to make it all superobvious, control of NORAD was turned over to the generals again in the weeks after the attack.
edit on 12-10-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)

Stop spreading that stupid misinformation. Cheney was never in charge of NORAD, it's another lie truthers have made up so they can whip themselves into an even great frenzy, dreaming of the day where they can string up "the man" and recieve the people's adolation and admiration.

Cheney was put in charge of overseeing ".. the development of a coordinated national effort so that we may do the very best possible job of protecting our people from catastrophic harm". This was to lead into the Office of National Preparedness, which would be responsible for "... implementing the results of those parts of the national effort overseen by Vice President Cheney that deal with consequence management. Specifically it will coordinate all Federal programs dealing with weapons of mass destruction consequence management within the Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, Justice, and Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and other federal agencies.".



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


And yet Condoliza Rice recieved a promotion for lying to us:



"And I said, "No one could have imagined them taking a plane, slamming it into the Pentagon" -- I'm paraphrasing now -- "into the World Trade Center, using planes as a missile.""

"To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Chairman, this kind of analysis about the use of airplanes as weapons actually was never briefed to us."

edition.cnn.com...

Everyone but the National Security Advisor imagined the scenario.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by roboe
 


Actually its not a lie at all. Even a memo informing the brass exists. That his authority was not soley limited to NORAD could be possible. And as for the rest of your post, 911myths? Really?

Watch the second video. You have it right out of the mouths of the military brass that their attempts to intercept aircraft were adversly affected, so there is very credible testimony too, unlike what that internet site says.

911 truthers do not take everything Alex Jones says as Gospel. Why do 911 deniers keep digging out these tired internetsites composed by anonymous, probably by some illinformed kid in his basement hacked toegether, for ad revenue to exploit google searches for 911 which havent been updated in forever either. How is xxx.com going to debunk what the people who were actually on the job that day said?

Its the same analogy with the moonlanding hoax story. The astronauts went there, their flight was tracked by radar, they returned samples that have been analyzed by the global scientific community, yet we are to belive xxx.com sites that it was all a hoax.
edit on 12-10-2011 by Cassius666 because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join