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

reply to post by Cassius666


911myths as your source... .dear god.......... You guys and your damned fooled Randi loving webpages for information just makes you guys look more stupid.

reply to post by Cassius666

That his authority was not soley limited to NORAD could be possible.

Read the constitution. VP has no authority as long as the President is viable. End of story.

reply to post by hooper

This is heading off-topic, but can you point to the language in the Constitution that says this? I just re-read it (thanks for giving me a reason to - it's always a good read) and I can't find it anywhere.

Thanks.

reply to post by hooper


Yeah there is a way it should be and the way it was. Chenney even gloated about the way it was. One side of the debate has real information, from real people with faces and names, architects, firefighters, intelligence people, military people politicians. The other side of the debate keeps posting links to internet sites.

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
reply to post by Cassius666

 

911myths as your source... .dear god.......... You guys and your damned fooled Randi loving webpages for information just makes you guys look more stupid.

Cassius666 didn't use 911myths as his source.

What's your trip?

Originally posted by magicrat
reply to post by hooper

 

This is heading off-topic, but can you point to the language in the Constitution that says this? I just re-read it (thanks for giving me a reason to - it's always a good read) and I can't find it anywhere.

Thanks.

Exactly. Please find where the Vice President is the Commander of the Armed Forces. The VP has no authority. Except as President of the Senate and even then the VP has no vote unless its tied or "equally divided". Ergo, the refrain that the VP was in charge of NORAD is nonsensical. It would be like saying the VP was in charge of the Post Office. The only function and authority the VP has is as a succesor to the POTUS and President of the Senate.

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
reply to post by Cassius666

 

911myths as your source... .dear god.......... You guys and your damned fooled Randi loving webpages for information just makes you guys look more stupid.

Instead of getting a hate-on over the source, why don't you debunk what it says? It lays out quite clearly how truthers will lie and twist the truth, so they can pretend there were FSM knows how many military excercises running on 9/11 and how it was all a cover to let the planes hit their targets without the USAF interfering. When in reality, there were at most two, and everyone agrees that having them being run on 9/11 actually improved the response time.

reply to post by hooper

So since it doesn't say this, it says this? I'm sorry - I don't understand. Your initial statement ("Read the Constitution. VP has no authority as long as the President is viable.") is not supported by my reading of the Constitution, and it's definitely not supported by the reality of VP Cheney's approach to the office.

I would agree that there are no specific duties or authorities outlined (either NORAD or Post Office), but I don't see anything saying that the VP can't have any particular authorities.

Here's a CNN article that gives a pretty specific account of Cheney being in charge of the military response that morning (link):

After the planes struck the twin towers, a third took a chunk out of the Pentagon. Cheney then heard a report that a plane over Pennsylvania was heading for Washington. A military assistant asked Cheney twice for authority to shoot it down. "The vice president said yes again," remembered Josh Bolton, deputy White House chief of staff. "And the aide then asked a third time. He said, 'Just confirming, sir, authority to engage?' And the vice president -- his voice got a little annoyed then -- said, 'I said yes.'"

reply to post by Shadow Herder


Huh? It wasnt me who quoted 911myths.

Originally posted by roboe

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
reply to post by Cassius666

 

911myths as your source... .dear god.......... You guys and your damned fooled Randi loving webpages for information just makes you guys look more stupid.

Instead of getting a hate-on over the source, why don't you debunk what it says? .

So if the source is Alex Jones or some other site it can be bashed based on the fact that it is Alex Jones who is presnting the words or findings of others. But when you like what a more than dubious source says, we should debunk it rather than dismiss it outright. Funny how that works.

But luckily we dont have to, we are in the position that we can quote real peole who were in relevant positions. The conspiracy theorists who try to sell the conspiracy theory of some evil plot by an Saudi who had close ties to America and then went rouge are the ones who can just put forward their own scribbling or the online blogs of others.

reply to post by magicrat

So since it doesn't say this, it says this? I'm sorry - I don't understand. Your initial statement ("Read the Constitution. VP has no authority as long as the President is viable.") is not supported by my reading of the Constitution, and it's definitely not supported by the reality of VP Cheney's approach to the office.

I would agree that there are no specific duties or authorities outlined (either NORAD or Post Office), but I don't see anything saying that the VP can't have any particular authorities.

For the VP or the POTUS to have a specific authority it must be enumerated.

reply to post by hooper

Again, I don't want to take this off-topic, but I don't know where you're getting that opinion from. Here's what whitehouse.gov says (link):

The duties of the Vice President, outside of those enumerated in the Constitution, are at the discretion of the current President. Each Vice President approaches the role differently — some take on a specific policy portfolio, others serve simply as a top adviser to the President.

But why are we arguing about this instead of discussing the OP's evidence about war game exercises?

Originally posted by magicrat
reply to post by hooper

 

Again, I don't want to take this off-topic, but I don't know where you're getting that opinion from. Here's what whitehouse.gov says (link):

The duties of the Vice President, outside of those enumerated in the Constitution, are at the discretion of the current President. Each Vice President approaches the role differently — some take on a specific policy portfolio, others serve simply as a top adviser to the President.

But why are we arguing about this instead of discussing the OP's evidence about war game exercises?

Point taken, just to get back on track.

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.

reply to post by Cassius666

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.

Really? Based on what? There were literally thousands of aircraft in the airspace over the continental US on the morning of 9/11/2001. Each and every one of them was a potential target. How do you know which ones to go after? Which ones to ignore? Maybe the prize isn't a hijacked commercial airliner, maybe those are just decoys to keep you from looking at the little Lear jet with the nuke on-board. Now mind you, between the Pacific and the Atlantic you have, maybe, maybe a dozen fighter aircraft fueled and armed. Where do you send them? Shoot down anything without a transponder signal? I think you very seriously over estimate the abilities of the US government and seriously under estimate the complexities of your proposition.

reply to post by hooper


You obviously go after those who went off route. But again watch the second video. The military brass itself is outlining why intercepting the correct aircraft was not possible on that day. It was their words, not mine. If you have a problem with what officers and above in the USAF said, try to contact them. Also if it would really take 60 min to scramble a jet it would mean that an almost supersonic aircraft can reach targets 500-800 miles inland of the 12 mile. I know it didnt take the british 60 min to scramble a jet when the Russians sent a bomber their way.

reply to post by hooper


"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.

reply to post by Shadow Herder

"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.

Huh? What indicates that there were false radar blips on the radars of air traffic controllers? You think the military places false blips on the radar screens of civilian atc?

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Shadow Herder

 

"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.

Huh? What indicates that there were false radar blips on the radars of air traffic controllers? You think the military places false blips on the radar screens of civilian atc?

Just watch the second video. What does the military brass say?

reply to post by Cassius666

You obviously go after those who went off route.

Really? How far off route? For how long? What about aircraft whose routes include potential targets? I mean a plane scheduled to land at Newark International in North New Jersey need only travel about another minute and be in Manhattan.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Cassius666

 

You obviously go after those who went off route.

Really? How far off route? For how long? What about aircraft whose routes include potential targets? I mean a plane scheduled to land at Newark International in North New Jersey need only travel about another minute and be in Manhattan.

We can go back and forth on this except its getting teadious. If you have questions how it works in detail you should go to an aviation forum. As for the topic, just watch the second video. The military brass itself lined out what the problem was.

dble post