Improvising a Homeland Defense

[LARED]

http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing12/staff_statement_17.pdf

In sum, the protocols in place on 9/11 for the FAA and NORAD to respond to a hijacking presumed that:

(1) the hijacked aircraft would be readily identifiable and would not attempt to disappear;
(2) there would be time to address the problem through the a ppropriate FAA and NORAD chains of command; and
(3) the hijacking would take the traditional form, not a suicide hijacking designed to convert the aircraft into a guided missile.

On the morning of 9/11, the existing protocol was unsuited in every respect for what was about to happen. What ensued was the hurried attempt to create an improvised defense by officials who had never encountered or trained against the situation they faced.

......

The details of what happened on the morning of September 11 are complex. But the details play out a simple theme. NORAD and the FAA were unprepared for the type of attacks launched against the United States on September 11, 2001. They struggled, under difficult circumstances, to improvise a homeland defense against an unprecedented challenge they had never encountered and had never trained to meet.

All should read this report. It povides a lot of answers to questions that have been raised on this board.

[Abe Linkman]

1. Day late & 3,000 lives short; but hey - Halliburton/Exxon PNAC did OK

"The details of what happened on the morning of September 11 are complex. But the details play out a simple theme. NORAD and the FAA were unprepared for the type of attacks launched against the United States on September 11, 2001. They struggled, under difficult circumstances, to improvise a homeland defense against an unprecedented challenge they had never encountered and had never trained to meet."

Boy, if those NORAD/CIA exercises/training had just been planned for a day earlier, and if Bill Clinton had just been honest about Mommica, all that unpleasantness on 9-11 might have been avoided.

[LARED]

2. Perhaps the third request will be the charm

Boy, if those NORAD/CIA exercises/training had just been planned for a day earlier,

I am now asking for the third time. What does the training exercise have to do with the attacks?

Now be a chum and provide an answer.

[Abe Linkman]

3. I see what you're getting at now, and I agree with your logic.

Since the 9-11 attacks were self-attacks, no training exercise could possibly have had any bearing on whether or not the attacks would have been carried out. "They" would have made sure of that. The needed "Pearl Harbor" event was not going to be denied. No way, no how.

[LARED]

4. World class spinning.

Abe's position(s) on the training exercises

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x12811#12811

Many people now believe that the exercises were planned as a cover for the actual conspiracy. I think so, too. However; in my opinion, they served a second, equally vital, little-talked about purpose: To trick some loyal, patriotic Americans into doing something they would never consciously agree to - participate in the deadly self-attacks of 9-11.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=12792&mesg_id=13200

The MAIN resouce they needed as they sat down in the cave to plot this thing out, was the date of those "planned" NORAD/CIA?FEMA "exercises" and simulations

From this thread.

Boy, if those NORAD/CIA exercises/training had just been planned for a day earlier, and if Bill Clinton had just been honest about Mommica, all that unpleasantness on 9-11 might have been avoided.

When again asked what how the training exercise in related to the attacks?

The response is.

Since the 9-11 attacks were self-attacks, no training exercise could possibly have had any bearing on whether or not the attacks would have been carried out. "They" would have made sure of that. The needed "Pearl Harbor" event was not going to be denied. No way, no how.

Your positions wander from the training exercise being a "cover to the actual conspiracy," to "no training exercise could possibly have had any bearing on whether or not the attacks would have been carried out," perhaps you could take a moment to rationalize your thoughts on this.

Once you have it figured out, please explain how the training exercise was critical to the conspiracy?

[DulceDecorum]

5. Seeing as how Abe

was not party to the conspiracy,
he is not got be able to answer that question.

Perhaps you would be better off asking it of Norman Schwartzkopf
in relation to the first unjustified war against Iraq.

Exercise Next Month Could Be Dress Rehearsal For Iraq Attack
November 4, 2002
In the summer of 1990, Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf, then head of U.S. Central Command, or CENTCOM, held a planning exercise called Internal Look.
His timing was prescient. According to CENTCOM's official history, the exercise scenario "eerily paralleled" real events in the Persian Gulf. As Internal Look wound to a close, Saddam Hussein's army occupied Kuwait. The scripted exercise messages resembled real intelligence so closely that they reportedly had to be stamped "Exercise Only." When the command sends staff to the Persian Gulf this December for a week-long reprise of Internal Look, they may be in for a longer stay. Along with staff, CENTCOM is sending a mobile command post that could serve as the nerve center for a possible military campaign against Iraq.
The 1990 Internal Look was the first; this year's exercise is the sixth in the biennial series.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2002/021104-iraq2.htm

They say history repeats itself.

On September 11, at least five different "war games" were being conducted by the military and intelligence agencies that simulated 9/11 type events which paralyzed the air defenses, apparently ensuring the success of the "attacks." The British Navy was conducting exercises in the Indian ocean. A biowar exercise was also about to start in New York City. Who has the power to coordinate all of these exercises? Dick Cheney and the White House.
http://www.oilempire.us/wargames.html

Next attraction:
http://www.musicforamerica.org/node/view/23215

[MercutioATC]

6. If Abe made the statements, perhaps he has a logical link between them.

Of course Abe doesn't know what happened. None of us do.

The fact remains that seemingly conflicting statements were made and LARED's made the simple request that he clarify the percieved confliction.

[Abe Linkman]

7. Of course, all I know is the "exercises" were important to the conspiracy.

"Of course Abe doesn't know what happened. None of us do."

What we DO know is that, as DD said, history repeats itself. Course, to a supporter of the "Cavepeople Did It" Conspiracy Theory, those exercises before the First Golf War, and those before the recent "Pearl Harbor" aren't suspicious at all. Merely coincidental. Sure. You buy that, right, ATCer? Now, back to your regularly scheduled CRT duty.

[MercutioATC]

8. You like that "CRT" line almost as much as the "Wacky Caveman" line,

don't you?

My question has to do with your subject line:

"Of course, all I know is the "exercises" were important to the conspiracy."

If you admit that you don't know specifics, how do you "know" that they were important to the conspiracy? If you "think" that, that's understandable. Without data, how can you "know" anything?

...BTW "history repeats itself" is not a "known", it's a cliche. There are numerous arguments to be made for it, but it's still just a cliche.

[DulceDecorum]

9. WHITE HOUSE CONNECTED TO NMCC

The National Transportation and Safety Board auditorium had been quiet until an individual stood up and repeatedly questioned why the Commission was not addressing the issue of 9-11 war games--specifically Operation Vigilant Guardian--wherein fighters were already in the air during the attacks, some just minutes away from New York City. The legitimate questions were ignored and the petitioner was removed by secret service and FBI agents.
http://www.tomflocco.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=65

Hush Abe, hush.

[MercutioATC]

10. Why are you so threatened by what I say to Abe, DD?

I didn't say there wasn't the possibility of a connection. I asked what Abe felt the connection was.

[Abe Linkman]

11. Why are you so threatened by being known as a Cavepeople Supporter?

You seem to get all bent out of shape whenever people point out the fact that you believe a bunch of cave dwellers with a satellite phone were somehow able to carry out the events of 9-11.

Come on, if you're gonna try to sell a Conspiracy Theory like that, you've got to expect informed people to snicker...especially, when you can't produce even the slightest bit of credible evidence to back it up.

You've had almost three years, and so far...nada. Why? Why haven't you been able to produce any evidence? Why? Why hasn't the Gov't been able to produce any evidence? Think maybe it's because the story is a fairy tale?

[MercutioATC]

12. I'm not "threatened", I just think it's a simplistic representation of OBL

He's intelligent, wealthy, well-connected and has been trained by the CIA. He's in hiding, so he allegedly lives in "caves". That makes him a "caveman"?

Look, "caveman" might be a cute tagline, but it's certainly not an accurate representation of OBL.

[DulceDecorum]

13. and speaking of accurate representations.......

were Saddam and OBL
ever as close as Saddam and Rummy
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

or Mrs Rummy and little Usama?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3777821.stm

Q Scott, I'm a little confused,
and it could be a factor of age,
but I'm just wondering,
you were saying this morning that the findings of the 9/11 Commission,
which definitively say
that there was no collaborative relationship between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda,
are completely consistent with your position
that there was such a collaborative relationship.
And I'm just wondering if you could explain
how those two disparate thoughts are completely consistent.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/06/20040617-5.html

That thar Scott can have his yellowcake
and eat his yellowcake
and still have the same yellowcake.

[MercutioATC]

18. What does that have to do with the "caveman" label?

[Abe Linkman]

21. Are you saying OBL ISN'T a cave dweller?

Do you feel that if someone starts contemplating the allegations against OBL & his merry band of cave dwellers...if they STOP for a nanosecond and consider how apologists for the Official Story prefer to position OBL, not as a cave dwelling CIA asset, but as some kind of world-class, all-powerful EvilDoer...they'll come to realize that they're being sold a bunch of hogwash?

Tell us, Mercutio - What part of the "Cavepeople Did It" Official Conspiracy Theory is it that you don't believe?

Go ahead - don't dance. Tell us straight up. Step up to the plate and tell the world why it should believe the lies told by bushco about a cave dweller with a bad pair of kidleys.

[MercutioATC]

23. I think "cave dweller" has connotations that simply aren't accurate.

If all you mean is that he has spent time hiding in a cave, that's accurate. However, "caveman" implies a lack of intelligence and development that I don't feel applies in this case. Are you trying to deny that he's intelligent, wealthy, well-connected and the beneficiary of CIA training? If those characterizations are true, how, residence aside, is he a "caveman"?

What don't I believe? I don't believe that the administration is nearly as free from guilt as they claim. I believe that they, in part, created this situation through a policy of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"...a disastrous foreign policy that all U.S. administrations, Democratic and Republican, have been guilty of. I believe that Bush did have advance warning that these attacks were imminent and he chose to ignore them (possibly purposefully).

I still don't believe that the planes were switched, there was a "missile", explosives were planted in the WTC, or that any of the crashes were directly engineered by the U.S. Government. The facts, and my conclusions based on these facts, don't support these theories to me.

[Abe Linkman]

25. nice little ditty, but you STILL didn't list ONE 9-11 lie you disagree w/

C'mon, man. Stop being a wussie. Step up to the plate.

As an apologist for the "Cavepeople Did It" CT, unless you tell us WHAT specifically, you don't agree with; the only reasonable conclusion is that you support an Official Story, told by the biggest liars in American history.

[MercutioATC]

27. I believe I explained myself pretty clearly.

Again, I'm sorry if you don't like the answers, but I DID answer what you asked.

"What don't I believe? I don't believe that the administration is nearly as free from guilt as they claim. I believe that they, in part, created this situation through a policy of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"...a disastrous foreign policy that all U.S. administrations, Democratic and Republican, have been guilty of. I believe that Bush did have advance warning that these attacks were imminent and he chose to ignore them (possibly purposefully)."

What part of this was so difficult to understand?

[Abe Linkman]

29. NO facts, mercutio. You didn't list even 1. Why?

Why can't you just tell us which part of the Official "Cavepeople Did It" CT that you disagree with?

Is there some particular reason why you won't say?

[MercutioATC]

31. Are we experiencing a language barrier here?

"What don't I believe? I don't believe that the administration is nearly as free from guilt as they claim. I believe that they, in part, created this situation through a policy of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"...a disastrous foreign policy that all U.S. administrations, Democratic and Republican, have been guilty of. I believe that Bush did have advance warning that these attacks were imminent and he chose to ignore them (possibly purposefully)."


Didn't the administration claim, as part of the "official story" that they had no real foreknowledge of 9/11? I don't believe that.

Haven't they portrayed OBL as a dangerous terrorist and downplayed the U.S.s actions that helped make him that way? I don't believe that.

That's 2....

[Abe Linkman]

34. Why don't you believe those 2 devastating claims?

What makes you doubt those two things which you say are part of the "Official Story" (fairy tale)?

[MercutioATC]

42. From what I've seen, we did:

1) have foreknowledge of 9/11, it was just ignored, and

2) help "create" OBL through the policy of helping anybody willing to take on our enemy of the moment, regardless of how stable they are or how different their ideology is.

[Abe Linkman]

46. Mercutio; WOW! You're a LIHOP person. That's progess, boy.

One member of the trio has broken rank. Let me ask you this:

Do you agree that the "foreknowledge that you say was ignored" was ignored intentionally?

[MercutioATC]

49. Since we don't all have the same beliefs, there's no "breaking rank" going

on. You're the only one who feels the need to group us together.

LARED, Bolo and myself all have issues with many of the CT theories, but I don't believe any of us have claimed to believe the same thing as the others as far as a comprehensive theory goes.

As I've stated before, I think it was simple incompetence, but I can't rule out the possibility the heads were turned on purpose.

[demodewd]

35. didly

that's didly shit

[Abe Linkman]

37. Real didly

Who told you that the "Official Story" includes a claim of no "real foreknowledge of 9/11"?

"Haven't they portrayed OBL as a dangerous terrorist and downplayed the U.S.s actions that helped make him that way? I don't believe that."

In other words, you're saying you don't believe "they portrayed OBL as a dangerous terrorist"?

LOL

You crack me up, mercutio.

[MercutioATC]

41. I guess we ARE experiencing a language barrier.

First, yes, I believe they have repeatedly denied that they had foreknowledge of 9/11.

My second statement didn't seem that difficult to comprehend, but I'll try to make it simpler for you.

The administration has portrayed OBL as a dangerous terrorist and downplayed their involvement in "creating" him. I don't believe that they didn't have a large part in making him what he is.

...that clear things up for you?

[MercutioATC]

44. No facts? I gave you two...

Frankly, I neither firmly believe nor disbelieve some parts of the "official" story (such as the identity and number of the terrorists or the weapons they allegedly used) because there's simply not enough data to provide a convincing arguement either way. Because of this, I tend not to comment on these matters...I don't really have a firm opinion on them.

[Abe Linkman]

47. Mercutio: ignoring foreknowledge means LIHOP. Very good.

Frankly, I'm surprised that you have found the courage to come as far as you have. And, make no mistakeL: LIHOP IS progress, compared to the other apologists for the "Official Conspiracy Theory". MIHOP is conspiracy FACT, and LIHOP is conspiracy theory. But, you're getting there.

I'm impressed. Take the afternoon off.

[MercutioATC]

48. I've always said that I believed that the administration knew and

chose, for whatever reason, not to act. Personally, I believe that it was pure incompetence, but if that's some watered-down version of LIHOP to you, so be it.

I'd love to see you show me where I've said anything different.

[Abe Linkman]

52. Mercutio: Question about your LIHOP viewpoint

If they knew in advance, but ignored it, no matter how you play with the words; by ignoring that knowledge, that made it possible for the attacks to take place, didn't it?

Having guilty knowledge is one thing; in this case the party having the guilty knowledge was in a position to prevent the crime from happening.
They didn't. So, they're just as surely guilty, under the law, as the driver of the getaway car is, whenever he trys to defend himself in court by claiming he knew the people he was driving were going to rob the bank, but he didn't know they were going to kill the guard.

Accessory? Guilty of conspiracy to commit 9-11?

These were crimes. You could make the case that they were war crimes, because the military was complicit in them. You can argue the degree of their participation (to mitigate their guilt), but you can't deny their
actions/inactions were criminal.

[MercutioATC]

59. If you'll reread my post, I said that I believed they knew, and let it

happen...POSSIBLY on purpose.

That's a "LIH" viewpoint...I don't necessarily believe in the "OP".

Again, I just don't have enough data. They may have done it on purpose. They may not have.

Either way, yes, I agree that they're responsible for ignoring the threat and should pay some consequence for their inaction.

[Abe Linkman]

60. Knowing it was gonna happen & ignoring it is WORSE than LIHOP

Having foreknowledge and ignoring it is far worse than just ignoring it.
Why? Simple.

Having foreknowledge & NOT taking action that they COULD have taken
is inferential evidence of a criminal MOTIVE & INTENT to faciliate the commission of a crime.

You're now in MIHOP territory! If you know that an assault is going to take place, but do NOTHING in your power to prevent it, that's a far different, more serious crime. If you DON'T know it's gonna happen, and you just stumble upont the scene, but do nothing, that's bad, but that isn't what you're talking about with 9-11.

Having foreknowledge of something that you could have prevented, but didn't, smacks of wanting it to happen. And that, my friend is MIHOP.

You can play with the words, but the truth is: EVEN if bushco wasn't in charge of the criminal group that carried out 9-11, they WERE in a position to stop the crime. They didn't. They made it possible for the crime to be committed. THAT is LIHOP.

Glad to hear you've seen the light...whether you now say you saw it a long time ago, or not.

[MercutioATC]

65. I disagree, but that's fine. Characterize it however you'd like.

I find it funny, though, that I've gone from "bushco lies" supporter to MIHOP supporter without changing my position on a single issue....

[Abe Linkman]

66. In other words, you're saying you've ALWAYS been MIHOP

Pardon me, Roy. Is that the cat who chewed your new shoes?

Would it make you feel better to go with a sort of "MIPFITOHOP"
characterization? { Made It Possible For It To Happen On Purpose }

[Bolo Boffin]

67. Incredible

Abe's treatment of Mercutio reminds me of how the Bush campaign is treating John Kerry. Mr. Kerry articulates a rational complex position, and the Bush campaign/right wing punditry fall all over themselves finding three different ways to interpret what Kerry says, and then label him a flip-flopper because they can't understand what he's saying...

I don't think Abe's a Republican operative, mind you. I just find it fascinating that Abe's got so many ways like a Republican operative...

[Abe Linkman]

69. Not credible

I don't think boloboffin's a disinformation agent, mind you. I just find it fascinating that bolo's got so many ways like a disinfo agent.

[LARED]

70. Just wondering

Are you going to address the 5 "wargames" on 9/11 disinfo you buy into.

[Abe Linkman]

71. Keep wondering, "lared"

And while you're at it, I hope your day goes spinningly.

[Bolo Boffin]

72. You understand, Abe, ...

...that LARED isn't burning with curiousity to know your answer.

He's only patiently reminding the readers here that you continue to refuse to answer questions. Your glee at denying him an answer isn't hurting him at all.

Only you.

[MercutioATC]

74. No? How about my 757 engine question?

Take a stab at that one?

[MercutioATC]

73. I'm neither LIHOP nor MIHOP

...nor anything else for that matter.

I've said repeatedly that I have no complete theory in regard to 9/11. That hasn't changed. I believe that the administration had foreknowledge of the possibility (if not probability) of the attacks and chose, for whatever reason, to do nothing.

I have NO reason to believe that the administration directly perpetrated the events of 9/11.

For most, this puts me WAY out of range of MIHOP and barely in the LIHOP category, if at all.

[Abe Linkman]

77. Forget acronyms, you've already talked about "ignoring foreknowledge"

Ignoring foreknowledge of a criminal act, or worse, a MILITARY attack on the United States of America is assisting in the commission of a crime...that could range up to and include treason.

Wow!

[MercutioATC]

79. ...which is what I've said all along. Show me where I've said different.

The big "Wow!" here, Abe, is your sudden reversal on what I've always claimed my position to be.

I can't go back and alter any of my posts...check them out. Just last week I was some disinformation agent - this week I'm a fellow MIHOPper...

Go figure...

:eyes:

[Abe Linkman]

80. You were a stealth MIHOPper all along. Imagine that!

I apologize if I've misinterpreted your position all along. I thought for sure you were playing around with the spin being put out by folks who apparently are using DU to impress people who can hire them to be disinfo agents.

And, here you were, all this time, a great big ol MIHOPper.

Are you sure it was all ME? You sure your position didn't evolve a little bit from where it used to be? Either way, glad to know YOU weren't taken in by bushco BS.

Have a cigar. I'm buying. What'll it be?

[MercutioATC]

81. Nice try, Abe. Look, "believe" what you will.I'm still not MIHOP or LIHOP

Have fun, though...

[Abe Linkman]

82. Are you trying to backpedal, mercutio? Your messages are all still here.

I assume you're just one of those people who doesn't like being labeled, is that it? < I mean, other than the "ATC" label ... I KNOW you don't mind that one! >

We both agree that the administration had foreknowledge of the coming attacks, and you said you believe that they ignored that information.

Now, where I come from, mercutio, that would have to be at least a modified, limited - you know, KIWGHBITIOP (Knew it was gonna happen but ignored the information on purpose).

Friend, that's worse than happening on an unfair fight, and not doing anything. You've said they KNEW IN ADVANCE a "fight" would take place, and when it did, they just ignored that sucker. THAT IS MIHOP country, mercutio.

Look, if you're embarassed that your friends might see you admitting being a MIHOPper --- well, I'll understand if you don't want to use MIHOP next to your name. (but how about KIWGHBITIOP? they probably wouln't know what THAT means.)

[LARED]

83. Abe, while you're trying to proselytize Mercutio

into the cult of the willfully ignorant, take a moment to answer the question about the five "wargames."

Be a chum.

[MercutioATC]

84. Talk about "spin"...

If what you say is true, why were you attacking me until yesterday? I've been completely honest (and consistent) the entire time.

I find it interesting that, as the number of questions you refuse to answer increase, you once again attempt to turn attention to something else. What surprises me is that you'd pick MY post record. Hey, if you can spin my record into MIHOP, my hat's off to you...

[Abe Linkman]

85. YOU stated what you believe. I just reminded you that it's MIHOP

What I say IS true, and what you've said recently makes it very clear that your position is actually a MIHOP one. Maybe you just didn't realize it before.

I've had nothing but praise for you since I realized that, far from being a "lared/bolo" apologist for what obviously is a fairy tale, you are actually on the side of those of us who knew that BUSH KNEW all along.

That's why I offered you a cigar, as sort of give pizza chance offering.
"A woman's a woman, but a good cigar is a SMOKE -- brother." Enjoy.

[MercutioATC]

86. I appreciate the cigar.Have a humidor myself, but the timing of your spin

just seems a little opportune.

Tell me that you believe a 757 crashed into the Pentagon (since a 757 engine was found there) and I'll begin to believe we're on the same page.

[Abe Linkman]

88. You keep going back & forth - trying to have it both ways. SPINNNNNNNNNN

You know only one airplane engine was found at the Pentagon.
You've probably seen the pictures of it.
You know that engine has not been proven to be from a 757.
You know that engine is, in fact, too small to be from a 757.
You know that a 757 has two engines.
You know that if a 757 crashed at the Pentagon, there would be two 757 engines there.
You know that the only reasonable conclusion (consistent with the known evidence) that can be drawn, is that a 757 did not crash at the Pentagon.

Why do you still insist on a position that is contrary to the known evidence?

[MercutioATC]

93. I do NOT know that it wasn't a 757 engine. Had it not been, I'd imagine

the press would have mentioned it at some point. Everything I've seen fails to mention that the endine was too "small".

Which leads me to the question AGAIN. If you have some sort of link to a reputable source that says the engine was not from a 757, I'd love to see it. If it WAS from a 757 and a 757 didn't crash at the Pentagon, how did it get there?

[Abe Linkman]

94. By your logic, you don't know it wasn't an F-16 engine. Guess what?

It WAS. Right size and there was only one engine: = F16.

MIHOP, Mercutio. They knew.

[MercutioATC]

95. Great! Gimme a link and I'll be happy to review my assessment.

Where did you see that it was an F-16 engine? I have never seen such a claim.

Just to be fair, I'll start with a link of my own:

http://www.911-strike.com/engines.htm

[LARED]

14. Abe's silence

It's a simple question Abe.

How was the training exercise critical to your version of reality - the conspiracy?

If your position has changed, that's fine. But you must have some reasons for posting these opinions. Saying you can't know is an all out full speed backpedal.

What does the silence mean?

[k-robjoe]

15. Is there something I miss?

" On September 11, at least five different "war games" were being conducted by the military and intelligence agencies that simulated 9/11 type events which paralyzed the air defenses, apparently ensuring the success of the "attacks."

Isn´t it obvious that the hypothesis is something along the line that these wargames caused so much confusion ( what was for real? what was not? ), that the 9/11-planes got to go unhindered?

Is there something I miss?

[Abe Linkman]

17. You got that right, k-robjoe...and that's what hits 'em in the gut

"lared", "ATCer", and "bolo" all know exactly what you're talking about.
Like bushco, they're smart enough to realize the implications...and it scares the h--- out of them, because the wheels are starting to come off, and the Big Fairy Tale is in danger of being widely exposed. Yet, for some strange reason (any mind readers out there?) these three (3?) continue to try to convince DUers that bushco's "Cavepeople Did It" Conspiracy Theory really, really ... is the truth. Honest. They want us to believe the same people who've lied about WMD, and all the rest.

I wouldn't believe bushco, if he swore he was lying. Would you?

It's almost insulting to think that the "Cavepeople" crowd has the chutzpah to come on DEMOCRATIC Underground and actively promote the lies told by bushco...and at the same time try to suggest that WE don't know what WE'RE talkng about! Lies and chutzpah: it's the bushco way.

[MercutioATC]

19. You're right, Abe. DU shouldn't allow dissenting opinion.

...oh, wait. That's "Facist Underground"....

Seriously, what problem do you have with people who don't have the same beliefs as you? You seem more fixated on whether Bush agrees with what we say than the substance of our posts.

Once again, for those in the cheap seats:

I'm not supporting ANY theory. I'm simply adding facts (and occasional opinion) to the discussion. Most of these facts directly refute some of the CT claims. It's that simple.

[Abe Linkman]

20. Opinion is one thing, support for a lie is another.

Seriously, why do you support bushco's lies? You say you don't support any theory...well, what DO you support? Besides the Official Story LIES?

[MercutioATC]

22. This fixation on "bushco's lies" CAN'T be healthy...

Why is it that when I say that if a 757 engine was found at the Pentagon, it probably fell off of a 757 or I explain how radar works I'm "support bushco's lies"?

What do I support? I support using the facts at hand (facts, not suppositions or anecdotes from EITHER side) to reach a conclusion as to what most likely happened. The facts I have don't always support the "official" version, but they create holes miles wide in most of the CTs I've read here.

I support forming conclusions without letting my distrust of this administration blind me to facts. Just because Bush says it, doesn't mean it's false, nor does it mean that I'm wholly adopting his version of events if I agree with some of his explanations.

All I'm asking is that you discuss the FACTS with me (if you choose) and stow the personal attacks and innuendo. Doesn't that make more sense than the interaction we've been having?

[Abe Linkman]

24. Your failure or refusal to state which facts you support is telling

Worst, you won't say which bushco lies you DON'T support. Why?

bushco has lied about every major event during his Presidency; but you can't bring yourself to tell us even ONE lie about 9-11 that you don't support?

As an apologist for the Official Story Conspiracy Theory, don't you see that you're here on DEMOCRATIC Underground, supporting Republican lies?

Repent, mercutio. Take off the mask, and confess.

[MercutioATC]

26. See Post #23 (where I answer the question you ask)

Again, why the need to attack my supposed motivations instead of what I say? Face it, you have NO idea what my motivation for posting here is, just as I have no idea why you choose to.

Why not deal with the message rather than the messenger?

[Abe Linkman]

30. Uh, mercutio: Your "message" is EMPTY, pal. As in Fact-Free

Your message is UNresponsive. You said that you don't support all of the Official Story. Fair enough. I'm just asking you for the 50th time, to say what parts of it you don't support. What's so hard about that?

[Abe Linkman]

28. Tell us some of the bushco 9-11 "facts" you don't support

How about it, mercutio?

Your continued dancing around, makes it look like you are an apologist for the most dishonest presidency in American history. And, you really think we should believe it, too?

[Abe Linkman]

16. "lared's" apparent support of fairy tales & other lies by Bushco Inc.

The "Wacky Cavepeople Are Responsible For 9-11" Conspiracy Theory was cooked up by a bunch of liars in the Bush Administration.

"lared" -- Why do you expect informed, objective observers to believe the 9-11 fairy tale told by the same Bushco group that has lied about nearly everything of importance since the first day they've been in power? Why do YOU believe them? (I assume you wouldn't be here promoting their BS, unless you really believed it. Is that right?)

[LARED]

39. Abe, what the hell are you talking about?

bushco lies?

The only way it is possible that all the information about who created 9/11 are bushco lies is if Bush controls all media outlets, all radio, hundreds if not thousands of private individual that provided information about the 9/11 attacks; not to mention having absolute control over FEMA, the NIST, the 9/11 commission, the NSA, CIA, FBI and all other intelligence organization. There is no way possible that the Bush administration could have made 9/11 happen.

A president cannot have that much power. There are too many good and decent people out there that would need to turn a blind eye for this too happen.

[Abe Linkman]

40. "lared" - You ARE kidding, right? Seriously.

That's like saying "the only way bushco could have gotten away with all the lies about Saddam's alleged WMD, or OBL's band of Evil Doers 'attacking Murika' is if bush controls all media outlets, all radio , hundreds if not thousands...."

Wake up, and smell the caffeine. There are too many good and decent people out there who let thugs like bushco get away with doing "bad" things.

[LARED]

43. Abe, really, enjoy your paranoia.

I won't even try to convince you that George Bush is a lousy president and incompetent.

But the god-like qualities you insist he has is unheathly.

[Abe Linkman]

45. "lared", really, enjoy your amateur disinfo agent status

I won't even point that you failed or refused to respond to the substance of what I said -- because it would conflict with your agenda.

[LARED]

50. Sure Abe

I won't even point that you failed or refused to respond to the substance of what I said -- because it would conflict with your agenda.

Substance? Did you say something of substance? If you did, I 'll be more than happy to provide an answer after you respond to the disinfo you are humping about there being five "war games" on 9/11 and that they were used to cause confusion.

[Abe Linkman]

51. Now that Mercutio has come out of the LIHOP closet, how 'bout YOU?

You post a lot of criticism that could be interpreted as merely covering up for your true "beliefs" or knowledge that 9-11 was a U.S. sponsored
self-attack that used long-time CIA asset OBL as the proxy perp (Patsy).

It might too much to expect a full MIHOP confessional, but you could use the Mercutio example as a guide in your case.

How about it, "lared": Mercutio has stepped up to plate. S/he knows that you can only defend the indefensible for so long (at least with a straight face...unless you're being paid to).

Say something of substance, "lared" - say you know that there's no way in Hartford, Helliford, or Hampshure that a bunch of cave dwellers could have pulled off a modern day Pearl Harbor.

LIHOP, or MIHOP? Which is it for you, "lared"?

[LARED]

53. HAHAHAHAHAHA

You post a lot of criticism that could be interpreted as merely covering up for your true "beliefs" or knowledge that 9-11 was a U.S. sponsored self-attack that used long-time CIA asset OBL as the proxy perp (Patsy).

Show me some criticism from me that could be interpreted that way.


It might too much to expect a full MIHOP confessional, but you could use the Mercutio example as a guide in your case.

Yes. it would Abe; it would be like expecting me to admit I've lost all sense.

How about it, "lared": Mercutio has stepped up to plate. S/he knows that you can only defend the indefensible for so long (at least with a straight face...unless you're being paid to).

Some old bullshit from Abe. You can't defend your position when light is shined on it so you resort to the paid disinfo agent nonsense.

Say something of substance, "lared" - say you know that there's no way in Hartford, Helliford, or Hampshure that a bunch of cave dwellers could have pulled off a modern day Pearl Harbor.

Tell you what Abe, go to the last four posts in this thread. They are posted by me in response to your belief that there were five "war-games" planned on 9/11, and they were designed to cause confusion. Read them and then respond without the paid disinfo bullshit or wacky cave people sophistry. In other word act like you are interested in defending your position and act with a modicum of respect to others positions and say something, anything of substance. I'll respond likewise.

LIHOP, or MIHOP? Which is it for you, "lared"?

Sorry Abe, its still just plain old incompetence at the end of the day. Incompetence that started long before Bush took office and got progressively worse from that day.

[Abe Linkman]

54. WHAT was the incompetence, "lared" - that's just a coverup

That's a coverup story. No one has ever said what the incompetence was.
It's like other disinfo stories. You know, you've probably used them:
* Intelligence failures.
* Negligence
* Bureaucratic snafus

When a criminal gets caught, you don't say the crime was caused by incompetence. Why are you an apologist for the criminal bushco?

[LARED]

56. Let me help you out Abe

in·com·pe·tent

1. Not qualified in legal terms: a defendant who was incompetent to stand trial.

2. Inadequate for or unsuited to a particular purpose or application.
3. Devoid of those qualities requisite for effective conduct or action.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=67&q=incompetence

Try it out in a sentence.

The incompetence of the Bush administration failed to prevent an attack on 9/11. They have a large and expensive intelligence service that is tasked with monitoring organizations whose goals are the destruction of American institutions and infrastructure. They failed. They did not fulfill their purpose.


Can I assume you never plan on defending your position on the so called "war games" sophistry?

[Abe Linkman]

58. Competence is irrelevant to intent, "lared"

The question about 9-11 is whether or not the attacks were carried out by and with the assistance of the U.S. Government. Competence has nothing to do with that question.

The available evidence makes it clear that the Official Story Version is BS and that the Gov't itself was complicit in the attacks.

Raising a question about competence is a red herring disinfo tactic. You may or may not realize that, but it's the truth.

You are way behind the curve on this issue, and that's surprising, in light of the fact that you've spent two years being exposed to unanswered questions that demonstrate the Official Story is a lie.

That raises a question about why YOU are still an apologist for the "Cavepeople Did It" fairy tale.

Cognitive dissonance?

[LARED]

61. I agree

Competence can be irrelevant to intent.

The problem the CT'er have is that after 2 plus years no one has ever provided any evidence of intent. There has never been any evidence the Bush administration willingly or knowingly allowed or made 9/11 happen.

There has been endless amounts of speculation, some interesting, some idiotic, and some so stupid it's funny, but no evidence of intent to date.

So Abe, will you be the first to establish intent?

Shoot, at this point I'll settle for a logical guess as to why they would do this.

[Abe Linkman]

63. My friend, you've either wasted two years, or else you need help.

Have another day.

[demodewd]

64. Intent?

Intent? How about justification for a multi trillion dollar military/industrial effort to defeat the terrorists especially in regions that contain vast reserves of oil and natural gas. Its a race for resource domination in the world and the Western world has to make sure that we control areas that guarantee an continuing prosperity to our regions. And now we have increased competition from 1.China 2. India and 3. Russia. And now with 9-11 every military incursion becomes justified. A short synopsis.

[LARED]

68. That sounds great, but

what you described is more like a motive than intent.

Their motive may be to have more influence in oil producing regions to protect a resource perceived to be at risk. But it is quite unlikely that the US wants to or is able to control the ME through force.

Is that what you believe the goal to be? I'm pretty sure if you removed half of whatever brains exist in the Bush administration you would still not have enough stupid to believe that is possible.

So for arguments sake, if that is the motive, there are hundreds of ways to get there other than killing 3000 Americans. The motive you described is a fine one, but you still need to show how the Bush administration caused 9/11 to happen.

[LARED]

32. Northern Vigilance

December 9, 2001 Sunday Ontario Edition

SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. B05

LENGTH: 974 words

HEADLINE: The scene at NORAD on Sept. 11

BYLINE: Scott Simmie, Toronto Star

HIGHLIGHT:
Playing Russian war games ... and then someone shouted to look at the monitor

BODY:
EARLY morning, Sept. 11. A lifetime before the attacks on New York and Washington.

Deep inside a mountain in Colorado and far beneath the granite of North Bay, members of the North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD) are at full "battle staff" levels for a major annual exercise that tests every facet of the organization.

Operation Northern Vigilance, planned months in advance, involves deploying fighter jets to locations in Alaska and northern Canada. Part of this exercise is pure simulation, but part is real world: NORAD is keeping a close eye on the Russians, who have dispatched long-range bombers to their own high north on a similar exercise.

Everything is going as planned when Capt. Mike Jellinek arrives for his 6 a.m. shift. The Canadian will be overseeing the crew staffing a crucial post inside the mountain - NORAD's command centre.

Whether it's a simulation or a real-world event, the role of the centre is to fuse every critical piece of information NORAD has into a concise and crystalline snapshot.

An hour into his shift, something unscripted happens. NORAD's Northeast Air Defence Sector (NEADS), based in Rome, N.Y., contacts the mountain.

The Federal Aviation Administration has evidence of a hijacking and is asking for NORAD support. This is not part of the exercise.

In a flash, Operation Northern Vigilance is called off. Any simulated information, what's known as an "inject," is purged from the screens.

Someone shouted to look at the monitor displaying CNN.

"At that point, we saw the World Trade Center, one of the towers, smoke coming out of it. And a minute later, we watched the live feed as the second aircraft swung around into the second tower," says Jellinek.

He had one question for the people on the line from NEADS: "Was that the hijacked aircraft you were dealing with?" he asked.

Yes, it was, came the reply.

And then, Jellinek says, "it got really, really busy."

Maj.-Gen. Rick Findley, director of NORAD operations, had just completed the night shift. Usually, Findley would be across town at NORAD headquarters at Peterson Air Force Base. But because of the exercise and the time difference with Russia, he'd been working nights in the mountain. He was just preparing to leave when the disaster began unfolding.

It was a scenario unlike any NORAD had trained for.

[LARED]

33. Vigilant Guardian

Calgary Herald (Alberta, Canada)

October 14, 2001 Sunday Final EDITION

SECTION: NEWS, Pg. A1 / FRONT

LENGTH: 959 words

HEADLINE: Sept. 11 baptism of fire for Norad officer: Training pays off

BYLINE: Linda Slobodian

SOURCE: Calgary Herald

DATELINE: CHEYENNE MOUNTAIN, Colo.

BODY:
Canadian Capt. Neal Mathews eagerly reported for his first day as an air battle management officer in the Command Centre at Norad headquarters.

He was excited about the major training exercise underway -- Vigilant Guardian -- conducted only twice a year in this granite bunker carved into Cheyenne Mountain, in Colorado Springs, Colo.

Just 45 minutes into his first shift in his four-year posting, all hell broke loose.

It was Sept. 11.

Mathews stood dumbfounded with Norad military experts, Canadians and Americans shoulder to shoulder, helplessly watching a horrifying crisis unfold on the TV set in the Command Centre.

An airplane had crashed into one of the World Trade Center's twin towers. Was it caused by a mechanical problem? Was it the aircraft rumoured, but not yet confirmed, as hijacked?

Information started trickling in, then spewing through the computer network and over the phone lines.

Then a second plane crashed into the other World Trade Center tower.

At this point, the training exercise was scrapped -- Vigilant Guardian became Operation Noble Eagle -- and Norad plunged full-throttle into the reality of high alert.

[LARED]

36. NRO "war game" LOL

The Record (Bergen County, NJ)

August 22, 2002 Thursday All Editions

SECTION: NEWS; Pg. A12

LENGTH: 338 words

HEADLINE: Planned exercise a weird coincidence;
Sept. 11 'crash' quickly canceled

SOURCE: Wire Services

BYLINE: JOHN J. LUMPKIN, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

BODY:
WASHINGTON - In what the government describes as a bizarre coincidence, one U.S. intelligence agency was planning an exercise last Sept. 11 in which an errant aircraft would crash into one of its buildings. But the cause wasn't terrorism - it was to be a simulated accident.

Officials at the Chantilly, Va.-based National Reconnaissance Office had scheduled an exercise that morning in which a small corporate jet would crash into one of the four towers at the agency's headquarters building after experiencing a mechanical failure.

....

Agency chiefs came up with the scenario to test employees' ability to respond to a disaster, said spokesman Art Haubold. No actual plane was to be involved - to simulate the damage from the crash, some stairwells and exits were to be closed off, forcing employees to find other ways to evacuate the building.

"It was just an incredible coincidence that this happened to involve an aircraft crashing into our facility," Haubold said. "As soon as the real world events began, we canceled the exercise."

Terrorism was to play no role in the exercise, which had been planned for several months, he said.

....


The National Reconnaissance Office operates many of the nation's spy satellites. It draws its personnel from the military and the CIA.

After the Sept. 11 attacks, most of the 3,000 people who work at agency headquarters were sent home, save for some essential personnel, Haubold said.






Guelph Mercury (Ontario, Canada)

August 22, 2002 Thursday Final Edition

SECTION: NEWS; Pg. A11

LENGTH: 135 words

HEADLINE: Intelligence agency planned to crash plane into building

SOURCE: Mercury news services

DATELINE: WASHINGTON

BODY:
A U.S. intelligence agency was planning an exercise last Sept. 11 in which an errant aircraft would crash into one of its buildings.

Officials at the Chantilly, Va. -based National Reconnaissance Office had scheduled an exercise that morning in which a small corporate jet would crash into one of the four towers at the agency's headquarters building after experiencing a mechanical failure.

The agency is about 6.5 kilometres from the runways of Washington Dulles International Airport.

Agency chiefs came up with the scenario to test employees' ability to respond to a disaster, said spokesman Art Haubold. No actual plane was to be involved -- to simulate the damage from the crash, some stairwells and exits were to be closed

[LARED]

38. wargames caused so much confusion ????????

Not based on reality

Vigilant Warrior was an operation from 1994. Clark probably misspoke and said Vigilant Warrior rather than Vigilant Guardian. This is understandable a Clark most likely had a big role in Viglant Warrior with Bush Sr.

Northern Vigilance and Vigilant Guardian are the same exercises. As both took place at NORAD in Colorado, either the names have been mixed up or they were two difference parts of the same training exercise.

At ant rate it seems Vigilant Guardian, Northern Vigilance, and Vigilant Warrior are in reality one training exercise.

The reference to the term Northern Guardian in the Toronto Star, December 9, 2001 is BS. It does not exist.

So we most likely have one exercise at NORAD.


So (From the above link.)

An hour into his shift, something unscripted happens. NORAD's Northeast Air Defence Sector (NEADS), based in Rome, N.Y., contacts the mountain.

The Federal Aviation Administration has evidence of a hijacking and is asking for NORAD support. This is not part of the exercise.

In a flash, Operation Northern Vigilance is called off. Any simulated information, what's known as an "inject," is purged from the screens.

Someone shouted to look at the monitor displaying CNN.

"At that point, we saw the World Trade Center, one of the towers, smoke coming out of it. And a minute later, we watched the live feed as the second aircraft swung around into the second tower," says Jellinek.

He had one question for the people on the line from NEADS: "Was that the hijacked aircraft you were dealing with?" he asked.

Yes, it was, came the reply.

The folks at NORAD did not even know about the attack until the first plane hit. This makes sense as NORAD is tasked with monitoring incoming air space not the airspace in the USA. Someone had to call them to let them know what was happening. Once they knew, they canceled the exercise and attempted to figure out what to do. No one at NORAD seemed to be confused between the exercise and the real attack. There is a reason for this NORAD does not have any reason to hold exercises simulating an internal attack.

__________________________________________________


The NRO “war game” is amusing to say the least. The scenario calls for a small plane to crash into the building and folks have to figure out what exits to take. I can really see how this was critical to the 9/11 plot going off without a hitch LOL.


The biowar exercise in New York is also pretty amusing when one tries to imply that it was useful for the “inside” terrorists. How having FEMA in town with the attacks occurring before the exercise started seem to have no bearing on the ability to pull off 9/11. If anyone can tell me please speak up.

__________________________________________________

In summary

There was one NORAD exercise on 9/11 not three. Not exactly amazing as NORAD holds training exercises all the time. Because NORAD watches for attacks form the outside-in they don’t even know we are under attack until someone calls them. Once they know they scrap the exercise.

The NRO exercise is an evacuation drill that tests the employee’s reaction if some stairwells are closed. The folks at the NRO are so important that everyone except those critical to the operation are let go after the attacks.

The biowar training did not take place and I hope one of you 9/11 investigators can tell me how having a bunch of FEMA guys and first reponders in NYC is critical to the attacks happening, please let the world know.

[John Doe II]

76. Vigilant Warrior was indeed an excerise

It's true that Vigilant Warrior was the name of an operation in 1994 but it was also the name of an excercise in April 2001.
Copyright 2001 Times Publishing Company
St. Petersburg Times (Florida)

April 29, 2001, Sunday, 0 South Pinellas Edition

SECTION: NATIONAL; Pg. 1A

LENGTH: 898 words

HEADLINE: War game gives peek into Army of the future

BYLINE: PAUL DE LA GARZA

DATELINE: CARLISLE BARRACKS, Pa.

BODY:
On Feb. 15, 2015, the third Sunday of the month, war breaks out in northwest Asia over a water dispute. Within days, the United States enters the war.

To confuse its adversary on the battlefield, the enemy unleashes chemical weapons and showers European capitals with missiles. The enemy also dispatches Special Forces to attack places like Dallas and Washington.

Not a pretty picture.

But the story line and, in particular, how it plays out, is intended to help war planners at the Pentagon who are charged with building the Army of the future. The task, they say, is as revolutionary as going from trench to modern warfare.

Last week, the Army invited reporters to the U.S. Army War College in Pennsylvania to observe "The Army Transformation War Game 2001 - Vigilant Warriors 01."

In addition to the Army, the players included representatives of the Central Command and the Special Operations Command, both based at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, and the CIA and the Marines, Navy, Air Force and National Security Agency.

The game featured a Blue Team, the good guys, and a Red Team, the bad guys, in stale classroom settings with lots of fluorescent light and computers and world maps.

In a series of briefings conducted in Pentagon speak, with technical charts and acronyms, war game leaders spoke of Legacy Forces and Interim Forces and the Objective Force.

After a while, the picture that emerged through the jargon was not of a lethal fighting force but of comedian Bill Murray. Actually, it was the catch phrase of the Army comedy Stripes, which refers to his rag-tag squad as "a lean, mean, fighting machine."

An Army text describes the mission of the Objective Force, or the Army of the future, this way: "Emerging 21st century challenges will demand a more agile Army - strategically, operationally, physically and mentally.

"Only through revolutionary change will the Army be able to achieve a force, empowered first and foremost by its leaders and soldiers, capable of sustained warfighting dominance across the full spectrum of operations.

"The Army must deliberately and comprehensively transform to fully capitalize on leap-ahead capabilities, retain our current warfighting advantages, and deny similar advantages to our potential enemies."

Brig. Gen. Hank Stratman, the war game director, put it this way, "I'm helping create the Objective Force my grandchildren will join."

Recent conflicts, including the Persian Gulf War, have revealed the logistical nightmare of moving a massive fighting force half way around the world. As a result, the Army is shedding some war-fighting concepts grounded in the Cold War.

The new threat, war planners think, is more likely to come not from a superpower with a large army, but from so-called rogue states willing to use weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear bombs, against the United States.

The enemy will be unpredictable and cells scattered about various regions will be able to unite quickly and blend with the population in an urban setting.

So how do we prepare?

You fast-forward.

"We determine what the world might look like and postulate that," said Bob Reuss, assistant deputy chief of staff for intelligence at the Army Training and Doctrine Command. "You look and decide what kind of threat we would have to fight."

In "Vigilant Warriors," the level of detail is so precise that in the first days of war, a thunderstorm disrupts the communications of the U.S.-led coalition. Back home, snow blankets the Northeast, delaying the delivery of war-fighting materiel to U.S. forces.

War planners say the object of the game is not necessarily to win, but to get an idea of what the Objective Force should look like.

"We know that the world is changing around us," said Lt. Gen. Mike Steel, the executive game director. "As the world changes around us, the U.S. Army has got to change to meet the demands of the nation."

And of the world.

Also participating in the war game, which ended Friday, were the armies of Australia, Britain, Canada, Germany, France and Italy.

Clive Hodges, a colonel in the British army, praised the exercise.

"It is important for (America's friends) to see how this thing is developing and how we can operate alongside," he said. "It is important for us to operate more efficiently in 15 years."

Reporters were brought in on Day 3 of a five-day process.

While officials said it was too early to say what problems the U.S.-coalition was facing, a few did come to mind. Hodges, for one, said the bombing of European capitals had introduced "a whole new dynamic into the whole sphere of coalition decisionmaking."

Retired Brig. Gen. Huba Wass De Czege, meanwhile, the commander of the Blue Team, said he had discovered that certain high-tech equipment required more personnel to operate in war than in training. A leading futurist in military thought, Wass De Czege said it was critical to have well-trained, educated people to run often-complicated machinery.

As the years pass, he said, "The level of complexity of this business goes up."

Finally, because of political sensitivities, the Pentagon asked reporters not to identify the countries that drag the United States into war.

But if you think hard enough, if you go down the list of usual suspects and envision a war over scarce water, you can probably figure out who the bad guys are.

[LARED]

78. Thanks for posting this info.

It does not have much bearing on the 5 - 9/11 "war games", as this took place in April 2001.

[k-robjoe]

89. confusion

From this article (originally from the "Guardian"), it seems there was a lot of confusion :

" Meanwhile, in the skies above Washington, American flight 77 had begun to diverge from its course. But for 13 minutes, investigators said, a software anomaly meant that radar information did not reach the air traffic control centre that was responsible for it.

Military commanders, unaware that flight 77 was missing, became convinced that it was flight 11 - which had already crashed - that was heading for the capital.

The confusion grew deeper. Fighter planes were dispatched to intercept the plane, but the pilots were never briefed on why they were being sent, and ended up over the Atlantic."

http://www.thehindu.com/thehindu/holnus/001200406181557.htm

And a few weeks ago M. Ruppert wrote that he has found out that there was being conducted "a joint, live-fly, hijack Field Training Exercise (FTX) which involved at least one (and almost certainly many more) aircraft under US control that was posing as a hijacked airliner." ( "That is just the tip of what I have uncovered.")

Guess we will just have to wait and see.

[LARED]

90. I have no doubt there was confusion

after all it's not everyday that four aircraft get hijacked within an hour or so of each other and get crashed into buildings.

My only point is that the training exercises did not cause confusion.

[Abe Linkman]

91. "Training exercises" provided necessary distraction

I don't even think it was a very clever idea, because it's so obvious.
So, how do they get away with that kind of BS? A lying Administration, and a compliant media. Plus diehards like yourself, who can't (or refuse) to look behind the curtain.

[LARED]

92. How's this for an idea

Instead of the constant zero value posts and non stop sophistry, try providing information that backs up your position.

If you look I posted several articles that indicate

1. That the training exercises on 9/11 did not add to any confusion that day.
2. That were were not five "wargames" on 9/11 as you claim.


If you want anyone to believe you have any credibility outside of being disruptive, try providing something that bolsters your claim that "Training exercises" provided necessary distraction."

If you can't do that then you're just blowing smoke out your ....

[seatnineb]

55. www.9/11 commission.b******t

Perhaps the 9/11 commission could enlighten us about those super long-sighted seeing pilots of Flight 175..........

Those glasses must have possessed some special lenses......

Enough to make Saracini and Horrocks see more than at least 80 miles!

Because that is roughly how far flight 175 was from flight 11
when an ATC asked Saracini(or Horrocks) at 8:37AM whether he/they could see the missing American plane.............

[LARED]

57. Perhaps you could explain

what you're talking about in more detail. A link would be great.

[pberq]

62. Planes are routinely intercepted

Here is something I posted on another thread, which didn't generate much of a response. But it contradicts this notion that "NORAD and the FAA were unprepared for the type of attacks launched against the United States on September 11, 2001."

To sum up, there was a standard operating procedure that was not followed, and no explanation has been given as to why it was not followed. Elsewhere in the book, we find out that planes are routinely interecepted at the rate of about 100 per year.

This is from the book The New Pearl Harbor, by David Ray Griffin:

"So, even if the FAA had waited until the plane went off course at 8:20, the plane should have been intercepted by 8:30, or 8:35 at the latest, again in plenty of time to prevent it from going into New York City.

As to what would occur upon interception, Ahmed explains by quoting the FAA manual:

Rocking wings from a position slightly above and ahead of, and normally to the left of, the intercepted aircraft.... This action conveys the message: "You have been intercepted." The commercial jet is then supposed to respond by rocking its wings to indicate compliance, upon which the interceptor performs a "slow level turn, normally to the left, on to the desired heading ." The commercial plane then responds by following the escort. ⁷

If Flight 11 had been thus intercepted but did not respond, it would, according to standard procedures, have been shot down. Marine Corps Major Mike Snyder, a NORAD spokesman, after telling the Boston Globe that NORAD's "fighters routinely intercept aircraft," continued:

When planes are intercepted, they typically are handled with graduated response. The approaching fighter may rock its wingtips to attract the pilot's attention, or make a pass in front of the aircraft. Eventually, it can fire tracer rounds in the airplane's path, or, under certain circumstances, down it with a missile. ⁸

The question raised by critics, of course, is why this did not happen in the case of Flight 11. Why was the plane not even intercepted?"

[MercutioATC]

75. I haven't read the book, pberg...

Does Griffin break down how many interceptions were done by fighters that were already in the air (say, on training exercises) and how many were scrambled?

The reason I ask is that I've been an ATC for 13 years and have seen ZERO interceptions, but we don't have fighter blocks in my airspace. I'm just curious how many of these "interceptions" involve a pilot straying into a militark block that fighters are already training in and being escorted out of the block by those same fighters.

[pberq]

87. Unfortunately, no he doesn't break it down

in that way. Have you read the details of the Payne Stewart intercept?

This page has links to FAA regs on standard intercept procedures:
http://www.standdown.net/FAAstandardinterceptprocedures.htm

and this one gives a chronology of the standdown:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/ELS305A.html

I'm curious to find out what experiences you have had as an ATC when planes go off course.

[MercutioATC]

96. It happens all of the time, pberg...

(planes going off course)

Usually, it's resolved with a call or two to the pilot. Sometimes we have to contact the airline to send a text message through the plane's computer. Sometimes we just keep people out of the way until we can reestablish contact.

If fighters were scrambled for every plane that went off course, lost radio contact, or lost its transponder it'd make the cost of the Iraq war pale in comparison. We deal with these things on a daily basis. We have a different awareness since 9/11, but I've never seen fighters called up for an intercept in 13 years working in the busiest ATC facility on the planet.

Sorry it took so long to respond, I missed your message when you originally posted it.