Some Amazing New 9E Information

[RealDealNeverstop]

These are some of the latest entries at historycommons and provide additional information on why the OCT* is questionable.

1. NORAD ran hijacking drills 60 times per year in the three years prior to the attacks. In addition to all the other exercises, including planes being hijacked and crashed into the WTC and UN in NYC, it is kind of hard to sell the idea "nobody had imagined planes would be used as missiles" as often claimed by the Bush Admin.
(1998-September 10, 2001): NORAD Operations Center Runs Five ‘Hijack Training Events’ Each Month

2. Senior Military Officer at Pentagon says to keep quiet about hijacked plane heading towards DC. Say what? Anyone explain that one?
(9:36 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Senior Navy Officer Wants Report of Hijacked Plane Approaching Washington Kept Secret

3. Border agent staying at hotel sees a plane take off from Reagan just before the Pentagon is hit. He describes it as an American Airlines plane. Since the Pentagon is less than a mile from the airport this testimony implies the Pentagon was struck from Reagan airport. He noticed the plane taking off towards the Pentagon and for those who dont know, that was not standard practice. The key factor here is all planes were grounded from take-off 30 minutes prior. How did this plane take off? Where did it go?
(9:36 a.m.) September 11, 2001: American Airlines Plane Seen Taking Off from Reagan Airport, Flying toward Pentagon

4. There is video footage from a Park Police helicopter immediately following the Pentagon attack that was fed live to the FBI and other agencies. I do not know if this footage has ever been made available to the public, but if it hasn't, it should be.
(Shortly After 9:41 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Park Police Helicopter Provides Live Video Feed of Pentagon Crash Scene to FBI and Other Agencies

*Official: The government's offical explanation
Conspiracy: 19 people conspired to commit the attacks
Theory: It has never been proven in court or anywhere else and until it has, remains a theory.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

What does OTC mean?
I notice it has a * but there isnt a second * explaining it?

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

What does OTC mean?
I notice it has a * but there isnt a second * explaining it?

OP edited to include explanation, thanks.

 

[oldbetang]

These are some of the latest entries at historycommons and provide additional information on why the OCT* is questionable.

1. NORAD ran hijacking drills 60 times per year in the three years prior to the attacks. In addition to all the other exercises, including planes being hijacked and crashed into the WTC and UN in NYC, it is kind of hard to sell the idea "nobody had imagined planes would be used as missiles" as often claimed by the Bush Admin.
(1998-September 10, 2001): NORAD Operations Center Runs Five ‘Hijack Training Events’ Each Month

I would encourage people to look at the exercises listed at the site that Historycommons linked to and see if they can find anything that approximates the events of 9/11. See if you prove that NORAD'S commanding officer and the 9/11 Commission were lying when they said that NORAD had never anticipated or exercised for such an event as that which occurred on 9/11.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

I would encourage people to look at the exercises listed at the site that Historycommons linked to and see if they can find anything that approximates the events of 9/11. See if you prove that NORAD'S commanding officer and the 9/11 Commission were lying when they said that NORAD had never anticipated or exercised for such an event as that which occurred on 9/11.

Since this is coming from a poster who resorts to accusing eyewitnesses of faulty memories just because their testimonies do not support the OCT, I suggest being aware of the depths of deception that get employed.

Regarding NORAD exercises, they ran exercises of planes being hijacked both inside and outside the US and the hijacked planes being used to fly into the WTC, the UN HQ in NYC, and the Statue of Liberty.

On the very morning of the attacks NORAD was running an exercise involving a commercial airliner being hijacked and when the news of the first hijacked plane was communicated to NORAD one of the officers actually said:

"The hijack is not supposed to be for another hour!"

 

[circa02]

Keep fighting the good fight, RealDeal

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

Here is another military commander in Louisiana running an exercise on 9/11 who thinks the report of the first plane hitting the WTC is part of the exercise:

"When Lieutenant General Thomas Keck , the
commander of the 8th Air Force at Barksdale Air Force
Base in Louisiana , is told that a plane has crashed into
the World Trade Center, he mistakenly thinks this is a
simulated scenario as part of a training exercise."
Context of '8:30 a.m. September 11, 2001: US Military Holding ‘Practice Armageddon’ Nationwide Training Exercise'

My point? It's simple. If the idea of a hijacked plane being used to hit the WTC was so "unimaginable" why did so many senior military officers mistake it for being part of the exercise?

 

[oldbetang]

The following video was introduced as evidence in the Zacarias Moussaoui trial. The fact that it was accepted as evidence in a Court of Law validates it as being genuine.

Bin Laden "Confession" Video - YouTube

There is no doubt as to who was responsible for 9/11. 85% of Americans accept the fact that it was sponsored by, planned and carried out by Al Qaeda. Only 15% suspect US involvement of some kind. Considering how conspiratorial that the US population tends to be, that miniscule 15% should be cause for some of the conspiracy leaners to reconsider their position.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

The following video was introduced as evidence in the Zacarias Moussaoui trial. The fact that it was accepted as evidence in a Court of Law validates it as being genuine.

Bin Laden "Confession" Video - YouTube

There is no doubt as to who was responsible for 9/11. 85% of Americans accept the fact that it was sponsored by, planned and carried out by Al Qaeda. Only 15% suspect US involvement of some kind. Considering how conspiratorial that the US population tends to be, that miniscule 15% should be cause for some of the conspiracy leaners to reconsider their position.

lol...the pathetic and desperate deceptions continue.

The video was stipulated which means the Defense did not challenge the authenticity of the tape. I know you were hoping people would be stupid enough to believe your claim it had to be authentic simply because it was at KSM's trial but I have some bad news for you. Amateur hour is over. You better step up your game or be prepared to have your claims exposed for what they are: desperate distractions.

We also know if the confession video was authentic it would have been sufficient for the FBI to charge bin laden but the FBI never had any evidence against bin laden for 9/11, as admitted by the FBI.

(now get ready for the next distraction...that bin laden didnt need to be charged for 9/11.)

We all notice how as soon as I thump the claim NORAD didnt have any preparations for 9/11 the subject tries to get changed from the OP.

Eta: forgot to point out, that tape was such a joke even Fox news said the first time bin laden confessed was in October 2004, just four days before the POTUS election:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137095,00.html

 

[Btodd]

We all notice how as soon as I thump the claim NORAD didnt have any preparations for 9/11 the subject tries to get changed from the OP.

What I noticed was that when the actual timeline of events, and the transcripts of what happened, were brought up in the other thread...you suddenly had nothing to say about anything of detail.

And after accusing me of 'intellectual dishonesty' regarding the transponders, I posted the testimony of Lieutenant Colonel Nasypany, which affirmed what I had already said...and asked you if the Lieutenant Colonel was lying.

And what did you do? Tucked your tail, left the thread, and started a new one. How brave. So, are you still going to try and omit any of the FAA's importance in all of this, and stick with the 'NORAD did exercises' mantra?

I'll just post the timeline again, the transcripts, and the testimony of the people that were there, and ask you if they're all lying.

You can start a new thread every 5 minutes, but until one of them actually addresses what happened on that day, your argument is a non-sequitur.

It would be like me arguing that after the Cowboys had scored a touchdown in a football game against the Steelers using a particular passing play...that the Steelers had prepared for particular passing plays all week in practice, therefore the touchdown couldn't have happened unless the Steelers had conspired to let it happen.




Btodd

 

[circa02]

Those of us who don't accept the official version of 9/11 don't throw around words like delusional against you guys. This topic will come up long after we're all dead, so you might as well learn to be civil, just for your own emotional health.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

Those of us who don't accept the official version of 9/11 don't throw around words like delusional against you guys. This topic will come up long after we're all dead, so you might as well learn to be civil, just for your own emotional health.

Anyone that cares about the subject can see how desperate OCTAs are to constantly imply truthers are crazy.

 

[oldbetang]

You got me! Typos are horrible and it should have said "ZM's trial." Oh the horror!

It was one guy who worked for NORAD that said they didnt anticipate anything like 9/11

It wasn't just some guy who worked for NORAD; it was the Commander of NORAD. Also, the 9/11 Commission found that "The threat of terrorists hijacking commercial airliners within the United States -- and using them as guided missiles -- was not recognized by NORAD before 9/11."

and his claim is proven false by all the hijacking drils run by NORAD, including where the WTC was a target. So explain how NORAD didnt anticipate anything like 9/11 while NORAD ran exercises of hijacked planes being flown in too the WTC.

You haven't shown that NORAD ran exercises of hijacked planes being flown into the WTC. You haven't provided any named NORAD officials attesting to your allegation nor have you provided any NORAD documentation that does so either. I looked through the list at the site that Historycommons linked to and I don't see any exercise involving WTC or any exercise that comes close to what took place on 9/11. So, where is it then?

Also explain why so many in the exercises thought the real announcement of flight 11 being hijacked was simply part of the exercise. Oh, and dont forget the commamnder who said "The hijack isnt supposed to be for another hour!."

There was a hijacking scenario exercise planned for that day. We are not told what type of a plane that it was but the scenario in no way approximated what took place on 9/11.

From the Vanity Fair article:"When they told me there was a hijack, my first reaction was 'Somebody started the exercise early,'" Nasypany later told me. The day's exercise was designed to run a range of scenarios, including a "traditional" simulated hijack in which politically motivated perpetrators commandeer an aircraft, land on a Cuba-like island, and seek asylum."I actually said out loud, 'The hijack's not supposed to be for another hour,'" Nasypany recalled.

Then you ignore the Fox link on it being a mistake. Really? Why didnt fox issue a retraction? Also, Tripoli is a city in Lebanon so your whiny CNN accusation is false because yes, there is a city called Tripoli in Lebanon:
Tripoli, Lebanon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My whiny CNN accusation? False? Really?

As for stipulations:

"Stipulations may cover a variety of matters . Parties are permitted to make stipulations
to dismiss or discontinue an action, to prescribe the issues to be tried , or to admit,
exclude, or withdraw evidence."
stipulation legal definition of stipulation. stipulation synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

the tape being at KSM.....oops....ZM's trial doesnt mean it was authentic in any way. And you know it. Why dont you show us when and where the tape was authenticated?

Like I said, amateur hour is over.

The very fact that it was accepted as evidence authenticates it. I'm not sure how your providing the definition of "stipulations" alters that. Perhaps, you could explain it.

 

[keith99]

Here is another military commander in Louisiana running an exercise on 9/11 who thinks the report of the first plane hitting the WTC is part of the exercise:

"When Lieutenant General Thomas Keck , the
commander of the 8th Air Force at Barksdale Air Force
Base in Louisiana , is told that a plane has crashed into
the World Trade Center, he mistakenly thinks this is a
simulated scenario as part of a training exercise."
Context of '8:30 a.m. September 11, 2001: US Military Holding ‘Practice Armageddon’ Nationwide Training Exercise'

My point? It's simple. If the idea of a hijacked plane being used to hit the WTC was so "unimaginable" why did so many senior military officers mistake it for being part of the exercise?

Becasue military excercises of this type are designed to include the unexpected?

That is a large part of such excercises, to see how your field commanders will react to somethgin 'unthinkable'.

If your total argument is that commanders innitially thought the report was part of an excercise then it is an argument of straw.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

Becasue military excercises of this type are designed to include the unexpected?

That is a large part of such excercises, to see how your field commanders will react to somethgin 'unthinkable'.

If your total argument is that commanders innitially thought the report was part of an excercise then it is an argument of straw.

The claim I am arguing against is that it was "unimaginable" terrorists would hijack planes and use them as missiles against buildings. Pointing out the commanders thought the real hijackings were part of the exercise is only piece of evidence I am using.

The main piece of evidence I am using against that claim is NORAD ran exercises of planes being hijacked both inside and outside the US to be used as missiles against buildings. NYC was a city that had three different targets being used in these exercises, including the WTC. So, to claim what happened on 9/11 was unimaginable is a completely false claim. Some exercises involved using actual aircraft so NORAD could use radar to identify friend from foe in a real world scenario.

 

[Supreme]

Not more conspiracy theory nonsense?

We've already had several threads derailed by self proclaimed 'truthers'. No one's mind was changed on their conspiracy theories being any closer to the truth than the official version of the story (the version that actually has, y'know, evidence).

 

[keith99]

The claim I am arguing against is that it was "unimaginable" terrorists would hijack planes and use them as missiles against buildings. Pointing out the commanders thought the real hijackings were part of the exercise is only piece of evidence I am using.

The main piece of evidence I am using against that claim is NORAD ran exercises of planes being hijacked both inside and outside the US to be used as missiles against buildings. NYC was a city that had three different targets being used in these exercises, including the WTC. So, to claim what happened on 9/11 was unimaginable is a completely false claim. Some exercises involved using actual aircraft so NORAD could use radar to identify friend from foe in a real world scenario.

Yuo keep claiming NORAD ran such excercises. You have repeatedly been ask for evidence of this and so far as far as I can see have failed to provide any.

If I am mistaken in that please provide the post number where you did so and restate the evidence.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

Yuo keep claiming NORAD ran such excercises. You have repeatedly been ask for evidence of this and so far as far as I can see have failed to provide any.

If I am mistaken in that please provide the post number where you did so and restate the evidence.

I have posted the links several times so I don't know how you missed them. The historycommons site appears to be down so I will link an alternative and am only using this site because I know the info is accurate:

OCTOBER 2000 SCENARIO: STOLEN PLANE TARGETS UN BUILDING

JUNE 2000 SCENARIOS : HIJACKERS PLAN TO CRASH PLANES INTO WHITE HOUSE
AND STATUE OF LIBERTY

NOVEMBER 1999 SCENARIO: TERRORISTS PLAN TO CRASH HIJACKED PLANE INTO
UN BUILDING
Http://letsrollforums.com/norad-exercise-2000-crash-t21995.html

Some try to claim any exercise involving a hijacked plane from a foreign country means it is not the same. That is partially true but it does not negate the fact the hijackers intended to use the planes as missiles, and that is what we were told was unimaginable.

It is important to note CONR was part of the exercises involving hijackings be they from US or foreign aircraft because CONR's role is to protect the Continental US.

 

[keith99]

I have posted the links several times so I don't know how you missed them. The historycommons site appears to be down so I will link an alternative and am only using this site because I know the info is accurate:

OCTOBER 2000 SCENARIO: STOLEN PLANE TARGETS UN BUILDING

JUNE 2000 SCENARIOS : HIJACKERS PLAN TO CRASH PLANES INTO WHITE HOUSE
AND STATUE OF LIBERTY

NOVEMBER 1999 SCENARIO: TERRORISTS PLAN TO CRASH HIJACKED PLANE INTO
UN BUILDING
Http://letsrollforums.com/norad-exercise-2000-crash-t21995.html

Some try to claim any exercise involving a hijacked plane from a foreign country means it is not the same. That is partially true but it does not negate the fact the hijackers intended to use the planes as missiles, and that is what we were told was unimaginable.

It is important to note CONR was part of the exercises involving hijackings be they from US or foreign aircraft because CONR's role is to protect the Continental US.

I would not consider your link a good source.

However it links to some pretty reasonable mainstream sources.

I'd say it puts you up in hte evidence battle.

I find interconential vrs local a significant difference. But hardly one that makes what occured totally different. Especially since it was a NORAD excercise. Localy hijacked could well be out of their jurisdiction. Just like a CHP excercise involved the freeways and major highways, not local city streets.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

I would not consider your link a good source.

However it links to some pretty reasonable mainstream sources.

I'd say it puts you up in hte evidence battle.

I find interconential vrs local a significant difference. But hardly one that makes what occured totally different. Especially since it was a NORAD excercise. Localy hijacked could well be out of their jurisdiction. Just like a CHP excercise involved the freeways and major highways, not local city streets.

I stated I had to use an alternative source and that I would not normally link a site like that. Historycommons has all the info but the site was down when I replied so I used a different source that compiled much info but there is even more available regarding exercises.

Any hijacked plane in North America, which fully encompasses the continental US is in the jurisdiction of NORAD. In fact, NORAD is the only agency responsible for the security of US airspace. NORAD is organized into different regions and one of those is CONR:

"A component of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD ), the
Continental NORAD Region (CONR) provides airspace surveillance and control and
directs air sovereignty activities for the continental United States (CONUS)."
Http://www.norad.mil/about/CONR.html

CONR was involved in the hijacking scenarios regardless of point of origin for the hijacked plane so it doesn't matter where the plane came from. The exercises assumed the hijacked planes would be in the continental US at some point and that is why CONR participated in the exercises. If the exercises didnt assume hijacked aircraft would be flying in the US then CONR would not have been included in the exercises.

There is no "local" jurisdiction for NORAD because it covers the entire US. The FAA is an administrative agency enforcing flight laws and maintaining commercial traffic while NORAD provides security and defense. It's similar to a shopping mall as the manager maintains daily operation but is it the security guards responsible for the safety of shoppers. Both groups operate in the same space but have different responsibilities.