The next logocal step in the 9-11 Conspiracy Theory

[PredFan]

I really love how they use a typical military exercise as part of their cover story....

I really can't remember not being on one exercise or another (other than one unit i was in) every month. I even remember participating in exercises where we stayed in garrison.

Others where we had what was called player cells.

But the best training was the exercises that were the most realistic....

BTW in the military Exercise means Practice.... You know, what you do to find your weaknesses and strengthen them.....

I hope that NORAD and others have exercises on a regular basis...If they don't we're in deep dodo.......

Where does military exercise come into this? I don't recall that.

 

[SFC Ollie]

They claim that NORAD was conducting an exercise where there was some hijacking......

 

[Capstone]

Where does military exercise come into this? I don't recall that.

Not that it's likely to make any difference, but here you go, PredFan.

Hey, check out my post count. I'm seriously considering allowing this post to mark my retirement from the USMB.

Or maybe I'll cave and shoot for 911 instead.

Only time will tell...

 

[PredFan]

Where does military exercise come into this? I don't recall that.

Not that it's likely to make any difference, but here you go, PredFan.

Hey, check out my post count. I'm seriously considering allowing this post to mark my retirement from the USMB.

Or maybe I'll cave and shoot for 911 instead.

Only time will tell...

Ok so the CTs are saying that the fighters were sent away in preparation for the attacks of 9-11?

How does THAT even make any sense?

 

[SFC Ollie]

Yet the standard fighters were on duty on the east coast........

 

[SAYIT]

Where does military exercise come into this? I don't recall that.

Not that it's likely to make any difference, but here you go, PredFan.

Hey, check out my post count. I'm seriously considering allowing this post to mark my retirement from the USMB.

Or maybe I'll cave and shoot for 911 instead.

Only time will tell...

Ok so the CTs are saying that the fighters were sent away in preparation for the attacks of 9-11?

How does THAT even make any sense?

CTs are not required to make sense.

 

[PredFan]

I don't understand the point. If the fighters were here in the US they wouldn't have been able to do anything anyway. It isn't routine for fighter jets to shoot down commercial airliners that get hijacked, and if the government was in on it why send the fighters away? Couldn't you just not order them into the air?

 

[SFC Ollie]

The fighters responded as they were trained to. To look for an enemy Aircraft or attack coming into the country. Not looking for hijacked airliners. one or two of which had already crashed before they were notified to take off....

 

[Capstone]

Looks like I'll be shooting for 911.

Yet the standard fighters were on duty on the east coast........

That's nothing more than optimistic speculation.

What we know is that an unspecified number of fighter jets were well outside of the theater for at least a couple of days prior to the real-world attacks on 9/11/01, but also that "All of NORAD [was] participating in Vigilant Guardian on 9/11" [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 6/3/2002] .

[...]It is unknown from which bases NORAD sends fighters for Northern Vigilance and how many US military personnel are involved. [Canadian Chief Defense Staff, 5/30/2001; North American Aerospace Defense Command, 9/9/2001]
[...]
The Russian exercise [Northern Vigilance] is scheduled to take place over the North Atlantic, Pacific, and Arctic Oceans from September 10 to September 14 (see September 10, 2001), and the NORAD fighters are set to stay in Alaska and Northern Canada until it ends. [BBC, 2001, pp. 161; North American Aerospace Defense Command, 9/9/2001; Washington Times, 9/11/2001][...]

Now, while NORAD was reportedly "fully staffed and alert" due to the overwhelming number of ongoing exercises (Northern Vigilance, Northern Guardian, and Amalgam Warrior), that didn't mean personnel and equipment were optimally deployed to handle the supposed real-world attacks that transpired, nor did it circumvent the potential for confusion in at least a couple of key instances.

[...] Deskins and other NORAD officials later are initially confused about whether the 9/11 attacks are real or part of the exercise (see (8:38 a.m.-8:43 a.m.) September 11, 2001).

[...]many minutes into the real 9/11 attacks, there may be false radar blips appearing on the screens of NORAD personnel. Additional details, such as whose radar screens have false blips and over what duration, are unclear. However, while the Toronto Star will indicate that the simulated material is removed from NORAD radar screens shortly before 9:03 a.m., when the second attack on the World Trade Center takes place, at 10:12 a.m. an officer at the operations center will call NEADS and ask it to “terminate all exercise inputs coming into Cheyenne Mountain” (see 10:12 a.m. September 11, 2001). [North American Aerospace Defense Command, 9/11/2001; Toronto Star, 12/9/2001] This would indicate that the NORAD operations center continues receiving simulated radar information for over an hour more, until after Flight 93 has crashed (see (10:06 a.m.) September 11, 2001) and the terrorist attacks have ended.[...]

There's no question that the conveniently timed exercises constituted an effective stand-down of the best air defense systems in the world. The question revolves around whether the stand-down was intentionally orchestrated (...and by whom).

 

[PredFan]

Looks like I'll be shooting for 911.

Yet the standard fighters were on duty on the east coast........

That's nothing more than optimistic speculation.

What we know is that an unspecified number of fighter jets were well outside of the theater for at least a couple of days prior to the real-world attacks on 9/11/01, but also that "All of NORAD [was] participating in Vigilant Guardian on 9/11" [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 6/3/2002] .

[...]It is unknown from which bases NORAD sends fighters for Northern Vigilance and how many US military personnel are involved. [Canadian Chief Defense Staff, 5/30/2001; North American Aerospace Defense Command, 9/9/2001]
[...]
The Russian exercise [Northern Vigilance] is scheduled to take place over the North Atlantic, Pacific, and Arctic Oceans from September 10 to September 14 (see September 10, 2001), and the NORAD fighters are set to stay in Alaska and Northern Canada until it ends. [BBC, 2001, pp. 161; North American Aerospace Defense Command, 9/9/2001; Washington Times, 9/11/2001][...]

Now, while NORAD was reportedly "fully staffed and alert" due to the overwhelming number of ongoing exercises (Northern Vigilance, Northern Guardian, and Amalgam Warrior), that didn't mean personnel and equipment were optimally deployed to handle the supposed real-world attacks that transpired, nor did it circumvent the potential for confusion in at least a couple of key instances.

[...] Deskins and other NORAD officials later are initially confused about whether the 9/11 attacks are real or part of the exercise (see (8:38 a.m.-8:43 a.m.) September 11, 2001).

[...]many minutes into the real 9/11 attacks, there may be false radar blips appearing on the screens of NORAD personnel. Additional details, such as whose radar screens have false blips and over what duration, are unclear. However, while the Toronto Star will indicate that the simulated material is removed from NORAD radar screens shortly before 9:03 a.m., when the second attack on the World Trade Center takes place, at 10:12 a.m. an officer at the operations center will call NEADS and ask it to “terminate all exercise inputs coming into Cheyenne Mountain” (see 10:12 a.m. September 11, 2001). [North American Aerospace Defense Command, 9/11/2001; Toronto Star, 12/9/2001] This would indicate that the NORAD operations center continues receiving simulated radar information for over an hour more, until after Flight 93 has crashed (see (10:06 a.m.) September 11, 2001) and the terrorist attacks have ended.[...]

There's no question that the conveniently timed exercises constituted an effective stand-down of the best air defense systems in the world. The question revolves around whether the stand-down was intentionally orchestrated (...and by whom).

Ok but what would be the point? They never use fighters to stop the hyjacking of passenger jets ever. There's no point in making this connection. Or is there? You tell me what it means.

 

[Capstone]

You're laboring under a myth perpetuated by debunkers, PredFan.

In a Washington Post article from June of 2004 (preserved here), "Air Force Gen. Ralph E. Eberhart, commander of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), told the commission investigating the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks that had the Federal Aviation Administration conveyed word of the hijackings as soon it knew of them, "yes, we could shoot down the airplanes.".

Air defense protocols (and laws) covering the scrambling of fighter interceptors to investigate and/or escort suspicious aircraft (for instance those with unapproved flightpath deviations, transponder identification anomalies, as well as suspected hijackings) had been in place for many years prior to 9/11/01. Although the law involving shoot-down authorization had been inexplicably modified in June of 2001, everthing that prevented the relatively few fighter escorts that weren't in Alaska or the northern-most reaches of Canada from reaching the hijacked jetliners can be traced directly to the confusion-fomenting exercises that were in play down in the lower 48.

This is just one of many factual aspects of the events of 9/11 that proponents of the official conspiracy theory (the tale invented and promoted by Government and media sources in the immediate aftermath of the attacks) are forced to chalk up to serendipitous coincidence for those AMAZINGLY lucky Muslim terrorists!

 

[SFC Ollie]

Where's the part about shooting down a civilian airliner?

Order 7610.4J: Special Military Operations

Effective Date: November 3, 1998
Includes: Change 1 (Effective July 3, 2000) and Change 2 (Effective July 12, 2001)

Chapter 7. ESCORT OF HIJACKED AIRCRAFT


It's not in this law you linked to.......

 

[SFC Ollie]

And your other link is a flat out lie....

The chief of U.S. air defenses testified today that if his command had been notified immediately of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackings and ordered to intervene, U.S. fighter jets would have been able to shoot down all four of the airliners.

Never said any such thing because it was impossible, as the first plane hit the towers before they figured out it was even hijacked........

 

[PredFan]

You're laboring under a myth perpetuated by debunkers, PredFan.

In a Washington Post article from June of 2004 (preserved here), "Air Force Gen. Ralph E. Eberhart, commander of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), told the commission investigating the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks that had the Federal Aviation Administration conveyed word of the hijackings as soon it knew of them, "yes, we could shoot down the airplanes.".

Air defense protocols (and laws) covering the scrambling of fighter interceptors to investigate and/or escort suspicious aircraft (for instance those with unapproved flightpath deviations, transponder identification anomalies, as well as suspected hijackings) had been in place for many years prior to 9/11/01. Although the law involving shoot-down authorization had been inexplicably modified in June of 2001, everthing that prevented the relatively few fighter escorts that weren't in Alaska or the northern-most reaches of Canada from reaching the hijacked jetliners can be traced directly to the confusion-fomenting exercises that were in play down in the lower 48.

This is just one of many factual aspects of the events of 9/11 that proponents of the official conspiracy theory (the tale invented and promoted by Government and media sources in the immediate aftermath of the attacks) are forced to chalk up to serendipitous coincidence for those AMAZINGLY lucky Muslim terrorists!

Sure, HAD they been told, they COULD have shot down the planes. But that is hindsight. No one knew the actual intention of the hyjackers until they crashed ther planes. There is no precedent ever in the US of fighter jets shooting down passenger planes just because they are hyjacked.

It makes no sense.

 

[PredFan]

And your other link is a flat out lie....

The chief of U.S. air defenses testified today that if his command had been notified immediately of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackings and ordered to intervene, U.S. fighter jets would have been able to shoot down all four of the airliners.

Never said any such thing because it was impossible, as the first plane hit the towers before they figured out it was even hijacked........

And then there's this.

 

[SAYIT]

You're laboring under a myth perpetuated by debunkers, PredFan.

In a Washington Post article from June of 2004 (preserved here), "Air Force Gen. Ralph E. Eberhart, commander of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), told the commission investigating the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks that had the Federal Aviation Administration conveyed word of the hijackings as soon it knew of them, "yes, we could shoot down the airplanes.".

Air defense protocols (and laws) covering the scrambling of fighter interceptors to investigate and/or escort suspicious aircraft (for instance those with unapproved flightpath deviations, transponder identification anomalies, as well as suspected hijackings) had been in place for many years prior to 9/11/01. Although the law involving shoot-down authorization had been inexplicably modified in June of 2001, everthing that prevented the relatively few fighter escorts that weren't in Alaska or the northern-most reaches of Canada from reaching the hijacked jetliners can be traced directly to the confusion-fomenting exercises that were in play down in the lower 48.

This is just one of many factual aspects of the events of 9/11 that proponents of the official conspiracy theory (the tale invented and promoted by Government and media sources in the immediate aftermath of the attacks) are forced to chalk up to serendipitous coincidence for those AMAZINGLY lucky Muslim terrorists!

You were doing reasonably well until you careened off the tracks with that "tale invented and promoted by Government and media sources in the immediate aftermath of the attacks" BS for which no hard evidence exists but every loony tunes CT must parrot.
So has the US ever shot down a hijacked passenger plane?

 

[Mr. Jones]

Not that it's likely to make any difference, but here you go, PredFan.

Hey, check out my post count. I'm seriously considering allowing this post to mark my retirement from the USMB.

Or maybe I'll cave and shoot for 911 instead.

Only time will tell...

Ok so the CTs are saying that the fighters were sent away in preparation for the attacks of 9-11?

How does THAT even make any sense?

CTs are not required to make sense.

You fail to acknowledge that you people are the ones that are CTers, and try to hide behind this fact claiming that because it is "the official conspiracy theory" it somehow has validity and makes any rational sense.
It is a fact that the US ran exercises and planned for scenarios like 9-11, just like the British gov. was on the 7-7 London bombings.
This cause all sorts of problems that are captured on tape on 9-11, at least the ones that weren't destroyed.
How did Alqaeda and OBL just happen to know this or is this yet another weird coincidence that your wild CT is full of?
What makes your CT so true? You can't even answer this honestly, or even point to specifics without getting a better and more probable rebuttal.

 

[PredFan]

Ok so the CTs are saying that the fighters were sent away in preparation for the attacks of 9-11?

How does THAT even make any sense?

CTs are not required to make sense.

You fail to acknowledge that you people are the ones that are CTers, and try to hide behind this fact claiming that because it is "the official conspiracy theory" it somehow has validity and makes any rational sense.

You can say, and I wouldn't argue, that the official story is also a conspiracy theory. If you consider the conspiracy being Al-Queda wanting to terrorise the US in a spectacular way.

However, it is the ONLY CT that actually makes some sense.

It is a fact that the US ran exercises and planned for scenarios like 9-11, just like the British gov. was on the 7-7 London bombings.

And this means what exactly?

This cause all sorts of problems that are captured on tape on 9-11, at least the ones that weren't destroyed.

Like what?

How did Alqaeda and OBL just happen to know this or is this yet another weird coincidence that your wild CT is full of?

Know what? That there wouldn't be the full contingent of fighters within the airspace of the continental US? Why would OBL care? The US doesn't use fighters to take down passenger planes. It wouldn't have made any difference to him.

What makes your CT so true? You can't even answer this honestly, or even point to specifics without getting a better and more probable rebuttal.

I have already answered it. I don't believe that our "CT" is 100% true. I believe that it's the one that is closest to the truth. This thread was designed to force you folks into defending your theory. We haven't failed in defending ours as spectacularly as you have failed to defend yours.

 

[Mr. Jones]

CTs are not required to make sense.

You fail to acknowledge that you people are the ones that are CTers, and try to hide behind this fact claiming that because it is "the official conspiracy theory" it somehow has validity and makes any rational sense.

You can say, and I wouldn't argue, that the official story is also a conspiracy theory. If you consider the conspiracy being Al-Queda wanting to terrorise the US in a spectacular way.

However, it is the ONLY CT that actually makes some sense.



And this means what exactly?



Like what?

How did Alqaeda and OBL just happen to know this or is this yet another weird coincidence that your wild CT is full of?

Know what? That there wouldn't be the full contingent of fighters within the airspace of the continental US? Why would OBL care? The US doesn't use fighters to take down passenger planes. It wouldn't have made any difference to him.

What makes your CT so true? You can't even answer this honestly, or even point to specifics without getting a better and more probable rebuttal.

I have already answered it. I don't believe that our "CT" is 100% true. I believe that it's the one that is closest to the truth. This thread was designed to force you folks into defending your theory. We haven't failed in defending ours as spectacularly as you have failed to defend yours.

Actually you constantly fail as is evident by your asking what the terror drills/war games had to do with the 9-11 expected response. The similarities between the London bombings and 9-11 in the US BOTH occurring at the same times as the attacks is extremely curious to all but the most willfully obtuse observers.
You believe all that has been told to you about the 9-11 attacks despite there being so much that has come out since then, makes one wonder whose side you're on. Do you really think after all the lies that have been told that the US's official version is correct, I mean there is so much, that one has to be totally stupid, or is only advancing the looney OCT as part of a dis/misinformation strategy.

Almost nothing about it makes any rational sense.

 

[PredFan]

Actually you constantly fail as is evident by your asking what the terror drills/war games had to do with the 9-11 expected response. The similarities between the London bombings and 9-11 in the US BOTH occurring at the same times as the attacks is extremely curious to all but the most willfully obtuse observers.
You believe all that has been told to you about the 9-11 attacks despite there being so much that has come out since then, makes one wonder whose side you're on. Do you really think after all the lies that have been told that the US's official version is correct, I mean there is so much, that one has to be totally stupid, or is only advancing the looney OCT as part of a dis/misinformation strategy.

Almost nothing about it makes any rational sense.

Why can't you answer the question? US warplanes have NEVER been used to shoot down passenger planes. OBL would not have to worry about them at all. You are trying to make something out of nothing at all. You cannot just say I'm failing because YOU cannot answer a simple question.

Like I said you are failing to defend your CT.

I'm not going to defend the official report here. We have done it in other threads. This thread is for YOU to defend your contention that controlled demolition brought down the towers and now also to explain of there is and significance to the US Fighter drills in Canada. So far you have failed miserably.

Care to actually try?