Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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?
And then there's this.
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.
NORAD is the joint U.S.-Canadian military organization responsible for monitoring and defending the airspace over North America. Long-standing operating procedures at NORAD, for dealing with airliners that have gone off-course or been hijacked, were not followed on 9/11. Each of the four flights involved in the 9/11 attacks should have been intercepted when they lost radio contact, deviated from their course, or turned off their transponders.[2]
The procedures for interception were automatic and required no special orders to implement. Through these procedures, interceptor jets had been scrambled 129 times in the year 2000 and 67 times in the year prior to June 2001. A 1994 government report stated Overall, during the past four years, NORADs alert fighters took off to intercept aircraft (referred to as scrambled) 1,518 times, or an average of 15 times per site per year. Of these incidents, the number of suspected drug smuggling aircraft averaged less than 7 percent of all of the alert sites total activity. The remaining activity generally involved visually inspecting unidentified aircraft and assisting aircraft in distress.[3]
[...] General Eberhart reiterated this timeline in testimony to the U.S. Senate a few weeks later and for over two years it stood as the official account.[6] This timeline said that NORAD had received notification about three of the hijacked planes with plenty of time left to ensure interception and had scrambled jets from multiple bases as the attacks proceeded. [...]
[...] On 9/11, the NORAD interception system failed completely and we have been given multiple, conflicting explanations for why that happened. Considering that there is strong evidence for an alternative hypothesis of insider involvement in 9/11, it is reasonable to assume that an intentional compromising of the U.S. air defenses might have occurred that day. Adding to this suspicion is the fact that guilt tends to be reflected in false testimony. And as Senator Dayton said, NORAD officials lied to the American people, they lied to Congress and they lied to your 9/11 Commission.[4]
Exactly which NORAD statements were lies and which were not is a matter that is still not clear to this day. This is partly because the explanations and testimony that are now said to have been false were far more damning to NORAD than the final account, which exonerates NORAD entirely. Why would NORAD leaders want to lie so as to make their performance look worse? [...]
And then there's this.
What, that Ollie apparently can't wrap his mind around Gen. Eberhart's response to a hypothetical question posed (as a matter of public record) during a 2004 US Senate meeting?
As even you noted:
Sure, HAD they been told, they COULD have shot down the planes. But that is hindsight. [...]
Then the obvious question is: WHY weren't they notified by the FAA in a timely manner?
HINT: they were, but more on that in a sec'...
That argument might fly WRT the first attack, but after that, the intentions of the alleged hijackers were no longer in question and there was still plenty of time to intercept and destroy the other three planes.
The attacks of 9/11 were themselves unprecedented, but there was plenty of precedence and a body of long-standing operating procedures involving the scrambling of fighters to investigate reported anomalies.
From here:
Had these procedures been followed, even if the first plane was allowed to impact the WTC in the absence of knowledge of intent, the planes that followed could have been pre-identified as likely Kamikazes and destroyed in flight -- a fact confirmed by Eberhart's 2004 testimony:
[...] General Eberhart reiterated this timeline in testimony to the U.S. Senate a few weeks later and for over two years it stood as the official account.[6] This timeline said that NORAD had received notification about three of the hijacked planes with plenty of time left to ensure interception and had scrambled jets from multiple bases as the attacks proceeded. [...]
Now, the reason I chose this particular article is because it highlights NORAD's ever-changing story and challenges the reader to consider which version of events was more likely fabricated by NORAD officials: the one that's damning as all get-out, or the one that exonerates them of all wrongdoing?
[...] On 9/11, the NORAD interception system failed completely and we have been given multiple, conflicting explanations for why that happened. Considering that there is strong evidence for an alternative hypothesis of insider involvement in 9/11, it is reasonable to assume that an intentional compromising of the U.S. air defenses might have occurred that day. Adding to this suspicion is the fact that guilt tends to be reflected in false testimony. And as Senator Dayton said, NORAD officials lied to the American people, they lied to Congress and they lied to your 9/11 Commission.[4]
Exactly which NORAD statements were lies and which were not is a matter that is still not clear to this day. This is partly because the explanations and testimony that are now said to have been false were far more damning to NORAD than the final account, which exonerates NORAD entirely. Why would NORAD leaders want to lie so as to make their performance look worse? [...]
I suggest that you read the article in its entirety, and think about it ...critically.
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?
really? could you please link to this thread that defends the official theory ?
because it seems that most of you clowns do not even know what that theory is and any knowledge you do have of it can from the so called conspiracy theorist
And then there's this.
What, that Ollie apparently can't wrap his mind around Gen. Eberhart's response to a hypothetical question posed (as a matter of public record) during a 2004 US Senate meeting?
As even you noted:
Sure, HAD they been told, they COULD have shot down the planes. But that is hindsight. [...]
Then the obvious question is: WHY weren't they notified by the FAA in a timely manner?
HINT: they were, but more on that in a sec'...
That argument might fly WRT the first attack, but after that, the intentions of the alleged hijackers were no longer in question and there was still plenty of time to intercept and destroy the other three planes.
The attacks of 9/11 were themselves unprecedented, but there was plenty of precedence and a body of long-standing operating procedures involving the scrambling of fighters to investigate reported anomalies.
From here:
Had these procedures been followed, even if the first plane was allowed to impact the WTC in the absence of knowledge of intent, the planes that followed could have been pre-identified as likely Kamikazes and destroyed in flight -- a fact confirmed by Eberhart's 2004 testimony:
[...] General Eberhart reiterated this timeline in testimony to the U.S. Senate a few weeks later and for over two years it stood as the official account.[6] This timeline said that NORAD had received notification about three of the hijacked planes with plenty of time left to ensure interception and had scrambled jets from multiple bases as the attacks proceeded. [...]
Now, the reason I chose this particular article is because it highlights NORAD's ever-changing story and challenges the reader to consider which version of events was more likely fabricated by NORAD officials: the one that's damning as all get-out, or the one that exonerates them of all wrongdoing?
[...] On 9/11, the NORAD interception system failed completely and we have been given multiple, conflicting explanations for why that happened. Considering that there is strong evidence for an alternative hypothesis of insider involvement in 9/11, it is reasonable to assume that an intentional compromising of the U.S. air defenses might have occurred that day. Adding to this suspicion is the fact that guilt tends to be reflected in false testimony. And as Senator Dayton said, NORAD officials lied to the American people, they lied to Congress and they lied to your 9/11 Commission.[4]
Exactly which NORAD statements were lies and which were not is a matter that is still not clear to this day. This is partly because the explanations and testimony that are now said to have been false were far more damning to NORAD than the final account, which exonerates NORAD entirely. Why would NORAD leaders want to lie so as to make their performance look worse? [...]
I suggest that you read the article in its entirety, and think about it ...critically.
I think someone should look at a time line. First two planes were already crashed before any military fighter could have gotten near them. They were not flying around for hours....more like minutes......
