Why I hate 9-11 Truthers

[deep_space]

it is disturbing to see anyone post hate, in any form, hatred for any specific group without regard for the fact that said group is made up of individuals and a random sample of said individuals may or may not fit your criteria for being the focus of your hate. With that said, I'd like to at least attempt to address an issue about the whole truth movement business. Its a given that without even attempting to name suspects, the events of 9/11 are of such a nature as to be very much evidence of there having been no hijacked airliners at all, and that the towers & 7 were blown up rather than simply being victims of the damage inflicted by airliner crashes and in the case of 7 damage from fire + stuff thrown by the collapsing towers. The whole official story STINKS! and you don't have to even attempt to name a perpetrator to see the basic features of the events and know there is something very wrong with this picture.

 

[SAYIT]

it is disturbing to see anyone post hate, in any form, hatred for any specific group without regard for the fact that said group is made up of individuals and a random sample of said individuals may or may not fit your criteria for being the focus of your hate. With that said, I'd like to at least attempt to address an issue about the whole truth movement business. Its a given that without even attempting to name suspects, the events of 9/11 are of such a nature as to be very much evidence of there having been no hijacked airliners at all, and that the towers & 7 were blown up rather than simply being victims of the damage inflicted by airliner crashes and in the case of 7 damage from fire + stuff thrown by the collapsing towers. The whole official story STINKS! and you don't have to even attempt to name a perpetrator to see the basic features of the events and know there is something very wrong with this picture.

Wow. Just wow. No wonder you are disturbed by those who find 9/11 "Truthers" to be way less than honest.
You have the right to make up your own mind ... not your own facts.

 

[Capstone]

The audio recording from Flight 93's CVR, which has still not been released to the general public and reportedly captured "the loud sounds of wind, hinting at a possible hole somewhere in the fuselage" during the "last seconds", may be corroborated by one of the only two "cell phone calls" that had not been misrepresented as such prior to the damning revelations made by the FBI during the 2006 trial of Zacarias Moussaoui. The 911 call reportedly made via cell phone by Edward Felt (from the restroom onboard Flight 93) was confirmed by a trial exhibit, BUT unlike the other successfully connected calls (including the only other actual cell phone call), neither the duration nor the recording of his communication with the 911 call-taker were provided.

The gravity of those omissions further compounded that of the 9/11 Commission's earlier failure to have so much as mentioned Felt's call - a call in which a number of early media reports claimed that he spoke of an "explosion" and "white smoke" prior to the crash.

As documnted in this 2004 article by Michel Chossudovsky:

[. . .]The alleged call by Edward Felt from the toilet of the aircraft of UAL 93 was answered by Glenn Cramer, the emergency supervisor in Pennsylvania who took the call.

It is worth noting that Glenn Cramer was subsequently “gagged by the FBI.” (See Robert Wallace`s incisive analysis published in Sept 2002 by the Daily Mirror, (What Happened to Flight 93).

Ironically, this high profile cell call by Ed Felt, which would have provided crucial evidence to the 9/11 Commission was, for some reason, not mentioned in the Report. [...]

Emphasis mine.

More strange than "ironic", really.

It seems, to this day, the FBI's gag order on Cramer and the active prevention of public disclosure of the recording/transcript of Felt's 911 call (which the agency confirmed in federal court actually did take place)...remain in effect, without explanation.

 

[deep_space]

it is disturbing to see anyone post hate, in any form, hatred for any specific group without regard for the fact that said group is made up of individuals and a random sample of said individuals may or may not fit your criteria for being the focus of your hate. With that said, I'd like to at least attempt to address an issue about the whole truth movement business. Its a given that without even attempting to name suspects, the events of 9/11 are of such a nature as to be very much evidence of there having been no hijacked airliners at all, and that the towers & 7 were blown up rather than simply being victims of the damage inflicted by airliner crashes and in the case of 7 damage from fire + stuff thrown by the collapsing towers. The whole official story STINKS! and you don't have to even attempt to name a perpetrator to see the basic features of the events and know there is something very wrong with this picture.

Wow. Just wow. No wonder you are disturbed by those who find 9/11 "Truthers" to be way less than honest.
You have the right to make up your own mind ... not your own facts.

OK, what "facts" support the idea that commercial airliners were used as weapons? exactly how much of any given aircraft was accounted for and where is that accounting?
People bring up a "domino effect" with reference to how WTC1 & 2 collapsed, however note that a row of dominoes must be specifically set up to do what a row of dominoes does, in the case of the skyscrapers, the buildings were specifically built with the intent to have them stand and not fall down.

What facts convince you that airliners were hijacked? do tell.

 

[Hollie]

The audio recording from Flight 93's CVR, which has still not been released to the general public and reportedly captured "the loud sounds of wind, hinting at a possible hole somewhere in the fuselage" during the the "last seconds", may be corroborated by one of the only two "cell phone calls" that had not been misrepresented as such prior to the damning revelations made by the FBI during the 2006 trial of Zacarias Moussaoui. The 911 call reportedly made via cell phone by Edward Felt (from the restroom onboard Flight 93) was confirmed by a trial exhibit, BUT unlike the other successfully connected calls (including the only other actual cell phone call), neither the duration nor the recording of his communication with the 911 call-taker were provided.

The gravity of those omissions further compounded that of the 9/11 Commission's earlier failure to have so much as mentioned Felt's call - a call in which a number of early media reports claimed that he spoke of an "explosion" and "white smoke" prior to the crash.

As documnted in this 2004 article by Michel Chossudovsky:

[. . .]The alleged call by Edward Felt from the toilet of the aircraft of UAL 93 was answered by Glenn Cramer, the emergency supervisor in Pennsylvania who took the call.

It is worth noting that Glenn Cramer was subsequently “gagged by the FBI.” (See Robert Wallace`s incisive analysis published in Sept 2002 by the Daily Mirror, (What Happened to Flight 93).

Ironically, this high profile cell call by Ed Felt, which would have provided crucial evidence to the 9/11 Commission was, for some reason, not mentioned in the Report. [...]

Emphasis mine.

More strange than "ironic", really.

It seems, to this day, the FBI's gag order on Cramer and the active prevention of public disclosure of the recording/transcript of Felt's 911 call (which the agency confirmed in federal court actually did take place)...remain in effect, without explanation.

Ah, yes. Michel Chossudovsky. Another conspiracy theory loon from the internet tabloid global research.

 

[Capstone]

Moving on from one world-reknowned scholar's article (namely that of Prof. Chossudovsky - a man who could only qualify as a "loon" by the default standard of the duh-bwunker crowd) to the analysis drawn from a consensus of experts, whose defining methodology is described as follows:

[. . .]The Consensus Points were derived from a Delphi survey of over 20 expert panelists, who, blind to each other’s identities and responses, ranked each proposed point on a scale of 1-6 through three rounds of review and feedback.

The Delphi Method is a standard consensus tool which uses an established methodology to advance scientific knowledge in fields such as medicine.

The ranked Consensus Points have thus achieved at least 90% agreement by over 20 people. (This is considered a high percentage in scientific literature.)[...]

Emphasis mine.

Panelists include (or included, prior to their deaths) such wacked out conspiracy loons as the former head of the Dept. of Aeronautical Engineering at the USAF Institute of Technology/Director of Advanced Space Programs Development (“Star Wars”) under Presidents Ford and Carter, Dr. Robert Bowman (now deceased); former Director for Research Engineering and Aerospace Projects at NASA Dryden Flight Research Center/ recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Award, Dwain Deets; former geography and environmental science instructor at Berkeley, San Francisco State and Laney College, Tod Fletcher, M.A., C.Phil. UC Berkeley (now deceased); former Chief Health Officer, Maricopa County, AZ/Medical Director, LA County Dept. of Health Services/Director of the Department of Health and Social Services, Wyoming/President of the American Association of Public Health Physicians (AAPHP)/editorial consultant, American Journal of Public Health and author of over 40 academic articles, Dr. Jonathan B. Weisbuch, M.D., M.P.H.; among other highly qualified, well-respected professionals and academicians.

The following excerpts are from a consensus911.org article (HERE):

[. . .]3. A Priori Reason to Doubt the Second Account

The 2006 FBI account entails that all of the reported calls that had been presented in the first official account as cell phone calls had actually been – except for those by Felt and Lyles – calls from onboard phones. That is, the calls by seven passengers – UA 93 passengers Mark Bingham, Marion Britton, Tom Burnett and Jeremy Glick; UA 175 passengers Peter Hanson and Brian Sweeney; and AA 77 passenger Barbara Olson – had been misascribed.

It might be possible that all of these reported calls had involved errors, perhaps due to mishearing, misspeaking, or poor memory (whether by the journalists who reported the calls or the people who received them). The probability of this many errors, all in the same direction, would be extremely low.

Two of the reported calls, moreover, could not be explained away as errors due to mishearing, misspeaking, or poor memory: the calls to Julie Sweeney and Deena Burnett. (The problem of the reported calls from Barbara Olson is a special case, covered in Point PC-2.)[...]

Emphasis mine.

[...]5. The Calls Received by Deena Burnett

Deena Burnett, a former Delta Airlines flight attendant, told FBI interviewers, shortly after the calls had come, that she had received three to five calls from her husband, Tom Burnett, on UA 93. [15]

• In the first years after 9/11 (from 2001 through 2006), these calls were described in books [16] and newspaper articles [17] as cell phone calls.
  
  
• These UA 93 calls were allegedly made from high altitudes (35,000 and 40,700 feet [18]), so Tom Burnett could not have called his wife on a cell phone at that time. Even Deena Burnett herself, who had been a flight attendant, later wrote: “I didn’t understand how he [Tom] could be calling me on his cell phone from the air.” [19]
  
  
• When the FBI report on phone calls from the 9/11 airliners was issued in connection with the 2006 Moussaoui Trial, it indicated that Tom Burnett had made three calls, none of which was from a cell phone: All were said to have been made from onboard phones. [20] The FBI report also specified the rows from which the calls were made. [21]
  
  
• This FBI 2006 report, according to which Tom Burnett had called his wife from seat-back phones, removed the problem of how he could have been using a cell phone at flight UA 93′s high elevation. But it introduced a new problem:
  
  
• According to Deena Burnett’s FBI interview on September 11, she knew that her husband had used his cell phone: “Burnett was able to determine that her husband was using his own cellular telephone because the caller identification showed his number, 925-980-3360. Only one of the calls did not show on the caller identification as she was on the line with another call.” [22]
  
  
• This creates a seemingly insuperable problem: If Tom Burnett had really used onboard phones, his cell phone number could not have shown up even once.
  
  
• The FBI’s categorizing of the Burnett calls as onboard phone calls in spite of the FBI’s early interview with Deena Burnet to the contrary is contradicted by the FBI’s opposite treatment of the case involving UA 93 flight attendant CeeCee Lyles:
  • Its summary of her husband’s testimony says: “At 9:58 AM, Lorne Lyles received a call at home from her celular [sic] telephone … Lyles commented that CeCe [sic] Lyles’ telephone number 941-823-2355 was the number on the caller ID.” [23] This account was faithfully reflected in the FBI’s telephone report for the Moussaoui trial.
    
    
  • But even though Deena Burnett provided the same evidence – that her spouse’s cell phone number had appeared on her phone’s Caller ID – the FBI’s report for the Moussaoui trial did not reflect her testimony.
    
    
  • This difference in treatment may be explained by the fact that, whereas the reported Burnett call was from an elevation that was clearly too high to make cell phone calls, a cell phone call from 5,000 feet might seem plausible.

The FBI claim that the Burnett calls were from onboard phones implied that (1) either Deena’s memory was faulty or (2) she was lying. However, (1a) Deena gave her FBI interviews within hours of receiving the calls [24] and (2a) there would seem to be no plausible motive as to why she would have lied.

The FBI has not explained the contradiction between her 2001 FBI interview and the FBI’s report that surfaced in 2006; it simply ignored this contradiction.

Moreover, the call to Julie Sweeney, cited above, provides additional support for the truth of Deena Burnett’s account.[...]

Emphasis mine.

So, although not quite to the extent Barbara Olson's calls were completely debunked by the FBI's trial exhibits, the legitimacy of the three calls reportedly made by Tom Burnett to his wife, Deena, was still thrown into serious doubt by the FBI's exhibts in relation to the agency's interviews with Deena Burnett shortly after the "crash". This means: either the trial exhibits were in some way dubious, or a number of the FBI's own previous reports involving crucial aspects of the NEOCT were bold-faced lies.

I lean more toward the latter, BTW.

 

[SAYIT]

Wow. Just wow. No wonder you are disturbed by those who find 9/11 "Truthers" to be way less than honest.
You have the right to make up your own mind ... not your own facts.

OK, what "facts" support the idea that commercial airliners were used as weapons?

Gee, I dunno. Maybe it was watching it happen on live TV? Sheesh.

 

[deep_space]

"Gee, I dunno. Maybe it was watching it happen on live TV? Sheesh."

Wow man, I saw it on TV so it must be REAL.

 

[SAYIT]

"Gee, I dunno. Maybe it was watching it happen on live TV? Sheesh."

Wow man, I saw it on TV so it must be REAL.

For the TV people to have faked that would require you to add the entire media and all those who witnessed and recorded 9/11 live to all the gov't agencies and technicians who planned, prepped and covered it up in your twisted view of reality.
Once you apply the same level of skepticism to the myriad of alternative universe explanations produced by the "Truther" movement over the past 13+ yrs as you do to the official reports, you too will join the army of former "Truthers" like Charlie Veitch:
"I thought the term ‘Truth Movement’ meant that there’d be some search for truth. I was wrong."

 

[deep_space]

so anyone's incredulity over how it may have been pulled off, negates the fact that the video(s) of the alleged "FLT175" constitute B movie special effects.

 

[SAYIT]

so anyone's incredulity over how it may have been pulled off, negates the fact that the video(s) of the alleged "FLT175" constitute B movie special effects.

The fact you so assiduously avoid is that thousands of people in NY saw the planes hit the WTC (and millions watched on TV) and dozens took pictures. Are they all in on your insipid insistence that none of what they saw and recorded actually happened?

 

[daws101]

so anyone's incredulity over how it may have been pulled off, negates the fact that the video(s) of the alleged "FLT175" constitute B movie special effects.

since ass hats like yourself don't know jack shit about how sfx are done that statement is as non credible as the "tower were rigged to explode as they were being built horse shit.

 

[Capstone]

Having shown good reason to doubt various portions of the Flight 93 aspect of the NEOCT (citing the FBI's contradictory evidence and inconsistent treatment of various witnesses' accounts in the process), and having supported my belief that "Flight 93" was shot down by one of the handful of interceptors unaffected by the war games stand-down of US air defense systems (citing eyewitness/anecdotal evidence, a strangely worded entry in a 2001 congressional report, and the 911 call made by Edward Felt), I'll now support my belief that the slew of military exercises that were being conducted on 9/11/01 did, in fact, greatly compromise the effectiveness of US air defense systems on that fateful day.

Again from one of the consensus points drawn from the panelists at consensus911.org (quoted excerpt italicized between the asterisks):

*I. Although the 9/11 Commission mentioned only one military exercise – Vigilant Guardian – that was scheduled for 9/11, evidence shows that at least 12 exercises had been scheduled for that day:
Vigilant Guardian: An annual NORAD exercise held traditionally in October, [8]often in conjunction with Global Guardian. [9] On 9/11, all levels of command at NORAD Headquarters, including NEADS, were participating in this command-post exercise (CPX), [10]“24/7”. [11]
Global Guardian: A massive annual Command Post-Exercise (CPX) and Field Training Exercise (FTX), [12] which was sponsored jointly by the U.S. Strategic Command, US Space Command, and NORAD, and was linked to Vigilant Guardian and Amalgam Warrior. [13] Global Guardian is traditionally held in October or November each year. [14] According to a military newspaper dated March 23, 2001, [15] the over-arching Global Guardian exercise had indeed been originally scheduled for October, [16] but was subsequently moved to early September.
Crown Vigilance was sponsored by Air Combat Command and was linked toGlobal Guardian. [17]
Amalgam Warrior was also running — a large-scale live-fly exercise involving two or more NORAD regions, traditionally held twice a year in April and October. [18]
Amalgam Virgo: NORAD officers told the 9/11 Commission Team 8: “On 9/11 there were two FDX exercises planned:Amalgam Virgo and Amalgam Warrior.” [19]
Northern Vigilance: A large annual real-world NORAD operation that on 9/11 diverted much of the US air defense fleet to Canada and Alaska to counteract a Russian drill. [20] This operation involved NORAD’s Cheyenne Mountain Operations Center (CMOC) in Colorado. [21]
Apollo Guardian, linked to Global Guardian and run by the US Space Command, was also running on September 11, 2001. “Hijacks were included in these exercises to exercise transition in Rules of Engagement (ROE).” [22]
W-105 at Otis Air Force Base: Six F-15’s from Otis (out of a contingent of 18) took off on a routine ocean training exercise at 9:00 AM, eight minutes after two “alert” F-15’s on the same runway were scrambled in response to the first WTC attack. The six training jets were recalled at 9:25 AM to be armed and to join the response. [23]
Andrews Air Force Base (outside Washington, DC): There were only seven pilots available in the AAFB 121st Fighter Squadron on 9/11 because many had not returned from the large-scale training exercise “Red Flag” in Las Vegas. [24] Three F-16 fighter jets took off on a training exercise at 8:36 AM from Andrews AFB and did not return until 2:35 PM. Flight strips indicated that Andrews-based fighters were not scrambled in response to the hijackings until 11:12 AM. [25]
New Jersey Air National Guard: When the World Trade Center was hit, two F-16 fighters from the 177th Fighter Wing based in Atlantic City were on a routine training mission eight minutes flying time away from New York, but the pilots were not informed of the hijackings until after the second Tower was hit at 9:03 AM. Two other fighters from this Wing were also on a routine training exercise. No jets took off from Atlantic City in response to the attacks until after the Pentagon was hit at approximately 9:37. [26]
Washington DC Army Aviation Support Unit: Members of this Unit were attending annual weapons training, 90 minutes drive away. [27] The Unit’s mission was to maintain “a readiness posture in support of contingency plans,” to exercise “operational control” of the Washington area airspace, and to provide “aviation support for the White House, US government officials, Department of Defense, Department of the Army, and other government agencies,” [28] including the Pentagon.
National Reconnaissance Office: NRO, a large intelligence agency of the Department of Defense, had planned a 9:32 AM simulation of a small plane crashing into one its own towers near Washington’s Dulles Airport. [29]

The rescheduling from October to early September of seven aerial drills — the two largest having been Global Guardian andVigilant Guardian, and the five related aerial drills that accompanied them — resulted in an unprecedented number of simultaneous drills that morning.

This was an enormous departure from other years.

These drills included at least two hijackings (a Boeing 747 flying from Tokyo to Anchorage, and a Korean Airlines Boeing 747 flight from Seoul to Anchorage), [30]and one drill in which a plane was planned to simulate hitting a building (the National Reconnaissance Office).

II. One would expect that having so many exercises would have caused some confusion, which might have slowed down the military response. Indeed, statements to this effect have been made:
According to a summary of a 9/11 Commission interview with Canadian Lt. Gen. Rick Findley, who was at NORAD as the Battle Staff Director at Cheyenne Mountain Operations Center (CMOC) on September 11, 2001, there was, following the second attack on the Twin Towers, “confusion as to how many, and which aircraft, were hijacked. There was no situational awareness that was directly credible, and CMOC was relying on the communications over the phone lines with its operations sectors. Findley opined that AA 11 was reported still airborne and headed towards Washington, D.C. because of the added confusion of many hijack reports.” [31]
At Andrews Air Force Base outside Washington, DC, FAA Air Traffic Controller James Ampey, stationed at Andrews Tower, reported in a 9/11 Commission interview that there were an unusually high number of aircraft taking-off and landing at Andrews that morning because previously scheduled military exercises were underway. The radar screens were showing “emergencies all over the place.” [32]
General Larry Arnold, commander of NORAD’s Continental U.S. Region, said: “By the end of the day, we had 21 aircraft identified as possible hijackings.” [33]
Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke: “There were lots of false signals out there. There were false hijack squawks, and a great part of the challenge was sorting through what was a legitimate threat and what wasn’t.” [34]
FAA Deputy Administrator, Monte Belger, said:“Between 9:20-9:45 there were many confusing reports about various aircraft being unaccounted for.” [35]
An independent study in 2011 gave detailed accounts of nine falsely reported hijackings on 9/11, plus nine other reported aircraft emergencies. [36]

Conclusion
Because of the rescheduling of military exercises normally scheduled for different times, there were an extraordinary number of exercises underway the morning of September 11, 2001.

The Department of Defense and the 9/11 Commission failed to report all but one of the exercises that occurred that morning.

They also denied that such exercises slowed down military responses to the attacks.

Had the 9/11 Commission reported the full extent of the exceptional number of exercises it knew were operating that morning, the above-quoted statements by military officers such as Eberhart, Marr, and Myers – that the exercises did not, by causing confusion, slow down the military response – would have seemed implausible. [...] *

--------------------------------

The following clip includes relevant commentary from Mike Ruppert (who reportedly "committed suicide" in April of 2014, BTW):



Some of the confusion fomented by the war games was documented here, in an article titled 'Let's Get Rid of This Goddamn Sim': How NORAD Radar Screens Displayed False Tracks All Through the 9/11 Attacks.

The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 took place in airspace that was the responsibility of NEADS, based in Rome, New York. NEADS was therefore responsible for trying to coordinate the military's response to the hijackings. And yet, in the middle of it all, at 9:30 a.m. that morning a member of staff on the NEADS operations floor complained about simulated material that was appearing on the NEADS radar screens. He said: "You know what, let's get rid of this goddamn sim. Turn your sim switches off. Let's get rid of that crap." [1] Four minutes later, Technical Sergeant Jeffrey Richmond gave an instruction to the NEADS surveillance technicians, "All surveillance, turn off your sim switches." (A "sim switch" presumably allows a technician to either display or turn off any simulated material on their radar screen.) [2]
This means that at least some of the radar scopes at NEADS were still displaying simulated information--presumably false tracks--57 minutes after an air traffic controller at the FAA's Boston Center called there and announced: "We have a problem here. We have a hijacked aircraft headed towards New York."
This means that at least some of the radar scopes at NEADS were still displaying simulated information--presumably false tracks--57 minutes after an air traffic controller at the FAA's Boston Center called there and announced: "We have a problem here. We have a hijacked aircraft headed towards New York." Forty-eight minutes had passed since the first attack on the World Trade Center occurred, and 31 minutes since the second tower was hit and it became obvious that the U.S. was under attack. It was only three minutes after Richmond gave his instruction, at 9:37 a.m., that the Pentagon was struck in the third successful attack that morning. [3][...]

Emphasis mine.

As it turned out, there were twelve separate exercises, one of which had the bulk of America's interceptors in Alaska and north-western Canada playing tiddlywinks with the Russians, while a couple other major annual drills had also been rescheduled from their regularly scheduled times of occurence in October and November...to September. There's no way in hell those concurrent exercises didn't cripple America's air defenses on 9/11, and the proof can be seen in the collective (non)response on the day of the incident.

 

[daws101]

Having shown good reason to doubt various portions of the Flight 93 aspect of the NEOCT (citing the FBI's contradictory evidence and inconsistent treatment of various witnesses' accounts in the process), and having supported my belief that "Flight 93" was shot down by one of the handful of interceptors unaffected by the war games stand-down of US air defense systems (citing eyewitness/anecdotal evidence, a strangely worded entry in a 2001 congressional report, and the 911 call made by Edward Felt), I'll now support my belief that the slew of military exercises that were being conducted on 9/11/01 did, in fact, greatly compromise the effectiveness of US air defense systems on that fateful day.

Again from one of the consensus points drawn from the panelists at consensus911.org (quoted excerpt italicized between the asterisks):

*I. Although the 9/11 Commission mentioned only one military exercise – Vigilant Guardian – that was scheduled for 9/11, evidence shows that at least 12 exercises had been scheduled for that day:

1. 
   
   
   • Vigilant Guardian: An annual NORAD exercise held traditionally in October, [8]often in conjunction with Global Guardian. [9] On 9/11, all levels of command at NORAD Headquarters, including NEADS, were participating in this command-post exercise (CPX), [10]“24/7”. [11]
   • Global Guardian: A massive annual Command Post-Exercise (CPX) and Field Training Exercise (FTX), [12] which was sponsored jointly by the U.S. Strategic Command, US Space Command, and NORAD, and was linked to Vigilant Guardian and Amalgam Warrior. [13] Global Guardian is traditionally held in October or November each year. [14] According to a military newspaper dated March 23, 2001, [15] the over-arching Global Guardian exercise had indeed been originally scheduled for October, [16] but was subsequently moved to early September.
   • Crown Vigilance was sponsored by Air Combat Command and was linked toGlobal Guardian. [17]
   • Amalgam Warrior was also running — a large-scale live-fly exercise involving two or more NORAD regions, traditionally held twice a year in April and October. [18]
   • Amalgam Virgo: NORAD officers told the 9/11 Commission Team 8: “On 9/11 there were two FDX exercises planned:Amalgam Virgo and Amalgam Warrior.” [19]
   • Northern Vigilance: A large annual real-world NORAD operation that on 9/11 diverted much of the US air defense fleet to Canada and Alaska to counteract a Russian drill. [20] This operation involved NORAD’s Cheyenne Mountain Operations Center (CMOC) in Colorado. [21]
   • Apollo Guardian, linked to Global Guardianand run by the US Space Command, was also running on September 11, 2001. “Hijacks were included in these exercises to exercise transition in Rules of Engagement (ROE).” [22]
   • W-105 at Otis Air Force Base: Six F-15’s from Otis (out of a contingent of 18) took off on a routine ocean training exercise at 9:00 AM, eight minutes after two “alert” F-15’s on the same runway were scrambled in response to the first WTC attack. The six training jets were recalled at 9:25 AM to be armed and to join the response. [23]
   • Andrews Air Force Base (outside Washington, DC): There were only seven pilots available in the AAFB 121st Fighter Squadron on 9/11 because many had not returned from the large-scale training exercise “Red Flag” in Las Vegas. [24] Three F-16 fighter jets took off on a training exercise at 8:36 AM from Andrews AFB and did not return until 2:35 PM. Flight strips indicated that Andrews-based fighters were not scrambled in response to the hijackings until 11:12 AM. [25]
   • New Jersey Air National Guard: When the World Trade Center was hit, two F-16 fighters from the 177th Fighter Wing based in Atlantic City were on a routine training mission eight minutes flying time away from New York, but the pilots were not informed of the hijackings until after the second Tower was hit at 9:03 AM. Two other fighters from this Wing were also on a routine training exercise. No jets took off from Atlantic City in response to the attacks until after the Pentagon was hit at approximately 9:37. [26]
   • Washington DC Army Aviation Support Unit: Members of this Unit were attending annual weapons training, 90 minutes drive away. [27] The Unit’s mission was to maintain “a readiness posture in support of contingency plans,” to exercise “operational control” of the Washington area airspace, and to provide “aviation support for the White House, US government officials, Department of Defense, Department of the Army, and other government agencies,” [28] including the Pentagon.
   • National Reconnaissance Office: NRO, a large intelligence agency of the Department of Defense, had planned a 9:32 AM simulation of a small plane crashing into one its own towers near Washington’s Dulles Airport. [29]

The rescheduling from October to early September of seven aerial drills — the two largest having been Global Guardian andVigilant Guardian, and the five related aerial drills that accompanied them — resulted in an unprecedented number of simultaneous drills that morning.

This was an enormous departure from other years.

These drills included at least two hijackings (a Boeing 747 flying from Tokyo to Anchorage, and a Korean Airlines Boeing 747 flight from Seoul to Anchorage), [30]and one drill in which a plane was planned to simulate hitting a building (the National Reconnaissance Office).

II. One would expect that having so many exercises would have caused some confusion, which might have slowed down the military response. Indeed, statements to this effect have been made:

• 
  
  
  • According to a summary of a 9/11 Commission interview with Canadian Lt. Gen. Rick Findley, who was at NORAD as the Battle Staff Director at Cheyenne Mountain Operations Center (CMOC) on September 11, 2001, there was, following the second attack on the Twin Towers, “confusion as to how many, and which aircraft, were hijacked. There was no situational awareness that was directly credible, and CMOC was relying on the communications over the phone lines with its operations sectors. Findley opined that AA 11 was reported still airborne and headed towards Washington, D.C. because of the added confusion of many hijack reports.” [31]
  • At Andrews Air Force Base outside Washington, DC, FAA Air Traffic Controller James Ampey, stationed at Andrews Tower, reported in a 9/11 Commission interview that there were an unusually high number of aircraft taking-off and landing at Andrews that morning because previously scheduled military exercises were underway. The radar screens were showing “emergencies all over the place.” [32]
  • General Larry Arnold, commander of NORAD’s Continental U.S. Region, said: “By the end of the day, we had 21 aircraft identified as possible hijackings.” [33]
  • Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke: “There were lots of false signals out there. There were false hijack squawks, and a great part of the challenge was sorting through what was a legitimate threat and what wasn’t.” [34]
  • FAA Deputy Administrator, Monte Belger, said:“Between 9:20-9:45 there were many confusing reports about various aircraft being unaccounted for.” [35]
  • An independent study in 2011 gave detailed accounts of nine falsely reported hijackings on 9/11, plus nine other reported aircraft emergencies. [36]

Conclusion
Because of the rescheduling of military exercises normally scheduled for different times, there were an extraordinary number of exercises underway the morning of September 11, 2001.

The Department of Defense and the 9/11 Commission failed to report all but one of the exercises that occurred that morning.

They also denied that such exercises slowed down military responses to the attacks.

Had the 9/11 Commission reported the full extent of the exceptional number of exercises it knew were operating that morning, the above-quoted statements by military officers such as Eberhart, Marr, and Myers – that the exercises did not, by causing confusion, slow down the military response – would have seemed implausible. [...] *

--------------------------------

The following clip includes relevant commentary from Mike Ruppert (who reportedly "committed suicide" in April of 2014, BTW):



Some of the confusion fomented by the war games was documented here, in an article titled 'Let's Get Rid of This Goddamn Sim': How NORAD Radar Screens Displayed False Tracks All Through the 9/11 Attacks.

The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 took place in airspace that was the responsibility of NEADS, based in Rome, New York. NEADS was therefore responsible for trying to coordinate the military's response to the hijackings. And yet, in the middle of it all, at 9:30 a.m. that morning a member of staff on the NEADS operations floor complained about simulated material that was appearing on the NEADS radar screens. He said: "You know what, let's get rid of this goddamn sim. Turn your sim switches off. Let's get rid of that crap." [1] Four minutes later, Technical Sergeant Jeffrey Richmond gave an instruction to the NEADS surveillance technicians, "All surveillance, turn off your sim switches." (A "sim switch" presumably allows a technician to either display or turn off any simulated material on their radar screen.) [2]
This means that at least some of the radar scopes at NEADS were still displaying simulated information--presumably false tracks--57 minutes after an air traffic controller at the FAA's Boston Center called there and announced: "We have a problem here. We have a hijacked aircraft headed towards New York."
This means that at least some of the radar scopes at NEADS were still displaying simulated information--presumably false tracks--57 minutes after an air traffic controller at the FAA's Boston Center called there and announced: "We have a problem here. We have a hijacked aircraft headed towards New York." Forty-eight minutes had passed since the first attack on the World Trade Center occurred, and 31 minutes since the second tower was hit and it became obvious that the U.S. was under attack. It was only three minutes after Richmond gave his instruction, at 9:37 a.m., that the Pentagon was struck in the third successful attack that morning. [3][...]

Emphasis mine.

As it turned out, there were twelve separate exercises, one of which had the bulk of America's interceptors in Alaska and north-western Canada playing tiddlywinks with the Russians, while a couple other major annual drills had been rescheduled from their regularly scheduled times of occurence in October and November...to September. There's no way in hell those concurrent exercises didn't cripple America's air defenses on 9/11, and the proof can be seen in the collective response on the day of the incident.

oh shit not the combat exercises ploy again..

 

[deep_space]

"thousands of people in NY saw the planes hit the WTC" I see this all too often cited, where are the reports from these "THOUSANDS"
how many people actually looked up at the right time, and just happened to have a clear line of sight to get a visual on "FLT175" and indeed have the skills to discern a missile from a commercial airliner?

 

[daws101]

"thousands of people in NY saw the planes hit the WTC" I see this all too often cited, where are the reports from these "THOUSANDS"
how many people actually looked up at the right time, and just happened to have a clear line of sight to get a visual on "FLT175" and indeed have the skills to discern a missile from a commercial airliner?

oh fuck me! you've never been to nyc have you ? the wtc towers were visible from everywhere in Manhattan.
it takes no skills to tell the difference between an airliner and a missile ..
next specious guess.?

 

[Soupnazi630]

"thousands of people in NY saw the planes hit the WTC" I see this all too often cited, where are the reports from these "THOUSANDS"
how many people actually looked up at the right time, and just happened to have a clear line of sight to get a visual on "FLT175" and indeed have the skills to discern a missile from a commercial airliner?

Tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands.

Their "/reports "/are easily available and you have seen them you simply ignore them like a fool

 

[SAYIT]

"thousands of people in NY saw the planes hit the WTC" I see this all too often cited, where are the reports from these "THOUSANDS"
how many people actually looked up at the right time, and just happened to have a clear line of sight to get a visual on "FLT175" and indeed have the skills to discern a missile from a commercial airliner?

Tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands.

Their "/reports "/are easily available and you have seen them you simply ignore them like a fool

As already noted, any facts which do not comply with the 9/11 CT loon's conclusions are to be assiduously avoided like the plague.

 

[deep_space]

some of the witnesses said they saw a commuter jet, or small aircraft, some reported seeing a military aircraft, plane spotting skills anyone?
& truly, where are these "thousands" of witness reports who say they saw an airliner?

 

[SAYIT]

some of the witnesses said they saw a commuter jet, or small aircraft, some reported seeing a military aircraft, plane spotting skills anyone? & truly, where are these "thousands" of witness reports who say they saw an airliner?

If you can find the few who believe they saw something other than AA-11 and UA-175 which hit the WTC Towers, then you can certainly find the many who saw and recorded those passenger jets. You just don't want to and I'm not wasting any more time doing the legwork for idiots who just don't want to.