I must be a masochist

[Edx]

I must be a masochist to want to subject myself to this forum. Im sure some of you are reasonable and nice but Ive only seen a few encouraging comments crossed with the massive amounts of attacks against films like Press for Truth and In Their Own Words. I wonder how much hair I'll be pulling out with you guys! But Im going to try my best not to get roped into some pointless argument as soon as I realise Im dealing with somone that wont accept any skepticsm of the offical government story no matter what. I was referred to this forum by "Big Cedar" on Christian Forums.coms politics debate forum. I'd link to it but I cant post links yet.

[Undesired Walrus]

Press For Truth and In Their Own Words would not recieve hostile attention if they provided a scrap of evidence for their claims. For example, the transaction allegedly between O.Sheikh and M.Atta.

Not repeating tired nonesense like the hijackers remaining alive would be a plus.

[brodski]

Welcome.

The 15 posts before links rules as brought about because we where having a lot of trouble with commercial spam, if you want to link to something just leave out the http and www and put spaces in the link, a mod may edit your post to repair the link or another poster may quote your post and make the link in their post clickable.

There is criticism of films like press for truth etc, because they demonstrably get their facts wrong, and many people find their arguments less than convincing. If you feel otherwise, and have evidence please present it- tis place is all about lively debate.

As a (I assume) "conspiracy" proponent, you will probably get into some heated exchanges here, but please remember your membership agreement, and remember that it is equally binding on you and other posters, no matter what their beliefs may be.

If you feel you have been unfairly attacked in a manner which breaks the membership agreement, please report the post to the mods (using the little triangle in each case).

Again, welcome to the forums and I hope we can have some interesting, fun and mostly civil discussions.
Also, there is so much more to the JREF forums than the CT section, if you want to get your post count up (in order to post links, have an avatar etc.) can I suggest heading over to the humor forum or community, for some light hearted banter.

[stateofgrace]

I must be a masochist to want to subject myself to this forum. Im sure some of you are reasonable and nice but Ive only seen a few encouraging comments crossed with the massive amounts of attacks against films like Press for Truth and In Their Own Words. I wonder how much hair I'll be pulling out with you guys! But Im going to try my best not to get roped into some pointless argument as soon as I realise Im dealing with somone that wont accept any skepticsm of the offical government story no matter what. I was referred to this forum by "Big Cedar" on Christian Forums.coms politics debate forum. I'd link to it but I cant post links yet.

Hello and welcome to the forum. First you should realise this forum does not only discuss conspiracies, it has many other sections, maybe you should have a look through them.

You got off to a pretty poor start with you opening post. You have already determined you will be frustrated by the responses you get, you have already determined that most people here do not show the same level of critical thinking to the " official " story as alternative theories and you have already determined that anybody who opposes your view point simply will be doing so because they accept without question the official USG story no matter what.

Maybe if you review your own predetermined conclusions , you will get the open and honest debate you wish for, after all that is what you are here for is it not ?

[Par]

But Im going to try my best not to get roped into some pointless argument as soon as I realise Im dealing with somone that wont accept any skepticsm of the offical government story no matter what.


Yo yo, Edx.

Speaking personally, I’m perfectly happy with this kind of scepticism. However, persistent incredulity in the face of overwhelming evidence is not scepticism. Rather, it’s merely contrariness.

[Flanger]

What have I become, my sweetest friend. every one goes away in the end.

[Par]

What have I become, my sweetest friend. every one goes away in the end.


I see the connexion, but why have you chosen to serenade us with Nine Inch Nails songs? Are quite drunk? (That’s the only time I’d consider doing such a thing.)

[Edx]

Wow that was quick. :) Thanks for the welcomes. Im sorry I made a poor opening post, this will seem maybe comical but I was bored at work and Im very hungry and I find it hard to think without food. Now that Ive made myself look a little foolish I'll reply a little to your comments.

Undesired Walrus: I have seen most of In Their Own Words, but havent had the time to sit down and watch it through all the way. I only found out that it had been released on Thursday. I wont be able to watch it until Sunday night to see what section you are talking about but in the mean time can you give me the time in the video so I can skip the correct section? Also, can you briefly summerise the issue of "O.Sheikh and M.Atta" meeting?

I am aware of the hijackers are still alive error. I have only watched it once at the moment so may need to check it again, but as far as I know they only said it was reported, which was true. I think its a shame they didnt acknowledge that the BBC retracted their original report that the hijackers were still alive, but as I may like to discuss later on I think they still brought up a good point anyway, a point which was missed becuase of the "error".

A much more annoying problem from my perspective is when they said that the government released the names AND photographs 2 days after the attack. I dont know why they managed to miss that and I agree that it is a big error to make, but in my research and looking at he rest of the section dealing with that, again I think there is a good point that can be made here.

I certianly dont agree that they present no evidence for any of their claims.

brodski: Hi and thanks for the explanation of the mod policy. :)

stateofgrace: I know there are other areas and was aware of James Randi having having had a LOT of experience arguing about religion and with Creationists. I agree with everything you're saying, although I have lurked for a while before I signed up. Maybe its just a lot of loud people that makes all the reasonable people here seem less noticable. I just hope people dont automatically assume I am your typical truther, because Im really not. I dont really even like being connected to 911 truth, thats why I'd rather say Im skeptical. I get annoyed with them too, and many of them really make me shake my fist at the screen if you know what I mean. Only yesterday I was telling someone Loose Change has way too many errors to really reccomend to anyone.

I find I am in the "middle view" of this. Having debated Big Cedar and a couple of others on Christianforums.com I have had to correct some of my misconceptions and research which only made me more accurate and informed. However in my research for the discussions I have mostly come to the conclusion that there is even more reasons to be skeptical than I was before! I also had a long strongly worded discussion on WMDs and the Bush administration but if his arguments and responses were any indication I think Im even more right than I thought I was before, and I had to do a lot of research for it. That is what I want to get out of this. I want to know if there really is any reasonable flaws in my reasoning or knowledge. I think the best way to find out if you're wrong about something is to go to the people that disagree with you. For me its not about winning an argument, its about finding out what the arguments are. There is no prize for winning an argument on the internet, but you do get an increase in knowledge if you approach it from that direction.

Par: I agree with you in regards to just being skeptical for the sake of it. I do think there are reasons, however.

Ed

[Par]

Par: I agree with you in regards to just being skeptical for the sake of it. I do think there are reasons, however.


I see. Well, if you think there exists compelling evidence to suggest that the prosaic explanations of the 9/11 attacks are appreciably in error, then by all means present that evidence. Perhaps you could start a thread devoted to one such element, and we could discuss its merits or demerits objectively.

[Edx]

I see. Well, if you think there exists compelling evidence to suggest that the prosaic explanations of the 9/11 attacks are appreciably in error, then by all means present that evidence. Perhaps you could start a thread devoted to one such element, and we could discuss its merits or demerits objectively.

Sure, I just wanted to try and introduce myself first. I do want to start with one, Im not going to do a Creationist and launch off hundreds of points. I hate that. :cool:

[Open Blinded]

Welcome Edx,
I commend you for your admission of poor opening post. Already you are behaving so "un-truther like".

Since it seems you are experienced in debating IDers you may already know these, but here are some ways you will be respected and treated seriously here:

-Willing to concede a point when your claim is refuted with sources and facts.

-Avoiding the moving of the goalposts.

-Try to answer all rebuttals and/or questions and not just pick the ones you have a good counter to.

-Do not lean too much on speculation or heresy.

-Do not resort to labeling someone as blindly following the government because they agree with the "official story".

These are just a few and they are not just aimed at you but to also explain why you might have heard that some of us are "attacking" or rude to truthers.

I look forward to your first post. Again, welcome to JREF.

[jhunter1163]

Edx:

Welcome to the forum.

Assuming you've been lurking here a little while, a couple months or so, you may have been exposed to Debunking Burnout. It isn't that we're inherently rude; but it's fair to say that many of us are tired of seeing the same couple dozen talking points trotted out by the same people over and over and over again.

You'll find that many on the board are not Americans, and many if not most of those who are Americans are no fans of Bush and his policies. If there was evidence that Bushco were somehow nefariously involved in 9/11, we'd be all over it. The "official story" is official because it best fits the evidence available. Notice I didn't say "perfectly fits". Sure there are inconsistencies and anomalies. It'd be much more surprising if there weren't inconsistencies and anomalies, given the chaos of the day.

I forget whose razor it is (Hanlon's?) that says "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." To that, I would add incompetence, bureaucracy and a generous dollop of good old-fashioned hubris. America was hit with a well-planned attack by a motivated enemy that day.

The posters here are generally decent folks, who welcome an exchange of ideas in a friendly and lively fashion. However, if you've been reading, you know this is the major leagues of skepticism. As I've remarked elsewhere, the heavyweights here (not me) will not only tell someone that their argument is bull, they'll tell them exactly why, what the bull ate the night before, and how bad it stinks in parts per million of methane, with supporting documents and calculations.

So, if you're really looking to discuss and learn, jump in. I figure this place has raised my IQ about five points. But if you're just here to educate us "skeptics", I fear you're in for a rocky stay.

Again, though, welcome. I for one assume that people have good intentions until shown otherwise.

[T.A.M.]

Edx:

How you are received, and how you will be treated on this forum has a lot to do with how you present yourself, and how you respond to reasonable, logical argument.

If you take the common path of the average truther we see arriving here, you will likely receive hostility, mockery, and little productive dialogue/discussion. If, however, you are HONEST and upfront about your purpose here, and YOU MAINTAIN this approach through out your posts, you will hopefully become engaged in dialogue that will be both insightful, and educational for you.

So, you may ask, what does the average truther do to garnish hostility, mockery, and a lack of productive conversation? Well there are a couple of routes that will lead a new poster to this.

1. The Mark of Woo: This expression is given to a new poster who arrives with the false premise of innocently "just asking questions". I say false, be cause it becomes clear within a few pages of postings that their motive is not simply the quest for clarity or knowledge, but rather is a rouse, an attempt to lead the members here, via the Socratic Method, down a path with the intent of making them "slip up", or with the intent of making the people here "See things the right way...the truther way".

Those who venture here under this cloak, garnish perhaps the most hostility.

2. Another form of poster that will not do well, is the "attack dog". This poster comes here, and from the outset is more concerned with telling us why we are bad people, why we are wrong, and that we should, for the betterment of humanity, change our evil ways. He or she will occasionally bring in a bit of truther "evidence" but for the most part is here to bait and troll.

----

So what posters do well here, regardless of their stand?

1. Polite, logical posters who are honest about their intent.
2. People who rely on facts rather than speculation

Of course this is a forum, a forum to discuss Conspiracy Theories, and for the most part the majority of posters at this subforum DO NOT BELIEVE the CTs. As a result, anyone who comes here to argue FOR a CT, is going to fight an up hill battle, just as anyone would in enemy territory on any internet forum.

Good luck, and welcome.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

Note:

jhunter, Open Blinded, as well as others above have added valuable points to what I have said...well done.

TAM:)

[Edx]

Thanks for your replies, I am more confident already about this forum. :) Now I just need to choose the issue Im going to start with.

[CptColumbo]

Thanks for your replies, I am more confident already about this forum. :) Now I just need to choose the issue Im going to start with.I would encourage you to use the search function as you are thinking, to see if "the issue" has already been discussed. You may find many questions you have are already answered, and people will be less short with their answers and replies if you bring something new to the table.

Welcome!

[Undesired Walrus]

Undesired Walrus: I have seen most of In Their Own Words, but havent had the time to sit down and watch it through all the way. I only found out that it had been released on Thursday. I wont be able to watch it until Sunday night to see what section you are talking about but in the mean time can you give me the time in the video so I can skip the correct section? Also, can you briefly summerise the issue of "O.Sheikh and M.Atta" meeting?


Hi Edx, welcome to the forum.

A common theory that runs through the conspiracy movement is that the ISI chief got Omar Sheikh (A London Islamist) to wire $100,000 to Mohammed Atta on September 10th. This was from a newpaper article printed in the Times Of India. However, there has been absolutely no evidence to support this, and no follow up article. There was a rumour that Daniel Pearl was on the trail of this money, but given his final travel plan, he was more likely on the trial of KSM.

Here is an actual bank transfer to the group in the US, but this was provided by the remaining cell member in Hamburg.
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/BR00054A.pdf

The recent Loose Change Film makes the allegation that the White House censored the word 'ISI chief' from a press briefing with Condi Rice when the question was brought up. The word is not in the transcript, that is correct. The only problem with that theory is that the unedited video is available on the white house website.

[uk_dave]

I'm a sadist.

Just sayin'....

[Quad4_72]

Thanks for your replies, I am more confident already about this forum. :) Now I just need to choose the issue Im going to start with.

Are you a twoofer? I am very confused by your posts...

[Edx]

Are you a twoofer? I am very confused by your posts...

Try not to fit me into your box and you might see things more clearly.

[Gravy]

Try not to fit me into your box and you might see things more clearly.Hi, Edx. I don't understand why you started this thread. Do you have something to say about some conspiracy-related issue? If so, then please do so, so that we'll have something to reply to. If you just want to whine, please don't do it here. We get far too much of that already from poor, helpless, persecuted truthers. Thanks.

[Par]

Are you a twoofer? I am very confused by your posts...Try not to fit me into your box and you might see things more clearly.


A simple “yes” would have sufficed.


…Zero fighter responce. NORAD (officially) failed 4 times in 1 day to intercept any of the planes despite having a good track record. Planes were not scrambled effectively or they were sent off in the wrong direction. You could say this was because of the many war games going on that day, including one that apparently included terrorists flying hyjacked planes into buildings. Astonishingly the Norad chief testified to the 911 Commission that the war games actually HELPED the fighter responce! So they are saying their responce would have been even worse if these war games hadent been going on!...
The Hearst Corporation really isnt a credible name and yes being affiliated with Homeland Security doesnt make it any better.
For a jet they didnt even suspect was hijacked they scrambled and diverted 4 military jets to intercept. But on 911 they only, apparently, scrambled 2 fighters until 9:27. But they later complain later that Norad had less fighters to protect the skies becuase of downsizing a few years earlier, which was true but they had many of their fighters in Alaska for Northern Guardian and they had fighters at Langley fueld up and ready to go in roughly 7 minutes, but it still took over 30 minutes after the second tower was hit before they were even scrambled.
Are they seriously saying they had no other military aircraft availible to protect that entire region of the United States? But even if they did, according to that timeline, it wouldnt matter because they didnt want to risk colliding with other planes? So more planes wouldnt really have helped that much anyway?
…I think theres reason to think United 93 was shot down which I even read on a debunking site saying it was possible and they covered it up but, they suggest, it was because the hero story was better for public opinion.


There’s plenty more over at: http://christianforums.com/

[Edx]

Hi Edx, welcome to the forum.

A common theory that runs through the conspiracy movement is that the ISI chief got Omar Sheikh (A London Islamist) to wire $100,000 to Mohammed Atta on September 10th. This was from a newpaper article printed in the Times Of India. However, there has been absolutely no evidence to support this, and no follow up article. There was a rumour that Daniel Pearl was on the trail of this money, but given his final travel plan, he was more likely on the trial of KSM.

Here is an actual bank transfer to the group in the US, but this was provided by the remaining cell member in Hamburg.
vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/BR00054A.pdf

The recent Loose Change Film makes the allegation that the White House censored the word 'ISI chief' from a press briefing with Condi Rice when the question was brought up. The word is not in the transcript, that is correct. The only problem with that theory is that the unedited video is available on the white house website.


Oh its this. I havent researched this as fully as I have other aspects but are you saying it it isnt true that Mahmood Ahmed was fired after India shared intelligence with the FBI, who then confirmed a 100,000 transaction?

Thing is even if it isnt correct, or isnt as correct as news sources state (you dont even need to go to CT sites for this) I dont understand is why this wasnt followed up properly and I cant find any source that says the Indian source isnt credible. The 911 Commission deemed the source of the funds of little significance. In LCFC the clip of the Commissioner being questioned about this, they appear to not even know anything about the report at all! Thats what bothers me about this issue and why I still agree with Press for Truths underlying point.

Ed

[Walter Ego]

Originally Posted by Edx
…Zero fighter responce. NORAD (officially) failed 4 times in 1 day to intercept any of the planes despite having a good track record. Planes were not scrambled effectively or they were sent off in the wrong direction. You could say this was because of the many war games going on that day, including one that apparently included terrorists flying hyjacked planes into buildings. Astonishingly the Norad chief testified to the 911 Commission that the war games actually HELPED the fighter responce! So they are saying their responce would have been even worse if these war games hadent been going on!...


Originally Posted by Edx
The Hearst Corporation really isnt a credible name and yes being affiliated with Homeland Security doesnt make it any better.

Originally Posted by Edx
For a jet they didnt even suspect was hijacked they scrambled and diverted 4 military jets to intercept. But on 911 they only, apparently, scrambled 2 fighters until 9:27. But they later complain later that Norad had less fighters to protect the skies becuase of downsizing a few years earlier, which was true but they had many of their fighters in Alaska for Northern Guardian and they had fighters at Langley fueld up and ready to go in roughly 7 minutes, but it still took over 30 minutes after the second tower was hit before they were even scrambled.


Originally Posted by Edx
Are they seriously saying they had no other military aircraft availible to protect that entire region of the United States? But even if they did, according to that timeline, it wouldnt matter because they didnt want to risk colliding with other planes? So more planes wouldnt really have helped that much anyway?
Originally Posted by Edx
…I think theres reason to think United 93 was shot down which I even read on a debunking site saying it was possible and they covered it up but, they suggest, it was because the hero story was better for public opinion.



twoofer

[Par]

But the 911 Commission deemed the source of the funds of little significance.


It might be worth bearing in mind that this is entirely false. If you're labouring under the misconception that the 9/11 Commission Report makes any such claim, then the only forthcoming conclusion is that you haven't actually read it.

[Edx]

A simple “yes” would have sufficed.
There’s plenty more over at: christianforums.com

I wasnt exactly hiding my discussions over there. I told you to look there. :rolleyes:

And btw thats a lot of quote mining, I assume someone will get the wrong impression after reading them. It took Big Cedar many posts to realise I wasnt who he thought i was as well.

[Gravy]

Oh its this. I havent researched this as fully as I have other aspects but are you saying it it isnt true that Mahmood Ahmed was fired after India shared intelligence with the FBI, who then confirmed a 100,000 transaction?Please provide a verifiable source for this information. You will be the first to do so. If you cannot, then how can you state that it's true?

Thing is even if it isnt correct, or isnt as correct as news sources state (you dont even need to go to CT sites for this) I dont understand is why this wasnt followed up properly and I cant find any source that says the Indian source isnt credible.It wasn't even an Indian source, nor has it been verified by anyone. Please bone up on your facts.

The 911 Commission deemed the source of the funds of little significance.You have completely misinterpreted what they said, which makes me think you haven't read the report. Please quote that section in full.

In LCFC the clip of the Commissioner being questioned about this, they appear to not even know anything about the report at all!You're right, the Loosers don't know anything about the report. In fact, Korey Rowe volunteered to me the information that he hadn't even read it! Why? He was too busy. What was he too busy doing? Traveling the country claiming that the report he hadn't read was a lie.

What do you think of that, Edx?

[Edx]

It might be worth bearing in mind that this is entirely false. If you're labouring under the misconception that the 9/11 Commission Report makes any such claim, then the only forthcoming conclusion is that you haven't actually read it.

How is it "entirely false" when they say exactly what I said they said?

"To date, the U.S. government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. Ultimately the question is of little practical significance. "

[Alt+F4]

Oh its this. I havent researched this as fully as I have other aspects but are you saying it it isnt true that Mahmood Ahmed was fired after India shared intelligence with the FBI, who then confirmed a 100,000 transaction?

Thing is even if it isnt correct, or isnt as correct as news sources state (you dont even need to go to CT sites for this) I dont understand is why this wasnt followed up properly and I cant find any source that says the Indian source isnt credible. The 911 Commission deemed the source of the funds of little significance. In LCFC the clip of the Commissioner being questioned about this, they appear to not even know anything about the report at all! Thats what bothers me about this issue and why I still agree with Press for Truths underlying point.

Ed

Why would the ISI wire Atta $100,000 in August 2001? What would he spend that money on with the attack just a month away? How was this money wired, Western Union? Where's the IRS follow up?

[Par]

I wasnt exactly hiding my discussions over there. I told you to look there. And btw thats a lot of quote mining, I assume someone will get the wrong impression after reading them. It took Big Cedar many posts to realise I wasnt who he thought i was as well.


I wasn’t suggesting that you were necessarily hiding anything. (That said, you have certainly displayed a certain level of reluctance to reveal your beliefs.) Rather, I was merely pointing out that you could have answered the given question with a simple “yes”.

Incidentally, do you think that I have appreciably misrepresented any of your beliefs?

[T.A.M.]

EdX:

Please provide a source that backs up the "Times of India" report, which was based on an Anonymous Indian Intelligence Source.

1. The Wall Street Journal as well as other mags reported this, but all that I have seen, including the WSJ article, simply regurgitate the TOI article, with the WSJ nearly cutting and pasting it.

2. The Indian Intelligence source would be considered, on issues of Pakistan, as reliable as the ISI would be on issues concerning India and their activities.

3. Please provide your source that states (A) that the FBI confirmed a 100,000 transfer, and (B) that the transfer was from someone within the ISI.

Thanks

TAM:)

[Par]

How is it "entirely false" when they say exactly what I said they said?

"To date, the U.S. government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. Ultimately the question is of little practical significance. "


Here is the quotation in more context:

To date, the U.S. government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. Ultimately the question is of little practical significance. Al Qaeda had many avenues of funding. If a particular funding source had dried up, al Qaeda could have easily tapped a different source or diverted funds from another project to fund an operation that cost $400,000-$500,000 over nearly two years.


This statement comes at the end of a chapter which explains that the 9/11 plotters would never have been short of money. That is why they claim that the precise channel used by al Qaeda to fund them is of little practical significance (to this specific issue). It in no way states that the issue of funding itself is simply unimportant.

Moreover, the quotation in question is taken from a section entirely devoted to the issue of funding sources. Also, if the 9/11 Commission really did consider the issue of terrorist financing to be irrelevant, it seems very strange that they would have released a 150-page monograph solely devoted to it.

[Gravy]

How is it "entirely false" when they say exactly what I said they said?

"To date, the U.S. government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. Ultimately the question is of little practical significance. "I told you you misrepresented this and asked you to provide the quote in context. Please do so now. You know where it is, right?

Edit: You made Par do your homework for you. Do not do that, Edx. You won't learn that way.

[T.A.M.]

I think they considered the financing origins of little importance, in terms of who they were, simply because there were likely many of them, contributing some here, some there. If you read into the history of Al-Qaeda, they often had funding from multiple and varied sources.

TAM:)

[Alt+F4]

If the original Times of India story is the true smoking gun why hasn't any of the troofers followed up on it? Who was the original reporter? Why hasn't he been interviewed in length? Why hasn't he appeared on the Alex Jones show?

[Edx]

Please provide a verifiable source for this information. You will be the first to do so. If you cannot, then how can you state that it's true?

So the assumptions start already? :rolleyes:

I didnt say it was or wasnt true, that wasnt my point. I asked if he could clarify his opinion on what I just said. I couldnt get that from his post. As for a source I could quote all the news reports that say this kind of thing, but I assume thats not what you mean.

It wasn't even an Indian source, nor has it been verified by anyone. Please bone up on your facts.

When I said Indian source, Im refering to the Indian newspaper articles.

You have completely misinterpreted what they said, which makes me think you haven't read the report. Please quote that section in full.

I know what it said, Im looking at the quote on the comissions website right now. I remember an interview, it might have been in the interview on LCFC where the Commissioner says that when they said the source of the money was "of little practical significance" was because the money came in such small amounts. This makes sence. But when asked if he was aware of the Mohammed Atta being wired the 100,000 dollars story he doesnt have an answer he says he doesnt even know anything about it. I think this would be of greeat significance if true, but he isnt even aware of it.

You're right, the Loosers don't know anything about the report. In fact, Korey Rowe volunteered to me the information that he hadn't even read it! Why? He was too busy. What was he too busy doing? Traveling the country claiming that the report he hadn't read was a lie.

What do you think of that, Edx?

I dont care because Im not about to defend Loose Change! ;) I believe I already said on this forum in the few posts I have made, that I had only recently told someone the day before that Loose Change has too many errors to reccomend to anyone.

[Edx]

I wasn’t suggesting that you were necessarily hiding anything. (That said, you have certainly displayed a certain level of reluctance to reveal your beliefs.) Rather, I was merely pointing out that you could have answered the given question with a simple “yes”.

Well I dont like to say Im a "truther", as I think I already thought I said. But Im not going to agree to it when you write it "twoofer".

Incidentally, do you think that I have appreciably misrepresented any of your beliefs?

I think if you look at those quotes its easy to assume my position is different to what it is.

EDIT: That Hearst one will certianly cause people to think Im talking a different position to what I am.

[Edx]

EdX:

Please provide a source that backs up the "Times of India" report, which was based on an Anonymous Indian Intelligence Source.

1. The Wall Street Journal as well as other mags reported this, but all that I have seen, including the WSJ article, simply regurgitate the TOI article, with the WSJ nearly cutting and pasting it.

2. The Indian Intelligence source would be considered, on issues of Pakistan, as reliable as the ISI would be on issues concerning India and their activities.

3. Please provide your source that states (A) that the FBI confirmed a 100,000 transfer, and (B) that the transfer was from someone within the ISI.

Thanks

TAM:)


I will have to get back to you because its not something Im very familiar with. I didnt really want to have a debate about it until I feel Im familiar enough with the issue.

[Gravy]

So the assumptions start already? :rolleyes: Assumptions? I asked to you to provide a source. That's all.

I didnt say it was or wasnt true, my point wasnt to say that it was. I asked if he could clarify his opinion on what I just said. I couldnt get that from his post. As for a source I could quote all the news reports that say this kind of thing, but I assume thats not what you mean. I strongly recommend that you read Mike Williams' 911myths.com pages on this subject. You are getting your information from bad sources.
http://www.911myths.com/html/pakistan_s_isi_link_to_9_11_fu.html


When I said Indian source, Im refering to the Indian newspaper articles. I also strongly recommend that you look into how the Indian press reports on the ISI. Not that they get everything wrong, but there's a...wee bit of bias there.


...But when asked if he was aware of the Mohammed Atta being wired the 100,000 dollars story he doesnt have an answer he says he doesnt even seem to know anything about it.
That's because it didn't happen.

I dont care because Im not about to defend Loose Change! ;) I believe I already said on this forum in the few posts I have made, that I had only recently told someone the day before that Loose Change has too many errors to reccomend to anyone.Glad to hear it. In fact, none of the Loose Change movies get any significant claims right.

[Edx]

Assumptions? I asked to you to provide a source. That's all.

You didnt just ask me for a source, you asked me how can I say its true, when I didnt.

I strongly recommend that you read Mike Williams' 911myths.com pages on this subject. You are getting your information from bad sources.
http://www.911myths.com/html/pakistan_s_isi_link_to_9_11_fu.html

I also strongly recommend that you look into how the Indian press reports on the ISI. Not that they get everything wrong, but there's a...wee bit of bias there.

That's because it didn't happen.

Right, well when or if Im prepared to argue the point I'll get back to you.

[Edx]

Here is the quotation in more context:

This statement comes at the end of a chapter which explains that the 9/11 plotters would never have been short of money. That is why they claim that the precise channel used by al Qaeda to fund them is of little practical significance (to this specific issue). It in no way states that the issue of funding itself is simply unimportant.

Moreover, the quotation in question is taken from a section entirely devoted to the issue of funding sources. Also, if the 9/11 Commission really did consider the issue of terrorist financing to be irrelevant, it seems very strange that they would have released a 150-page monograph solely devoted to it.

I know it says that but Im also connecting it with the video I saw of the Commissioner being asked about the 100,000 dollar wire transfer story and not knowing anything about it. I'd think they'd at least be aware if it, if only to argue that they dont believe its accurate.

[Gravy]

You didnt just ask me for a source, you asked me how can I say its true, when I didnt. When your default position is this,
I havent researched this as fully as I have other aspects but are you saying it it isnt true that Mahmood Ahmed was fired after India shared intelligence with the FBI, who then confirmed a 100,000 transaction?then you're putting the burden of disproof on us for a claim that the truthers have presented no evidence for in the first place. Always remember who carries the burden of proof for these claims. Glad you're open to looking into it, though.

[Gravy]

I know it says that but Im also connecting it with the video I saw of the Commissioner being asked about the 100,000 dollar wire transfer story and not knowing anything about it. I'd think they'd at least be aware if it, if only to argue that they dont believe its accurate.That's like expecting Les Robertson to "know about" the "concrete cores" in his towers.

[Par]

I know it says that but Im also connecting it with the video I saw of the Commissioner being asked about the 100,000 dollar wire transfer story and not knowing anything about it. I'd think they'd at least be aware if it, if only to argue that they dont believe its accurate.


What I’m referring to is the fact that you were trying to use a selective and misleading quotation to prove that the 9/11 Commission considered the issue of funding to be unimportant.

[Edx]

When your default position is this,

I havent researched this as fully as I have other aspects but are you saying it it isnt true that Mahmood Ahmed was fired after India shared intelligence with the FBI, who then confirmed a 100,000 transaction?

then you're putting the burden of disproof on us for a claim that the truthers have presented no evidence for in the first place. Always remember who carries the burden of proof for these claims. Glad you're open to looking into it, though.

No Im not and I didnt make the claim, Im asking him if he can say whether he disagrees with what I just wrote because theres lots of aspects to this story which could be true while at the same time not be precisely correct the way the Indian papers reported it as. Im not going to let you pigeon hole me.

I know it says that but Im also connecting it with the video I saw of the Commissioner being asked about the 100,000 dollar wire transfer story and not knowing anything about it. I'd think they'd at least be aware if it, if only to argue that they dont believe its accurate.

That's like expecting Les Robertson to "know about" the "concrete cores" in his towers.

:confused:

[Edx]

What I’m referring to is the fact that you were trying to use a selective and misleading quotation to prove that the 9/11 Commission considered the issue of funding to be unimportant.

Well what was the reason they give that it was of little practical significance? Just summed up.

[jproudj]

Well what was the reason they give that it was of little practical significance? Just summed up.

Par kinda answered this for you on the first page, but I'll give it a go. First you need to remember what the objective of the report was. Second, they said that as Al Qaeda had many different sources of funds, where they each came from was of little significance. It wouldn't have made a difference to the success of the attacks. They weren't trying to find everybody connected with 9/11, it wasn't that kind of investigation. That would be my understanding of it.

[DGM]

Well what was the reason they give that it was of little practical significance? Just summed up.
EdX:
You really need to read the report if you going to argue about it's contents. Do you see why this would be important for reasonable and intelligent debate?

[Par]

Well what was the reason they give that it was of little practical significance?


I have already expounded upon this.

The section in question states that the issue of the source of the funding is of little practical significance to the plotters’ abilities to continue operating without running into financial difficulties. The reason that they give for this is that “If a particular funding source had dried up, al Qaeda could have easily tapped a different source or diverted funds from another project to fund an operation that cost $400,000-$500,000 over nearly two years.”

[Gravy]

No Im not and I didnt make the claim, Im asking him if he can say whether he disagrees with what I just wrote because theres lots of aspects to this story which could be true while at the same time not be precisely correct the way the Indian papers reported it as. Im not going to let you pigeon hole me. Fair enough

:confused:I don't have LCFC handy. If you do, can you quote the question to the commissioner, and the response?

[Edx]

I have already expounded upon this.

The section in question states that the issue of the source of the funding is of little practical significance to the plotters’ abilities to continue operating without running into financial difficulties. The reason that they give for this is that “If a particular funding source had dried up, al Qaeda could have easily tapped a different source or diverted funds from another project to fund an operation that cost $400,000-$500,000 over nearly two years.”

Thanks, now I know what you're refering to. Well my first responce would be, ironically, that its of little practical significance whether they diverted funds from another terrorist operation to the 911 job. If you could trace the funds you could find out who is financially backing Al Qaeda. That seems rather significant to me. Secondly, the idea that the funds would be hard to trace because they were small amounts, if true, is a fair comment. But to say the source of the funds is of little practical signficance I dont agree with.

EdX:
You really need to read the report if you going to argue about it's contents. Do you see why this would be important for reasonable and intelligent debate?

My own fault I suppose for not saying why I was asking, but it was because I wanted to know what part of the report he was refering to so that I could see why he might think me bringing up the quote I did was unfair.

Fair enough

I don't have LCFC handy. If you do, can you quote the question to the commissioner, and the response?

It will have to wait a few hours Im still at work. (its slow)

[Par]

Well my first responce would be, ironically, that its of little practical significance whether they diverted funds from another terrorist operation to the 911 job. If you could trace the funds you could find out who was financially backing Al Qaeda. That seems rather significant to me. Secondly, the idea that the funds would be hard to trace because they were small amounts, if true, is a fair comment. But to say the source of the funds is of little signficance I dont agree with.


Third time: The Commission simply does not claim that the source of the funding is of little significance. Rather, it points out that it is of little practical significance to the plotters’ abilities to continue operating without running into financial difficulties.

I strongly suggest that you read the 9/11 Commission Report before further pursuing this line of argument.

[DGM]

Thanks, now I know what you're refering to. Well my first responce would be, ironically, that its of little practical significance whether they diverted funds from another terrorist operation to the 911 job. If you could trace the funds you could find out who was financially backing Al Qaeda. That seems rather significant to me. Secondly, the idea that the funds would be hard to trace because they were small amounts, if true, is a fair comment. But to say the source of the funds is of little signficance I dont agree with.
Picture accounts being setup as Joe Shmo. this person does not really exist but ATM deposits are made all over the world. Likewise withdrawals are also made. This is the way they fund this type of thing so finding the who is not possible. So finding the accounts (their as in the hijackers source of funds) are of little significance.

[Gravy]

Third time: The Commission simply does not claim that the source of the funding is of little significance. Rather, it points out that it is of little practical significance to the plotters’ abilities to continue operating without running into financial difficulties.

I just want to emphasize this point, which so many people can't seem to understand. The ultimate source of the funding is of great interest to the investigators, but mattered little to the terrorists, since so many avenues of funding were available. The 9/11 Commission estimates that al Qaeda's budget was about $30 million per year before 9/11.

[beachnut]

Third time: The Commission simply does not claim that the source of the funding is of little significance. Rather, it points out that it is of little practical significance to the plotters’ abilities to continue operating without running into financial difficulties.

I strongly suggest that you read the 9/11 Commission Report before further pursuing this line of argument.
Welcome

You are mislead to believe 9/11 truth may have a single fact to back any of their allegations. Not a single fact. You are now proving this again.

It did not take you long to ignore the facts and spew hearsay. Welcome

[Edx]

Third time: The Commission simply does not claim that the source of the funding is of little significance. Rather, it points out that it is of little practical significance [I]to

I think my failiure to say practical in my first mention of this is semantics

the plotters’ abilities to continue operating without running into financial difficulties.

Im talking about the source of Al Qaeda funding, which I do see as significant. What may be unfortunate is not being able to trace it, that I can understand.

[Edx]

It did not take you long to ignore the facts and spew hearsay. Welcome

Hi beachnut, Im not going to discuss anything with you becuase Ive lurked long enough to be aware of your attitude. Thanks.

[Edx]

I just want to emphasize this point, which so many people can't seem to understand. The ultimate source of the funding is of great interest to the investigators, but mattered little to the terrorists, since so many avenues of funding were available. The 9/11 Commission estimates that al Qaeda's budget was about $30 million per year before 9/11.

It doesnt say its of little practical significance to the plotters, which is largely irrelevant anyway. It says the government cant trace the orgins, but says ultimately the question itself is of the origin of the money used for the 911 attacks is of little practical significance. I fail to see how my understanding of this is wrong and I dont see how Par interpreted it the way he did.

"To date, the U.S. government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. Ultimately the question is of little practical significance. Al Qaeda had many avenues of funding. If a particular funding source had dried up, al Qaeda could have easily tapped a different source or diverted funds from another project to fund an operation that cost $400,000-$500,000 over nearly two years. "

[DGM]

I'm talking about the source of Al Qaeda funding, which I do see as significant. What may be unfortunate is not being able to trace it, that I can understand.

I'm sorry I thought you were talking about the quote in the commission report. Of course the source of funding is significant. I don't think anyone would have said it wasn't.

[Edx]

Thanks, now I know what you're refering to. Well my first responce would be, ironically, that its of little practical significance whether they diverted funds from another terrorist operation to the 911 job. If you could trace the funds you could find out who was financially backing Al Qaeda. That seems rather significant to me. Secondly, the idea that the funds would be hard to trace because they were small amounts, if true, is a fair comment. But to say the source of the funds is of little signficance I dont agree with. Picture accounts being setup as Joe Shmo. this person does not really exist but ATM deposits are made all over the world. Likewise withdrawals are also made. This is the way they fund this type of thing so finding the who is not possible. So finding the accounts (their as in the hijackers source of funds) are of little significance.

This I accept (see bolded part of my post quote above yours).

I'm talking about the source of Al Qaeda funding, which I do see as significant. What may be unfortunate is not being able to trace it, that I can understand. I'm sorry I thought you were talking about the quote in the commission report. Of course the source of funding is significant. I don't think anyone would have said it wasn't.

I am talking about the quote in the Comission report. I dont understand why Par is interpreting it the way he is.

[DGM]

This I accept (see bolded part of my post quote above yours).



I am talking about the quote in the Comission report. I dont understand why Par is interpreting it the way he is.
Did you read the report (or at least that section)? I think your confusion comes from what you've been lead to believe they meant.

Why do you think they would say such a stupid thing? Think about this.

[T.A.M.]

It doesnt say its of little practical significance to the plotters, which is largely irrelevant anyway. It says the government cant trace the orgins, but says ultimately the question itself is of the origin of the money used for the 911 attacks is of little practical significance. I fail to see how my understanding of this is wrong and I dont see how Par interpreted it the way he did.

"To date, the U.S. government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks. Ultimately the question is of little practical significance. Al Qaeda had many avenues of funding. If a particular funding source had dried up, al Qaeda could have easily tapped a different source or diverted funds from another project to fund an operation that cost $400,000-$500,000 over nearly two years. "

If you look at the entire quote, it starts by saying the USG hasn't been able to trace the origins of the funding. It then says the question (of who funded) is of little practical significance. This is IMMEDIATELY followed by...

"...Al Qaeda had many avenues of funding. If a particular funding source had dried up, al Qaeda could have easily tapped a different source or diverted funds from another project..."

I read the entire statement as follows...

1. The Commission was not able to determine the origin of the funding that Al-Qaeda received for the 9/11 attacks.
2. It is of little practical significance BECAUSE Al-Qaeda had many different sources, so if one dried up, there were many more available to fund them.

I think what they are saying, is that finding one source, of the many they had, would not likely point to the puppet master, because in terms of funding, there does not seem to be one dominant master.

TAM:)

[beachnut]

Hi beachnut, Im not going to discuss anything with you becuase Ive lurked long enough to be aware of your attitude. Thanks.
Still no facts. When you come prepared instead of with hearsay, you will do better and stop being a person who falls for lies of 9/11 truth.

Proof is your persistence to ignore and fail to comment rationally on the facts flying at you posts of hearsay.

I am the easy one, I just tell you are full of woo, the others will embarrass you with real facts, fact I take for granted. You have failed to see some really good posts, and the best only post the facts once and you have failed to see them! Facts fly from others as you spew hearsay and bs.

Thank you for posting more hearsay than a DRG plug for his book.

[Edx]

If you look at the entire quote, it starts by saying the USG hasn't been able to trace the origins of the funding. It then says the question (of who funded) is of little practical significance. This is IMMEDIATELY followed by...

"...Al Qaeda had many avenues of funding. If a particular funding source had dried up, al Qaeda could have easily tapped a different source or diverted funds from another project..."

I read the entire statement as follows...

1. The Commission was not able to determine the origin of the funding that Al-Qaeda received for the 9/11 attacks.
2. It is of little practical significance BECAUSE Al-Qaeda had many different sources, so if one dried up, there were many more available to fund them.

I think what they are saying, is that finding one source, of the many they had, would not likely point to the puppet master, because in terms of funding, there does not seem to be one dominant master.

TAM:)

You know what, I reread the entire chapter and thought about it long and hard and I think Im going to have to agree with you :).

Alright so unless I subsequently find out the Commission didnt know or didnt address reports or finances relevant to it, I will agree that the comment about significance of the funds is fine. Fair? :)

When I get home I will finish up my post on Norad and see what you guys think of that.

Ed

[Edx]

Still no facts. When you come prepared instead of with hearsay, you will do better and stop being a person who falls for lies of 9/11 truth.

Proof is your persistence to ignore and fail to comment rationally on the facts flying at you posts of hearsay.

I am the easy one, I just tell you are full of woo, the others will embarrass you with real facts, fact I take for granted. You have failed to see some really good posts, and the best only post the facts once and you have failed to see them! Facts fly from others as you spew hearsay and bs.

Thank you for posting more hearsay than a DRG plug for his book.

Whatever Beachnut! All you can do is personally attack people and I really dont care about your opinion of me.

[T.A.M.]

You know what, I reread the entire chapter and thought about it long and hard and I think Im going to have to agree with you :).

Alright so unless I subsequently find out the Commission didnt know or didnt address reports or finances relevant to it, I will agree that the comment about significance of the funds is fine. Fair? :)

When I get home I will finish up my post on Norad and see what you guys think of that.

Ed

My god, we may have a diamond in the rough. I am glad to see someone who has the intellectual honesty to read what is given to him, and based on logic and insight, change his mind.

Well done Ed...I await your post on NORAD. A word before hand though. Take a look at threads created by or contributions made by the user "gumboot" on this topic, as he has done an excellent job with it.

TAM:)

[Edx]

My god, we may have a diamond in the rough. I am glad to see someone who has the intellectual honesty to read what is given to him, and based on logic and insight, change his mind.

heh, well thank you. :)

I will note that I havent made up my mind about the $100,00 transfer to Atta just yet, but you've all made me interested in that now and so I will need to look into it. Gravys source, that I skimmed, is actually very helpfull. But it seems to me now that the quote in the Commission about the source of the funds being of "little significance" is either justified or not by how true this story is, how true it is signifies how justified it is.

Well done Ed...I await your post on NORAD. A word before hand though. Take a look at threads created by or contributions made by the user "gumboot" on this topic, as he has done an excellent job with it. TAM:)

Coinsidently Big Cedar just got back to me on Christianforums and posted a link to some of gumboots posts. I learned a few things and I await correction on some more points as I dont have time to read every link on the page he linked to. But so far I cant see my specific points addressed yet, so it will be quite interesting.

[Edx]

I'll try and make this as summerised as I can.

On the day, I am told that Norad failed to intercept because...

1. They received the calls too late to do anything about it.
2. That they were looking outward to external threats not domestic ones
3. That they didnt have the right protocol to deal with this kind of threat.
4. That they didnt have enough fighters

Im sure Ill think of something later but Im pretty sure thats the main issues.

I know you're hearing this for the nth time, but before you launch into an argument please try and make sure you're not assuming Im using the same argument as the one you're used to. I say this in advance. I wish I was a better writer, actually more like gumboot, in order to link all these together nicely all at the same time in this first post instead of having to rely on replies to clarify things. So I apologise in advance. :)

1. They received the call too late: (There is an issue with the FAA reporting too late and I havent researched that aspect enough to pick on them so I'll only deal with Norad. Although from what I have seen they should be investigated in the same way)

The problem I have with this is that after the second plane hit they still didnt scramble the fighters at Langley. I read one responce that there were still a lot of planes in the air and they were worried about planes colliding with each other. They also said they also didnt want both fighter wings in the air because they didnt have any more (presumably), becuase the argument is they didnt want them both running out of fuel at the same time.

However even when they finally did scramble the fighters they were apparently send out over the ocean, the wrong way, because no one told them where they were scrambling or why, so they just assumed it was for a cold war style cruise-missile threat. By this time it was too late because Flight 77 turned off its transponder and around a minute later crashed into the Pentagon.

(I'll come back to this for point 4)

2. That they were looking outward to external threats not domestic ones:
3. That they didnt have the right protocol to deal with this kind of threat:

This is an interesting one for me. At first I thought it was a decent rebuttal but as I thought about it some more I wasnt so sure. I have tried to find, and apparently others have as well, records on how many domestic intercepts there have been, other than Stewarts Learjet, but apparently they kept very poor records in those years and so you're unlikely to get any kind of verifiable answers. It seems we have to take the Maj that Popular Mechanics cites as the source for this' word for it. Although I wonder how he knew it was only 1, if there are no records. I'll assume its correct for now as I think its too speculative to base much off that.

If we assume that Stewarts Learjet is the apparently only domestic scramble and intercept of a commercial plane 10 years before 911 it took roughly 1 hour 20minutes for them to intercept. I wonder why they make an exception for this one plane. It had gone off course, unresponsive and still had its transponder activated yet even though the Pengaton says they never considered shooting it down the whole incident shows it was still taken quite seriously quite early on.

But anyway I digress the reason why the "looking to external threats" issue is important is because its their excuse for why they werent prepared for a domestic terror threat, or a terror threat involving planes. So I looked at how much Norad claimed to know about this kind of thing. Ironically the 911 Commission was a good source. Gen McKinley, questioned by the Commission says they had "no intelligence indication at any level within NORAD or DOD of a terrorist threat to commercial aviation prior to the attacks". Even the Commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste was surprised at this claim, which as you probably know is the same claim of the Bush administration as well. He proceeded to list all the threats of terrorism he was aware of involving planes as weapons. In responce, McKinley essentially moves the goal posts, and says they didnt have a specific senario for 911. Ben-Veniste responces well again saying that "well, obviously, it would be hard to imagine posturing for the exact scenario". And then procedes to quiz the General on Amalgam Virgo 02, which was a plan involving domestic hijackings. "crashes" might also have been involved and this was apparently left to the script writers (although we dont know, at least from his testimony here, if any crashes were actually written into it). Ben-Veniste asks him that with all the knowledge they had, shouldnt Norad have been more prepared to meet this threat? Gen Mckinley was forced to agree, strangely this didnt seem to be followed up.

But what Ben-Veniste listed wasnt exaustive. There were other threats of terrorism involving planes, and there was Audgust 6th PDB, although not available to the Comission at the time where the Bush Administration knew that Bin Laden was "determined" to strike the US, that he would love to attack Washington, that he had been surveiling buildings in NYC as targets, that it was likely going to take the form of a domestic threat and that there was evidence consistent with preperations for hijackings. So Bush knew this, Condi Rice knew this. Did Norad know anything about documents and intelligence like the August 6th PDB? Well, they claimed complete ignorence as did the Bush administration.

The last point on this I dont understand, is how it being an external threat really make much difference. Imagine if none of the planes were domestic and they were all International flights, how would it being a domestic flight matter all that much? Gen Mckinley says they had no intelligence for any kind of terrorist threat involving commercial aviation, so they werent prepard for any of this aside from, apparently, cold war style threats even though they'd conducted terrorist threats involving planes in the past and on 911 one of the drills was involving hijacked airliners. But if it was a "traditional" hijacking, would their responce have been better? I dont see how, and fighters still wouldnt have been told where or why they were scrambling their jets too and so still end up flying the wrong way.

3. That they didnt have enough fighters : This is an odd one because it goes back to the point I made in point 1 that their defence seems to be that they didnt have enough fighters due to downsizing. But first of all we have a significant number of fighters off in Canada and Alaska, so they're too far away. They had more fighters, they were just not in a position to protect the capital. So who was in a position? This is the capital of the United States but left essentially unguarded even in the light of so much intelligence coming at them saying that theres going to be an imminent terrorist threat, that Bin Laden wanted to attack Washington and NYC and hijacking might be a method they were going to use, but on 911 apparently only two fighter wings were in range. Yet, more fighters wouldnt have helped anyway if they were worried about them colliding with other planes.

So why didnt have all the fighters they did have around up there trying to intercept the planes? Well the only excuse I've heard is that they didnt want all the fighters to run out of fuel at the same time. But then we have Langley pilots not being told not where they are going and so apparently assume they are responding to a cold war style threat so they head out to sea. Additionally, it was over 30 minutes using their conservative times after the second tower was hit before they were scrambled, but when they were they still didnt know what was going on.



----


Theres probably more points I could bring up but that will do. For me all the excuses for Norads failure dont make any sence. It leads me to think 'incompetence' and coverup of that incompetence in order to not hold anyone accountable. Even if you ignore all the intelligence Norad already knew regarding planes being used as weapons and by terrorists, I find it difficult to believe that without incompetence somewhere NORAD could be so ignorent of the intelligence of imminent threats by Bin Laden as described in the documents like the August 6th PDB. And if we look at the Bush administration, Condi Rice is reported to have said the amazing thing that they didnt know about the Norad drills with planes being used as weapons. Presumeably trying to defend her statements that no one even imagined that they might do that. Rice is meant to be the National Security Advisor and all her excuses amount to her saying no one imagined anything but her comments did, ironically, just keep showing how incompent she was behaving rather than anything else. In fact if you put all their comments together it seems like they all amount to them admitting that the right hand doesnt know what the left hand is doing. I cant see how one can make all their comments fit without suggesting some form of deceit and incomptence somewhere along the line.

[T.A.M.]

EdX:

I do not know enough about the NORAD issues to address them except through ignorance, so I will let gumboot or someone else tackle your issues.

TAM:)

[Sabrina]

Incompetence? Yes, to a certain extent; pretty much anyone inside or outside of the government can admit that, albeit maybe not publicly (the concept of covering your [rule10] being alive and well within the government). Deceit? That I have trouble with. That assumes deliberate intent on the part of individuals within the organization, and no evidence exists to support that assumption beyond pure speculation, inadmissable within the confines of this forum.

I'm not sure why you're bringing up the August 6th PDB when it had no actionable intelligence in it. And by that I mean intelligence specific enough to allow for actions to be taken to prevent something from occurring. As I recall, the August 6th PDB called UBL a threat and said he wanted to attack the US. Well DUH, if you'll pardon the juvenile response. What were we supposed to do in response when there was nothing within the PDB to indicate methods, time, or place of attack? And as for the other PDBs that mentioned possible attacks, as I recall from reading the unclassified versions available on the web, only ONE contained anything that might be considered actionable intelligence, and it was still pretty vague. Plus, there were forty PDBs that mentioned possible attacks, as I recall, but you have to bear in mind that the PDB is comprised of the top 10-15 intelligence reports deemed important enough to cross the President's desk. That's 10-15 per day; assuming the higher number, you're talking about, by 9/11, almost four thousand intel reports deemed important enough for the President to see. And we're not even counting the tens of thousands of other intel reports crisscrossing the intel community that WEREN'T deemed important enough for the the Pres to see. So, one report that MIGHT have usable intel, out of nearly four thousand. You see my issue here?

I'll leave the remainder of your post for more knowledgable persons, but from reading it over, I'd have to say that you seem to have very little knowledge of how the FAA and NORAD interacted prior to 9/11 and exactly how they interacted on the day of 9/11. I'd highly suggest you speak with CheapShot, a poster on this forum who IS an air traffic controller and was in Boston on 9/11, and ref, another poster who has researched this extensively, as well as gumboot. Look them up with the search function; each of them have covered this topic from various perspectives on more than one occasion, and I think you'll find they'll answer your questions sufficiently.

And last but not least, welcome to the forum. :)

[Edx]

Incompetence? Yes, to a certain extent; pretty much anyone inside or outside of the government can admit that, albeit maybe not publicly (the concept of covering your [rule10] being alive and well within the government).
This is a responce Ive gotten before. They were incompetent, but its to be expected. Someone even told me it was normal for governments to lie to "cover their asses". Well, I think the people involved need to be held accountable, its been done before and for much less. And these people still have their jobs, Rice was even promoted! Its not so we can pick on them and get them fired (at the least) but because if it happens again how can we be sure they wont screw up again so badly next time?

Deceit? That I have trouble with. That assumes deliberate intent on the part of individuals within the organization, and no evidence exists to support that assumption beyond pure speculation, inadmissable within the confines of this forum.

Theres no speculation required, unless you want to use a Creationist argument of "you cant tell me Kent Hovind lies because you cant know his heart!". I hear all the time on this forum about lying in the truth movement, so if its fair to say that Avery or AJ lies and that this isnt speculation, then I can say the Bush administration was telling fibs as well.

I'm not sure why you're bringing up the August 6th PDB when it had no actionable intelligence in it And by that I mean intelligence specific enough to allow for actions to be taken to prevent something from occurring.

Really? I can think of many off the top of my head. How about informing Norad chiefs about the intelligence so that they are aware of a domestic threat, that they have suspicious activity consistent with hijacking preparations, that Bin laden wanted to attack Washington and NYC is also a likely target. Because Gen. McKinley denies all knowledge all of it. Assuming he was telling the truth and didnt receive any uptodate intelligence, why wasnt this information given to them? Remember, and unless I miscounted, there were only 5 fighters around to protect the capital and even then the clueless Langley base still didnt even know what was happening over 30 minutes after the second tower was hit before they scrambled their fighters that didnt know where they were going or what they were even scrambling for.

As I recall, the August 6th PDB called UBL a threat and said he wanted to attack the US. Well DUH, if you'll pardon the juvenile response.

[snip]

Plus, there were forty PDBs that mentioned possible attacks, as I recall, but you have to bear in mind that the PDB is comprised of the top 10-15 intelligence reports deemed important enough to cross the President's desk.

:boggled: First you say it was obvious intel, then you say it has to be deemed important or it wont be on the PDB to grace the presidents desk. What do you mean?

I'll leave the remainder of your post for more knowledgable persons, but from reading it over, I'd have to say that you seem to have very little knowledge of how the FAA and NORAD interacted prior to 9/11 and exactly how they interacted on the day of 9/11.

Ok, well we'll see :)

I'd highly suggest you speak with CheapShot, a poster on this forum who IS an air traffic controller and was in Boston on 9/11,

That would be interesting.

And last but not least, welcome to the forum. :)

Thanks :)

[Loss Leader]

I hear all the time on this forum about lying in the truth movement, so if its fair to say that Avery or AJ lies and that this isnt speculation, then I can say the Bush administration was telling fibs as well.


This argument is not logical. The fact that one set of people are in error does not make that error acceptable. I saw an individual run a red light today, but it is still illegal for me to run a red light. In fact, if a cop watched the other guy go through the light but ticketed me, I'd still have no ground to complain.

No amount of invalidity in any other argument can have any effect on the validity of your statements. Your argument must stand on its own.

[Edx]

This argument is not logical. The fact that one set of people are in error does not make that error acceptable. I saw an individual run a red light today, but it is still illegal for me to run a red light. In fact, if a cop watched the other guy go through the light but ticketed me, I'd still have no ground to complain.

No amount of invalidity in any other argument can have any effect on the validity of your statements. Your argument must stand on its own.

My point was that people here seem rather happy and quick to call people in the the "truth movement" liars, but in my experience when I say Bush or Condi lied about or made dishonest statements regarding their prior 911 knowledge or WMDs suddenly they get a very strict definition of it essentially amounting to me being asked to prove whats in their hearts, and because I cant, I cant say they lied.

[Corsair 115]

But anyway I digress the reason why the "looking to external threats" issue is important is because its their excuse for why they werent prepared for a domestic terror threat, or a terror threat involving planes. Do a little reading up on when NORAD what formed and what it's purpose was.

NORAD was born during the Cold War. Its mission was to defend North American airspace against attacking Soviet bombers during WWIII. That's why it looked outwards. Even after the Soviet Union collapsed, it takes time to change the mindset of an organization and for long-standing distrust to ease, and in any case, Russia was still a nuclear rival though not as threatening as it once had been.

Edx, about how old are you? I ask that because anyone born after 1980 probably does not have an appreciation for just how big a deal the Cold War was and how much it shaped international politics for some forty years. There simply is no parallel to it in the world currently.

[gumboot]

Hi Edx,

Welcome to the forums. Thank you for your polite posting thus far, in the face of some pretty stiff welcomes. I hope you stay around long enough to demonstrate your willingness to learn.

I thought I'd address some of your misconceptions about NORAD. I'm working on a detailed paper on this subject at the moment which will address your concerns in more detailed, but for now I hope a brief response will suffice.



I'll try and make this as summerised as I can.

On the day, I am told that Norad failed to intercept because...

1. They received the calls too late to do anything about it.
2. That they were looking outward to external threats not domestic ones
3. That they didnt have the right protocol to deal with this kind of threat.
4. That they didnt have enough fighters

Im sure Ill think of something later but Im pretty sure thats the main issues.

That's a pretty good summary, although I would not agree with the first point. I don't think it would have made any difference if NORAD had been notified the moment each flight was hijacked.




1. They received the call too late: (There is an issue with the FAA reporting too late and I havent researched that aspect enough to pick on them so I'll only deal with Norad. Although from what I have seen they should be investigated in the same way)

The problem with the "they were told too late" argument is that it assumes the military should have been told sooner. I've yet to find an explanation for this expectation. In actual fact if the FAA had done what they were supposed to do the military wouldn't have known anything until it was all over.



The problem I have with this is that after the second plane hit they still didnt scramble the fighters at Langley. I read one responce that there were still a lot of planes in the air and they were worried about planes colliding with each other. They also said they also didnt want both fighter wings in the air because they didnt have any more (presumably), becuase the argument is they didnt want them both running out of fuel at the same time.

The Langley fighters were put on Battle Stations after the second aircraft impact. At this stage neither NORAD nor the FAA were aware of any other hijackings. A pair of fighters were already airborne and NORAD decided to bring them into a holding pattern near New York just in case it turned out there were more things going on.

Meanwhile NORAD were primarily concerned with bringing some tankers into the area to support their fighters.

Once NORAD received word that there was still a hijacked airliner in the air Langley were immediately scrambled.



However even when they finally did scramble the fighters they were apparently send out over the ocean, the wrong way, because no one told them where they were scrambling or why, so they just assumed it was for a cold war style cruise-missile threat.

This is not quite correct. The Langley fighters were scrambled towards Baltimore to establish a blocking position for AA11 which it was believed at the time was headed for Washington DC. At the same time a tanker was being moved into a military training area to act as support.

Unfortunately the call signs for the two sets of aircraft were very similar, and the scramble order was given immediately after the order to move the tanker. As a result the Navy facility controlling the training area got them mixed up and sent the Langley fighters to the training area. It was a short-lived error - NORAD noticed within 2 minutes and were getting them turned around within 4 minutes.


By this time it was too late because Flight 77 turned off its transponder and around a minute later crashed into the Pentagon.

AA77's transponder was turned off over half an hour before Langley was scrambled, and no one had any idea where AA77 was. The Langley fighters were scrambled to chase down AA11, not AA77. When an unknown radar contact was picked up 5 miles from the White House the Langley fighters were sent to intercept that instead, but of course they were far too far away - the aircraft crashed 1 minute after NORAD heard about it.

Of course that unidentified aircraft turned out to be AA77, but no one knew that at the time - NORAD thought AA77 had hit WTC1.



2. That they were looking outward to external threats not domestic ones:
3. That they didnt have the right protocol to deal with this kind of threat:

This is an interesting one for me. At first I thought it was a decent rebuttal but as I thought about it some more I wasnt so sure. I have tried to find, and apparently others have as well, records on how many domestic intercepts there have been, other than Stewarts Learjet, but apparently they kept very poor records in those years and so you're unlikely to get any kind of verifiable answers. It seems we have to take the Maj that Popular Mechanics cites as the source for this' word for it. Although I wonder how he knew it was only 1, if there are no records. I'll assume its correct for now as I think its too speculative to base much off that.

There was only one military intercept of a civilian aircraft over domestic US airspace in the decade prior to 9/11.

(NOTE: This does not include intercepts of civilian aircraft flying over restricted airspace such as above "Area 51").



If we assume that Stewarts Learjet is the apparently only domestic scramble and intercept of a commercial plane 10 years before 911 it took roughly 1 hour 20minutes for them to intercept. I wonder why they make an exception for this one plane. It had gone off course, unresponsive and still had its transponder activated yet even though the Pengaton says they never considered shooting it down the whole incident shows it was still taken quite seriously quite early on.

Yes, when an aircraft fails to respond to communication it is always taken seriously. It doesn't happen very often. You'll note that in almost all cases the ATC will try to contact the aircraft for quite some time before calling the military - this is because the vast majority of transmission or transponder incidents are resolved in a matter of minutes by things returning to normal.



But anyway I digress the reason why the "looking to external threats" issue is important is because its their excuse for why they werent prepared for a domestic terror threat, or a terror threat involving planes. So I looked at how much Norad claimed to know about this kind of thing.

Your argument is a red herring. NORAD are not responsible for securing or protecting domestic aircraft. The FAA is. I would agree with you that the FAA's record in maintaining airliner security prior to 9/11 was shocking. However I am pretty confident that the American public would not have accepted any security measures the FAA could have implemented to improve safety.


And then procedes to quiz the General on Amalgam Virgo 02, which was a plan involving domestic hijackings.

Amalgam Virgo 02? You do realise this means it was held in 2002, yes? Are you surprised that a NORAD exercise after 9/11 focused on hijacking?

The Amalgam Virgo immediately prior to 9/11 focused on a cruise missile fired from a terrorist-controlled ship in international waters. Prior to 9/11 NORAD considered this the most likely terrorist threat.


There were other threats of terrorism involving planes, and there was Audgust 6th PDB, although not available to the Comission at the time where the Bush Administration knew that Bin Laden was "determined" to strike the US, that he would love to attack Washington, that he had been surveiling buildings in NYC as targets, that it was likely going to take the form of a domestic threat and that there was evidence consistent with preperations for hijackings.

You should probably read the August 6th memo more closely. The threat this document spoke of was 3 years old. Their conclusion was essential "Bin Laden wanted to hit us 3 years ago and we think he probably still does."

And again, NORAD are not responsible for protecting the USA from terrorism.


The last point on this I dont understand, is how it being an external threat really make much difference. Imagine if none of the planes were domestic and they were all International flights, how would it being a domestic flight matter all that much?

For several reasons:

1) An international flight would have to cross the Air Defense Identification Zone which NORAD actively monitors. They routinely intercept wayward aircraft in this corridor.
2) NORAD's radars are designed to look out over the ADIZ and not over the cluttered urban landscape of the Eastern Seaboard.
3) Crossing the ADIZ takes time. NORAD would have had hours to respond to a violation of this airspace.
4) NORAD have the authority to initiate Active Air Defense Missions in response to violations of the ADIZ. This is not the case for domestic incidents.



and on 911 one of the drills was involving hijacked airliners. But if it was a "traditional" hijacking, would their responce have been better? I dont see how, and fighters still wouldnt have been told where or why they were scrambling their jets too and so still end up flying the wrong way.

This is all incorrect. The hijacking scenario scripted into Vigilant Guardian was to be a hijacking of an international flight on its way to the USA, then diverted to Cuba. In this scenario NORAD fighters would intercept the aircraft in the ADIZ and follow it to Cuba. NORAD have performed numerous similar intercepts (hijacking of aircraft between the USA and Cuba is quite common).



3. That they didnt have enough fighters : This is an odd one because it goes back to the point I made in point 1 that their defence seems to be that they didnt have enough fighters due to downsizing. But first of all we have a significant number of fighters off in Canada and Alaska, so they're too far away.

Incorrect. Operation Northern Vigilance utilised NORAD assets in Alaska (6 fighter squadrons) and Canada (2 fighter squadrons). It did not use NORAD CONR fighters, and it certainly did not utilise NORAD alert fighters.



They had more fighters, they were just not in a position to protect the capital. So who was in a position? This is the capital of the United States but left essentially unguarded even in the light of so much intelligence coming at them saying that theres going to be an imminent terrorist threat, that Bin Laden wanted to attack Washington and NYC and hijacking might be a method they were going to use, but on 911 apparently only two fighter wings were in range. Yet, more fighters wouldnt have helped anyway if they were worried about them colliding with other planes.

Again, NORAD are not responsible for protecting the USA from terrorists.



So why didnt have all the fighters they did have around up there trying to intercept the planes?

They did.


Additionally, it was over 30 minutes using their conservative times after the second tower was hit before they were scrambled, but when they were they still didnt know what was going on.

Incorrect. The staff at Langley were watching the news and knew what was going on. They knew why they were being scrambled. A Navy ATC facility made a mistake, which was promptly corrected.

The fundamental problem with NORAD was that you had a neglected system, set up for a threat that no longer existed. No one really wanted to be spending money on the alert sites. In fact, had 9/11 not happened it was highly likely the entire NORAD air defense mission would have been mothballed within months. As early as 1994 there were strong calls to completely disband the alert sites.

This neglected and obsolete system, designed to address one threat, suddenly on 9/11 was expected to address an entirely different threat. Not only was the system not optimised to address this threat, but many features of how it was set up significantly hindered its efforts to adapt.

NORAD were never going to prevent those attacks. Not in a hundred years. Even if there were fifty armed fighters flying around off the coast of New York at the time of the attacks, with authorization to fire, I doubt any of the flights would have been successfully intercepted. The problems with the system go far, far deeper than numbers of aircraft and scrambling times.

(A hint here - the primary reason for NORAD's inability to respond to 9/11 effectively was radar coverage)

[T.A.M.]

well done...

EdX, in addition to gumboot, the user "Cheap Shot" may be of help, as he was actually one of the ATCers on duty that morning (9/11) and dealt with one of the hijacked planes directly.

TAM:)

[gumboot]

More than that, TAM!

Cheap Shot was the Military liaison for Boston ARTCC on 9/11. Remember EdX how I mentioned "In actual fact if the FAA had done what they were supposed to do the military wouldn't have known anything until it was all over"?

Well Cheap Shot is the man himself that had the instinct to depart with protocol (NOTE: They were ALSO following protocol, he decided to do extra AS WELL) and contact the military directly. Cheap Shot was the only person in the entire FAA giving NORAD good info. The only reason NORAD did was well as they did (and yes, that's right, they did do well, all things considered) was because of Cheap Shot.

[Loss Leader]

I cant say they lied.


No, you cannot.

[Sabrina]

As I understand it, no one will object if you say you THINK they lied; an opinion is still the property of the person holding it after all. It's when you say definitively that "they lied" that we start getting antsy.

As for us calling twoofers liars, well, we've caught them in more lies than any of us can count, and we had evidence that they were lying instead of just our opinions. Many "twoofers" contradict themselves with every other word, so it's not difficult. I will admit that we perhaps jump to conclusions about some of their statements a little too quickly, but that's a symptom of Debunker Burnout as mentioned in one of the replies to your OP if I recall correctly; we're so used to the lies that we automatically assume they're lying even if they may not be. That's not an excuse by any means, but I believe it shows mitigating circumstances, although maybe that's just me. :)

[OldTigerCub]

It's amazing how much I learn just lurking about in some of these threads!
Thanks for a great point-by-point, Gumboot! I learned a couple of things that I had missed before, ie the similarity in call signs leading to confusion with the fighters' destination and the proposed moth-balling of the NORAD system.
Thanks again! :D

[Edx]

Hi Edx,

Welcome to the forums. Thank you for your polite posting thus far, in the face of some pretty stiff welcomes. I hope you stay around long enough to demonstrate your willingness to learn.

Thanks for the welcome, and your polite reply. I was under the impression I would get a lot "stiffer" welcome than I did, actually.

That's a pretty good summary, although I would not agree with the first point. I don't think it would have made any difference if NORAD had been notified the moment each flight was hijacked.

But thats the main reason I keep hearing about. Im sure I even saw in your posts that I have read that they had a very short time to respond having only a small time window between being notified of the hijackings and the planes crashing. The implication being that because NORAD had to wait for the FAA to notify them they couldnt react fast enough and therefore the argument that NORAD had plenty of time to respond is false. But you're now saying it wouldnt have made any difference whether they were notified straight away?

The problem with the "they were told too late" argument is that it assumes the military should have been told sooner. I've yet to find an explanation for this expectation. In actual fact if the FAA had done what they were supposed to do the military wouldn't have known anything until it was all over.

Are you saying that even after the first two planes flew into the WTC you're saying the FAA still shouldnt have notified the miltary because of protocol? This wasnt just another Golfers Jearjet, planes were crashing into buildings.

The Langley fighters were put on Battle Stations after the second aircraft impact. At this stage neither NORAD nor the FAA were aware of any other hijackings. A pair of fighters were already airborne and NORAD decided to bring them into a holding pattern near New York just in case it turned out there were more things going on.

Meanwhile NORAD were primarily concerned with bringing some tankers into the area to support their fighters.

Once NORAD received word that there was still a hijacked airliner in the air Langley were immediately scrambled.

They were put on battlestations, but not scrambled for over 30 minutes after the first plane hits at 0846. The pilots in the Otis fighters said they were tragically only a few minutes away from intercepting the second plane, but couldnt get there in time. I also read that because the transponders were switched off they needed the fighters to fly there and see if they could find them themselves. So as I understand it you have your first wing of fighters desperately trying to get to NYC so they can look for these planes, and yet you have another wing of fighters available at Langley that wont even be scrambled for over 30 minutes after the first tower was hit but not only that, are not even told what the threat is or why they are scrambling.

The lead Langley pilot is reported to have said:

"I reverted to the Russian threat. I'm thinking cruise missile threat from the sea. You know you look down and see the Pentagon burning, and I thought the bastards snuck one by us. You couldn't see any airplanes, and no one told us anything.''

You say they were put on Battlestations after the second plane hit, but they werent scrambled for 20 minutes more and they still didnt even know what was going on and had to assume it was a Russian style threat from a cruise missile. Did they even know what was going on with the hijacked planes in NYC? Why didnt anyone even tell them enough to even know that much?

This is not quite correct. The Langley fighters were scrambled towards Baltimore to establish a blocking position for AA11 which it was believed at the time was headed for Washington DC. At the same time a tanker was being moved into a military training area to act as support.

Unfortunately the call signs for the two sets of aircraft were very similar, and the scramble order was given immediately after the order to move the tanker. As a result the Navy facility controlling the training area got them mixed up and sent the Langley fighters to the training area. It was a short-lived error - NORAD noticed within 2 minutes and were getting them turned around within 4 minutes.

But they werent told why they were scrambling even though you said they were on battlestations for 20 minutes.

AA77's transponder was turned off over half an hour before Langley was scrambled, and no one had any idea where AA77 was.

Sorry, you're right, I misinterpreted the CNNs timeline which says:

--9:37 a.m.: American Airlines flight 77 is lost from radar screens.

So it was still on the radar screens, but they just didnt have its transponder information. So if Flight 77s transponder was lost at 8:54 Norad is only notified of this, now a third plane, switching its transponder off and going off course until 9:25. Thats about half an hour, if they had got those Langely jets up as fast as they could after the second tower was hit (although I think it should have been earlier to help out the Otis wing) and if they had told them even a vague idea of what the threat was they would have already been a fair bit of the way there to being able to be in with a chance of intercepting Flight 77.

The Langley fighters were scrambled to chase down AA11, not AA77.

According to your timeline post:

0846 AA11 hits the North Tower of the World Trade Centre

0852 UA175 turns off course and fails to respond to communication. New York Centre knows the aircraft has been hijacked

0903 UA175 hits the South Tower of the WTC. A number of NEADS personnel witness it live on CNN.

0921 Boston Centre overhears a FAA conversation which mentions AA11 is still airborne. Based on this and AA11’s previous known heading they determine that it is headed for Washington DC. They notify NEADS.

0922 The Langley fighters are scrambled, however the pilots are not given a reason for a scramble.

So thats appox 35 minutes after the first tower was hit, approx 30 minutes after 175 turns off course and turns off its transponder and approx 20 minutes after the second plane hits. And then when they were scrambled the pilots didnt know why they were scrambling or where they were going. Is there not a question here worth asking?

I dont see how it matters that they thought they were scrambling for Flight 11 or Flight 77, point is according to your timeline they knew WTC 1 and 2 had been hit by hijacked planes but they only put them on battlestations and then its still a further 20 minutes after that before they scramble them.

There was only one military intercept of a civilian aircraft over domestic US airspace in the decade prior to 9/11.

(NOTE: This does not include intercepts of civilian aircraft flying over restricted airspace such as above "Area 51").

Like I said it would be nice to know how Maj Martin knew this, where are the official records? I would rather not have take his word for it.

Yes, when an aircraft fails to respond to communication it is always taken seriously. It doesn't happen very often. You'll note that in almost all cases the ATC will try to contact the aircraft for quite some time before calling the military - this is because the vast majority of transmission or transponder incidents are resolved in a matter of minutes by things returning to normal.

But on 911 this wasnt normal, you had all these reports of hijackings and transponders being switched off, you have WTC 1 and then 2 being hit by planes and you still dont scramble your Langley jets or tell them whats going on for another 20 minutes after the second plane hits?

Your argument is a red herring. NORAD are not responsible for securing or protecting domestic aircraft. The FAA is. I would agree with you that the FAA's record in maintaining airliner security prior to 9/11 was shocking. However I am pretty confident that the American public would not have accepted any security measures the FAA could have implemented to improve safety.

The key word being domestic. Maj Martin it is apparently reported that he said, "from June 2000 to September 2001, NORAD scrambled fighters 67 times but not over the continental United States" and "From Sept. 11 to June 2002, NORAD scrambled jets or diverted combat air patrols 462, almost seven times as often as the 67 scrambles from Sept. 2000 to June 2001". So it appears they did have experience with this kind of thing, but it is made out they really didnt have any plans or protocols for any of this regardless of whether is was a continental threat or not, you go even further and say they dont have anything to do with any terrorist threats involving planes.

Amalgam Virgo 02? You do realise this means it was held in 2002, yes? Are you surprised that a NORAD exercise after 9/11 focused on hijacking?

It was going to take place after 911, but it was planned prior to 911, thats why the Commissioner brought it up. Had it really been planned because of 911 McKinley would simply have said so in his responce as it would have been irrelevant, intead he didnt and eventually even had to agree with the Commissioner that given everything NORAD should have been better prepared.

The Amalgam Virgo immediately prior to 9/11 focused on a cruise missile fired from a terrorist-controlled ship in international waters. Prior to 9/11 NORAD considered this the most likely terrorist threat.

But they still did perform war games and plan drills on hijackings and even hijackings using planes as weapons. But McKinley says that NORAD and the DOD had no indication at any level to think there was a threat to commercial aviation. In in responce to the long list of terrorist threats involving planes as weapons by the Commissioner he doesnt deny NORAD had all that information.

You should probably read the August 6th memo more closely. The threat this document spoke of was 3 years old. Their conclusion was essential "Bin Laden wanted to hit us 3 years ago and we think he probably still does."

Thats not an actual quote though, is it. Tenet has said many times that they tried very hard to get them to take the threat seriously when it wasnt. But you try to make it out that this report was what pretty much what they already knew, that all it says is essentially this, that; Bin Laden wants to hit the US with a terrorist act, that he has done since 1998, just letting you know Mr President, in case you forgot. But I think this is an argument that doesnt line up.

"In the summer of 2001, the government ignored repeated warnings by the CIA, ignored, and didn’t do anything to harden our border security, didn’t do anything to harden airport country, didn’t do anything to engage local law enforcement, didn’t do anything to round up INS and consular offices and say we have to shut this down, and didn’t warn the American people. The famous presidential daily briefing on August 6, we say in the report that the briefing officers believed that there was a considerable sense of urgency and it was current. So there was a case to be made that wasn’t made.…

The president says, if I had only known that 19 Islamic men would come into the United States of America and on the morning of 11 September hijack four American aircraft, fly two into the World Trade Center, one into the Pentagon, and one into an unknown Pennsylvania that crashed in Shanksville, I would have moved heaven and earth. That’s what he said. Mr. President, you don’t need to know that. This is an Islamic Jihadist movement that has been organized since the early 1990s, declared war on the United States twice, in ‘96 and ‘98. You knew they were in the United States. You were warned by the CIA. You knew in July they were inside the United States. You were told again by briefing officers in August that it was a dire threat. And what did you do? Nothing, so far as we could see on the 9/11 Commission "
- Bob Kerrey - 911 Commissioner

People like to dismiss Kerrey out of hand because he's a democrat, but he could have brought all this up pre-election, but he didnt. He was also in the 911 Commission, so I think its a poor argument to just hand wave.

And again, NORAD are not responsible for protecting the USA from terrorism.

So why create wargames based on terrorist threats? Why didnt McKinley tell the Commission, look guys, NORAD doesnt deal with any terrorist threats all your questions are all irrelevant?

For several reasons:

1) An international flight would have to cross the Air Defense Identification Zone which NORAD actively monitors. They routinely intercept wayward aircraft in this corridor.
2) NORAD's radars are designed to look out over the ADIZ and not over the cluttered urban landscape of the Eastern Seaboard.
3) Crossing the ADIZ takes time. NORAD would have had hours to respond to a violation of this airspace.
4) NORAD have the authority to initiate Active Air Defense Missions in response to violations of the ADIZ. This is not the case for domestic incidents.

Mostly fair enough, but you make it sound like Norad has nothing to do with terrorist threats at all. And it still doesnt explain why Langely jets scrambled so late and without orders or any briefing to even tell them what the NYC situation was and why they were scrambling for. How can you think its a Russian style cruise missile threat if you already know that two planes have crashed into WTC 1+2 and another one has gone off course and lost its transponder signal? Also, it could have been hijacked within the United States. Are you saying they only considered hijackings when they took place outside the ADIZ, but if they only hijacked them after that they dont know what they're doing anymore? So really if the first plane was a normal hijacking of an international flight not hijacked until it was past the ADIZ, they still wouldnt have been able to do a thing about it, would they? Sounds incompetent to me to suggest they didnt have any plan to deal with such an obvious senario.

This is all incorrect. The hijacking scenario scripted into Vigilant Guardian was to be a hijacking of an international flight on its way to the USA, then diverted to Cuba. In this scenario NORAD fighters would intercept the aircraft in the ADIZ and follow it to Cuba. NORAD have performed numerous similar intercepts (hijacking of aircraft between the USA and Cuba is quite common).

But you just sad twice that "NORAD are not responsible for protecting the USA from terrorism" so are you saying they can routinely deal with hijacking/hijack threats just as long as it isnt a "terrorist" threat? What difference does it make if its a terrorist hijacking or not? Speaking of which, arent all hijackings terrorist acts by definition?

Incorrect. Operation Northern Vigilance utilised NORAD assets in Alaska (6 fighter squadrons) and Canada (2 fighter squadrons). It did not use NORAD CONR fighters, and it certainly did not utilise NORAD alert fighters.

Forgive my ignorence, but are you saying that even if those fighters werent in Alaska and Canada they still wouldnt have been used on 911?

So why didnt have all the fighters they did have around up there trying to intercept the planes?
They did.
How can you say that? How could Langely jets be "out there trying to intercept the planes" when they werent scrambled for appox 35 minutes after the first tower was hit and 20 minutes further after the second tower was hit? Otis pilots said they were only a few minutes away from intercepting Flight 175, yet langely Jets werent even on Battlestations until after Flight 175 hit the second tower (according to what you said earlier).

Incorrect. The staff at Langley were watching the news and knew what was going on. They knew why they were being scrambled.

Not according to the pilots. They said they thought it was a Russian style cruise missile threat. Why would they think that if they knew about hijacked planes hitting WTC 1 and 2 and other planes going off course and turning off their transponders?

The fundamental problem with NORAD was that you had a neglected system, set up for a threat that no longer existed. No one really wanted to be spending money on the alert sites. In fact, had 9/11 not happened it was highly likely the entire NORAD air defense mission would have been mothballed within months. As early as 1994 there were strong calls to completely disband the alert sites.

This neglected and obsolete system, designed to address one threat, suddenly on 9/11 was expected to address an entirely different threat. Not only was the system not optimised to address this threat, but many features of how it was set up significantly hindered its efforts to adapt.

NORAD were never going to prevent those attacks. Not in a hundred years. Even if there were fifty armed fighters flying around off the coast of New York at the time of the attacks, with authorization to fire, I doubt any of the flights would have been successfully intercepted. The problems with the system go far, far deeper than numbers of aircraft and scrambling times.

I agree with you they do go deeper. NORAD, as the system was, might not have prevented those attacks. But I still think the question is still valid as to why. But you seem to say that even if we ignore the lack of fighters, if you ignore a requring of a shoot down order, if you ignore the time between the FAA informing them and the planes crashing, if you ignore the Langely jets not even being on battlestations until the second tower was hit and not scrambled for approx 20 minutes after that its all still irrelevant. That even if all that had been different NORAD inherently just wouldnt have been able to intercept any of those planes, that no ones to blame for it, that no ones to blame for not informing the Generals of any domestic terrorist threats or intelligence suggesting prepartions for hijackings or what areas they might want to hit (like NYC) or any of the recent intelligence, and the Bush administration is fine for not acting on any of the intelligence it received that his intelligence officers were apparently telling him was a big deal. No ones incompetent, no ones to blame and when they tell us they had no idea about any of the intelligence we know they had thats okay as well.

(A hint here - the primary reason for NORAD's inability to respond to 9/11 effectively was radar coverage)

Well what I also want to know is, if a transponder is switched off is there seriously not a system in the FAA program to easily pin point them? What if it had malfunctioned, surely a plane isnt just "lost" and thats that, like they say all these hijacked flights were? If true, thats quite an oversight.

*Correction: In my previous post I said it was over 30 minutes after tower 2 was hit before Langely jets were scrambled, its not that much less, but I read the timeline wrong. Im surprised you didnt pull me up on it :) If I make anymore silly time errors I apologise its late here and I should be in bed.

[beachnut]

Because it was not the job of the USAF to shoot down airliners. It was a surprise; you know surprise attack. After you learn how NORAD worked before 9/11 and how ATC worked before 9/11, and you gain about 2 years of experience flying, you will understand 9/11 flying events; maybe.

Loosing a squawk, transponder, does not mean the plane is hijacked.

Do you understand how ATC works?

[Edx]

Because it was not the job of the USAF to shoot down airliners. It was a surprise; you know surprise attack. After you learn how NORAD worked before 9/11 and how ATC worked before 9/11, and you gain about 2 years of experience flying, you will understand 9/11 flying events; maybe.

They didnt need a shoot down order, none of the fighters got close enough to any of the planes to be in a position to shoot them down.

Loosing a squawk, transponder, does not mean the plane is hijacked.

You missed out the word "necessarily"

[beachnut]

They didnt need a shoot down order, none of the fighters got close enough to any of the planes to be in a position to shoot them down.

You missed out the word "necessarily"

The pilots do not need a shoot down order! The people on 93 had no permission to attack the terrorist, they did it; who gave them the "shoot down order". Read the oath military takes and see if it suffices for a shoot down order if you had knowledge, means, and opportunity as the passengers on flight 93 had.

If you read Gumboots post, all of them, they should answer your questions; I was an Air Force pilot for 28 years; read Gumboots stuff first before you say more stuff that is wrong.

I was not spinning the transponder stuff, I understand flying and have flown since 1973. If you want to spin it fine. Read Gumboot stuff, take a week if you need it; save some face and take time to understand it. Your big post was wrong in many places due to lack of knowledge.

If you read Gumboots post, you will answer all your questions and correct all you Monday morning quarterbacking stuff.

Gumboot is being very patient since you show up with every single hearsay false information put out by 9/11 truth. You can take all you get from 9/11 truth and dump it now. Today is day one, where Gumboot takes the mush in your head and turns you into a NORAD specialist.

[Edx]

The pilots do not need a shoot down order!

Uh. I know, thats what I just said?

The people on 93 had no permission to attack the terrorist, they did it; who gave them the "shoot down order". Read the oath military takes and see if it suffices for a shoot down order if you had knowledge, means, and opportunity as the passengers on flight 93 had.

My point was that they never even got close to being in a position to needing one. And a shoot down order was apparently given for United 93, a plane I havent even brought up yet.

If you read Gumboots post, all of them, they should answer your questions; I was an Air Force pilot for 28 years; read Gumboots stuff first before you say more stuff that his wrong.

I read several and learned a lot, but excuse me if I dont have time to read the gazillion posts on the forum. If he is right and I am wrong then I will find out in due course.

I was not spinning the transponder stuff, I understand flying and have flown since 1973. If you want to spin it fine. Read Gumboot stuff, take a week if you need it; save some time and understand it. Your big post was wrong in many places due to lack of knowledge.

Well lets look at what gumboot wrote in his timelime.

0852 UA175 turns off course and fails to respond to communication. New York Centre knows the aircraft has been hijacked

I know full well that transponders switching off doesnt necessarily mean its hijacked, dont argue against a strawman.

Gumboot is being very patient since you show up with every single hearsay false information put out by 9/11 truth. You can take all you get from 9/11 truth and dump it now.
I went to the source articles and reports. And how can I show up with "every single false" point they put out when I say substantially different things to what they do? Im assuming of course that you've been reading my posts, which I dont believe you have.

[beachnut]

Uh. I know, thats what I just said?

My point was that they never even got close to being in a position to needing one. And a shoot down order was apparently given for United 93, a plane I havent even brought up yet.

I read several and learned a lot, but excuse me if I dont have time to read the gazillion posts on the forum. If he is right and I am wrong then I will find out in due course.

Well lets look at what gumboot wrote in his timelime.

0852 UA175 turns off course and fails to respond to communication. New York Centre knows the aircraft has been hijacked

I know full well that transponders switching off doesnt necessarily mean its hijacked, dont argue against a strawman on that.
You are the one arguing. I was stating a fact.

The same old hearsay will be cool to read again, too bad you do not have the time to read Gumboots old posts, so you will make him repost for you. Cool.

Don't take me wrong, I mean it will be cool to see pure hearsay stuff, and Gumboots replies. I will learn more also. Post some more hearsay. Hearsay sounds good until you match it with knowledge.

[Gravy]

Edx, I'll let gumboot address your long post (keep in mind that he's in the New Zealand time zone), but I will note one important misconception you have: flight 77's transponder was turned off in an area that lacked primary radar coverage. ATC did not have it on radar at all and was looking for it along its expected flight path to the west. They only picked it up as an unidentified aircraft minutes before it hit the Pentagon.

[Jonnyclueless]

AH, another hindsight is 20/20 thread I see. It's not a shoot down order, it's permission, and many of the planes up there were not even armed anyways.

I love masochist's, they really brighten your day. When I was little we would go watch the Phillies play and their masochist the Philly Fanatic always had so much fun running around the field. Good times..

[Edx]

You are the one arguing. I was stating a fact.

Why? I never said a plane transponders turning off meant it was being hijacked, and I specifically said that it didnt matter if they had a shoot down order or not.

The same old hearsay will be cool to read again, too bad you do not have the time to read Gumboots old posts, so you will make him repost for you. Cool.

If you could point me in the direction of the post that deals with the issues I have brought up then please show me, but otherwise I cant just read a hundred posts hoping one of them will contain the information.

[Edx]

Edx, I'll let gumboot address your long post (keep in mind that he's in the New Zealand time zone),
Its okay I have to go to sleep now anyway

but I will note one important misconception you have: flight 77's transponder was turned off in an area that lacked primary radar coverage. ATC did not have it on radar at all and was looking for it along its expected flight path to the west. They only picked it up as an unidentified aircraft minutes before it hit the Pentagon.

Yea, I didnt know that. But it doesnt change the fact of how long it took Langley jets to be put in the air or any of the other problems. Gumboot said they werent even scrambling Langley jets to intercept Flight 77 anyway.

[Gravy]

If you could point me in the direction of the post that deals with the issues I have brought up then please show me, but otherwise I cant just read a hundred posts hoping one of them will contain the information.You may find this page of mine to be helpful:

Info on NORAD, FAA, NTSB, Aircraft capabilities, Piloting issues, War games (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/norad%2Cfaa%2Cntsb%2Caircraftcapabilities%2Cpilo)

[Gravy]

Yea, I didnt know that. But it doesnt change the fact of how long it took Langley jets to be put in the air or any of the other problems. Gumboot said they werent even scrambling Langley jets to intercept Flight 77 anyway.The thing about scrambling fighters for a possible threat is that you've got to be able to keep them in the air: especially difficult if they're burning fuel when chasing phantoms. They're not useful if they have to refuel while an actual threat is on the way.

[Edx]

The thing about scrambling fighters for a possible threat is that you've got to be able to keep them in the air: especially difficult if they're burning fuel when chasing phantoms. They're not useful if they have to refuel while an actual threat is on the way.

I talked about the fuel issue in my previous post.

And thanks for the link I'll have a look tomorrow.

EDIT: I just looked, its the same one Big Cedar already showed me.

[gumboot]

But thats the main reason I keep hearing about. Im sure I even saw in your posts that I have read that they had a very short time to respond having only a small time window between being notified of the hijackings and the planes crashing. The implication being that because NORAD had to wait for the FAA to notify them they couldnt react fast enough and therefore the argument that NORAD had plenty of time to respond is false. But you're now saying it wouldnt have made any difference whether they were notified straight away?

Correct. It's certainly true that the military were given too narrow a window in which to perform an intercept, but in addition to that, even if they had been given a larger window, it would have made no difference - you can't intercept an airliner if you can't find it.



Are you saying that even after the first two planes flew into the WTC you're saying the FAA still shouldnt have notified the miltary because of protocol? This wasnt just another Golfers Jearjet, planes were crashing into buildings.

Correct. Protocol is very clear. It doesn't say "but it it's really, really crazy just call whoever you feel like". The protocols are in place to avoid confusion by ensuring data comes from a single over-seeing source. While the direct link from Boston to NEADS made some things happen faster, it also put confusion into the system.


They were put on battlestations, but not scrambled for over 30 minutes after the first plane hits at 0846.

Langley were not put on Battle Stations until 0909, and their Scramble Order was issued at 0924. That's 15 minutes by my count. You have to ignore hindsight and start thinking about what anyone knew at the time. Did NEADS know at 0846 that the hijacked airliner had just been deliberately rammed into the WTC and three more were on the way? No they did not. So why scramble Langley?


The pilots in the Otis fighters said they were tragically only a few minutes away from intercepting the second plane, but couldnt get there in time.

They didn't even know there was a second plane.


I also read that because the transponders were switched off they needed the fighters to fly there and see if they could find them themselves.

Pretty much. NEADS' radars were useless because of all the ground clutter. But both the F-15 and F-16 are fitted with an IFF interrogator that can interrogate an airliner's transponder and get a return (just like the FAA's secondary radar). Basically the fighters were going to "ping" every single airliner in a 25nmi radius of AA11's last known position until they found one that didn't have its responder on. That could have taken hours.


So as I understand it you have your first wing of fighters desperately trying to get to NYC so they can look for these planes, and yet you have another wing of fighters available at Langley that wont even be scrambled for over 30 minutes after the first tower was hit but not only that, are not even told what the threat is or why they are scrambling.

Not exactly. You have one pair of fighters heading down to a holding point off Lower New York Bay to sit and wait and see what's going on, and you have a second pair on Battle Stations ready if needed. Meanwhile you're bringing tanker aircraft into position so you can scramble those second fighters if they're needed. As soon as it becomes clear the second pair are needed, they're scrambled.


The lead Langley pilot is reported to have said:

"I reverted to the Russian threat. I'm thinking cruise missile threat from the sea. You know you look down and see the Pentagon burning, and I thought the bastards snuck one by us. You couldn't see any airplanes, and no one told us anything.''

You say they were put on Battlestations after the second plane hit, but they werent scrambled for 20 minutes more and they still didnt even know what was going on and had to assume it was a Russian style threat from a cruise missile. Did they even know what was going on with the hijacked planes in NYC? Why didnt anyone even tell them enough to even know that much?

Langley knew why they were being scrambled. I know this for a fact because I've listened to Major Nasypany at NEADS tell someone at Langley the reason for being on Battle Stations. I have a few theories on why the errors were made and why the pilots didn't know, but they're all speculation on my part.


But they werent told why they were scrambling even though you said they were on battlestations for 20 minutes.

They were on Battle Stations for 15 minutes.


Sorry, you're right, I misinterpreted the CNNs timeline which says:

--9:37 a.m.: American Airlines flight 77 is lost from radar screens.

So it was still on the radar screens, but they just didnt have its transponder information. So if Flight 77s transponder was lost at 8:54 Norad is only notified of this, now a third plane, switching its transponder off and going off course until 9:25. Thats about half an hour, if they had got those Langely jets up as fast as they could after the second tower was hit (although I think it should have been earlier to help out the Otis wing) and if they had told them even a vague idea of what the threat was they would have already been a fair bit of the way there to being able to be in with a chance of intercepting Flight 77.

Woah! Hold on there. Back up.

You need to read up a bit on AA77's flight, and in particular its radar coverage. In short, AA77 was hijacked in a primary coverage blackspot - that means in that spot ATC were relying entirely on a secondary return from the transponder. When the aircraft's transponder was turned off it vanished. When the ATC also couldn't contact the flight they presumed it had crashed.

They of course knew nothing about what was going on further east.

So they contacted the USAF Search and Rescue facility at Langley AFB, and a SAR mission was started. At the same time the controllers are tracking aircraft along AA77's flight path hoping it will come back up on primary. But of course AA77 has turned around, and when it comes back on radar it's to the EAST not the west. So no one spots this because no one is looking for it.

Then AA77 leaves Indianapolis airspace and crosses into Cleveland airspace and of course they also don't know AA77 is missing so they don't have their primary on at all, and don't see this unknown radar return as it sedately tracks east.

But by about 0920 the other centers are learning about the hijackings and Indianapolis begin to wonder about AA77. So they tell the command facility that AA77 might also be a hijack. Considering the other two turned east, it's likely AA77 also turned east, so the command facility gets eastern ATC centers to start looking for an unknown radar return heading east.

AA77 tracks across just the very bottom section of Cleveland before entering Washington airspace. NEADS find out from Washington that they're looking for another suspect hijack - AA77 that disappeared in Indianapolis airspace. But that's not much use to NEADS - AA77 could be anywhere.

But it's not until 0934 that anyone finally spots a suspicious primary radar return. That's at Dulles TRACON. They of course pass the word along pretty quick, and the military find out at 0936. The Langley fighters are immediately directed to intercept. But they only took off 6 minutes ago, and AA77 crashes a minute later.



According to your timeline post:

My timeline isn't entirely accurate. I have some more information now. But the pieces you have cited are pretty much right.

I have to confess I still don't understand the thrust of your point here. You seem to have an issue with the Langley fighters. Okay. Let's play pretend. You're the MCC in NEADS on 9/11. It's 0846 and you've just issued a scramble order for the Otis fighters to fly to a point north of New York City and try and find a suspected hijacked aircraft which has no beacon code and which your tracking techs can't find because of ground clutter.

I'm your direct superior - sitting in the Battle Cab. Explain to me the steps you plan to take, and explain why you're taking them so that I'm convinced they're the right thing to do.



I dont see how it matters that they thought they were scrambling for Flight 11 or Flight 77, point is according to your timeline they knew WTC 1 and 2 had been hit by hijacked planes but they only put them on battlestations and then its still a further 20 minutes after that before they scramble them.

Why would anyone scramble fighters to intercept aircraft that had already crashed?


Like I said it would be nice to know how Maj Martin knew this, where are the official records? I would rather not have take his word for it.

You're essentially asking someone to prove a negative here. Military fighters intercepting airliners is headline news material. If there has been other intercepts over CONUS airspace, prove it. The NTSB have no incident records for such an event. The military claim it has never happened. That is expert testimony and material evidence. Your incredulous denial is meaningless. Show an example of another military intercept, or accept reality.

But on 911 this wasnt normal, you had all these reports of hijackings and transponders being switched off, you have WTC 1 and then 2 being hit by planes and you still dont scramble your Langley jets or tell them whats going on for another 20 minutes after the second plane hits?

The guys at Langley were watching CNN, so they knew what was going on. And let me ask again, why would you scramble fighters to intercept airliners that had already crashed?


The key word being domestic. Maj Martin it is apparently reported that he said, "from June 2000 to September 2001, NORAD scrambled fighters 67 times but not over the continental United States" and "From Sept. 11 to June 2002, NORAD scrambled jets or diverted combat air patrols 462, almost seven times as often as the 67 scrambles from Sept. 2000 to June 2001". So it appears they did have experience with this kind of thing, but it is made out they really didnt have any plans or protocols for any of this regardless of whether is was a continental threat or not, you go even further and say they dont have anything to do with any terrorist threats involving planes.

No they didn't have experience with this sort of thing. Did any of those 67 intercepts involve incidents similar to 9/11? No. None.


It was going to take place after 911, but it was planned prior to 911, thats why the Commissioner brought it up. Had it really been planned because of 911 McKinley would simply have said so in his responce as it would have been irrelevant, intead he didnt and eventually even had to agree with the Commissioner that given everything NORAD should have been better prepared.

Let's look at what was actually said:

MR. BEN-VENISTE: Well, obviously it would be hard to imagine posturing for the exact scenario. But isn't it a fact, sir, that prior to September 11th, 2001, NORAD had already in the works plans to simulate in an exercise a simultaneous hijacking of two planes in the United States?

GEN. MCKINLEY: Colonel Scott, do you have any data on that? I'm not aware of that, sir. I was not present at the time.

MR. BEN-VENISTE: That was Operation Amalgam Virgo.

MR. SCOTT: Yes, sir. Specifically Operation Amalgam Virgo, which I was involved in before I retired, was a scenario using a Third World united -- not united -- uninhabited aerial vehicle launched off a rogue freighter in the Gulf of Mexico. General Arnold can back me up -- at the time one of our greatest concerns was the proliferation of cruise missile technology and the ability for terrorist groups to get that technology, get it close enough to our shores to launch it. In fact, this exercise -- in this exercise we used actual drone -- NQM-107 drones, which are about the size of a cruise missile, to exercise our fighters and our radars in a Gulf of Mexico scenario.

MR. BEN-VENISTE: You are referring to Amalgam 01, are you not?

MR. SCOTT: Yes, sir, Amalgam 01.

MR. BEN-VENISTE: I am referring to Amalgam 02, which was in the planning stages prior to September 11th, 2001, sir. Is that correct?

MR. SCOTT: That was after I retired, and I was not involved in 02.

MR. BEN-VENISTE: Will you accept that the exercise involved a simultaneous hijacking scenario?

MR. SCOTT: I was not involved in 02.

GEN. MCKINLEY: Sir, I do have some information on 02, if you would allow me to read it for the record.

MR. BEN-VENISTE: Please.

GEN. MCKINLEY: Amalgam Virgo in general, 02, was an exercise created to focus on peacetime and contingency NORAD missions. One of the peacetime scenarios that is and has been a NORAD mission for years is support to other government departments. Within this mission falls hijackings. Creativity of the designer aside, prior to 9/11, hijack motivations were based on political objectives -- i.e., asylum or release of captured prisoners or political figures. Threats of killing hostages or crashing were left to the script writers to invoke creativity and broaden the required response for players.

MR. BEN-VENISTE: Well, isn't that a bit fatuous given the specific information that I've given you? It wasn't in the minds of script writers when the Algerians had actually hijacked the plane, which they were attempting to fly into the Eiffel Tower. And all of the other scenarios which I mentioned to you. I don't mean to argue with you. But my question is, sir, given the awareness of the terrorists use of planes as weapons, how is it that NORAD was still focusing outward protecting the United States against attacks from the Soviet Union or elsewhere, and was not better prepared to defend against the hijacking scenarios of a commercial jet laden with fuel used as a weapon to target citizens of the United States? When you say our training was vestigial, I think you said it in capsulated form. But would you agree that on the basis of the information available that there could be, could have been better preparedness by NORAD to meet this threat?

GEN. MCKINLEY: In retrospect, sir, I think I would agree with your comment.

They're not saying what you think they're saying. Neither of the military commanders being interviewed actually have much of an idea what the commissioner is talking about. And judging by the fact that the commissioner called it "operation" Amalgam Virgo, he doesn't have much of an idea of what he's talking about either.

Can you provide any evidence that Amalgam Virgo 02 was actually planned prior to 9/11? Because Mr Ben-Veniste doesn't appear to know what he's talking about.


But they still did perform war games and plan drills on hijackings and even hijackings using planes as weapons.

This is false. Regular hijackings were often drilled - yes. Regular hijackings also often occurred. And NORAD often responded to them. NORAD had never exercised a suicide weapon-based hijacking.


But McKinley says that NORAD and the DOD had no indication at any level to think there was a threat to commercial aviation.

Again, and please this time register the fundamental point in your head...

NORAD are not responsible for protecting commercial aviation.

A threat to commercial aviation is irrelevant to NORAD.


In in responce to the long list of terrorist threats involving planes as weapons by the Commissioner he doesnt deny NORAD had all that information.

That long list involved two actual events, a few supposed planned events, a lot of speculation, and one factually incorrect point (no measures were taken at the Altanta Olympics to protect against air threats).

NORAD has limited resources - resources that people like the commissioners had been trying for years and years to completely take away. Regardless of what NORAD should have been doing, politicians in suits had ensured over the years that NORAD was incapable of doing anything.


Thats not an actual quote though, is it. Tenet has said many times that they tried very hard to get them to take the threat seriously when it wasnt.

Read the memo. It's available online. It's an old threat. Everyone knew Bin Laden was determined to strike inside the USA. It was utterly worthless information.


But you try to make it out that this report was what pretty much what they already knew, that all it says is essentially this, that; Bin Laden wants to hit the US with a terrorist act, that he has done since 1998, just letting you know Mr President, in case you forgot. But I think this is an argument that doesnt line up.

Like I said, read the actual memo. That's what it says. It's vague, historic, and essentially useless.


"In the summer of 2001, the government ignored repeated warnings by the CIA, ignored, and didn’t do anything to harden our border security, didn’t do anything to harden airport country, didn’t do anything to engage local law enforcement, didn’t do anything to round up INS and consular offices and say we have to shut this down, and didn’t warn the American people. The famous presidential daily briefing on August 6, we say in the report that the briefing officers believed that there was a considerable sense of urgency and it was current. So there was a case to be made that wasn’t made.…

None of which has anything to do with NORAD. Which is the topic of this exchange. Stay on subject.


The president says, if I had only known that 19 Islamic men would come into the United States of America and on the morning of 11 September hijack four American aircraft, fly two into the World Trade Center, one into the Pentagon, and one into an unknown Pennsylvania that crashed in Shanksville, I would have moved heaven and earth. That’s what he said. Mr. President, you don’t need to know that. This is an Islamic Jihadist movement that has been organized since the early 1990s, declared war on the United States twice, in ‘96 and ‘98. You knew they were in the United States. You were warned by the CIA. You knew in July they were inside the United States. You were told again by briefing officers in August that it was a dire threat. And what did you do? Nothing, so far as we could see on the 9/11 Commission "
- Bob Kerrey - 911 Commissioner

I think the commissioners are liars. In fact I know it. The CIA knew some of the hijackers were in the USA, but they didn't tell anyone. So what was the President supposed to do? Get into office, notice that there were some Muslims wanting to attack the USA and just round up every single Muslim male in the country and put them in camps?

Yeah, that would have gone down well.


People like to dismiss Kerrey out of hand because he's a democrat, but he could have brought all this up pre-election, but he didnt. He was also in the 911 Commission, so I think its a poor argument to just hand wave.

I like to dismiss people who say stupid things. How can anyone interpret:

Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.

Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate Bin Ladensince 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the U.S. Bin Laden implied in U.S. television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bringthe fighting to America." :

After U.S. missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, Bin Ladentold followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington, according to a [deleted text] service.

An Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ) operative told [deleted text] serviceat the same time that Bin Laden was planning to exploit the operative'saccess to the U.S. to mount a terrorist strike.

The millennium plotting in Canada in 1999 may have been part of Bin Laden's first serious attempt to implement a terrorist strike in the U.S. Convicted plotter Ahmed Ressam has told the FBI that he conceived the idea to attack Los Angeles International Airport himself, but that BinLaden lieutenant Abu Zubaydah encouraged him and helped facilitate theoperation. Ressam also said that in 1998 Abu Zubaydah was planning hisown U.S. attack.

Ressam says Bin Laden was aware of the Los Angeles operation.

Although Bin Laden has not succeeded, his attacks against the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 demonstrate that he preparesoperations years in advance and is not deterred by setbacks. Bin Laden associates surveilled our Embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam as early as 1993, and some members of the Nairobi cell planning the bombings were arrested and deported in 1997.

AI Qaeda members -- including same who are U.S. citizens -- have resided in and traveled to the U.S. for years, and the group apparently maintains asupport structure that could aid attacks.

Two Al Qaeda members found guiltyin the conspiracy to bomb our embassies in East Africa were U.S. citizens, and a senior EIJ member lived in California in the mid-1990s.

A clandestine sourcesaid in 1998 that a Bin Laden cell in New Yorkwas recruiting Muslim-American youth for attacks.

We havenot been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a [deleted text] service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Shaykh" 'Umar' Abd aI-Rahman and other U.S.-held extremists.

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns ofsuspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations forhijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance offederal buildings in New York.

The FBI is conducting approximately 70 investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers Bin Laden-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our embassy in the UAE in May sayingthat a group or Bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives.

As "dire threat" I have no idea.

Most notably, that last paragraph says to me "The CIA and FBI are all over it sir, so don't worry, we'll get em".

What was the president supposed to do? "70 investigations? Not enough! I want 200! Pull every FBI agent onto it! Forget organised crime! Forget cross-border felonies! Forget drugs! Forget missing persons! Get those evil Muslims!"


So why create wargames based on terrorist threats? Why didnt McKinley tell the Commission, look guys, NORAD doesnt deal with any terrorist threats all your questions are all irrelevant?

They dealt with hostile violation of US airspace. A likely source of hostile violations of US airspace were terrorist attacks from outside. But the scenario was chosen because it was a hostile violation of airspace, not because it was a terrorist attack.

The scenario was also chosen because it was outside the protocols and laws in place. A UAV attack from a terrorist group outside the USA slipped through the gaps. Finally, it was a scenario NORAD could actually respond to with its limited resources.

Responses for both domestic hijackings and domestic terrorism were well and truly covered by law, so there was no real reason for NORAD to address them. And most importantly, those sorts of scenarios were not something NORAD was able to respond to with its resources. You might as well ask why the FBI never ran exercises drilling its response to a full scale Russian invasion. What would be the point? The FBI can't do anything against that.


Mostly fair enough, but you make it sound like Norad has nothing to do with terrorist threats at all.

They don't. What you identified was a cross-over based on an incident specific scenario added for some flavour. It was actually irrelevant that the guys firing the UAV from the Gulf of Mexico were terrorists. That's what you don't seem to get. NORAD has never drilled for counter-terrorism. Ever.


And it still doesnt explain why Langely jets scrambled so late and without orders or any briefing to even tell them what the NYC situation was and why they were scrambling for.

We'll come back to this once you present your timeline for what you'd do.


How can you think its a Russian style cruise missile threat if you already know that two planes have crashed into WTC 1+2 and another one has gone off course and lost its transponder signal?

Ever heard of deception and diversion? If you were planning a surprise attack on the USA would you maybe try fool them into initially thinking it was a domestic accident or terrorist incident? I know I would.


Also, it could have been hijacked within the United States. Are you saying they only considered hijackings when they took place outside the ADIZ, but if they only hijacked them after that they dont know what they're doing anymore?

I'm saying NORAD was only interested in flights trying to enter the ADIZ from outside the USA that had been hijacked.


So really if the first plane was a normal hijacking of an international flight not hijacked until it was past the ADIZ, they still wouldnt have been able to do a thing about it, would they?

Well the ADIZ comes to within a few miles of shore so I don't think anyone would try hijack an airliner that late. If they did, they'd hit the WTC a few minutes later so there's nothing anyone could do.

But yes, if an international flight was hijacked after it had entered USA airspace it would be treated exactly the same as a domestic airliner hijacking.


Sounds incompetent to me to suggest they didnt have any plan to deal with such an obvious senario.

It's only obvious because you're thinking with a post-9/11 view point, and you're thinking of NORAD as a powerful agency in place to prevent hijackings and terrorism.


But you just sad twice that "NORAD are not responsible for protecting the USA from terrorism" so are you saying they can routinely deal with hijacking/hijack threats just as long as it isnt a "terrorist" threat? What difference does it make if its a terrorist hijacking or not? Speaking of which, arent all hijackings terrorist acts by definition?

No, they're not. Which is exactly my point. Terrorism and aircraft piracy are distinctly different. There's a very good reason the FBI treated the 9/11 attacks as terrorism and not as aircraft piracy.


Forgive my ignorence, but are you saying that even if those fighters werent in Alaska and Canada they still wouldnt have been used on 911?

The fighters were based in Alaska and Canada. There's no reason they would ever be in the Continental USA.


How can you say that? How could Langely jets be "out there trying to intercept the planes" when they werent scrambled for appox 35 minutes after the first tower was hit and 20 minutes further after the second tower was hit?

Because you don't scramble fighters to intercept planes until you have a plane for them to intercept.


Otis pilots said they were only a few minutes away from intercepting Flight 175, yet langely Jets werent even on Battlestations until after Flight 175 hit the second tower (according to what you said earlier).

The Otis pilots knew nothing about a second hijacking until after WTC2 was hit.


Not according to the pilots. They said they thought it was a Russian style cruise missile threat. Why would they think that if they knew about hijacked planes hitting WTC 1 and 2 and other planes going off course and turning off their transponders?

"Other planes"? Only one other aircraft had been hijacked when they were scrambled and the only people who knew that were the people on board.

They said they "reverted" to Russian threat. Here's the most likely scenario:

1. Langley fighters put on battle stations due to incidents in New York.
2. Langley fighters scrambled to Baltimore.
3. Giant Killer told to move tanker to W-386.
4. Giant Killer mistakenly moves Langley fighters to W-386.
5. Pilots ask why they are being sent to W-386.
6. Giant Killers say they don't know why.
7. Speculation from pilots.
8. Pilots conclude there is a Russian attack underway (either coincidental to hijackings, or they're a diversion tactic to cover the attacks)

Another likely scenario:

1. Langley fighters put on battle stations due to incidents in New York.
2. Langley do not tell fighter pilots why they are on battle stations.
3. Langley fighters scrambled to Baltimore.
4. Giant Killer told to move tanker to W-386.
5. Giant Killer mistakenly moves Langley fighters to W-386.
6. Pilots ask why they are being sent to W-386.
7. Giant Killers say they don't know why.
8. Speculation from pilots.
9. Pilots conclude there is a Russian attack underway (either coincidental to hijackings, or they're a diversion tactic to cover the attacks)


I agree with you they do go deeper. NORAD, as the system was, might not have prevented those attacks.

As the system was it was impossible (and possibly illegal) for NORAD to prevent the attacks.


But I still think the question is still valid as to why. But you seem to say that even if we ignore the lack of fighters, if you ignore a requring of a shoot down order, if you ignore the time between the FAA informing them and the planes crashing, if you ignore the Langely jets not even being on battlestations until the second tower was hit and not scrambled for approx 20 minutes after that its all still irrelevant. That even if all that had been different NORAD inherently just wouldnt have been able to intercept any of those planes, that no ones to blame for it, that no ones to blame for not informing the Generals of any domestic terrorist threats or intelligence suggesting prepartions for hijackings or what areas they might want to hit (like NYC) or any of the recent intelligence, and the Bush administration is fine for not acting on any of the intelligence it received that his intelligence officers were apparently telling him was a big deal. No ones incompetent, no ones to blame and when they tell us they had no idea about any of the intelligence we know they had thats okay as well.

Let's stay on subject please. NORAD. Intelligence, the executive, the FBI, CIA and so forth are an entirely separate topic.

Yes, it's all irrelevant. Because NORAD wasn't set up to deal with a threat like that, and NORAD wasn't funded to deal with a threat like that, and NORAD wasn't resourced to deal with a threat like that.

Who's to blame?

Every single US President and every single US Senator and every single US Congressman who served between 1958 and 2001, and every single American who voted for them. Because none of them made the slightest effort to establish a military agency capable of preventing simultaneous suicide hijackings.

So we've established that a good half a billion people (at least) are to blame. Many of them are now dead. What do you think is a suitable punishment for those that are still alive? How about having to pay a fine to fund a system that can prevent such an attack?

Done.


Well what I also want to know is, if a transponder is switched off is there seriously not a system in the FAA program to easily pin point them? What if it had malfunctioned, surely a plane isnt just "lost" and thats that, like they say all these hijacked flights were? If true, thats quite an oversight.

The FAA has both primary and secondary radar coverage. Primary will detect an aircraft without a transponder, but it will also detect other things like clouds, dust, trees, buildings, insects, and so forth. Primary coverage is not 100% so there's spots where it doesn't work. It's also not very useful for the FAA's work, so normally they don't use it - and prior to 9/11 they wanted to ditch it completely because it cost a lot to maintain, for no obvious benefit.

Of the flights on 9/11, one never turned off its transponder, two turned them off but were picked up immediately on primary, and one was lost in a spot with no primary coverage so couldn't be located.

Now I'm really keen to hear your account of how you'd utilise the Langley fighters as of 0846 when you scramble Otis.

[gumboot]

Bump for Edx.

[Par]

Awesome post, Gumboot!

[Edx]

Hi Gumboot, sorry its taken so long to reply I was quite burnt out after the stupid Conspiracy BBC files thread and then Ive been quite busy so I apologise for not getting back to you sooner.

I think however our discussion might eventually be of limited value as while I appreciate learning about factual errors or misunderstandings re: Norad, its becoming increasingly clear we have irreconcilable different opinions for more reasons than just one of us having inaccurate facts regarding Norad. For example Truthers regularly claim the 911 Commissioners lied and or distorted the "truth" to protect the government, and yet you're also saying they are liars but for the complete opposite conclusion. I cant agree with that, so we'll have to have to disagree there. I cant agree that the government was not incompetent and dont agree with your arguments that they werent. The BBC Conspiracy Files even concluded there was a conspiracy to cover up incompetence and Debunking 911.com also has the same conclusion, yet these are both anti-911 truth debunking.

Are you saying that even after the first two planes flew into the WTC you're saying the FAA still shouldnt have notified the miltary because of protocol? This wasnt just another Golfers Jearjet, planes were crashing into buildings.

Correct. Protocol is very clear. It doesn't say "but it it's really, really crazy just call whoever you feel like". The protocols are in place to avoid confusion by ensuring data comes from a single over-seeing source. While the direct link from Boston to NEADS made some things happen faster, it also put confusion into the system.

Really? So 2 planes fly into WTC 1 and 2, they know the planes were hijacked and they know another plane is hijacked, yet at what point on that day should NORAD have been notified according to protocol you say the FAA should have been following?

Langley were not put on Battle Stations until 0909, and their Scramble Order was issued at 0924. That's 15 minutes by my count.

15 Minutes after being put on battlestations, but 30 minutes after 175 turns off its transponder which according to you the FAA knew was hijacked, and approx 20 minutes after the second plane hits the South Tower.

You have to ignore hindsight and start thinking about what anyone knew at the time. Did NEADS know at 0846 that the hijacked airliner had just been deliberately rammed into the WTC and three more were on the way? No they did not. So why scramble Langley?

They didnt know after the first plane hit at 0846, no. But according to you they shouldnt have even told Norad even after the second tower was hit. Like I asked earlier, when do you think they should have been, if at all? Apparently never, because youve indicated that they arent responsible for terrorist threats or commercial aviation.

They didn't even know there was a second plane.
Pretty much. NEADS' radars were useless because of all the ground clutter. But both the F-15 and F-16 are fitted with an IFF interrogator that can interrogate an airliner's transponder and get a return (just like the FAA's secondary radar). Basically the fighters were going to "ping" every single airliner in a 25nmi radius of AA11's last known position until they found one that didn't have its responder on. That could have taken hours.
Cool, I was wondering how it worked.

Not exactly. You have one pair of fighters heading down to a holding point off Lower New York Bay to sit and wait and see what's going on, and you have a second pair on Battle Stations ready if needed. Meanwhile you're bringing tanker aircraft into position so you can scramble those second fighters if they're needed. As soon as it becomes clear the second pair are needed, they're scrambled.

They have them on battlestations, but they dont tell them why they are scrambling. Why would they think it was a cruise missile threat from the sea if they know even a little about what was going on? According to what they said, it suggests they still didnt know a plane had hit the Pentagon even when they got there to perform CAP and looked down at it!

Langley knew why they were being scrambled. I know this for a fact because I've listened to Major Nasypany at NEADS tell someone at Langley the reason for being on Battle Stations. I have a few theories on why the errors were made and why the pilots didn't know, but they're all speculation on my part.
Even if Langley knew, my issue was with the pilots.

They were on Battle Stations for 15 minutes.
Sorry yes I got mixed up, it was 15 but it was 20 minutes after the second plane hit that they were scrambled.

Woah! Hold on there. Back up.
You need to read up a bit on AA77's flight, and in particular its radar coverage. In short, AA77 was hijacked in a primary coverage blackspot - that means in that spot ATC were relying entirely on a secondary return from the transponder. When the aircraft's transponder was turned off it vanished. When the ATC also couldn't contact the flight they presumed it had crashed.
They of course knew nothing about what was going on further east.
So they contacted the USAF Search and Rescue facility at Langley AFB, and a SAR mission was started. At the same time the controllers are tracking aircraft along AA77's flight path hoping it will come back up on primary. But of course AA77 has turned around, and when it comes back on radar it's to the EAST not the west. So no one spots this because no one is looking for it.
Then AA77 leaves Indianapolis airspace and crosses into Cleveland airspace and of course they also don't know AA77 is missing so they don't have their primary on at all, and don't see this unknown radar return as it sedately tracks east.
But by about 0920 the other centers are learning about the hijackings and Indianapolis begin to wonder about AA77. So they tell the command facility that AA77 might also be a hijack. Considering the other two turned east, it's likely AA77 also turned east, so the command facility gets eastern ATC centers to start looking for an unknown radar return heading east.
AA77 tracks across just the very bottom section of Cleveland before entering Washington airspace. NEADS find out from Washington that they're looking for another suspect hijack - AA77 that disappeared in Indianapolis airspace. But that's not much use to NEADS - AA77 could be anywhere.
But it's not until 0934 that anyone finally spots a suspicious primary radar return. That's at Dulles TRACON. They of course pass the word along pretty quick, and the military find out at 0936. The Langley fighters are immediately directed to intercept. But they only took off 6 minutes ago, and AA77 crashes a minute later.

Well you're right I didnt know most of that. According to yourself though, the FAA knew at 0852 that Flight 175 was hijacked, and 0856 that Flight 77 was hijacked. You say NEADS only found out about Flight 77 in a 0934 in a call to Washington Centre. Even after the second tower was hit its still 20 minutes before Langley fighters are scrambled, the fighters were put on Battlestations 5 minutes after the collision but its still another 15 minutes later before they are scrambled yet arent even told why they are scrambling so they assume its a Russian style cruise missle threat. Even if there wasnt the kind of vast incomptence that day that some people have suggested, I dont think its possible to reasonably argue that there wasnt a distinct lack of communication. But then, you say they shouldnt even have notified NORAD even after the second tower was hit even though they knew before then that both flights were hijacked including Flight 77 which Indianapolis Centre had already determined was as well.

My timeline isn't entirely accurate.
I have some more information now. But the pieces you have cited are pretty much right.

I have to confess I still don't understand the thrust of your point here. You seem to have an issue with the Langley fighters. Okay. Let's play pretend. You're the MCC in NEADS on 9/11. It's 0846 and you've just issued a scramble order for the Otis fighters to fly to a point north of New York City and try and find a suspected hijacked aircraft which has no beacon code and which your tracking techs can't find because of ground clutter.
I'm your direct superior - sitting in the Battle Cab. Explain to me the steps you plan to take, and explain why you're taking them so that I'm convinced they're the right thing to do.

Well its a good question, but I dont think its that simple. Was NORAD prepared for something like 911? According to McKinley NORAD and the DOD knew absolutely nothing about any kind of threat involving commercial aviation. If they really didnt know what they say they didnt know, if they werent prepared, I think they should have been more so and Mckinley agreed with that "in retrospect". So to answer you question, it depends on how much they knew about the intelligence.

Why would anyone scramble fighters to intercept aircraft that had already crashed?

The FAA realised it didnt crash at 0856, apparently. You write:

0856 Indianapolis Centre notify the FAA that AA77 has been hijacked (realizing it did not crash).

But apparently NORAD didnt find out about Flight 77 until 0934 " In the course of a call to Washington Centre." You say the FAA shouldnt have notified NORAD at all even after the second plane hit the secnd tower, so along the same lines, should they have not told them about Flight 77 at 0934, either?

You're essentially asking someone to prove a negative here. Military fighters intercepting airliners is headline news material. If there has been other intercepts over CONUS airspace, prove it.

Im not asking to prove a negative, I would just like to know how he knew that. According to Maj Martin they regularly scrambled or diverted air patrols to intercept suspicious aircraft, but that wasnt not over the United States. I heard a telephone conversation with some guys at NORAD and they said they had very poor records of scrambles or intercepts prior to 911 so the caller shouldnt hold out too much for any being forthcoming. Since 911 they had intercepted aircraft, apparently, over 43,000 times. But Maj Martin said in interviews that before 911 they had only intercepted 1 aircraft, over the US, even though NORAD apparently having no verifiable records. See also below.

The NTSB have no incident records for such an event.

Are they notified of all the intercepts or scrambles for suspicious aircraft?

The military claim it has never happened. That is expert testimony and material evidence. Your incredulous denial is meaningless.

No need to be so dramatic, it may well be true, but I'd still like to know how he can say it was only one time if they dont have any verifiable records. NORAD also said neither themselves or the DOD had any intelligence of any threats to commercial aviation, just like Condi Rice and Bush, who said no one imagined anyone might try using planes as missiles. You dont really believe them when they say that, do you? Because as far as I can see either they are lying in some way or they are incompetent not knowing what they really should know.

The guys at Langley were watching CNN, so they knew what was going on.
But didnt tell the pilots for some reason, who still didnt know 20 minutes after the second tower was hit what was going on despite being on battlestations for 15 minutes. Pilots who have indicated they still didnt know it was a plane crash even when they eventually did get to Washington to perform CAP and looked at the Pentagon burning.

And let me ask again, why would you scramble fighters to intercept airliners that had already crashed?

See above.

No they didn't have experience with this sort of thing. Did any of those 67 intercepts involve incidents similar to 9/11? No. None.

Just how similar is valid? Its like when government officials argued that they didnt have "specific" prior knowledge and imply they needed a specific date, time, location and methods involved in order to actually do anything about it. But they dont need to have "specific" information in order to be more prepared, as Commissioner Bob Kerry pointed out.

Let's look at what was actually said:

They're not saying what you think they're saying. Neither of the military commanders being interviewed actually have much of an idea what the commissioner is talking about.

Well thats your opinion I guess, to me they do seem to know what he is saying and they eventually agree they should have been more prepared. Nothing to me suggests they dont know what he is talking about, I dont know where you get that impression from.

And judging by the fact that the commissioner called it "operation" Amalgam Virgo, he doesn't have much of an idea of what he's talking about either.

Can you provide any evidence that Amalgam Virgo 02 was actually planned prior to 9/11? Because Mr Ben-Veniste doesn't appear to know what he's talking about.

If Ben-Veniste doesnt know what he is talking about, why doesnt McKinley or anyone else there say so or give any indication of that?

MR. BEN-VENISTE: I am referring to Amalgam 02, which was in the planning stages prior to September 11th, 2001, sir. Is that correct?

MR. SCOTT: That was after I retired, and I was not involved in 02.

Why did Mr Scott not say he doesnt know anything about it and that it wasnt planned prior to 911? Instead he says it was planned after he retired and wasnt involved with 02, if he didnt know anything about it it doesnt seem that way. But it goes on and McKinley decides to read some information regarding AV 02...

GEN. MCKINLEY: Sir, I do have some information on 02, if you would allow me to read it for the record.

MR. BEN-VENISTE: Please.

GEN. MCKINLEY: Amalgam Virgo in general, 02, was an exercise created to focus on peacetime and contingency NORAD missions. One of the peacetime scenarios that is and has been a NORAD mission for years is support to other government departments. Within this mission falls hijackings. Creativity of the designer aside, prior to 9/11, hijack motivations were based on political objectives -- i.e., asylum or release of captured prisoners or political figures. Threats of killing hostages or crashing were left to the script writers to invoke creativity and broaden the required response for players.

Ben-Venistes whole point about AV 02 was that it was planned prior to 911, yet when questioned about it the Generals fail to say or even imply in any way that it was planned after 911, which would be the most sensible, simple and clear answer if what you're suggesting were true, it would stop Ben-Veniste's point about it - dead. But instead he says nothing about it whatsoever when they had full opportunity to do so. Not only that, after Ben-Veniste's responce to the above, McKinley says he agrees with him! The only way I can make what you are saying about AV 02 fit is if neither Scott or McKingley really know anything about it and just pretty much agree with everything the Commissioners are saying, which stretches credulity too far for me to find plausible and cant say much about their competence. In fact, when you look at what McKinley actually says regarding AV 02, he says prior to 911 the hijack motivations were political, and so on. He is telling the Commission that AV 02s hijacking senario was based on political motivations and not the kind of motivations on 911, which also shows he is saying that AV 02 was planned pre-911.

This is false. Regular hijackings were often drilled - yes. Regular hijackings also often occurred. And NORAD often responded to them. NORAD had never exercised a suicide weapon-based hijacking.

The question might be, "why not?" But are you saying reports like these are just all completely wrong?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-18-norad_x.htm

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2004/04/14/pentagon_crash_too_unrealistic/

And there were incidents that the Commissioner didnt talk about like the Philippine police taking down an Al-Qaeda cell planning to blow up many hijacked planes over the US and also fly one into the Pentagon. Apparently they also planned to crash planes into other buildings like the WTC and White House.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Bojinka#Phase_II.2C_CIA_plane_crash_plot
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/southeast/07/26/khalid.confession/index.html

Again, and please this time register the fundamental point in your head...
NORAD are not responsible for protecting commercial aviation.
A threat to commercial aviation is irrelevant to NORAD.

So why did they make so many exceptions to the rule? You yourself said they responded to many hijackings and threats of hijackings. Why did the FAA notify NORAD on 911 at all? Why did NORAD even listen or even do anything on 911? Why didnt they tell the 911 Commission or anyone else that they arent responsible for any terrorist threats or commercial aviation anyway? Should they not have done anything on 911 at all?

That long list involved two actual events, a few supposed planned events, a lot of speculation, and one factually incorrect point (no measures were taken at the Altanta Olympics to protect against air threats).

Specifically what parts? Can you go through it one by one? Why did the Generals not say anything against any of his points?

Btw, are you saying that all reports about jets being put on some kind of standby in case there was a terrorist threat in the Atlanta Olympics arent true? Do you know how this story started? Ben-Veniste doesnt mention that, I only talk about news reports Ive read, but he does say that his colleague and the US government and the Dept. of Justice planned against possible hijacked planes as weapons. Are you suggesting that never happened? The Commissioner is lying?

Read the memo. It's available online. It's an old threat. Everyone knew Bin Laden was determined to strike inside the USA. It was utterly worthless information.

Like I said, read the actual memo. That's what it says. It's vague, historic, and essentially useless.

But according to their Intelligence experts they kept saying this was important information that needs to be taken seriously but was ignored. Is that not relevant?

None of which has anything to do with NORAD. Which is the topic of this exchange. Stay on subject.

I didnt write that, Kerry said that. He was talking about what the government didnt do. I think thats pretty relevant.

I think the commissioners are liars. In fact I know it. The CIA knew some of the hijackers were in the USA, but they didn't tell anyone. So what was the President supposed to do? Get into office, notice that there were some Muslims wanting to attack the USA and just round up every single Muslim male in the country and put them in camps?
Yeah, that would have gone down well.

Theres no need to dramatise his point, he doesnt suggest anything of the kind. Why would they have needed to go that far? You just dismissed all of Kerrys quick suggestions of what they could have done out of hand. Could you explain how hardening airport security is the same thing as putting every single male Muslim into a prison camp/detention centre? How is that the same thing?

I like to dismiss people who say stupid things. How can anyone interpret:

As "dire threat" I have no idea.

Most notably, that last paragraph says to me "The CIA and FBI are all over it sir, so don't worry, we'll get em".
What was the president supposed to do? "70 investigations? Not enough! I want 200! Pull every FBI agent onto it! Forget organised crime! Forget cross-border felonies! Forget drugs! Forget missing persons! Get those evil Muslims!"

So when you have their top Intelligence advisors coming out and saying they were making a big deal of it but were ignored, they must be lying, right? So these guys are liars, the Commissioners are liars. Anyone else? Maybe the pilots who said they still didnt know what was going on even when they got to the burning Pentagon? Of course McKinley isnt lying when he says neither they or the DOD had any intelligence regarding threats to commercian aviation, Condi Rice and Bush werent lying when she said no one even imagined anyone would use a plane as a missile or crash one into a building, and we're just meant to take Maj Martin word for it when he says they only intercepted 1 plane over the United States even though they apparently have such poor records theres no way for anyone to actually validate or verifiy that in any way.

So why create wargames based on terrorist threats? Why didnt McKinley tell the Commission, look guys, NORAD doesnt deal with any terrorist threats all your questions are all irrelevant?

They dealt with hostile violation of US airspace. A likely source of hostile violations of US airspace were terrorist attacks from outside. But the scenario was chosen because it was a hostile violation of airspace, not because it was a terrorist attack.

Wait... so now they do deal with terrorist threats? I thought you told me several times "NORAD are not responsible for protecting the USA from terrorism". Now you are saying, actually they are, but only from terrorists coming from the outside the US? Some of your statements seem to contradict. You countered my argument that they left the capital essentially ungarded because you say "Again, NORAD are not responsible for protecting the USA from terrorists.". Well, if you insert the words "domestic" before the word "terrorists", that counter doesnt become quite so good does it? A domestic threat or an external one would not have helped their responce time one bit unless the terrorists were nice enough or dumb enough to let themselves be discovered before crossing the magic line where NORAD either has responsibility or doesnt have any responsibility whatsoever.

The scenario was also chosen because it was outside the protocols and laws in place. A UAV attack from a terrorist group outside the USA slipped through the gaps. Finally, it was a scenario NORAD could actually respond to with its limited resources.

1. Your point has been that the FAA should not really have notified NORAD at all even after the second plane was hit and another was still missing that they also knew was hijacked. I dont know, since you havent told me yet, just when you think they should have been notified, but you up till now you've implied they shouldnt have been notifed at all since; a. They dont deal with terrorist threats. b. They dont deal with commercial aviation. So why would they have drills and/or wargames based on terrorist threats if they arent responsible for it anyway? Why did they claim complete ignorence to intelligence of threats to commercial aviation? And why did they never once say any of the things you are saying about NORAD to the Commission or anywhere else that I can find that they have no responsibilty for any of this whatsoever? How do you explain all of that while still maintaining that none of them were ever telling fibs or werent incompetent in some way?

2. If you're now saying they are actually kind of responsible for terrorist threats, if it was a terrorist threat violating our airspace, how does that relate to the FAA not telling NORAD about it? According to what you've said so far, NORAD can deal with an exteral hijacking terrorist threat as long as it is coming into the US from overseas but that after it crosses the line undetected as hijacked, the FAA shouldnt actually notify NORAD even if they realise that not only 3 planes are hijacked already but that 2 have hit such high profile targets like both the world trade centres? Why should planes crossing that line suddenly mean NORAD isnt responsible and shouldnt even be notified? And why would they care before it crosses that line, and not after it?

Responses for both domestic hijackings and domestic terrorism were well and truly covered by law, so there was no real reason for NORAD to address them.

Okay, so if a terrorist was going to hijack a plane and crash it into a building what plans did they have? In fact thats too much. How about just a domestic terroirst hijacking. Who was going to deal with it if NORAD had nothing to do with it at all and shouldnt even be notified?

And most importantly, those sorts of scenarios were not something NORAD was able to respond to with its resources. You might as well ask why the FBI never ran exercises drilling its response to a full scale Russian invasion. What would be the point? The FBI can't do anything against that.

Well please, thats really not the same thing, who else can stop planes being used a missiles if not the United States air force?

Mostly fair enough, but you make it sound like Norad has nothing to do with terrorist threats at all.
They don't. What you identified was a cross-over based on an incident specific scenario added for some flavour. It was actually irrelevant that the guys firing the UAV from the Gulf of Mexico were terrorists. That's what you don't seem to get. NORAD has never drilled for counter-terrorism. Ever.

Again, I suppose my question like before would be "why not?", considering. But then, apparently they did consider such things as I have noted (see earlier for news link). A war game senario was planned where a terrorists hijacked a plane which would crash into the Pentagon, but was rejected by "Joint Staff action" officers as being too "unrealistic", and "because it would have become a whole exercise in and of itself", and that they didnt want to take forces away from "exercises simulating a war with North Korea". Nowhere did they say or imply they didnt want to simulate a terrorist attack using planes because... Norad doesnt do counter-terrorism. But, thats the part of the drill they left out. In the USA Today story they apparently also had a senario where a plane with chemical poisons headed to a target in the US was to be shot down over the Atlantic Ocean. Try as I might I really cant make your claims about NORAD in this regard actually fit.

And it still doesnt explain why Langely jets scrambled so late and without orders or any briefing to even tell them what the NYC situation was and why they were scrambling for.
We'll come back to this once you present your timeline for what you'd do.

Well first I'd tell my pilots what they are scrambling for and not wait till they perform CAP over the Pentagon before letting them know. As for the rest, like I said, even if they werent prepared and so nothing could really have made any practical difference, my question is why they claim such complete ignorence that they did to defend themselves.

How can you think its a Russian style cruise missile threat if you already know that two planes have crashed into WTC 1+2 and another one has gone off course and lost its transponder signal?
Ever heard of deception and diversion? If you were planning a surprise attack on the USA would you maybe try fool them into initially thinking it was a domestic accident or terrorist incident? I know I would.

Sure, but the quote is "no one told us anything", and that they looked down at the Pentagon burning and thought "the bastards snuck one [a cruise missile] by us.". How can the terrorists influence the Langley base not telling their pilots what is going on? Its not like they imply they were told it might also be a cruise missile (which would raise other questions as to why they would tell them that), they simply say they assumed it was a cruise missile becuase no one told them anything.

So really if the first plane was a normal hijacking of an international flight not hijacked until it was past the ADIZ, they still wouldnt have been able to do a thing about it, would they?

Well the ADIZ comes to within a few miles of shore so I don't think anyone would try hijack an airliner that late. If they did, they'd hit the WTC a few minutes later so there's nothing anyone could do.

It could have been a number of targets, not just the WTC. But according to yourself they cant do anything, arent responsible and shouldnt be notified anyway after its crossed that border no matter if its a normal hijacking or a terrorist one.

But yes, if an international flight was hijacked after it had entered USA airspace it would be treated exactly the same as a domestic airliner hijacking.

Which is dont notify NORAD even if two hijacked airliners have already crashed into both WTCs and you have another hijacked plane flying around somewhere?

It's only obvious because you're thinking with a post-9/11 view point, and you're thinking of NORAD as a powerful agency in place to prevent hijackings and terrorism.

A lot less for sure than a lot of truthers make it out to be, but certianly more so than you are, yes.

Speaking of which, arent all hijackings terrorist acts by definition?
No, they're not. Which is exactly my point. Terrorism and aircraft piracy are distinctly different. There's a very good reason the FBI treated the 9/11 attacks as terrorism and not as aircraft piracy.

But if you have planes flying into buildings, isnt that worse than normal air piracy? How can NORAD be responsible for normal hijacked aircraft coming into the United States, but have zero responsibily if someone hijacks a plane past the border or once those hijacked aircraft decide they want to crash their planes into buildings?

The fighters were based in Alaska and Canada. There's no reason they would ever be in the Continental USA.

Ok. I'll take your word for it.

Because you don't scramble fighters to intercept planes until you have a plane for them to intercept.

Yet they scrambled them anyway and performed CAP over Washington, so why did they do that?

The Otis pilots knew nothing about a second hijacking until after WTC2 was hit.

Im not sure we can say 100% for certian they knew at the time, but in case you're disputing it completely are you saying these reports arent true?

"It was uncertain that Flight 175 had been hijacked, [Maj. Gen. Paul] Weaver said, but the FAA had told the air defense sector that ''there was an airplane that had a problem.'' "'We had a nine-minute window, and we had in excess of 100 miles to intercept 175,'' Weaver said. ''There was just literally no way.'' The pilots flew ''like a scalded ape,'' topping 500 mph but were unable to catch up to the airliner, Weaver said. After Flight 175 hit the trade center, the F-15s began circling New York City in case of further hijacked planes. "
http://www.staugustine.com/stories/091601/ter_0916010027.shtml

"Pilots "Duff" and "Nasty" recalled they were only minutes away when the second plane hit the towers. Pilot Duff said: "For a long time I wondered what would have happened if we had been scrambled in time. We've been over the flight a thousand times in our minds and I don't know what we could have done to get there any quicker"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2222205.stm
"Other planes"? Only one other aircraft had been hijacked when they were scrambled and the only people who knew that were the people on board.

So when you wrote the following you were wrong?

0856 Indianapolis Centre notify the FAA that AA77 has been hijacked (realizing it did not crash).

They said they "reverted" to Russian threat.
Because they werent told anything so they assumed it was, yes.

Here's the most likely scenario:
1. Langley fighters put on battle stations due to incidents in New York.
2. Langley fighters scrambled to Baltimore.
3. Giant Killer told to move tanker to W-386.
4. Giant Killer mistakenly moves Langley fighters to W-386.
5. Pilots ask why they are being sent to W-386.
6. Giant Killers say they don't know why.
7. Speculation from pilots.
8. Pilots conclude there is a Russian attack underway (either coincidental to hijackings, or they're a diversion tactic to cover the attacks)
Another likely scenario:
1. Langley fighters put on battle stations due to incidents in New York.
2. Langley do not tell fighter pilots why they are on battle stations.
3. Langley fighters scrambled to Baltimore.
4. Giant Killer told to move tanker to W-386.
5. Giant Killer mistakenly moves Langley fighters to W-386.
6. Pilots ask why they are being sent to W-386.
7. Giant Killers say they don't know why.
8. Speculation from pilots.
9. Pilots conclude there is a Russian attack underway (either coincidental to hijackings, or they're a diversion tactic to cover the attacks)

So when they said that they looked down at the Pentagon burning and thought someone sneaked a missile past them because no one told them anything and they didnt see any planes, where does that fit in the above possible timeline? We still dont know when they were told, but unless what they are saying isnt true, we know when they werent is at least up until this point.

As the system was it was impossible (and possibly illegal) for NORAD to prevent the attacks.

Possibly, at that point, but they werent in a position to be in need of Cheneys shoot down order anyway. I remember reading a comment by a pilot regarding U93 and how he was prepared to fly into the aircraft to stop it. I'll have to try dig it out if it becomes relevant and see if its the same as I remember it.

Let's stay on subject please. NORAD. Intelligence, the executive, the FBI, CIA and so forth are an entirely separate topic.

No its not, what the government knew and didnt know is entirely relevant to how prepared NORAD either was or wasnt or how prepared they should have been or not.

Yes, it's all irrelevant. Because NORAD wasn't set up to deal with a threat like that, and NORAD wasn't funded to deal with a threat like that, and NORAD wasn't resourced to deal with a threat like that.
Who's to blame?

Every single US President and every single US Senator and every single US Congressman who served between 1958 and 2001, and every single American who voted for them. Because none of them made the slightest effort to establish a military agency capable of preventing simultaneous suicide hijackings.

So because Clinton and prior administrations didnt do anything about it, the Bush administration gets off ignoring terrorist threat intelligence and they get to claim complete ignorence to all of it. Surely not the "they did it so we can too", mentality?

So we've established that a good half a billion people (at least) are to blame. Many of them are now dead. What do you think is a suitable punishment for those that are still alive? How about having to pay a fine to fund a system that can prevent such an attack?

Done.

I'd say how about having explain why they felt the need to coverup their intelligence if they have nothing to hide, which is "the real conspriacy" that the BBC files and Debunking 911 accept? But then you probably dont accept any of that.

The FAA has both primary and secondary radar coverage. Primary will detect an aircraft without a transponder, but it will also detect other things like clouds, dust, trees, buildings, insects, and so forth. Primary coverage is not 100% so there's spots where it doesn't work. It's also not very useful for the FAA's work, so normally they don't use it - and prior to 9/11 they wanted to ditch it completely because it cost a lot to maintain, for no obvious benefit.

Of the flights on 9/11, one never turned off its transponder, two turned them off but were picked up immediately on primary, and one was lost in a spot with no primary coverage so couldn't be located.

Thanks its been interesting learning about this.

Ed

[gumboot]

Hi Gumboot, sorry its taken so long to reply I was quite burnt out after the stupid Conspiracy BBC files thread and then Ive been quite busy so I apologise for not getting back to you sooner.

No problem. Thanks for getting back to me.


For example Truthers regularly claim the 911 Commissioners lied and or distorted the "truth" to protect the government, and yet you're also saying they are liars but for the complete opposite conclusion.

When did I say the 9/11 Commission were liars?


I cant agree that the government was not incompetent and dont agree with your arguments that they werent. The BBC Conspiracy Files even concluded there was a conspiracy to cover up incompetence and Debunking 911.com also has the same conclusion, yet these are both anti-911 truth debunking.

Well it's very hard to determine "incompetence" from hindsight. I think incompetence is much, much more than just "failing to do one's job". I also only refute the claim that the military were incompetent. I certainly believe there were levels of incompetence in the US government that related to 9/11.


Really? So 2 planes fly into WTC 1 and 2, they know the planes were hijacked and they know another plane is hijacked, yet at what point on that day should NORAD have been notified according to protocol you say the FAA should have been following?

Hang on, I'm not saying the FAA shouldn't have notified NORAD. I'm saying Boston ARTCC should not have notified NEADS. Protocol was for the FAA Hijack Coordinator to contact the National Military Command Centre.

Also let's be very clear on our facts. At 0903 the FAA were aware of only two hijackings, as was NORAD. No one was aware that AA77 was hijacked at 0903 other than the people on board. It's important that we get these details right.


15 Minutes after being put on battlestations, but 30 minutes after 175 turns off its transponder which according to you the FAA knew was hijacked

Incorrect. The FAA suspected it was hijacked. NEADS were not told about UA175 until it crashed so the military response to UA175 was irrelevant. The LAngley fighters were scrambled in response to AA11.


They didnt know after the first plane hit at 0846, no. But according to you they shouldnt have even told Norad even after the second tower was hit. Like I asked earlier, when do you think they should have been, if at all? Apparently never, because youve indicated that they arent responsible for terrorist threats or commercial aviation.

You need to really focus on what I'm saying because you keep arguing against points I never made.

Hijack protocol calls for the controller to notify their supervisor who notifies the centre manager who notifies the national command centre who notifies the hijack coordinator at FAA HQ. They then make a decision regarding intercept and request escort from the Pentagon. The Pentagon issues an escort order to NORAD who pass it along to the ADS who pass it on to the fighters.

This is correct protocol. This protocol was initiated shortly after AA11 was hijacked. This protocol takes time. Too long to get a response on 9/11.


They have them on battlestations, but they dont tell them why they are scrambling. Why would they think it was a cruise missile threat from the sea if they know even a little about what was going on?

I'm sure I've already explained this to you. The pilots thought the new instructions superseded the old ones.


According to what they said, it suggests they still didnt know a plane had hit the Pentagon even when they got there to perform CAP and looked down at it!

Relevance to anything?


Even if Langley knew, my issue was with the pilots.

We don't know if the individual pilots knew or not.

I think you're grossly underestimating how chaotic the situation was that morning. It's easy to sit here and go "they knew at time X that plane Y was hijacked" but this simply isn't the case. On the day no one was entirely sure what was going on.


Sorry yes I got mixed up, it was 15 but it was 20 minutes after the second plane hit that they were scrambled.

Citing their scramble time in relation to an irrelevant event does not help your argument. The impact time for UA175 is irrelevant to the flight times of the Langley fighters.


Well you're right I didnt know most of that. According to yourself though, the FAA knew at 0852 that Flight 175 was hijacked, and 0856 that Flight 77 was hijacked.

Wrong.

New York ARTCC suspected UA175 was a hijack at 0855.
The ATCSCC knew UA175 was a suspected hijack at 0901.
FAA HQ did not learn of UA175 until after it crashed.

At 0921 Indianapolis ARTCC and the ATCSCC suspected AA77 was a hijack.
At 0925 FAA HQ knows that AA77 is "missing".

You need to stop thinking of the FAA as a single entity. It consists of hundreds of separate control centres. Just because one suspects or knows something does not mean they all do. I cannot stress this enough.


You say NEADS only found out about Flight 77 in a 0934 in a call to Washington Centre. Even after the second tower was hit its still 20 minutes before Langley fighters are scrambled, the fighters were put on Battlestations 5 minutes after the collision but its still another 15 minutes later before they are scrambled yet arent even told why they are scrambling so they assume its a Russian style cruise missle threat. Even if there wasnt the kind of vast incomptence that day that some people have suggested, I dont think its possible to reasonably argue that there wasnt a distinct lack of communication. But then, you say they shouldnt even have notified NORAD even after the second tower was hit even though they knew before then that both flights were hijacked including Flight 77 which Indianapolis Centre had already determined was as well.

I'm sorry, but I'm going to stop responding to you. You're not paying attention to anything I'm writing. I'm clearly wasting my time, and you're not thinking in a clear or logical manner.


Well its a good question, but I dont think its that simple. Was NORAD prepared for something like 911? According to McKinley NORAD and the DOD knew absolutely nothing about any kind of threat involving commercial aviation. If they really didnt know what they say they didnt know, if they werent prepared, I think they should have been more so and Mckinley agreed with that "in retrospect". So to answer you question, it depends on how much they knew about the intelligence.

No. The question is that simple. I don't care about intelligence. I want to know what you'd do. On the day. Well?


The FAA realised it didnt crash at 0856, apparently. You write:

0856 Indianapolis Centre notify the FAA that AA77 has been hijacked (realizing it did not crash).

My first timeline has quite a few errors.


But apparently NORAD didnt find out about Flight 77 until 0934 " In the course of a call to Washington Centre." You say the FAA shouldnt have notified NORAD at all even after the second plane hit the secnd tower, so along the same lines, should they have not told them about Flight 77 at 0934, either?

Please re read what I have said.

"Boston ARTCC should not have contacted NEADS directly"

does not equal

"The FAA should not have told NORAD"

If you cannot get this very basic distinction through your skull I am completely wasting my time.


Im not asking to prove a negative, I would just like to know how he knew that. According to Maj Martin they regularly scrambled or diverted air patrols to intercept suspicious aircraft, but that wasnt not over the United States. I heard a telephone conversation with some guys at NORAD and they said they had very poor records of scrambles or intercepts prior to 911 so the caller shouldnt hold out too much for any being forthcoming. Since 911 they had intercepted aircraft, apparently, over 43,000 times. But Maj Martin said in interviews that before 911 they had only intercepted 1 aircraft, over the US, even though NORAD apparently having no verifiable records. See also below.

I can't comment on phone calls you think you heard. Aircraft scrambles are absolutely recorded. They have to be. All aircraft flights are absolutely recorded, and NORAD routinely reports their activities to various commands.

To suggest that NORAD do not keep records of their scrambles is quite simply, ridiculous.


Are they notified of all the intercepts or scrambles for suspicious aircraft?

It would have to go well beyond "suspicious aircraft" before you'd get a CONUS intercept. NTSB would have a report on anything of that nature.


No need to be so dramatic, it may well be true, but I'd still like to know how he can say it was only one time if they dont have any verifiable records.

They have verifiable records. To suggest otherwise is nonsensical. Okay? That's how he can say that. He knows what he's talking about, he has the records, and they're accurate.


NORAD also said neither themselves or the DOD had any intelligence of any threats to commercial aviation, just like Condi Rice and Bush, who said no one imagined anyone might try using planes as missiles. You dont really believe them when they say that, do you? Because as far as I can see either they are lying in some way or they are incompetent not knowing what they really should know.

Let's not get off topic. I'm talking about the military here, not the President or the National Security adviser.


But didnt tell the pilots for some reason, who still didnt know 20 minutes after the second tower was hit what was going on despite being on battlestations for 15 minutes.

The lead pilot claims to know what was going on. He comments that as an airline pilot he knew an airliner couldn't accidentally fly into the WTC, and figured it had to be intentional.


Pilots who have indicated they still didnt know it was a plane crash even when they eventually did get to Washington to perform CAP and looked at the Pentagon burning.

The lead pilot claims to have thought it was a truck bomb. This is hardly surprising - initial reports were of a truck bomb not an aircraft crash.


Just how similar is valid? Its like when government officials argued that they didnt have "specific" prior knowledge and imply they needed a specific date, time, location and methods involved in order to actually do anything about it. But they dont need to have "specific" information in order to be more prepared, as Commissioner Bob Kerry pointed out.

I am of the opinion that there were no long term security changes that the US government could have made to prevent the attacks (by "could have" I mean both that were actually possible to implement, legal, and that the American public would have accepted). This means that the only way to prevent it would be with specific actions intended to stop a specific attack (rather than a general increase in security).

Such action requires what is called "actionable intelligence". Actionable intelligence is very specific - time and place would probably be an absolute minimum.


Well thats your opinion I guess, to me they do seem to know what he is saying and they eventually agree they should have been more prepared. Nothing to me suggests they dont know what he is talking about, I dont know where you get that impression from.

I'm talking specifically about Amalgam Virgo 02. They initially assume he's talking about Amalgam Virgo 01 which was different. The commissioner claims it was planned prior to 9/11 and neither offers any indication that this is true. One of them does offer up some information about Amalgam Virgo 02, but again does not support the commissioner's contention that it was planned before 9/11.

Personally I think this is probably unlikely. The fact that the commissioner refers to it as an "operation" indicates to me that he is not using authorative sources for his information.


If Ben-Veniste doesnt know what he is talking about, why doesnt McKinley or anyone else there say so or give any indication of that?

The only people in a position to correct him are the officers and I think given the context it would be unlikely and unacceptable for them to correct him. I also think the media was very successful in making the individual people feel very guilty for 9/11. FBI agents apologised. Military staff burst into tears. Airport security personnel committed suicide.

The most disgusting thing about 9/11 is that the American people, rather than accepting that it was ultimately their fault that there was a weak security policy in place, sought to dump all of the guilt and blame onto individuals working hard under impossible conditions to keep America safe.

We saw exactly the same thing happen on a smaller scale in Columbine when the community at fault tried to blame anyone but themselves for the tragedy. It seems to be common these days.

I will address the rest of your post later.

Thanks again for your response. :)

[Whiplash]

Try not to fit me into your box and you might see things more clearly.


Well, you tried to stuff everyone here into your own box of being people who will never accept any skepticism of the government story, regardless, which is a strawman and couldn't be further from the truth on these forums.

People here are lead to believe what the evidence and facts show to have happened. To date, the evidence and facts (the whole Mount Everrest worth of them) point to what the "official story" says happened.

People here are not likely to be swept away by fantasies and fairy tales which are not supported at all by any facts or evidence.

Too many people of your beliefs roll in here thinking that we are this monolith of Government yes men (which again could not be further from the truth here).

It's well past time that people of these beliefs consider the possibility that their world view and the things they are prone to accept as reality may simply be insane. If you come in here full of yourself, and arrogantly act as though you know it all and have all the answers (while believing unproven, fairy tale nonsense), you aren't going to get alot of respect or friendly debate.

This arrogance that so many CT'ists demonstrate is what brings the negative responses upon them (the negative responses they then persist in whining about).

[Edx]

Are you a twoofer? I am very confused by your posts... Try not to fit me into your box and you might see things more clearly. Well, you tried to stuff everyone here into your own box of being people who will never accept any skepticism of the government story, regardless, which is a strawman and couldn't be further from the truth on these forums.

You are right, I apologised for my first post after receiving some replies I didnt expect. However, since the ridiculous BBC Conspriacy files thread, it does seem to me like a lot, if not most of the vocal people on this forum are the way I expected them to be unfortunately.

People here are lead to believe what the evidence and facts show to have happened. To date, the evidence and facts (the whole Mount Everrest worth of them) point to what the "official story" says happened.

Depends how much the official story you are talking about. Even the BBCs Conspiracy Files (which most on the thread were praising apparently so unconditionally) or sites like Debunking 911 agree that there is a real conspiracy regarding the offical story.

Too many people of your beliefs roll in here thinking that we are this monolith of Government yes men (which again could not be further from the truth here).

In my personal experience in the BBC conspiracy files thread shows me while not everyone is this way, a large number here do seem to be unable to conceed any point no matter how trivial. Not only that, but treat me very harshly just because I didnt agree with them. I didnt know what button to press to report posts, but no one else did it either. Posts and threads on here have had admin cleanups for far less than the kind of needless personal attacks I received on there. Ive seen people on this forum being accused of being "pseudo skeptics" just agreeing with the general "group think", and I think to a certian extent thats probably what is going on because I cant explain what happened there any other way. I didnt want to just believe the truthers that said that, so being able to evaluate that first hand allows me to know how true that claim was. In reference to this threads title, I really must be a masochist to keep replying quite as much as I did to the kind of replies I was getting!

It's well past time that people of these beliefs consider the possibility that their world view and the things they are prone to accept as reality may simply be insane. If you come in here full of yourself, and arrogantly act as though you know it all and have all the answers (while believing unproven, fairy tale nonsense), you aren't going to get alot of respect or friendly debate.

Sure, I totally get that.

This arrogance that so many CT'ists demonstrate is what brings the negative responses upon them (the negative responses they then persist in whining about).

Very true and I understand this through having to argue with Creationists, but I know a lot of truthers arent the the annoying ones you describe as well.

Gumboot: Thanks for the reply, I'll hold off replying until I get the second one. No rush.

[Edx]

Btw I started a thread on the LCF.

http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/119137/1/#new

It will be interesting to see what happens.

[DGM]

Btw I started a thread on the LCF.

http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/119137/1/#new

It will be interesting to see what happens.
Finding lot's of new important information over there?


PS Good for you not leaving Gumboot hanging on this thread.

[Edx]

Finding lot's of new important information over there?
Not really, and not yet, anyway. Hopefully some more will reply, but its a bit dead over there compared with some other sites.

PS Good for you not leaving Gumboot hanging on this thread.

Well I wanted to talk about it :)

[DGM]

Not really, and not yet, anyway. Hopefully some more will reply, but its a bit dead over there compared with some other sites.

Such as? Any inspirational comments from any of these "other" sites?

[Edx]

Such as? Any inspirational comments from any of these "other" sites?

Im talking about how active people are. Post something here and you'll usually get a lot more replies, as will posting on Christian Forums.. etc.

[DGM]

Im talking about how active people are. Post something here and you'll usually get a lot more replies, as will posting on Christian Forums.. etc.
OK, I thought you were referring to "truther" sites. Have you posed your questions to any other sites? 9/11 Blogger perhaps?

[Edx]

OK, I thought you were referring to "truther" sites. Have you posed your questions to any other sites? 9/11 Blogger perhaps?

No, maybe I should? Do you know of any more actives ones?

[Btodd]

Im talking about how active people are. Post something here and you'll usually get a lot more replies, as will posting on Christian Forums.. etc.

Yeah, the 9/11 thing is dead on CF right now. I almost had RealDeal starting a Pentagon thread, until he realized we were going to expect an actual theory and evidence in place of his doubts.

That usually kills it.:cool: I think you came in at the very end of our last big 9/11 discussion.


Btodd

[DGM]

No, maybe I should? Do you know of any more actives ones?
No! That form of "truth" is a bit dead now a day's.

[Edx]

No, maybe I should? Do you know of any more actives ones? No! That form of "truth" is a bit dead now a day's.

Well what Im looking for is their opinions and thoughts on why the Truth movement seem to have done such a bad job correcting their errors and if they can defend stuff like the ISI connection.

[gumboot]

Why did Mr Scott not say he doesnt know anything about it and that it wasnt planned prior to 911? Instead he says it was planned after he retired and wasnt involved with 02, if he didnt know anything about it it doesnt seem that way.


Really?

So if you say to someone "What do you know about that robbery last night?" And they answer "Oh I wasn't involved in that" you wouldn't take that as they knew nothing?

Mr Scott is doing more than going "I don't know" he's saying that he's the wrong person to ask because he had nothing to do with it.


But it goes on and McKinley decides to read some information regarding AV 02...

Ben-Venistes whole point about AV 02 was that it was planned prior to 911, yet when questioned about it the Generals fail to say or even imply in any way that it was planned after 911, which would be the most sensible, simple and clear answer if what you're suggesting were true, it would stop Ben-Veniste's point about it - dead.

Because, as I say, neither actually has personal knowledge of it. McKinley is just reading from a summary about the exercise - that much is clear. He obviously doesn't know about Amalgam Virgo 02 either.

The reason neither McKinley nor Scott correct the Commissioner is because neither of them know. I am very confident had they known anything about its planning they would have offered it up:

"Yes sir, that was planned in June 2001" or "Sir, planning for Amalgam Virgo 02 didn't begin until December 2001".



Not only that, after Ben-Veniste's responce to the above, McKinley says he agrees with him!

I don't think they're agreeing with Ben-Veniste about Amalgam Virgo 02. They're agreeing with Ben-Veniste that they should have thought of that sort of threat and should have been ready for it. I don't actually agree, but that's another topic of discussion. :)



The only way I can make what you are saying about AV 02 fit is if neither Scott or McKingley really know anything about it and just pretty much agree with everything the Commissioners are saying, which stretches credulity too far for me to find plausible and cant say much about their competence.

I only think they're agreeing about his conclusion, not every thing he says.


In fact, when you look at what McKinley actually says regarding AV 02, he says prior to 911 the hijack motivations were political, and so on. He is telling the Commission that AV 02s hijacking senario was based on political motivations and not the kind of motivations on 911, which also shows he is saying that AV 02 was planned pre-911.


I don't think the motive of the hijacking is actually relevant in this case. It's the actual nature of the hijacking itself.

By the way I have found this (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=43789) which collaborates the pre-9/11 planning for Amalgam Virgo 02.

Now, if we want to focus on this exchange, let's break it down.

1. Ben-Veniste offers examples of suicide hijackings (examples are dubious)
2. McKinley offers that NORAD had trained for hijackings, but not what happened on 9/11.
3. Ben-Veniste offers a NORAD exercise involving a simultaneous hijacking in the USA.
4. Scott indicates he has no knowledge of the exercise.
5. McKinley reads some prepared information about the exercise which mentions that it was not a suicide scenario.
6. Ben-Veniste then wants to know why NORAD were still protecting against foreign threats not domestic ones given the incidents he had mentioned. He asks if, based on this information, NORAD could have been better prepared.
7. McKinley says that in retrospect he agrees.

Okay, so first off, do you agree that the above is essentially how the conversation goes?


The question might be, "why not?" But are you saying reports like these are just all completely wrong?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-18-norad_x.htm

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2004/04/14/pentagon_crash_too_unrealistic/


I don't think they're necessarily wrong, but they're coming to completely the wrong conclusions here.

When you have a military exercise, the planning team will require specific events that are for specific training purposes - say there may be a hijacking of an airliner and the purpose is to exercise radar tracking abilities. The actual exercise scriptwriters will add "flavour" to the exercise by expanding and creating a scenario "They're Malay terrorists wanting to free the Tiger" or whatever.

The flavour is actually irrelevant to the exercise purpose. What happened is prior to 9/11 some writers offered up a suicide hijacking to add flavour. It was rejected because (rightly so) it was felt these details detracted too much from the purpose of the exercise (tracking, coordinating with other agencies, etc). That's not the same as exercising a suicide hijacking.


And there were incidents that the Commissioner didnt talk about like the Philippine police taking down an Al-Qaeda cell planning to blow up many hijacked planes over the US and also fly one into the Pentagon. Apparently they also planned to crash planes into other buildings like the WTC and White House.

The 9/11 Commission website is down so I can't check it, but I'm pretty sure the commissioner did talk about Bojinka. The suicide aspect was to be a private aircraft filled with explosives, flown into the CIA headquarters.

The expansion of this plot was nothing more than wishful thinking on the part of the planners. It wasn't seriously at any stage of implementation.

One thing that's important to remember is that law enforcement uncover things like Bojinka regularly. Most are a bunch of morons who can never succeed, or fanciful plots beyond sensibility. It's not possible to counter every threat, and most of them don't require countering. In this instance a mistake was made and an unrealistic scenario turned out to be realistic.


So why did they make so many exceptions to the rule?

They didn't. People have this idea that escort of hijacked aircraft was some sort of vital protective role undertaken by NORAD. That's not the case at all. In a hijacking the FAA needs someone to go up, tail the hijacked airliner, and keep an eye on it. They need better surveillance than they can get from radar. The Air Force stepped up and offered to provide this service to the FAA. That's what their hijacking duties were - simply them providing assistance to a civil authority.


Specifically what parts? Can you go through it one by one? Why did the Generals not say anything against any of his points?

The 9/11 Commission website's down and I can't remember what the specific incidents are. From memory a number of them involved speculation about what the hijackers intended - there was no actual proof that they intended to crash the aircraft.


Btw, are you saying that all reports about jets being put on some kind of standby in case there was a terrorist threat in the Atlanta Olympics arent true?

Correct. Both the FAA and NORAD have stated that there was absolutely no air threat considered for the Atlanta Olympics. According to the FAA a no-fly zone was implemented over the event because they were concerned that it would attract large numbers of news helicopters and private aircraft, and might cause a collision.


But according to their Intelligence experts they kept saying this was important information that needs to be taken seriously but was ignored. Is that not relevant?

I think it's ass-covering by the advisors, if you ask me. If there was serious credible information about suicide hijackings in the USA why was it not mentioned in that August 6 security briefing?


Theres no need to dramatise his point, he doesnt suggest anything of the kind. Why would they have needed to go that far?

Because there's very little short of that which could be done. The 9/11 hijackers were very smart. They made sure never, ever to record anything about the plot. Had the FBI uncovered it and arrested them, I'd wager all nineteen would have walked, and the attack would have gone ahead anyway. You can't break up a plot unless you can prove the plotters have already done something wrong.


You just dismissed all of Kerrys quick suggestions of what they could have done out of hand. Could you explain how hardening airport security is the same thing as putting every single male Muslim into a prison camp/detention centre? How is that the same thing?

What I'm saying is people like Kerry are not thinking seriously - they're just trying to earn brownie points with voters and get elected. All nineteen hijackers boarded their flights legally. They had nothing in their bags that was not allowed on an airliner. None of them had warrants out. None of them were known by law enforcement as terrorists. So how would improved airport security have achieved anything?


So when you have their top Intelligence advisors coming out and saying they were making a big deal of it but were ignored, they must be lying, right?

Such as who?


Wait... so now they do deal with terrorist threats? I thought you told me several times "NORAD are not responsible for protecting the USA from terrorism". Now you are saying, actually they are, but only from terrorists coming from the outside the US? Some of your statements seem to contradict.

Short of repeating myself I don't know what so say here.

NORAD protects against violations of US airspace. The cause of that violation could be virtually anything. The cause of that violation is irrelevant. They are protecting against the airspace violation, not the thing causing the violation. (The exception here might by a Russian attack, but that would put them into a war time scenario which is a different kettle of fish - let's stick with peace time duties).

Whether the violation is caused by terrorist or not is irrelevant. They are protecting against the violation itself, not the terrorists. They don't care about the terrorists. That's the FBIs problem. Indeed, NORAD are not allowed to care about the terrorists.


You countered my argument that they left the capital essentially ungarded because you say "Again, NORAD are not responsible for protecting the USA from terrorists.". Well, if you insert the words "domestic" before the word "terrorists", that counter doesnt become quite so good does it? A domestic threat or an external one would not have helped their responce time one bit unless the terrorists were nice enough or dumb enough to let themselves be discovered before crossing the magic line where NORAD either has responsibility or doesnt have any responsibility whatsoever.

As mentioned, it would be impractical to try hijack an international flight after it had passed through the ADIZ.


1. Your point has been that the FAA should not really have notified NORAD at all even after the second plane was hit and another was still missing that they also knew was hijacked.

Wrong.


I dont know, since you havent told me yet, just when you think they should have been notified, but you up till now you've implied they shouldnt have been notifed at all

Wrong.


since; a. They dont deal with terrorist threats. b. They dont deal with commercial aviation. So why would they have drills and/or wargames based on terrorist threats if they arent responsible for it anyway?

Military units often drill for scenarios outside their area of responsibility. The military has a responsibility to respond to any request for assistance from civil authorities. Such assistance is almost always outside the military unit's responsibility. Such is the case for NORAD assistance to the FAA.


Why did they claim complete ignorence to intelligence of threats to commercial aviation?

I don't think they ever claimed complete ignorance. I think they denied having intelligence that a 9/11 scenario was likely to occur. I'd tend to agree with them.


And why did they never once say any of the things you are saying about NORAD to the Commission or anywhere else that I can find that they have no responsibilty for any of this whatsoever?

Because the media played the blame game. It's funny, but I think I could have defended NORAD to the Commission better than NORAD did :D


2. If you're now saying they are actually kind of responsible for terrorist threats, if it was a terrorist threat violating our airspace, how does that relate to the FAA not telling NORAD about it?

It doesn't. What's your point?


According to what you've said so far, NORAD can deal with an exteral hijacking terrorist threat as long as it is coming into the US from overseas but that after it crosses the line undetected as hijacked, the FAA shouldnt actually notify NORAD even if they realise that not only 3 planes are hijacked already but that 2 have hit such high profile targets like both the world trade centres?

Wrong. Okay. Stop for a moment. You seriously have to stop this "even if they realise that not only 3 planes are hijacked already but that 2 have hit such high profile targets like both the world trade centres" rant you've been repeating for the last several posts (or variations thereof). As I've showed you it's not true, and your continued repeating of it makes you look like a mindless Conspiracy Theorist who is never going to ammend their thinking to reflect reality.

So, can you drop the above nonsense? If you can't please say so now, because I do not want to waste my time. I don't discuss 9/11 with people who won't listen (see Swing Dangler in the "NORAD Help" thread).


How about just a domestic terroirst hijacking. Who was going to deal with it if NORAD had nothing to do with it at all and shouldnt even be notified?

Hijack protocol is for the Air Traffic Controllers to sterilise airspace along the hijack craft's route, and attempt to determine where it is headed, and notify the FBI. If the FAA deems it necessary their Hijack Coordinator will request that the military provide escort fighters to trail the hijacked airliner and monitor its progress. The NMCC will then allocate a unit to perform this task. NORAD would typically be requested simply because they already have fighters ready to go, but any nearby and available military aircraft could be utilised (as happened with the Payne Stewart incident). The fighter jets would follow the hijacked aircraft until such time as either it landed or left US airspace (although they might try to force it to land if it wanted to leave US airspace).


Well please, thats really not the same thing, who else can stop planes being used a missiles if not the United States air force?

Well the answer on 9/11 was no one. But you can hardly blame NORAD for that. You do realise that the folks on Capitol Hill wanted the entire air defense mission scrapped right? If 9/11 had occurred a year or two later there would have been no fighters ready to do anything.


Again, I suppose my question like before would be "why not?", considering. But then, apparently they did consider such things as I have noted (see earlier for news link). A war game senario was planned where a terrorists hijacked a plane which would crash into the Pentagon, but was rejected by "Joint Staff action" officers as being too "unrealistic", and "because it would have become a whole exercise in and of itself", and that they didnt want to take forces away from "exercises simulating a war with North Korea". Nowhere did they say or imply they didnt want to simulate a terrorist attack using planes because... Norad doesnt do counter-terrorism. But, thats the part of the drill they left out. In the USA Today story they apparently also had a senario where a plane with chemical poisons headed to a target in the US was to be shot down over the Atlantic Ocean. Try as I might I really cant make your claims about NORAD in this regard actually fit.

See my previous comments about "flavour". Those details were irrelevant to the exercise.

Okay, an example I know of personally.

The New Zealand and Australian defense forces ran an exercise in which Hastings (small city in New Zealand) was controlled by enemy forces, and we landed a force to re-take the city. The purpose of the exercise was to prepare forces for an amphibious assault, urban warfare, counter-insurgency, and occupation.

The purpose of this exercise was to prepare our forces for what eventually did happen in East Timor. The purpose of this exercise was not to train Australian and New Zealand forces to attack a New Zealand city, and to suggest that this exercise was evidence they could do that is false.

Can you see the difference here?

This is what you're doing with these NORAD exercises. The purpose was to track an aircraft target, not to deal with a terrorist threat.

(Incidentally, no one has asked NORAD the most pertinent question "Did you ever exercise interception an airliner with its transponder turned off"? because that's the real aspect of 9/11 that distinguishes itself from all NORAD scenarios).


Well first I'd tell my pilots what they are scrambling for and not wait till they perform CAP over the Pentagon before letting them know. As for the rest, like I said, even if they werent prepared and so nothing could really have made any practical difference, my question is why they claim such complete ignorence that they did to defend themselves.

One of them did, one didn't. I suspect I know what they meant, but we can get into that later.


Sure, but the quote is "no one told us anything", and that they looked down at the Pentagon burning and thought "the bastards snuck one [a cruise missile] by us."

And yet:

Eckmann said he saw black smoke rising as they raced toward the city.

He first thought it could be a crashed plane near Reagan National Airport, but then pinpointed the smoke closer to the Pentagon, and then, at about 20 miles out, saw it was the building itself.

"My initial thought was that it was a truck bomb ... we didn't actually find out it was an airliner until the next day," Eckmann said.

Source (http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2002/ap081902c.html)

Your problem here is you're pulling out a single quote from a person and treating it as an absolute truth. That's not how people work, and it's not how their memories work.


How can the terrorists influence the Langley base not telling their pilots what is going on? Its not like they imply they were told it might also be a cruise missile (which would raise other questions as to why they would tell them that), they simply say they assumed it was a cruise missile becuase no one told them anything.

No, I think they assumed it was an external threat because of where they were sent. I think they assumed this was a new threat (let's not forget at the time they would have no idea there were more hijacked airliners out there). Once again. Forget what you know about 9/11. Go back, put yourself in the moment, and think about what is actually known at the time. You're underestimating the level of confusion.


It could have been a number of targets, not just the WTC. But according to yourself they cant do anything, arent responsible and shouldnt be notified anyway after its crossed that border no matter if its a normal hijacking or a terrorist one.

No, I don't think you understand. Airliners are already descending and on approach while in the ADIZ. Passengers have to be in their seats. It's a bad time to try hijack an aircraft. Any hijacker with a brain is going to make their move en route.


Which is dont notify NORAD even if two hijacked airliners have already crashed into both WTCs and you have another hijacked plane flying around somewhere?

Wrong.


A lot less for sure than a lot of truthers make it out to be, but certianly more so than you are, yes.

NORAD was obsolete, under funded, and basically abandoned. No one seems willing to accept that. I don't understand why. Why is it so hard to accept that an organisation established to counter the Russian nuclear threat had virtually been mothballed in 2001? Maybe you can explain it to me.


But if you have planes flying into buildings, isnt that worse than normal air piracy? How can NORAD be responsible for normal hijacked aircraft coming into the United States, but have zero responsibily if someone hijacks a plane past the border or once those hijacked aircraft decide they want to crash their planes into buildings?

Because that's how the system was set up. (By the way NORAD is not ever "responsible" for peace time incidents - they merely provide assistance to other authorities - they only become responsible once SCATANA is implemented).


Yet they scrambled them anyway and performed CAP over Washington, so why did they do that?

Because at 0921 they had a plane for them to intercept.


Im not sure we can say 100% for certian they knew at the time, but in case you're disputing it completely are you saying these reports arent true?

"It was uncertain that Flight 175 had been hijacked, [Maj. Gen. Paul] Weaver said, but the FAA had told the air defense sector that ''there was an airplane that had a problem.'' "'We had a nine-minute window, and we had in excess of 100 miles to intercept 175,'' Weaver said. ''There was just literally no way.'' The pilots flew ''like a scalded ape,'' topping 500 mph but were unable to catch up to the airliner, Weaver said. After Flight 175 hit the trade center, the F-15s began circling New York City in case of further hijacked planes. "
http://www.staugustine.com/stories/091601/ter_0916010027.shtml


Yes, that article is wrong. NORAD were told about UA175 at 0903 and the Otis pilots first learned of a second incident when they were told "a second aircraft has hit the WTC" (which confused them because they didn't even know a first aircraft had hit the WTC). The Otis pilots flew "like a scalded ape" to intercept AA11.


"Pilots "Duff" and "Nasty" recalled they were only minutes away when the second plane hit the towers. Pilot Duff said: "For a long time I wondered what would have happened if we had been scrambled in time. We've been over the flight a thousand times in our minds and I don't know what we could have done to get there any quicker"

According to the pilots they were tracking a suspect aircraft on their radars as they approached New York. At the time they were trying to make sense of it because it was coming from the opposite direction to where they expected AA11 to be.

What they're talking about above is, had they arrived sooner and seen UA175
coming in, would they have done anything? Since Duffy claims he would not have shot down AA11 if he had intercepted it, I doubt they would have done anything.


So when you wrote the following you were wrong?

Yup. As I mentioned in my first post to you, I'm writing a new paper at the moment which is much more comprehensive. Your posts have been helpful actually as you've raised points for me to address.


Because they werent told anything so they assumed it was, yes.

Or because they were told something new.


So when they said that they looked down at the Pentagon burning and thought someone sneaked a missile past them because no one told them anything and they didnt see any planes, where does that fit in the above possible timeline? We still dont know when they were told, but unless what they are saying isnt true, we know when they werent is at least up until this point.

Well they also said they thought it was a truck bomb...


Possibly, at that point, but they werent in a position to be in need of Cheneys shoot down order anyway. I remember reading a comment by a pilot regarding U93 and how he was prepared to fly into the aircraft to stop it. I'll have to try dig it out if it becomes relevant and see if its the same as I remember it.

That was the pilots from Andrews AFB. Article here (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/747496/posts).


No its not, what the government knew and didnt know is entirely relevant to how prepared NORAD either was or wasnt or how prepared they should have been or not.

Only if the government said to NORAD "we want you to deal with this threat". They didn't, so what the executive knew is irrelevant.


So because Clinton and prior administrations didnt do anything about it, the Bush administration gets off ignoring terrorist threat intelligence and they get to claim complete ignorence to all of it. Surely not the "they did it so we can too", mentality?

That's not what I said. Re read please.


I'd say how about having explain why they felt the need to coverup their intelligence if they have nothing to hide, which is "the real conspriacy" that the BBC files and Debunking 911 accept? But then you probably dont accept any of that.

Most of the covering up was trying to conceal how little intelligence there was, not the other way around.

[beachnut]

Depends how much the official story you are talking about. Even the BBCs Conspiracy Files (which most on the thread were praising apparently so unconditionally) or sites like Debunking 911 agree that there is a real conspiracy regarding the offical story.
What? Does it it come with the standard, no evidence? What a bunch of non specific fantasy want to be conspiracy thinking; and of course the BBC is holding this eath shattering evidence so they can get the Pulitzer Prize when? As standard, no evidence, no coherent story. Got some facts?

[Edx]

What? Does it it come with the standard, no evidence? What a bunch of non specific fantasy want to be conspiracy thinking; and of course the BBC is holding this eath shattering evidence so they can get the Pulitzer Prize when? As standard, no evidence, no coherent story. Got some facts?

Hey take it up with the BBC, you said you watched it. And then theres Debunking911.com (http://debunking911.com/conspiracy.htm). Why dont you read that and then complain to them about it that you think they are proposing fantasy conspiracy theories?

Gumboot: Thanks for the second reply. I'll reply soon :)

Ed

[uk_dave]

Incompetence and error as conspiracy theory?

Clutch that straw.

[Edx]

Incompetence and error as conspiracy theory?

Clutch that straw.

Its their words not mine, and they do more than propose incompetence and errors.

[gumboot]

Gumboot: Thanks for the second reply. I'll reply soon :)


No problem. I've just been thinking, depending on how your next response goes, it might be worth taking a step back and getting down to the basics. We're getting a bit bogged down and doing a bit of running around in circles, which isn't helping anyone. :)