Did General Richard Myers lie to the 9/11 Commision?

[SteveAustin]

Did General Richard Myers lie to the 9/11 commission?

It's a set of 5 fairly short articles called the NORAD papers...

http://deanjackson60.googlepages.com/airamerica
http://deanjackson60.googlepages.com/thenoradpapersii
http://deanjackson60.googlepages.com/thenoradpapersiii
http://deanjackson60.googlepages.com/thenoradpapersiv
http://deanjackson60.googlepages.com/thenoradpapersv

Essentially...

"Testifying before the 9/11 Commission General Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the commission in response to a question on NORAD’s failure to anticipate the 9/11 attacks, "I can't answer the hypothetical. It's more - it's the way that we were directed to posture, looking outward." This is utterly false. As we will see below NORAD, since its inception in 1958, was tasked to monitor and intercept aircraft flying over American and Canadian air space seven days a week, 24 hours a day."

Read the articles and the related links and you will see that yes General Myers knowingly lied about this

[TheRedWorm]

And if he did, so what?

[Praktik]

its not a lie if you believe its true - the Costanza approach..;)

reading the evidence in the first link I see reference in his sources to aircraft "entering" or "crossing" American airspace.

Would these terms not indicate a system that was designed first and foremost to detect foreign aircraft coming into American airspace from outside?

This thread may edify you: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=70300

Pay specific attention to the ADIZ's.

[funk de fino]

Did General Richard Myers lie to the 9/11 commission?

It's a set of 5 fairly short articles called the NORAD papers...

http://deanjackson60.googlepages.com/airamerica
http://deanjackson60.googlepages.com/thenoradpapersii
http://deanjackson60.googlepages.com/thenoradpapersiii
http://deanjackson60.googlepages.com/thenoradpapersiv
http://deanjackson60.googlepages.com/thenoradpapersv

Essentially...

"Testifying before the 9/11 Commission General Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the commission in response to a question on NORAD’s failure to anticipate the 9/11 attacks, "I can't answer the hypothetical. It's more - it's the way that we were directed to posture, looking outward." This is utterly false. As we will see below NORAD, since its inception in 1958, was tasked to monitor and intercept aircraft flying over American and Canadian air space seven days a week, 24 hours a day."

Read the articles and the related links and you will see that yes General Myers knowingly lied about this

What kind of aircraft or threat were they supposed to monitor and intercept?

Whats the NORAD tiumeline for when they knew about each aircraft locationwise?

[Dave Rogers]

Did General Richard Myers lie to the 9/11 commission?

No. His words have been very carefully re-interpreted by conspiracy theorists, as have various other statements concerning the role of NORAD, and unsurprisingly it has been possible to come up with extreme interpretations of various statements that make them appear to contradict each other. Any reasonable person would understand that NORAD was first and foremost set up, in the context of the Cold War, to protect the USA against the external threat posed by the USSR, that its organisation and infrastructure was arranged primarily to protect against external threats, and that at the time it was set up even traditional hostage-taking hijackings were not a serious concern. That this mindset persisted right up until 9/11 is regrettable but not surprising; organisational cultures, which is what Myers was really alluding to in his testimony, are very difficult things to change.

Dave

[SteveAustin]

What kind of aircraft or threat were they supposed to monitor and intercept?

Whats the NORAD tiumeline for when they knew about each aircraft locationwise?

So you are in agreement that General Myers lied to the 9/11 commision?

[SteveAustin]

No. His words have been very carefully re-interpreted by conspiracy theorists, as have various other statements concerning the role of NORAD, and unsurprisingly it has been possible to come up with extreme interpretations of various statements that make them appear to contradict each other. Any reasonable person would understand that NORAD was first and foremost set up, in the context of the Cold War, to protect the USA against the external threat posed by the USSR, that its organisation and infrastructure was arranged primarily to protect against external threats, and that at the time it was set up even traditional hostage-taking hijackings were not a serious concern. That this mindset persisted right up until 9/11 is regrettable but not surprising; organisational cultures, which is what Myers was really alluding to in his testimony, are very difficult things to change.

Dave

That is exactly what General Myers implied and it is not what the evidence proves.

Did you actually read the articles and the links to the newspaper articles? I would have to think either you did not or you are willfully ignoring them to avoid the uncomfortable truth.

[Dave Rogers]

Did you actually read the articles and the links to the newspaper articles?

Yes, and in particular I noted the very careful phrasing of the articles so that descriptions of offshore interceptions were made to appear to have taken place over land, the classic conspiracy theorist's deception on this particular point. I also noted that the air sovereignty role is continually misrepresented as relating solely to operations within the land area of the United States, when in fact it clearly relates to the territorial waters of the United States and hence to defence from external threats. As for the repeated references to the role of NORAD in intercepting drug-smugglers, where are we supposed to imagine these drugs are being smuggled from? Nebraska?

Yes, I read the articles, but I'm not a gullible moron. Sorry.

Dave

[16.5]

That is exactly what General Myers implied and it is not what the evidence proves.

Did you actually read the articles and the links to the newspaper articles? I would have to think either you did not or you are willfully ignoring them to avoid the uncomfortable truth.

Uh, I started to, then I got to this line:

"Soviet bombers, missiles or other aerospace vehicles breaching North American borders was just as much of a concern to the political leadership of North America, if not more of a concern, than Soviet bombers, missiles or other aerospace vehicles heading towards North American borders!"

Bolding in original! I think a stundie is in order!! Wow, this guy is a freaking genius! Soviet Bombers "breaching" American airspace was a concern? Gee, ya think so?

I am just as concerned with actually getting hit by a car as I am with a car heading toward me.

Steve? Yeah, your hero is a freaking moron of the highest order.

And No, General Myers did not lie.

[SteveAustin]

Yes, and in particular I noted the very careful phrasing of the articles so that descriptions of offshore interceptions were made to appear to have taken place over land, the classic conspiracy theorist's deception on this particular point. I also noted that the air sovereignty role is continually misrepresented as relating solely to operations within the land area of the United States, when in fact it clearly relates to the territorial waters of the United States and hence to defence from external threats. As for the repeated references to the role of NORAD in intercepting drug-smugglers, where are we supposed to imagine these drugs are being smuggled from? Nebraska?

Yes, I read the articles, but I'm not a gullible moron. Sorry.

Dave

So by this are you saying that NORAD had no responsibility "OVER" the US and Canadian airspace? that is over the continent itself? But simply to patrol in a "doughnut" shape around the US itself? Just like General Myers said?

[SteveAustin]

Uh, I started to, then I got to this line:

"Soviet bombers, missiles or other aerospace vehicles breaching North American borders was just as much of a concern to the political leadership of North America, if not more of a concern, than Soviet bombers, missiles or other aerospace vehicles heading towards North American borders!"

Bolding in original! I think a stundie is in order!! Wow, this guy is a freaking genius! Soviet Bombers "breaching" American airspace was a concern? Gee, ya think so?

I am just as concerned with actually getting hit by a car as I am with a car heading toward me.

Steve? Yeah, your hero is a freaking moron of the highest order.

And No, General Myers did not lie.

Typical response from someone who does not want to see. Are you here trying to claim that heading towards and breaching mean the same thing?

[dtugg]

Typical response from someone who does not want to see. Are you here trying to claim that heading towards and breaching mean the same thing?

Is it a Stundie that Steve doesn't know why the statement makes his hero an idiot?

[Reheat]

So by this are you saying that NORAD had no responsibility "OVER" the US and Canadian airspace? that is over the continent itself? But simply to patrol in a "doughnut" shape around the US itself? Just like General Myers said?

Those are YOUR words, not the words of Gen Myers.

Your hero did not even get the name of the organization correct. There is no Ministry of National Defense in the US and never has been.

If you or your hero had a clue about this subject you would perhaps look at the NORAD equipment and how it was calibrated, but that is not the point here.

Exactly, HOW was NORAD in your or your hero's infinite wisdom supposed to know that aircraft were hijacked? More importantly, what were they suppose to do about it and when were they suppose to do it?

No, Gen Myers did not lie, but your hero's compiled piece of crap indicates that he doesn't understand what he's reading and neither do you.....

[16.5]

Typical response from someone who does not want to see. Are you here trying to claim that heading towards and breaching mean the same thing?

No of course not. "Breaching" airspace is about a brazillion times more serious than heading toward airspace.

You've been reading your idiot pal too long champ. In cold war terms, "heading" toward NORAD controlled airspace: annoying but almost routine occurrence. Breaching airspace: catastrophic WWIII type stuff.

Someone is lying to you, and it ain't the General.

[Redtail]

Typical response from someone who does not want to see. Are you here trying to claim that heading towards and breaching mean the same thing?

:eye-poppi Oh! Just checked my calendar.:D

[SteveAustin]

I also noted that the air sovereignty role is continually misrepresented as relating solely to operations within the land area of the United States, when in fact it clearly relates to the territorial waters of the United States and hence to defence from external threats.

Yes, I read the articles, but I'm not a gullible moron. Sorry.

Dave

From the news article posted at http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3731/is_199709/ai_n8766326/ and linked in the "NORAD Papers"
"Aircraft flying over our air space are monitored seven days a week, 24 hours a day. Much of the identifying process is done by hand."

" "It will enhance our ability to do what many say is the most important job of the Air Force, and that is air sovereignty," said Col Dan Navin, special assistant to the commander of 1st Air Force."

Linked here http://www.npac.syr.edu/projects/civ/vanguard/C2Demo/OPRef.html , also linked to in the "NORAD Papers" it says...

"Identify NORAD's Air Defense Mission
Recall the NORAD Air Defense Mission
The NORAD mission is threefold. NORAD's first responsibility is to provide surveillance and control of the airspace covering North America, specifically the airspace of. Canada and the United States. This mission is based on agreements between the two governments.

The second part of NORAD's mission is to provide the NCAs with tactical warning and attack assessment of an aerospace attack against North America. This information is essential to providing those in command with information to aid them in making decisions on how to respond to an attack against North America.

NORAD's third responsibility is to provide an appropriate response to any form of an air attack. NORAD was created to provide a defense against the threat from air-breathing aircraft, specifically the threat from long-range bombers. However, over the years the threat has changed. Now NORAD must provide an appropriate response to a multitude of threats, to include the air-launched cruise missile (ALCM) and the sea-launched cruise missile (SLCM).

Another threat is the intrusion of NORAD's airspace by drug-carrying aircraft. NORAD has been tasked to provide an appropriate response with whatever assets are needed, whenever such aircraft are suspected or known to be heading towards or operating within the U.S. or Canada. We will discuss this new NORAD mission in your ÒCounternarcoticsÓ lesson."

"Monitoring and controlling the airspace covering North America is called air sovereignty."

Hmmm now I know english is only my first language but that seems pretty unambiguous to me, so why would you try to claim that they had no responsibility over the land area itself?

[GStan]

Did General Richard Myers lie to the 9/11 commission?

It's a set of 5 fairly short articles called the NORAD papers...

http://deanjackson60.googlepages.com/airamerica
<snip>


deanjackson60.googlepages.com also says that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon (http://deanjackson60.googlepages.com/it’sabird!it’saplane!it’snotflight77!), an obvious lie contradicted by all of the physical evidence. When witnesses lie that's bad. I know this because you said this just yesterday:

So if I can come up with proof that one of the top "officials" lied about 9/11 will all of you admit there is reason to suspect all the rest of the evidence? After all in a trial when a witness is proven to have lied about one thing all their other statements are viewed as suspect.

Which would mean a new independent, thorough, complete and transparent investigation is required?

Are we all agreed? If I can prove one lie?

Using the very logic that you proposed, I am suspicious of everything on the site and I demand a new independent, thorough, complete and transparent investigation into this deanjacka$$ person. ;)

[funk de fino]

So you are in agreement that General Myers lied to the 9/11 commision?

No, you just told a lie.

[dtugg]

deanjackson60.googlepages.com also says that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon (http://deanjackson60.googlepages.com/it’sabird!it’saplane!it’snotflight77!), an obvious lie contradicted by all of the physical evidence. When witnesses lie that's bad. I know this because you said this just yesterday:

LOL! Steve's hero cites Ranquisamo! Further proof that he is a complete idiot and nobody need pay attention to him.

[SteveAustin]

deanjackson60.googlepages.com also says that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon (http://deanjackson60.googlepages.com/it’sabird!it’saplane!it’snotflight77!), an obvious lie contradicted by all of the physical evidence. When witnesses lie that's bad. I know this because you said this just yesterday:



Using the very logic that you proposed, I am suspicious of everything on the site and I demand a new independent, thorough, complete and transparent investigation into this deanjacka$$ person. ;)

Except that he uses actually newspaper articles and other links to prove what he says, he does not simply state something with nothing to support what he says. Or are you trying to imply that those military officials quoted in those newspapers and those other official sites are lying?

Is anyone going to actually either admit General Myers lied? As has been proven, or are most of you going to come back with your trademarked "insult" "smear" and "laugh" with a few of you trying to play word games?

[Dave Rogers]

So by this are you saying that NORAD had no responsibility "OVER" the US and Canadian airspace? that is over the continent itself? But simply to patrol in a "doughnut" shape around the US itself? Just like General Myers said?

Reducing relative statements to absolutes is a common misdirection technique used by conspiracy theorists. Myers made it clear that the main focus of NORAD's effort was outwards, not that there was no responsibility over land. When you say I'm claiming, or Myers was claiming, that NORAD had "no responsibility over the land area", you're deliberately misrepresenting. It's called the strawman fallacy, and you're doing a great job of demonstrating it.

Now, as for evidence for Myers' statements: How many interceptions did NORAD make in the ten years before 9/11, and how many of them were over land? Clue: The second number is zero. If NORAD had a major role in intercepting aircraft over land, how come they never had to do it a single time in ten years? And, given that they didn't, is it surprising that this job, that they were never called on to do, became rather neglected as a priority?

Dave

[JihadJane]

General Myers lied.

[dtugg]

So you're a Pentagon no-planer too Steve? I guess we know all we need to know about you.

[Praktik]

Is anyone going to actually either admit General Myers lied?

Why would we admit to something that we do not feel is true?

You're also setting yourself up for failure here: proving someone is "mistaken" is easier than proving someone is "lying" - which implies a conscious willingness to deceive.

The problem is you haven't even been able to demonstrate conclusively that he was "mistaken" - the links you provided did not do so to my satisfaction. Dave Rogers makes a good point in that regard.

Have you looked up the ADIZ's in the link I posted?

[SteveAustin]

So you are in agreement that General Myers lied to the 9/11 commision?

No, you just told a lie.

Mmmmm.... you might want to look at that again and apologize for calling me a liar for asking a question

[johnny karate]

Once again, brave and noble Truthers have bombshell evidence that supposedly proves complicity on the part of the U.S. Government, and what do they do with it? Post it on the Internet and make glib remarks about the self-evidence of their claims. Meanwhile, people they believe facillitated mass murder walk the streets free men.

[ravdin]

What is your point? Are you alleging that General Myers was behind the attack on the Pentagon?

[911files]

Typical response from someone who does not want to see. Are you here trying to claim that heading towards and breaching mean the same thing?

SteveAustin, here you are accusing someone of lying without any evidence of such (other than conjecture). The fact remains, the FAA controls civilian airspace within the United States. If you take the time to listen to the OTIS and Langley related ATC audios, you will find that it was the FAA in control, NOT NORAD. Ultimately, NEADS did take direct control of the fighters, but even when the Langley fighters were scrambled, even with NEADS scrambling them north to DC, the FAA sent them east out over the Atlantic. Why? Because our air defenses WERE pointed outwards, not inwards. NEADS role was to assist the civilian agencies until circumstances dictated more of a military air defense posture rather than a simple hijacking response.

I see we at the NWO wasted our 6 million dollars.

[beachnut]

Mmmmm.... you might want to look at that again and apologize for calling me a liar for asking a question
What does it mean? What is your point? And explain.

You pick the biggest losers for your defense of your 911 delusions.

You have no clue what NORAD mission was and how it goes down ( you don’t understand the military in the USA and why we did not have armed planes over the USA), and no clue why what happen on 911 happen and NORAD was not able to stop it. Your lack of research is your failure and contributed to you lack of knowledge, which contributes to your failed posts.

Stop using idiotic ideas from 911Truth already tested to be pure failure.

[RedIbis]

Hmmm now I know english is only my first language but that seems pretty unambiguous to me, so why would you try to claim that they had no responsibility over the land area itself?

Because a lot of the posters here do not want to admit that Myers completely and unequivocally abdicated his responsibilities on 9/11. He stayed in a meeting with Sen. Max Cleland during the attacks, for a tea party, instead of doing what he was charged to do as acting chair of the Joint Chiefs, which was to advise the president about any and all military resources available to the C in C.

For this he was given the Presidential Medal of Freedom. If I had to name the three people most responsible for allowing the attacks to occur, Myers would be very high on my short list.

[beachnut]

Did General Richard Myers lie to the 9/11 commission?

It's a set of 5 fairly short articles called the NORAD papers...

http://deanjackson60.googlepages.com/airamerica
http://deanjackson60.googlepages.com/thenoradpapersii
http://deanjackson60.googlepages.com/thenoradpapersiii
http://deanjackson60.googlepages.com/thenoradpapersiv
http://deanjackson60.googlepages.com/thenoradpapersv

Essentially...

"Testifying before the 9/11 Commission General Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the commission in response to a question on NORAD’s failure to anticipate the 9/11 attacks, "I can't answer the hypothetical. It's more - it's the way that we were directed to posture, looking outward." This is utterly false. As we will see below NORAD, since its inception in 1958, was tasked to monitor and intercept aircraft flying over American and Canadian air space seven days a week, 24 hours a day."

Read the articles and the related links and you will see that yes General Myers knowingly lied about this
Gen M said the truth, your source is brain-dead zombie stupid on this topic. As your source is wrong and he can’t use his brain to figure out this topic.

[dtugg]

For this he was given the Presidential Medal of Freedom. If I had to name the three people most responsible for allowing the attacks to occur, Myers would be very high on my short list.

Allow the attacks to occur? But you're a MIHOPer Red. Sorry. Excuse me for getting in the way of your outrageous intellectual dishonesty.

[BigAl]

Did General Richard Myers lie to the 9/11 commission?



Yup. NORAD leadership covered up some of what happened on 9/11. Much has come out since. There are a couple links below to the author of a long article that tells what new info came out.

None of the new information changes the basic story; 19 Islamists hijacked 4 commercial 757/767 jets and crashed them and this caused all the damage and destruction on 9/11.

The new information also doesn't show that the FAA and the Air defense organization and pilots did anything but the best they could that day.


Command and Control
The recordings of military commanders on September 11 were the basis for the 9/11 commission report and the film, United 93. But not all those tapes were released to the public. A Vanity Fair writer (and producer on “United 93”) reveals what we missed and how it changes the story.

http://www.wnyc.org/stream/ram?file=/bl/bl080406c.mp3
(from http://www.wnyc.org/shows/bl/episodes/2006/08/04 )

http://www.vanityfair.com/features/general/060801fege01

More interviews here
http://www.wnyc.org/shows/bl/911.html

[johnny karate]

If I had to name the three people most responsible for allowing the attacks to occur, Myers would be very high on my short list.

If I had to name three people whose outrage over this grave injustice is strangely limited to merely complaining on an Internet message board, RedIbis, JihadJane, and SteveAustin would be very high on my short list.

[beachnut]

Because a lot of the posters here do not want to admit that Myers completely and unequivocally abdicated his responsibilities on 9/11. He stayed in a meeting with Sen. Max Cleland during the attacks, for a tea party, instead of doing what he was charged to do as acting chair of the Joint Chiefs, which was to advise the president about any and all military resources available to the C in C.

For this he was given the Presidential Medal of Freedom. If I had to name the three people most responsible for allowing the attacks to occur, Myers would be very high on my short list.
What an extraneous information filled post, which has nothing to do with 911. No wonder you can’t figure out 911. You lost this "who can post the worse information on 911". Steve wins

[911files]

Yup. NORAD leadership covered up some of what happened on 9/11. Much has come out since. There are a couple links below to the author of a long article that tells what new info came out.

None of the new information changes the basic story; 19 Islamists hijacked 4 commercial 757/767 jets and crashed them and this caused all the damage and destruction on 9/11.

The new information also doesn't show that the FAA and the Air defense organization and pilots did anything but the best they could that day.

There is a difference between lying and omission (not necessarily nefarious). Follow-up was done in regards to Myers testimony after the release of the audios (released by the Pentagon by the way) and no evidence of deliberate misrepresentation was discovered. Some testimony "spun" to avoid looking like keystone cops, yes. But that is politics.

[SteveAustin]

So by this are you saying that NORAD had no responsibility "OVER" the US and Canadian airspace? that is over the continent itself? But simply to patrol in a "doughnut" shape around the US itself? Just like General Myers said?

Reducing relative statements to absolutes is a common misdirection technique used by conspiracy theorists. Myers made it clear that the main focus of NORAD's effort was outwards, not that there was no responsibility over land. When you say I'm claiming, or Myers was claiming, that NORAD had "no responsibility over the land area", you're deliberately misrepresenting. It's called the strawman fallacy, and you're doing a great job of demonstrating it.

Except that I was simply asking questions. It is funny to see you accuse me of using your own tactics though, well it would be funny if it was not so sad

Now, as for evidence for Myers' statements: How many interceptions did NORAD make in the ten years before 9/11, and how many of them were over land?

And the relevance of this is? Oh that's right, it really is not relevant, but I'll play your game for now.

Clue: The second number is zero. If NORAD had a major role in intercepting aircraft over land, how come they never had to do it a single time in ten years? And, given that they didn't, is it surprising that this job, that they were never called on to do, became rather neglected as a priority?

Dave

So when you say "Zero" you mean besides Payne Stewart right?

So these people are all liars are they?

http://www.daily.pk/world/americas/99-americas/3865-usa-military-officers-challenge-official-account-of-september-11.html (note I realize this is not specifically about how many intercepts occured and where they occured, but it is tangentially relevant)

But let's go with your comment

given that they didn't, is it surprising that this job, that they were never called on to do, became rather neglected as a priority?

The military neglecting their sworn duty to protect not only their own sovereign airspace but that of another country? A country with which they have agreements to do this exact thing? You can't be seriously proposing this idea?

Considering that...

"NORAD's first responsibility is to provide SURVEILLANCE AND CONTROL of the airspace covering North America, specifically the airspace of Canada and the United States. This mission is based on agreements between the two governments…"

Do you really think that they would have neglected an important mission like this? Heck even without the agreement with another country the mission is still vital and to neglect this is well rather neglectful and those responsible should be held accountable for not doing their jobs(which of course no one was, most people got promotions). But we all know how the military is not neglectful like this, heck the military likes to do many many drills on exactly such scenarios, just like the ones that were being carried out on 9/11 itself, which were held every year (or is it twice a year, I can't recall at the moment)

[Praktik]

Except that I was simply asking questions.

Yes yes. You were "just asking questions". Havent heard that one before... ;)

[911files]

Considering that...

"NORAD's first responsibility is to provide SURVEILLANCE AND CONTROL of the airspace covering North America, specifically the airspace of Canada and the United States. This mission is based on agreements between the two governments…"

Considering that...

You don't even know what that means in real-world terms and have no idea what you are talking about 6-penny man.

[Dave Rogers]

Except that I was simply asking questions. It is funny to see you accuse me of using your own tactics though, well it would be funny if it was not so sad

That's known as the complex question fallacy, where you ask a question that contains an unproven assertion and wait for your opponent to reply. A classic example of the complex question fallacy is your question, "why would you try to claim that they had no responsibility over the land area itself?", when no such claim was being made. Again, I apologise for not being a gullible moron.

So when you say "Zero" you mean besides Payne Stewart right?

I see you know even less than I thought. NORAD didn't intercept Payne Stewart's plane. Perhaps you should do a little more basic research before you start lecturing on the subject.

So these people are all liars are they?

That one's known as the special pleading fallacy.

The military neglecting their sworn duty to protect not only their own sovereign airspace but that of another country? A country with which they have agreements to do this exact thing? You can't be seriously proposing this idea?

Again, the complex question fallacy. I'm not proposing any such idea. I'm suggesting that a mission that had never been seen to be necessary over at least a decade might be considered a very low priority compared to a mission that was necessary almost daily over the same period. Priorities, you know; protect the country against the threats that are clear and present, rather than diluting effort on a mission that's never been needed.

But we all know how the military is not neglectful like this, heck the military likes to do many many drills on exactly such scenarios, just like the ones that were being carried out on 9/11 itself, which were held every year (or is it twice a year, I can't recall at the moment)

I see you've learned all the standard truther mantras. Please feel free to chant them, and don't feel offended if nobody mistakes them for actual verifiable facts.

Dave

[beachnut]

So when you say "Zero" you mean besides Payne Stewart right?
We are still holding at Zero.
Zero, NORAD did not do the intercept! This is like shooting fish in a barrel; you failed to do your homework.

Payne Stewart's plane was intercepted after 80 minutes. Not by NORAD. Just the USAF. There goes your smoking gun. Good job debunking yourself but failing to realize it. Great work.

[DavidJames]

SA's reaction to the Stewart thing will define him. Let's see what happens, although since this path has been traversed many times before, I don't expect much different. Maybe he will surprise me :)

[SteveAustin]

That's known as the complex question fallacy, where you ask a question that contains an unproven assertion and wait for your opponent to reply. A classic example of the complex question fallacy is your question, "why would you try to claim that they had no responsibility over the land area itself?", when no such claim was being made. Again, I apologise for not being a gullible moron.



I see you know even less than I thought. NORAD didn't intercept Payne Stewart's plane. Perhaps you should do a little more basic research before you start lecturing on the subject.



That one's known as the special pleading fallacy.



Again, the complex question fallacy. I'm not proposing any such idea. I'm suggesting that a mission that had never been seen to be necessary over at least a decade might be considered a very low priority compared to a mission that was necessary almost daily over the same period. Priorities, you know; protect the country against the threats that are clear and present, rather than diluting effort on a mission that's never been needed.



I see you've learned all the standard truther mantras. Please feel free to chant them, and don't feel offended if nobody mistakes them for actual verifiable facts.

Dave


Dodge...Weave...Dodge...Insult...Obfuscate...Smear

All common tactics i've seen before.

It is a rather simple situation, General Myers said one thing and that thing he said was wrong, and since he was formerly in a position to know the veracity of his own statement it is not simply a mistake but a lie.

Throwing out all your other little distractions like "how many intercepts" etc... really does nothing for you except of course to try and obfuscate this simple situation.

[lapman]

We are still holding at Zero.
Zero, NORAD did not do the intercept! This is like shooting fish in a barrel; you failed to do your homework.

Payne Stewart's plane was intercepted after 80 minutes. Not by NORAD. Just the USAF. There goes your smoking gun. Good job debunking yourself but failing to realize it. Great work.
The original intercept was requested by ATC directly to the USAF aircraft. The F-16 was already in the air, and it still took 80 minutes to intercept the Lear. Yet twoofers think that in intercept happens in seconds.

[beachnut]

So these people are all liars are they?

http://www.daily.pk/world/americas/99-americas/3865-usa-military-officers-challenge-official-account-of-september-11.html (note I realize this is not specifically about how many intercepts occured and where they occured, but it is tangentially relevant)
No they are idiots.

Please take anything they say about 911 and defend it. You can’t. You failed to read and comprehend the lies, hearsay and pure fantasy they spewed is junk. They are like you and lack evidence or lack the ability to make logical conclusions from your pile of junk.

Have you taken your Pulitzer Prize smoking gun ideas to the appropriate authorities to arrest the culprits? A Spanish inquisition on 911?

Why did you post nut case ideas from a few fringe people?

This is not a dodge or a weave; you lied and I corrected your lie on Stewart. You have failed and are still struggling spewing junk before you explode into knowledge and understanding …

[SteveAustin]

Davidjames, beachnut...the payne stewart incident and the whole "how many intercepts" thing is not relevant to the topic, which was that General Myers lied when he said "it's the way that we were directed to posture, looking outward"

Please tell me how the number of intercepts over the preceding years has any relevance to this topic?

[911files]

Dodge...Weave...Dodge...Insult...Obfuscate...Smear

All common tactics i've seen before.

It is a rather simple situation, General Myers said one thing and that thing he said was wrong, and since he was formerly in a position to know the veracity of his own statement it is not simply a mistake but a lie.

Throwing out all your other little distractions like "how many intercepts" etc... really does nothing for you except of course to try and obfuscate this simple situation.

I think he likes you Dave :) I notice he does not respond to those of us who have listened to all of the recordings for the day (NEADS and FAA) and spent hundreds of hours working with all of the radar data (RADES and FAA). No, he would rather throw insults at you.

Let us know when you really want to know what happened 6 penny man.

[Disbelief]

Davidjames, beachnut...the payne stewart incident and the whole "how many intercepts" thing is not relevant to the topic, which was that General Myers lied when he said "it's the way that we were directed to posture, looking outward"

Please tell me how the number of intercepts over the preceding years has any relevance to this topic?

Then why did you bring it up?

[DavidJames]

Davidjames, beachnut...the payne stewart incident and the whole "how many intercepts" thing is not relevant to the topic, which was that General Myers lied when he said "it's the way that we were directed to posture, looking outward"

Please tell me how the number of intercepts over the preceding years has any relevance to this topic?
So when you say "Zero" you mean besides Payne Stewart right?

So these people are all liars are they?

http://www.daily.pk/world/americas/99-americas/3865-usa-military-officers-challenge-official-account-of-september-11.html (note I realize this is not specifically about how many intercepts occured and where they occured, but it is tangentially relevant)
Amazing - you've shown your true colors CT boy. You bring up "evidence", are beaten down by it, and then run away from it like the intellectual coward you are. Goodbye troll.

[ElMondoHummus]

Mother of God... not NORAD claims again. What claim is SteveAustin resurrecting this time? Is he pitching the whole idea of "NORAD Stood Down" at once, or is he just trying to step into it slowly by saying NORAD should have intercepted the jets?

Basic - and just for emphasis, so people understand, BASIC i.e. beginning, prerequisite, necessary - reading in order to understand the situation with US air defense on that day:
The NORAD Response to 911 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=70300)
Timeline - FAA/NORAD response (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1845150&postcount=1)
Vanity Fair: The NORAD Tapes (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/08/norad200608)
Q&A With 9/11 Boston Center Air Traffic Controller (http://911guide.googlepages.com/cs)
9/11 Myths page listing the common NORAD conspiracy fantasies (http://911myths.com/html/stand_down.html)
Gravy's page: Info on NORAD, FAA, NTSB... etc. (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/norad,faa,ntsb,aircraftcapabilities,pilo)

Bottom line to lurkers and newbies: People often reintroduce the claim that the US air defense should have intercepted the jets and stopped 9/11 from occuring. Some go so far as to say that NORAD was "Stood Down" i.e. ordered into a lesser state or readiness. These myths often stem from misunderstandings (or outright distortions) of NORAD's mission to facetious claims about what other entities consider to be NORAD's duties. The fact of the matter is:

NORAD did NOT have authority to conduct intercepts at will inside the US borders. Rather, their assistance had to be requested. Andrew Burfield's "The NORAD Response to 9/11 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=70300)" presents the facts that make this quite clear. As he has pointed out: The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) is responsible for the intercept of aircraft inside the ADIZ. However, as it is the FAA and Transport Canada that handle the ADIZ clearances, a request for intercept from one of these agencies precedes any action by NORAD against civilian aircraft. NORAD do not, and never have, directly monitored air traffic inside the ADIZ themselves. The FAA documents supporting this are linked at the page linked above.


Regardless of authority or standing orders - which again, is information gathered and republished at Gumboot's link above - the fact remains that the FAA was having trouble getting a handle on the situation with enough clarity to conduct any sort of intercept. This is patently clear from a study of the NORAD tapes (refer to Vanity Fair article above), and made explicity clear with Andrew Burfield's timeline (also linked above). The time NEADS (the Northeast Air Defense Sector component of NORAD) had between getting notification of the hijackings and those jets crashing were: http://www.randi.org/latexrender/latex.php?\begin{center}\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l |}\hline FLIGHT & HIJACKING & NEADS NOTIFIED & CRASH & INTERCEPT WINDOW \\\hline AA11 & 0813 & 0837 & 0846 & +9 minutes\\\hline UA175 & 0852 & 0903 & 0903 & 0 minutes\\\hline AA77 & 0856 & 0935 & 0937 & +2 minutes\\\hline UA93 & 0939 & 1007 & 1003 & -4 minutes\\\hline\end{tabular}\end{center}


As Andrew said in summary:
NORAD's area of responsibility is inside the ADIZ
The Hijackings occurred outside the ADIZ
There was no standard procedure for hijackings outside the ADIZ on 9/11
From 1991 to 2001 only one military intercept occurred over CONUS airspace (Note: This was the famous "Payne Stewart's jet" (http://911myths.com/html/payne_stewart.html) intercept). It took 81 minutes and the aircraft transponder remained on at all times.
Incident-specific conditions on 9/11 did not favour a successful intercept, based on previous experience.



The information linked above is necessary context that you'll need to judge any of the conspiracy fantasy claims forwarded by any truther here. I'll leave the refutation of the specifics of this claim to others better informed than me; Reheat and Beachnut have US Air Force experience, and can more readily address details than I. And Andrew Burfield (aka Gumboot) has studied this topic to greater detail; if he chooses to participate, you would benefit from paying close attention to what he posts. Others, too, will have valuable information to chime in with. The point I'm making is that any of you lurkers and new folks should study the information I've listed above - yes, it's dense; my apologies, but it can't be helped. There's simply a lot of information that's necessary to develop the proper context - and use that as background with which to judge the claim-of-the-week recycled by the truther-of-the-month in this thread. And you can also use the search function to look up old threads; I particularly urge you to search for "NORAD" and "Gumboot", although also using terms like "NEADS", "stood down", "ADIZ" and the like will produce results.

Bottom line: Please pay attention to the basic informational links I've provided. It's good information painstakingly assembled by rational individuals interested in the real truth, not the conspiratorial, fantasy "truth" pitched by conspiracy peddlers.

[SteveAustin]

No they are idiots.

Please take anything they say about 911 defend it. You can’t. You failed to read and comprehend the lies, hearsay and pure fantasy they spewed is junk. They are like you and lack evidence or lack the ability to make logical conclusions from your pile of junk.

Have you taken your Pulitzer Prize smoking gun ideas to the appropriate authorities to arrest the culprits? A Spanish inquisition on 911?

Why did you post nut case ideas from a few fringe people?

This is not a dodge or a weave; you lied and I corrected your lie on Stewart. You have failed and are still struggling spewing junk before you explode into knowledge and understanding …


So if I am lieing and if all those people at that link are lieing then what they and I are doing is defamation of character and we should be sued. Why are no OCT supporters bringing defamation suits to court to prevent these smears?

Also you claim it is all hearsay with a total lack of evidence...well I noticed in all of your replies you certainly provided counter evidence yes? Err...well actually no you didnt, you did the smear and insult instead...GOOD FOR YOU

[johnny karate]

Dodge...Weave...Dodge...Insult...Obfuscate...Smear

All common tactics i've seen before.

It is a rather simple situation, General Myers said one thing and that thing he said was wrong, and since he was formerly in a position to know the veracity of his own statement it is not simply a mistake but a lie.

Throwing out all your other little distractions like "how many intercepts" etc... really does nothing for you except of course to try and obfuscate this simple situation.

It's clear nothing anyone here says will change your mind. Even when your obvious mistakes are pointed out, you blithely continue on your predetermined path.

So the question becomes: What are you going to do about it? Assuming what you say is true and can be proven, what constructive action will you be taking as a result? Or are you just another keyboard warrior lacking the courage of your convictions to peel yourself away from your computer and see to it that people who perpetrated a horrific crime are brought to justice?

[ElMondoHummus]

Oh: Yes, I understand that I'm not directly addressing the specifics of the OP. That's on purpose. Rather, as I said above, I'm providing context, or if you prefer, background information. As well as resources for other readers to use if they're not familiar with the NORAD/Air Defense/"Stood Down" claims.

[beachnut]

Davidjames, beachnut...the payne stewart incident and the whole "how many intercepts" thing is not relevant to the topic, which was that General Myers lied when he said "it's the way that we were directed to posture, looking outward"

Please tell me how the number of intercepts over the preceding years has any relevance to this topic?
You lied about Stewart, why? Did you lie on purpose? Was it lack of knowledge?

Myers is right we looked outward. NOT A LIE, we in the USAF knew we looked OUTWARD, it was where the Bears come from. Darn, this is too easy, after over 32 years of ROTC and service in the USAF I know NORAD did look outward! Wow



We never trained to shoot down airliners about to hit buildings and we never were able to read minds of hijackers to know they were going to hit buildings. We were not trained to read minds. We were not trained to instantly follow hijacked planes we did not know were hijacked, the hijackers failed to tell us. Fact: on 911 NORAD quickly was in position to take action and find more hijacked aircraft, but the 911 attacks stopped with the terrorist failure on Flight 93, the exact time it takes to figure out 911 was done by Flight 93 heroes. You can’t do it in 7 years; tsk, tsk.

Meyer is right we looked outward to meet the mission statement you posted but you can’t figure this out due to lack of knowledge and experience, and the fact someone else told you so. You are repeating the failed ideas of other people without checking the facts or using logic. You bring lies, you are the liar.

[SteveAustin]

Amazing - you've shown your true colors CT boy. You bring up "evidence", are beaten down by it, and then run away from it like the intellectual coward you are. Goodbye troll.

Exactly my point, you post something off-topic and then claim I am running away.

You post something off-topic that has zero relevance to the issue at hand and when confronted with this you instead insult and smear. GOOD JOB

[SteveAustin]

It's clear nothing anyone here says will change your mind. Even when your obvious mistakes are pointed out, you blithely continue on your predetermined path.

Pot...Kettle...Black

So the question becomes: What are you going to do about it? Assuming what you say is true and can be proven, what constructive action will you be taking as a result? Or are you just another keyboard warrior lacking the courage of your convictions to peel yourself away from your computer and see to it that people who perpetrated a horrific crime are brought to justice?

This is a standard OCT distraction. It is totally irrelevant to this discussion but it sure sounds like a good smear doesn't it

[dudalb]

Dodge...Weave...Dodge...Insult...Obfuscate...Smear

All common tactics i've seen before.

I agree.
That is the standard 9/11 Truther method of operation. And we have seen plenty of it here.

[Disbelief]

Exactly my point, you post something off-topic and then claim I am running away.

You post something off-topic that has zero relevance to the issue at hand and when confronted with this you instead insult and smear. GOOD JOB

How can this be when you are the one who brought Payne Stewart into the discussion? If you did not want to discuss him, why did you bring him up?

So when you say "Zero" you mean besides Payne Stewart right?

[TexasJack]

So if I am lieing and if all those people at that link are lieing then what they and I are doing is defamation of character and we should be sued. Why are no OCT supporters bringing defamation suits to court to prevent these smears?

Also you claim it is all hearsay with a total lack of evidence...well I noticed in all of your replies you certainly provided counter evidence yes? Err...well actually no you didnt, you did the smear and insult instead...GOOD FOR YOU

You're of ignorant of the law as well SA. In order to prove defamation of character it must be against an actual person, and as far as I can tell, only Bowman names a person, Cheney. Since he is a public figure, you must prove actual malice, a very difficult standard to prove in a court of law.

[DavidJames]

How can this be when you are the one who brought Payne Stewart into the discussion? If you did not want to discuss him, why did you bring him up?I think you may need to be updating your sig soon ;)

[Disbelief]

I think you may need to be updating your sig soon ;)

Probably with more than one.

[beachnut]

So if I am lieing and if all those people at that link are lieing then what they and I are doing is defamation of character and we should be sued. Why are no OCT supporters bringing defamation suits to court to prevent these smears?

Also you claim it is all hearsay with a total lack of evidence...well I noticed in all of your replies you certainly provided counter evidence yes? Err...well actually no you didnt, you did the smear and insult instead...GOOD FOR YOU
Lack of knowledge, you will get off for being stupid on this topic. Incompetence, can be your defense. You can say you were repeating hearsay, and that is true. Good for you.

Look at your failure with Stewart's plane, total junk. You will not be sued because you have only lied due to lack of knowledge and no ability to form rational conclusions based on sound judgment and logic, all due to no knowledge on the subject. Not a crime to be stupid and make up junk ideas on 911.

The General is right we looked outward, you are not right you believe junk.

The list of military men you presented are full of junk ideas and you failed to defend one of their failed ideas.

Present one thing from your list of people you have evidence on. I am telling you that you failed to back up the list of junk ideas with evidence. You failed to present your case. You presented people and their lies, hearsay and fantasy. You can’t defend their failed ideas with evidence. You only said here see this, and I am telling you they are full of junk, you say no, but you fail to bring up a single thing they got right.
http://www.daily.pk/world/americas/99-americas/3865-usa-military-officers-challenge-official-account-of-september-11.html

Looks more like the CIA trying to get the terrorist to make claims of how stupid Americans are and have the terrorist speak up so we can find them. lol (oops)

[johnny karate]

This is a standard OCT distraction. It is totally irrelevant to this discussion but it sure sounds like a good smear doesn't it

There is no discussion. No one on either side of the issue is going to budge. The only difference is that you, RedIbis, and JihadJane are claiming it is demonstrable that a high ranking official in the U.S. Government allowed the deaths of 3000 people through a gross dereliction of duty. And yet none of you seem all that interested in doing anything about it.

This week in London, 12,000 people protested because they are upset about the economy. You're talking about mass murder. Your lack of motivation to see justice done is puzzling, if not outright cowardice.

Continuing to argue Truther talking points that most people here dismissed long ago doesn't change that.

[911files]

Also you claim it is all hearsay with a total lack of evidence...well I noticed in all of your replies you certainly provided counter evidence yes? Err...well actually no you didnt, you did the smear and insult instead...GOOD FOR YOU

6 penny man, you are really starting to irritate me. Go to AAL77.COM and spend a few days, weeks, months listening to not only the NORAD audios, but the FAA audios as well. Were mistakes made on 9/11? You bet. But there was NO plan on the table for what happened on that day. Never in their wildest dreams did NEADS or the fighter jockey's ever imagine they would be doing a combat mission over their own homes defending their families against commercial airlines turned into missiles by a bunch of crazies. But with no plan in place, they improvised and adapted to the situation. Not at the General Myers level, but at the grunt level. And that is the success story of the United States Military on 9/11. They were trained to take the inititative and the brass stood out of their way and let them do their job.

12:35:09 k90 cape approach
12:35:10 zbw hey cape um dan bueno from boston center
1235:12 k90 yes
1235:13 zbw i have a situation with american eleven a possible hijack
1235:16 k90 american eleven
1235:17 zbw yes sir departed boston going to l a x right now he’s south of albany i’d like to scramble some fighters to go tail him
1235:23 k90 oh okay well we’ll talk to otis here
1235:26 zbw okay an uh a just put a fl uh if you want just depart and uh we’ll put a flight plan in for him and uh we’ll aim him towards uh hampton direct
1235:33 unk pickup the phone
1235:34 unk american eleven
1235:35 k90 okay i’ll talk to these guys over here see what we can do
1235:37 zbw okay
1235:38 k90 an uh right now he’s on the ground at albany
1235:39 zbw uh no no no no no he’s uh right now southwest of alb he he’s airborne about forty to the south of albany primary only
1235:47 k90 ah okay (unintelligible) i’ll ah i’ll talk to them right now and who’s this here
1235:51 zbw dan bueno from boston center t m u
1235:53 k90 dan (unintelligible) t m u okay
1235:55 zbw all right
1235:56 k90 all right t j
1235:57 zbw all right
1236:08 fmh tower
1236:09 k90 hey tower just to let you know there’s a possible hijacking of american flight eleven and ah we’re we’re in the process right now of boston t m u in the center is t trying to get a couple of fighters scrambled to get up and follow em
1236:20 fmh okay
1236:21 k90 all right thank you for your heads up
1236:22 fmh yup
1236:23 k90 hey ah who who can i call over there to at ops to give them that information do you know or have any
1236:27 fmh uh
1236:28 k90 contacts
1236:29 fmh uh uh well base ops and command post command post with the sof desk would be four three three zero
1236:33 k90 four three three zero
1236:34 fmh yep
1236:35 k90 okay thanks
1236:36 fmh all right
1241:28 fmh towers on
1241:29 k90 cape approach is on
1241:30 htr giantkiller
1241:31 gkr (unintelligible)
1241:32 htr this is huntress placing panta four five four six on battlestations i repeat battlestations time one two four one authenticate hotel romeo all parties acknowledge with initials
1241:48 htr command post
1241:51 htr giantkiller
1241:52 htr tower
1241:53 fmh j l
1241:54 htr approach
1241:55 k90 tango juliet and you say again the callsign
1241:57 htr panta papa alpha november tango alpha four five four six
1242:02 k90 all right tango juliet
1242:04 htr juliet papa all parties are cleared to drop
1242:37 k90 line clear
1242:52 k90 yeah four five and four si
1243:07 zbw t m u
1243:08 k90 yeah it’s cape tracon
1243:10 k90 is dan there
1243:11 zbw that’s me
1243:12 k90 hey uh we just i just talked to otis here and they said they needed ah neeads authorization
1243:15 zbw we’re uh working with nee ads to see if uh that it should be calling now over there
1243:18 k90 okay just to let you know we okay gotta call on a panta p a n t a
1243:23 zbw uh huh
1243:24 k90 papa alpha november tango alpha four five
1243:25 zbw yep
1243:26 k90 an four six flight of two they’ll be airborne soon
1243:29 zbw great thank you
1243:30 k90 all right t j
1244:37 zbw t m u on the forty one
1244:39 k90 cape tracons on
1244:40 zbw you said panta four six
1244:42 k90 four five or four six
1244:43 zbw okay
1244:44 k90 and four six yeah
1244:45 zbw okay got it
1244:46 k90 all right t j
1244:47 zbw (unintelligible)
1246:46 htr approach
1246:47 k90 approach is on
1246:48 htr this is huntress with an active air defense scramble for panta four five four six time one two four six authenticate delta xray scramble immediately panta four five four six heading two eight zero flight level two niner zero contact huntress on frequency two two eight decimal niner back up three six four decimal two all parties acknowledge with initials
1247:18 htr command post
1247:20 htr tower
1247:21 fmh j l in the tower
1247:22 htr approach
1247:23 k90 tango juliet
1247:24 htr giant killer
1247:26 htr all parties are cleared to drop juliet papa here
1247:55 k90 line clear

Entire transcript (http://aal77.com/faa/faa_atc/otis/5%20K90%2033%20NINEELEVEN%20TRANSCRIPT.DOC)


This entire exchange is OUTSIDE normal procedure. But people at the FAA at the lower levels recognized the threat and bypassed the normal channels to ask for fighter support. Otis and NEADS worked outside the normal channels to get them the help they needed, even before they understood the nature of the threat (they learned like the rest of us from CNN after launch that the WTC was hit by the plane). Yet within 12 minutes, these guys used the "back door" and were able to get fighters into the air with mission unknown. Again, these were grunt level people adapting to a very fluid and unknown situation.

I am a civilian who has never served in the military. However, after three years of researching the military response, I am quite proud of these guys. Go do your homework and stop maligning the finest military in the world that performed magnificently on 9/11 to defend their homes and families (you seem to forget that was what they were doing).

[SteveAustin]

Hummus, Praktik...the whole ADIZ thing is the only thing so far that has been posted on this thread that actually challenges my initial assertions and something I will have to read more thoroughly and do some investigation when I have time.

Having said that however I do have an initial reaction/comment on this.

Are you guys stating, and is it the assertion of the US military/NORAD that they did not bother to protect the airspace over the land area itself? Serious question, and if that is answered in the links then I will read it when I get to it but I have not had the time to read it yet (I'm actually busy at work today :) )

I ask this because aircraft hijacks are a fairly common thing (relatively speaking) and using them as missiles is not unheard of (world war 2 kamikazi pilots comes to mind), heck there was even such a scenario of a hijacked aircraft being used to crash into the pentagon (I will find that link later if you really want but I do recall the picture with Rice standing in the background of a model pentagon with a crashed airplane in the middle of it)

My point is, does this ADIZ thing imply that they did not bother to watch out for a potential hijack from within the US or Canada? Because that makes no sense from a defense point of view. The military would not be so lax as to neglect the defense of the airspace over their own territory would they?

Or does this ADIZ thing mean they they looked PRIMARILY "outwards" but still looked inwards as well? In which case they still have no excuse. Since just because something is not a priority does not mean it does not get done.

[SteveAustin]

How can this be when you are the one who brought Payne Stewart into the discussion? If you did not want to discuss him, why did you bring him up?

I did not bring up the subject of intercepts, the payne stewar incident is under the subject of intercept.

So you are wrong, I did not bring up that subject

[SteveAustin]

There is no discussion. No one on either side of the issue is going to budge. The only difference is that you, RedIbis, and JihadJane are claiming it is demonstrable that a high ranking official in the U.S. Government allowed the deaths of 3000 people through a gross dereliction of duty. And yet none of you seem all that interested in doing anything about it.

This week in London, 12,000 people protested because they are upset about the economy. You're talking about mass murder. Your lack of motivation to see justice done is puzzling, if not outright cowardice.

Continuing to argue Truther talking points that most people here dismissed long ago doesn't change that.

And your assumptions that I simply sit behind my computer typing away without doing anything concrete is based on what? Oh ya, nothing, but the assertion sure sounds good doesn't it!

[Disbelief]

I ask this because aircraft hijacks are a fairly common thing (relatively speaking) and using them as missiles is not unheard of (world war 2 kamikazi pilots comes to mind), heck there was even such a scenario of a hijacked aircraft being used to crash into the pentagon (I will find that link later if you really want but I do recall the picture with Rice standing in the background of a model pentagon with a crashed airplane in the middle of it)



Relative to what? When was the last hijacking of a plane in the US before September 11, 2001?

I did not bring up the subject of intercepts, the payne stewar incident is under the subject of intercept.

So you are wrong, I did not bring up that subject

When someone stated that there were zero intercepts, you brought up Payne Stewart. If it was off topic, you should have said so and not bothered replying. However, you thought you could score some imaginary points and brought up Payne Stewart. You are the one who brought him up, and you were wrong. Talk about dodging and weaving. Why not just admit you were wrong.

[Reheat]

I did not bring up the subject of intercepts, the payne stewar incident is under the subject of intercept.

So you are wrong, I did not bring up that subject

YOU are an unadulterated intellectually dishonest LIAR.

Go away and don't come back with your blatant shift from slanderous accusations to just asking questions to cowardice. Please, stop breathing, you're stealing oxygen from the rest of the rational human race......

[Carll68]

[QUOTE=SteveAustin;4574468]H

I ask this because aircraft hijacks are a fairly common thing (relatively speaking) and using them as missiles is not unheard of (world war 2 kamikazi pilots comes to mind),

So, SA, Did the kamikazi Pilots use commercial airliners hijacked within Soveirgn airspace and crash them into US landmarks?

if not, then what is your point with this reference?

[Carll68]

"heck there was even such a scenario of a hijacked aircraft being used to crash into the pentagon (I will find that link later if you really want but I do recall the picture with Rice standing in the background of a model pentagon with a crashed airplane in the middle of it)" -SA

Really champ..you sure that scenario was of a Hi-Jacked aircraft?

Oh My

[SteveAustin]

I am a civilian who has never served in the military. However, after three years of researching the military response, I am quite proud of these guys. Go do your homework and stop maligning the finest military in the world that performed magnificently on 9/11 to defend their homes and families (you seem to forget that was what they were doing).

Mmmm I actually work for the military as a civilian contractor (and no I will not provide any proof as it doesn't matter if you believe me or not and any proof I provide would be a violation of my security clearance), and I do have a lot of respect for the military (generally speaking of course)

but your assertion that...

performed magnificently on 9/11 to defend their homes and families

...seems a little misplaced, as they failed not once, not twice, but failed 4 times in one day to intercept any of the hijacked aircraft and prevent the "terrorist" from completing their mission. So I guess your definition of "performed magnificently" is a little different than most other people.

[johnny karate]

I did not bring up the subject of intercepts, the payne stewar incident is under the subject of intercept.

So you are wrong, I did not bring up that subject

But you sure seemed content to discuss it. At least up to the point when you were proven embarrassingly wrong about the most basic of information and we all laughed at you.

[Carll68]

Failing to intercept surprise hijacked aircraft based on the limited information they had, and failing outright, are 2 completely different things Slick.

[dtugg]

Mmmm I actually work for the military as a civilian contractor (and no I will not provide any proof as it doesn't matter if you believe me or not and any proof I provide would be a violation of my security clearance), and I do have a lot of respect for the military (generally speaking of course).

What do you do? Work as a janitor on a military base?

[911files]

...seems a little misplaced, as they failed not once, not twice, but failed 4 times in one day to intercept any of the hijacked aircraft and prevent the "terrorist" from completing their mission. So I guess your definition of "performed magnificently" is a little different than most other people.


Nope, only 3 made it. Number 4 was doomed and would have never reached its target. You might want to read Lynn Spencer's "Touching History". And no, "most other people" agree with me (those who actually know what they are talking about).

[Carll68]

Originally Posted by SteveAustin
I did not bring up the subject of intercepts, the payne stewar incident is under the subject of intercept.

So you are wrong, I did not bring up that subject



Uh-Huh. However, you did bring up the Payne Stewart incident.

How did you fare on that?

[johnny karate]

And your assumptions that I simply sit behind my computer typing away without doing anything concrete is based on what?

Your complete and total lack of real-world impact.

[BigAl]

Mmmm I actually work for the military as a civilian contractor (and no I will not provide any proof as it doesn't matter if you believe me or not and any proof I provide would be a violation of my security clearance), and I do have a lot of respect for the military (generally speaking of course)

but your assertion that...

...seems a little misplaced, as they failed not once, not twice, but failed 4 times in one day to intercept any of the hijacked aircraft and prevent the "terrorist" from completing their mission. So I guess your definition of "performed magnificently" is a little different than most other people.

Then you owe it to your mates in uniform for you to understand the standard story in great detail before you say that any of them failed to do some task or that their leaders didn't do what was possible with what information they had as the very confusing morning of 9/11 unfolded.

If you persist in this thread, your will be educated in great detail about what happened on 9/11.



Mr. ShortPants, is this your sockpuppet?

[lapman]

I ask this because aircraft hijacks are a fairly common thing (relatively speaking)How may hijacks have occurred over US territory?
and using them as missiles is not unheard of (world war 2 kamikazi pilots comes to mind),Not airliners with passengers. Who were we at war with in 2001?
heck there was even such a scenario of a hijacked aircraft being used to crash into the pentagon (I will find that link later if you really want but I do recall the picture with Rice standing in the background of a model pentagon with a crashed airplane in the middle of it)100% lie. Since the pentagon is very near the approach/departure of a major international airport, it is possible that a disabled airliner could crash into it. That is what the drill was based on. Source (http://www.911myths.com/html/hijacking_drill.html)

My point is, does this ADIZ thing imply that they did not bother to watch out for a potential hijack from within the US or Canada? Because that makes no sense from a defense point of view. The military would not be so lax as to neglect the defense of the airspace over their own territory would they?How many hijackings have occurred originating within US airspace that would require the military being alert for them? Do you always were a helmet to protect you from a Bald Eagle attack?

[Praktik]

Hummus, Praktik...the whole ADIZ thing is the only thing so far that has been posted on this thread that actually challenges my initial assertions and something I will have to read more thoroughly and do some investigation when I have time.

Having said that however I do have an initial reaction/comment on this.


Wow. This is completely unexpected and I commend you on your ability to at least consider a course-correction.

That being said with reference to whether NORAD should have been set up for non-ADIZ monitoring/intercepts I think is missing the fact that the FAA had authority and responsibility for those kinds of situations. It definitely was not unheard of but like most hijackings - the expectation was that there would be a list of demands or a flight to a non-extradition treaty place rather than the end game being ramming the flights into civilian areas.

We can debate whether they should have been set up for that capability but that doesn't change the fact they weren't in fact set up for that in the first place.

I'll let Hummus respond in more detail because his knowledge and experience on these issues far exceeds mine and to be honest I learned a lot of what I know on this day from his posts here...

[SteveAustin]

[QUOTE=SteveAustin;4574468]H

I ask this because aircraft hijacks are a fairly common thing (relatively speaking) and using them as missiles is not unheard of (world war 2 kamikazi pilots comes to mind),

So, SA, Did the kamikazi Pilots use commercial airliners hijacked within Soveirgn airspace and crash them into US landmarks?

if not, then what is your point with this reference?

["heck there was even such a scenario of a hijacked aircraft being used to crash into the pentagon (I will find that link later if you really want but I do recall the picture with Rice standing in the background of a model pentagon with a crashed airplane in the middle of it)" -SA

Really champ..you sure that scenario was of a Hi-Jacked aircraft?

Oh My

Dave are you going to jump in here and mention the rather "extreme interpretations of various statements" like you did for me and for 9/11 truthers in general? Or do you not call your fellow OCT'ers on this when they do it? No worries, I do understand why you would not want to call them on this.

Carl, really. So no one can come up with a scenario of a commercial airplane being used as a missile from the historical use of fighter planes being used as missiles? Really? And did I say that the scenario where Rice was standing in the background was a hijacked plane? Note that I have not said it is not either, but you are really making some rather extreme interpretations of my statements here, don't ya think buddy?

[Dumb All Over]

And your assumptions that I simply sit behind my computer typing away without doing anything concrete is based on what? Oh ya, nothing, but the assertion sure sounds good doesn't it!
This response might lead one to believe you are not just sitting behind your computer typing away but, rather, taking definitive, concrete action.

Please, would you mind telling us what concrete action, other than sitting behind your keyboard typing away, you are engaged in?

[Carll68]

And did I say that the scenario where Rice was standing in the background was a hijacked plane? Note that I have not said it is not either, but you are really making some rather extreme interpretations of my statements here, don't ya think buddy?


Um--yup.

[Carll68]

[QUOTE=Carll68;4574515]



And did I say that the scenario where Rice was standing in the background was a hijacked plane?


Um--yup--you did....see post above.

[SteveAustin]

How many hijackings have occurred originating within US airspace that would require the military being alert for them? Do you always were a helmet to protect you from a Bald Eagle attack?

So essentially what you are saying is that because there were no hijacked aircraft originating from within US airspace previously that it was OK for the US military and for NORAD to neglect not only their duty but to neglect the agreement they had with another country? Is that what you are implying?

Because it is not standard practice for the military to neglect something just because the scenario in question has not happened before.

[Carll68]

Originally Posted by SteveAustin


I ask this because aircraft hijacks are a fairly common thing (relatively speaking) and using them as missiles is not unheard of (world war 2 kamikazi pilots comes to mind),.

So you are saying two things

1) Hijacked commercial airliners are a farily common thing, relatively speaking (Relative to what)?
and
2) During WWII, Kamikaze pilots often used there own zeros as weapons

Good for you Chief! Now, explain how any of this garbage has anything to do with the events of 9/11

[911files]

So essentially what you are saying is that because there were no hijacked aircraft originating from within US airspace previously that it was OK for the US military and for NORAD to neglect not only their duty but to neglect the agreement they had with another country? Is that what you are implying?

Because it is not standard practice for the military to neglect something just because the scenario in question has not happened before.

Again, the US military and/or NORAD did NOT neglect their duty on 9/11. So this is an assinine question in the first place.

[SteveAustin]

[QUOTE=SteveAustin;4574556]


Um--yup--you did....see post above.

LOL you are right, but I did not mean to because I knew it wasnt, and my second mention of it I simply said "a crashed airplane" and not a "crashed hijacked airplane" might have clued you in to this...but you can interpret a typo any way you like, since you will anyway.

[lapman]

So essentially what you are saying is that because there were no hijacked aircraft originating from within US airspace previously that it was OK for the US military and for NORAD to neglect not only their duty but to neglect the agreement they had with another country? Is that what you are implying?

Because it is not standard practice for the military to neglect something just because the scenario in question has not happened before.
Why would they be on the constant lookout for something that has never happened before? Again, why was NORAD created? Do you want to post a pic of your anti-Bald Eagle attack helmet? While you're at it, please post how they would be able to intercept an aircraft that crashed in the past. One more thing, prior to 9/11, why were aircraft hijacked?

[Carll68]

I will ask you again Steve, since you have related WWII Kamikaze pilots to the events of 9/11, in an attempt to make the point that Hijacked commercial airliners being used as weapons inside soveirgn airspace should be a priority

during WWII, who hijacked commercial airliners inside US airspace and attempted to utilize them as weapons against US landmarks?

[beachnut]

Mmmm I actually work for the military as a civilian contractor (and no I will not provide any proof as it doesn't matter if you believe me or not and any proof I provide would be a violation of my security clearance), and I do have a lot of respect for the military (generally speaking of course)

but your assertion that...



...seems a little misplaced, as they failed not once, not twice, but failed 4 times in one day to intercept any of the hijacked aircraft and prevent the "terrorist" from completing their mission. So I guess your definition of "performed magnificently" is a little different than most other people.
I thought the guys who cut the grass at our bases were smarter and thought for themselves?

911files post is the word. Gumboot has a lot of good info too, but that takes research that you admit you have not done, you seem to just discovered the ADIZ.

[Carll68]

Good for you STeve-O..admitting you are wrong is the 1st step toward understanding the truth..

So, you thus admit MASCAL did not replicate a commercial airliner hijacked inside US airspace impacting the pentagon....so, you have no point with the reference....

Now, what say you about your Payne Stewart Gaffe earlier?

[dudalb]

There is no discussion. No one on either side of the issue is going to budge. The only difference is that you, RedIbis, and JihadJane are claiming it is demonstrable that a high ranking official in the U.S. Government allowed the deaths of 3000 people through a gross dereliction of duty. And yet none of you seem all that interested in doing anything about it.

This week in London, 12,000 people protested because they are upset about the economy. You're talking about mass murder. Your lack of motivation to see justice done is puzzling, if not outright cowardice.

Continuing to argue Truther talking points that most people here dismissed long ago doesn't change that.

Good points, though from what I have seen of the London protestors they are not exactly a good example of rational political and economic thinking.

[Pinch]

Read the articles and the related links and you will see that yes General Myers knowingly lied about this

Haven't you ever heard the phrase "Best to not open your mouth and have everyone assume you are an idiot than to open it up and remove all doubt"? You just removed all doubt.

What Gen Meyers testified to is was exactly what was happening - it was distilled down to an elementary level, "we were looking out and not within", but unfortunately that elementary level still too high for your understanding. NORAD was tasked with looking out for and defending against Soviet bombers coming from outside the US. Whatever requirements, if any, NORAD has/had within the continental boundaries of the US and Canada with regards to aviation concerns were always secondary to OUTCONUS threats, and with the reductions in and downsizing of bases, units, aircraft on alert, etc with the demise of the Soviet Union, the entire NORAD footprint was significantly reduced. With the entire NORAD alert and alert jet posture down to just a handful of F-15's and F-16's at just a handful of bases and when examined in conjunction with what actually occurred on 9/11, Meyer's comments were correct.

Where did the scrambled fighters go immediately after launch? Off shore, to marshall and await further instructions. Why were their marshall areas off shore? That was where, historically and tactically, the threat was always coming from. Having alert aircraft in the air without specific guidance in an emergency where air power could be used is always better than having aircraft on the ground without specific guidance in an emergency where air power could be used.

And in closing, have you, Stevie, ever been to Cheyenne Mountain? Ever had a tour and a briefing on NORAD's responsibilities? Do you think your little Internet buddy who's bozo no-planer truther site you hijacked ever has? I didn't think so.

Lordy...these truthers don't get any better over time, do they?

[beachnut]

6 penny man, you are really starting to irritate me. Go to AAL77.COM and spend a few days, weeks, months listening to not only the NORAD audios, but the FAA audios as well. Were mistakes made on 9/11? You bet. But there was NO plan on the table for what happened on that day. Never in their wildest dreams did NEADS or the fighter jockey's ever imagine they would be doing a combat mission over their own homes defending their families against commercial airlines turned into missiles by a bunch of crazies. But with no plan in place, they improvised and adapted to the situation. Not at the General Myers level, but at the grunt level. And that is the success story of the United States Military on 9/11. They were trained to take the inititative and the brass stood out of their way and let them do their job.



This entire exchange is OUTSIDE normal procedure. But people at the FAA at the lower levels recognized the threat and bypassed the normal channels to ask for fighter support. Otis and NEADS worked outside the normal channels to get them the help they needed, even before they understood the nature of the threat (they learned like the rest of us from CNN after launch that the WTC was hit by the plane). Yet within 12 minutes, these guys used the "back door" and were able to get fighters into the air with mission unknown. Again, these were grunt level people adapting to a very fluid and unknown situation.

I am a civilian who has never served in the military. However, after three years of researching the military response, I am quite proud of these guys. Go do your homework and stop maligning the finest military in the world that performed magnificently on 9/11 to defend their homes and families (you seem to forget that was what they were doing).

This is a good post to understand what you have after extensive research into 911; oh, include the ability to use sound judgment and logic to form rational conclusions.

[SteveAustin]

LOL so it is still only hummus and praktik that have anything relevant to the topic to say and everyone else is continuing on the insult/smear/dodge/distract/obfuscate/misinterpret and misquote

Thank you all for playing but if you are not going to do anything else but that then why are you here? Seriously, if you want to be taken seriously (and if you realized exactly what you look like when you reply the way you all have then you would see just how...mmm...silly you all look) you should at least be able to at least hold a real debate, yes there are a couple of you here that can at least do that but the majority of you do not even attempt to debate.

So anyone have anything to add other than the ADIZ? Anything on topic and non insult/smear etc...?

[911files]

This is a good post to understand what you have after extensive research into 911; oh, include the ability to use sound judgment and logic to form rational conclusions.

Thanks Beach, but it is really too much to ask twoofers to use sound judgment and logic ain't it?

[911files]

LOL so it is still only hummus and praktik that have anything relevant to the topic to say and everyone else is continuing on the insult/smear/dodge/distract/obfuscate/misinterpret and misquote

Thank you all for playing but if you are not going to do anything else but that then why are you here? Seriously, if you want to be taken seriously (and if you realized exactly what you look like when you reply the way you all have then you would see just how...mmm...silly you all look) you should at least be able to at least hold a real debate, yes there are a couple of you here that can at least do that but the majority of you do not even attempt to debate.

So anyone have anything to add other than the ADIZ? Anything on topic and non insult/smear etc...?

Darn 6 penny, you still have not responded to the evidence that has been presented yet. Why should I waste any more time with you other than to have fun ridiculing how much you don't know?

[beachnut]

...seems a little misplaced, as they failed not once, not twice, but failed 4 times in one day to intercept any of the hijacked aircraft and prevent the "terrorist" from completing their mission. So I guess your definition of "performed magnificently" is a little different than most other people.
4 times? ERROR (flight 93 was a failure on the terrorist part) You fail to get the detail right, and have no idea what NORAD did.

Heroes on Flight 93 stopped the fourth plane. Flight 93 heroes figured out 911 in minutes; you have had 7 years and screwed it up.

You came to a debate with lies; you failed

[johnny karate]

Good points, though from what I have seen of the London protestors they are not exactly a good example of rational political and economic thinking.

Granted, but my point was that these people have the passion and will to take action. Meanwhile, the likes of SteveAustin, RedIbis, and JihadJane are feverishly engaged in deciding which emoticon best punctuates accusations of mass murder.

[Praktik]

Dont single me out - I was just referencing other people's work.

For what its worth I think Dave Rogers and 911files have made some good, worthwhile, on-topic points too.

[lapman]

...seems a little misplaced, as they failed not once, not twice, but failed 4 times in one day to intercept any of the hijacked aircraft and prevent the "terrorist" from completing their mission. So I guess your definition of "performed magnificently" is a little different than most other people.Who is responsible for making the determination that an airliner has been hijacked? Please provide proof that all all hijackings are to be considered an attack that would require automatic military intervention.

[phunk]

heck there was even such a scenario of a hijacked aircraft being used to crash into the pentagon (I will find that link later if you really want but I do recall the picture with Rice standing in the background of a model pentagon with a crashed airplane in the middle of it)

The scenario you're referring to was actually of an accidental crash on the pentagon grounds, not a hijacking & kamikazi into the building. It was done because the pentagon is next to a major airport.

[Brainster]

For what reason would they be tasked to look inward? The perceived threat had always been from the outside; another Pearl Harbor. When had the US ever been attacked in that way from the inside?

ETA: Let me also point out that when I listened to the control center tapes one of the most amazing things I found was that 45 minutes after Air Force One requested an escort, the fighter planes had still not taken off. The idea of this ultra-efficient military swinging into action instantaneously is hilarious.

[BigAl]

For what reason would they be tasked to look inward? The perceived threat had always been from the outside; another Pearl Harbor. When had the US ever been attacked in that way from the inside?

ETA: Let me also point out that when I listened to the control center tapes one of the most amazing things I found was that 45 minutes after Air Force One requested an escort, the fighter planes had still not taken off. The idea of this ultra-efficient military swinging into action instantaneously is hilarious.

The military doesn't use words like "friction" and "fog of war" for nothing.

AF1 was heading from Florida to Omaha (I think) and there were no bases tasked to be on 15 minute alert on that path. Nobody is on alert if nobody tells them to be ready. 45 minutes sounds perfectly acceptable for a cold call.

[GStan]

The military doesn't use words like "friction" and fog of war for nothing.

AF1 was heading from Florida to Omaha (I think) and there were no bases tasked to be on 15 minute alert on that path. Nobody is on alert if nobody tells them to be ready. 45 minutes sounds perfectly acceptable for a cold call.

Unless you are a truther; then its just one more smoking gun (i.e. piece of poop) to add to the evidence of inside job (i.e. to fling against the wall and see if it will stick to anything.)

[Brainster]

The military doesn't use words like "friction" and fog of war for nothing.

AF1 was heading from Florida to Omaha (I think) and there were no bases tasked to be on 15 minute alert on that path. Nobody is on alert if nobody tells them to be ready. 45 minutes sounds perfectly acceptable for a cold call.

I am not trying to criticize the military here, just pointing out that the troofer case on how long it took is based on an unrealistic idea of how efficient the military can be. It's our old friend, the argument from incredulity: "I don't believe it would take that long." Well, here's the highest possible priority situation, Air Force One on 9-11 requests a fighter escort and 45 minutes later the fighter planes (from Langley) aren't up in the air, and 51 minutes later they still don't have a location for the president's plane. So the idea that the hijacked planes could have easily been intercepted is absurd.

[Reheat]

ETA: Let me also point out that when I listened to the control center tapes one of the most amazing things I found was that 45 minutes after Air Force One requested an escort, the fighter planes had still not taken off. The idea of this ultra-efficient military swinging into action instantaneously is hilarious.

Let's don't compare apples to oranges. There are never any aircraft on alert to escort anyone. They are on Air Defense alert. That does not mean that every "willy nilly" call for support will be supported instantly. If those aircraft take off to escort AF 1 they are not available for anything else like a real threat. I believe AD aircraft from Ellington did eventually provide escort to AF 1, but I suspect they had some reservations about doing it.

Escorting someone, even AF 1, is essentially not in accordance with the Air Defense mission. Once they are airborne for that type of mission they need tanker support and that takes time to coordinate.

Rest assured the Air Defense aircraft are on 15 minute alert and they can and always do make that timing (frequently faster) for a REAL Air Defense response.

With notice of an impending contingency there can be hundreds of fighters available on very short notice. Without that warning it takes a while. We have put fighter/bombers (ready for war) on the ground half way around the world within 24 hours of a no notice contingency. So, the response can be pretty darn quick considering what has to be done.....

The response time depends on how much Tax $$ citizens want to pay to achieve that. It is not cheap to keep aircraft on short notice alert and the political decisions leading up to 9/11, in hindsight, were short sighted. Again, it depends on the priorities and how much one is willing to spend to achieve the response time desired.

ETA: I suspect AF1's divert to Barksdale had something to do with the 45 minute delay. I have not looked closely at the timing on that issue, but it seems reasonable to suspect that might have had something to do it. As I recall AF1 spend quite some time orbiting over Florida while they were deciding where to go, so there may not have been much delay on the AF's part as much as waiting for AF1 to decide what to do....

[funk de fino]

Because a lot of the posters here do not want to admit that Myers completely and unequivocally abdicated his responsibilities on 9/11. He stayed in a meeting with Sen. Max Cleland during the attacks, for a tea party, instead of doing what he was charged to do as acting chair of the Joint Chiefs, which was to advise the president about any and all military resources available to the C in C.

For this he was given the Presidential Medal of Freedom. If I had to name the three people most responsible for allowing the attacks to occur, Myers would be very high on my short list.


And now you have joined the liar ranks. Well done.

[Dave Rogers]

Just catching up on the thread here. In no particular order:

So if I am lieing and if all those people at that link are lieing then what they and I are doing is defamation of character and we should be sued. Why are no OCT supporters bringing defamation suits to court to prevent these smears?

How best to put this? Because your vague allegations, posted on a minor Internet forum under a username intended to boost your self-image while concealing your real identity, are so far beneath the level of significant criticism as to be unworthy of being dignified with any response at all, let alone legal action. Quite simply, you're not worth the effort.

Dodge...Weave...Dodge...Insult...Obfuscate...Smear

Pointing out that your arguments don't stack up - which one of those categories does that come under?

It is a rather simple situation, General Myers said one thing and that thing he said was wrong, and since he was formerly in a position to know the veracity of his own statement it is not simply a mistake but a lie.

If you'd proved that he was srong, you might have an argument. However, Myers didn't say "NORAD had no responsibility for protecting American airspace", as you seem to want everyone to believe he said. He was perfectly clearly making a statement about NORAD's approach to the prioritisation of resources between its different missions.

Hummus, Praktik...the whole ADIZ thing is the only thing so far that has been posted on this thread that actually challenges my initial assertions and something I will have to read more thoroughly and do some investigation when I have time.

Again, a piece of fundamental knowledge that you haven't bothered to look up before coming here and telling everyone that you know more than us. We could be forgiven for assuming that you've looked at a bunch of websites compiled by conspiracy theorists, deliberately ignored any other information, and somehow argued yourself into believing that you've obtained a balanced understanding of events, when in fact you've been fed a line of propaganda and swallowed it whole.

I ask this because aircraft hijacks are a fairly common thing (relatively speaking) and using them as missiles is not unheard of (world war 2 kamikazi pilots comes to mind), heck there was even such a scenario of a hijacked aircraft being used to crash into the pentagon (I will find that link later if you really want but I do recall the picture with Rice standing in the background of a model pentagon with a crashed airplane in the middle of it)

Another popular truther fantasy. No such exercise ever existed. However, note the bolding; in real life, placing these two statements so close together and referring to the picture in support of your hypothesis carries a very clear implication. We'll come back to that in a moment.

Dave are you going to jump in here and mention the rather "extreme interpretations of various statements" like you did for me and for 9/11 truthers in general? Or do you not call your fellow OCT'ers on this when they do it?

They're not doing it, but you are. You're morphing a statement that nobody did consider this scenario into one that nobody could have considered this scenario. See below.

Carl, really. So no one can come up with a scenario of a commercial airplane being used as a missile from the historical use of fighter planes being used as missiles? Really? And did I say that the scenario where Rice was standing in the background was a hijacked plane? Note that I have not said it is not either, but you are really making some rather extreme interpretations of my statements here, don't ya think buddy?

And there you go, quickly backing off from your implied position earlier. You're really not putting up a good performance here; anyone would think you weren't too confident that you know what you're talking about.

So essentially what you are saying is that because there were no hijacked aircraft originating from within US airspace previously that it was OK for the US military and for NORAD to neglect not only their duty but to neglect the agreement they had with another country? Is that what you are implying?

And there we go again. This is called the strawman fallacy, in case I forgot to point it out before.

Thank you all for playing but if you are not going to do anything else but that then why are you here? Seriously, if you want to be taken seriously (and if you realized exactly what you look like when you reply the way you all have then you would see just how...mmm...silly you all look) you should at least be able to at least hold a real debate, yes there are a couple of you here that can at least do that but the majority of you do not even attempt to debate.

Oh, the irony. What exactly do you hope to achieve by arguing on an Internet forum, and how's that working out for you?

And now you have joined the liar ranks. Well done.

One last comment: This is nothing new from RedIbis, who is at least consistent in his accusations against Myers.

Dave

[RedIbis]

One last comment: This is nothing new from RedIbis, who is at least consistent in his accusations against Myers.

Dave

Since I don't expect much from Funk, why don't you tell me where I'm lying.

[funk de fino]

Since I don't expect much from Funk, why don't you tell me where I'm lying.


Tea party it was not. He went to a breakfast meeting about his new role. He was not informed during the meeting what had happened. He saw the first crash and assumed the same as the majority of people, that it was a terrible accident.

If you can produce a single person who says that they went into the meeting and tried to inform him what was happening and he continued the meeting and ignored the problem then you may have a point. I mean you must have this evidence already or you would have not have made the false and cowardly accusation would you?

I hope no-one smears you on such flimsy evidence in future. In fact, thats a lie, because I do. There you go, I joined the ranks of the liars alongside you.

[Dave Rogers]

Since I don't expect much from Funk, why don't you tell me where I'm lying.

Assuming for the sake of argument that this is a genuine invitation, not just an attempt to start a new argument, let's have a go.

Because a lot of the posters here do not want to admit that Myers completely and unequivocally abdicated his responsibilities on 9/11.

The bolded bit is a lie, particularly the use of the word "unequivocally". I suppose you can claim that the entire sentence is correct, though. A lot of the posters here also do not want to admit that Santa Claus is real, that homeopathy is an effective form of medical treatment or that the moon is made of cheese.

He stayed in a meeting with Sen. Max Cleland during the attacks, for a tea party, instead of doing what he was charged to do as acting chair of the Joint Chiefs, which was to advise the president about any and all military resources available to the C in C.

That bit is part deliberate misrepresentation, part unproven, and part deliberate smear.

(1) Misrepresentation: Myers' statement was that he was aware that a commercial aircraft had hit WTC1 before he went into the meeting with Cleland. At the time it wasn't generally known that a terrorist attack was in progress, nor was it known what size or type of plane was involved. His statement was, "They thought it was a small airplane or something like that. So we walked in and we did the office call with Senator Cleland." There's no evidence, as is claimed by 9/11 Research, that Myers actually saw live footage of WTC1 burning. Your implication, that Myers remained in a meeting when he was aware that a terrorist attack was in progress, is unsubstantiated.

(2) Unproven: "Acting chair of the Joint Chiefs" - what's your source for Myers having any such post? As far as I can see, Hugh Shelton was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff up to September 30th 2001, and Myers was sworn in on 1st October 2001, having previously been vice chair. I'm not aware of him having an acting Chair role.

(3) Deliberate smear: "Tea party". Myers was meeting with Cleland to discuss his confirmation hearing. Characterising this as a "tea party" is an obvious misrepresentation and denigration of its purpose.

For this he was given the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

That is, technically, a lie. Myers was not given the Presidential Medal of Freedom for attending a brief meeting with Cleland to discuss his confirmation hearing as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

If I had to name the three people most responsible for allowing the attacks to occur, Myers would be very high on my short list.

This bit, I will concede, is very likely an honest statement; I think you'd gladly do this even if you didn't have to.

I'd be grateful if you could at least look into the "acting Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff" claim, because if Myers had no such role then your entire line of accusation collapses on that point alone; it was Shelton's role, not Myers', to advise the President.

Dave

[RedIbis]

I'd be grateful if you could at least look into the "acting Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff" claim, because if Myers had no such role then your entire line of accusation collapses on that point alone; it was Shelton's role, not Myers', to advise the President.

Dave

And if he was then your whole line of reasoning collapses on that point alone.

[GStan]

And if he was then your whole line of reasoning collapses on that point alone.

:nope:

[Dave Rogers]

And if he was then your whole line of reasoning collapses on that point alone.

:boggled: That's a singularly insane comment.

Your line of argument is:
Myers was acting chair.
He was aware an attack was in progress.
He remained at a tea party.
Therefore he abdicated his responsibility.

If he wasn't acting chair, then you're misrepresenting the situation. If he was acting chair, but wasn't aware an attack was in progress, then you're still misrepresenting the situation. If the meeting was a serious meeting, not a tea party, then you're still misrepresenting the situation. I've suggested you're guilty of three separate misrepresentations. Refuting one of them doesn't refute the other two.

Dave

[dtugg]

It kills me to say this but Red is right. Myers was acting chairman as Gen Shelton was en route to Europe for a meeting. But it really doesn't matter as Red has zero evidence that Myers abdicated his responsibilities or anything like that. And like I said before, since Red is a MIHOPer, trying to blame Myers for not doing enough to stop the attacks is intellectually dishonest to the extreme. Nothing surprising about that though, intellectual dishonesty is Red's MO.

[Dave Rogers]

OK, conceded that Myers was acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time of the attacks. Just the two misrepresentations in that paragraph, then. RedIbis, please prove that Myers knew the WTC1 crash was a terrorist attack, or that the meeting was a tea party.

Dave

[RedIbis]

OK, conceded that Myers was acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time of the attacks. Just the two misrepresentations in that paragraph, then. RedIbis, please prove that Myers knew the WTC1 crash was a terrorist attack, or that the meeting was a tea party.

Dave

Congratulations. You appear to have done what so few are able to do here, admit you made a mistake. In your strident attempts to defend the indefensible, you have also overlooked this gem:

MYERS: I was on the—on Capitol Hill doing some—doing an in-call, a courtesy call with a senator. I had been nominated for the job of chairman and—but had not had the confirmation hearing. So I was over there with Senator Max Cleland from Georgia. And he said, “I make a very good tea. So don’t have anything to drink, and we’ll make tea, and we’ll have this little conversation about national security.” And as I walked into his suite, it was a little before 9:00, you know, and the first tower had been struck but not the second. And we’re standing around saying, “What in the world happened?” I remember the day being beautiful. I said, “How could a pilot be that stupid, to hit a tower? I mean, what”—but then you think, “Well, whatever.”

I mean holy crap, "we'll make tea, and we'll have this little conversation about national security" while the attacks are occurring! And then this genius concludes, "Well, whatever."

How the hell do you guys continue to defend this idiot? You want me to believe that the guy didn't have a beeper, cell phone, no phone in Cleland's office, no one to knock on the guy's door? I mean c'mon guys, you're supposed to be the skeptics here. Ridiculous. At least call the guy out for being incompetent moron and let's be done with it.

[16.5]

congratulations. You appear to have done what so few are able to do here, admit you made a mistake.

irony!!

[GStan]

<snip> At least call the guy out for being incompetent moron and let's be done with it.

Okey-dokey. You're an incompetent moron! Let's be done with it. :p:D

[Dave Rogers]

I mean holy crap, "we'll make tea, and we'll have this little conversation about national security" while the attacks are occurring! And then this genius concludes, "Well, whatever."

Myers was there for a meeting with Cleland. What would be acceptable topics for a meeting between a senator and the chairman-designate of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, if you rule out conversations about national security? Your complaints about Myers are therefore that (a) he drank tea in a meeting, and (b) he didn't realise before anyone else that an attack was under way. In fact, his "How could a pilot be that stupid..." remark is consistent with not realising it was deliberate.

Now, (a) hardly seems grounds for a charge of incompetence. Treason, perhaps (this is the USA, a nation defined by its rejection of tea), but nothing more. (b) suggests that you're asking your military officers to be clairvoyant and infallible.

How the hell do you guys continue to defend this idiot? You want me to believe that the guy didn't have a beeper, cell phone, no phone in Cleland's office, no one to knock on the guy's door?

That's an interesting question. Did someone interrupt the meeting to tell Myers about the WTC2 strike, or did he only find out when he came out? Both Myers and Cleland originally claimed the former, but later the latter, in one of those normal human acts of confusion that drive conspiracy theorists to heights of speculation. Richard Clarke says Myers was in the Pentagon by 9:10, which would mean that he must have found out almost immediately and moved very quickly. Of course, Clarke may be mistaken over times, which has its own implications for the Flight 77 shoot-down theorists that they may not want to consider.

But in the final analysis, Red, your argument is that Myers was incompetent because nobody told him there was an attack going on, right? Because it's quite possible that he had a cellphone, a beeper, a phone in the office, or whatever, but all these things are ways of receiving information that somebody else is transmitting. All the phones in the world won't tell anyone what's going on unless someone calls one of them. In other words, you're arguing that Myers was solely responsible for the fact that nobody thought to tell him?

So, "tea party" was a lie, the reason for awarding the medal was a lie, and the implication that he stayed in a meeting when he knew the nation was under attack was a lie. The accusation of incompetence is based, not on the actions of Myers, but on the inaction of some undefined person who should have told him.

We should be grateful that you were right about one thing, I suppose. He was the acting chairman.

Dave

[funk de fino]

As I suspected, the fraud Red does not have any evidence of Myers being beeped, called or interrupted to tell him that it was not an incompetant pilot who had crashed but a terrorist attack, before he smears the man.

Nothing. Not a bean. If he did he would bring it wouldnt he? To prove us wrong and make us look fools and apologise for calling hima liar. I mean, I am ready to do that.

Just give us something other than your speculation. Sometimes its good manners to put your phone or bleeper on silent for a meeting. But then I would not know whether Myers did this so I will not speculate.

[SteveAustin]

OK let’s see where to begin…

ADIZ. This is not what you have been led to believe here on these forums. What the ADIZ is (if any of you had simply read the links that were provided by your own people you would know this as well) is simply “An air defense identification zone”, and that wikipedia link does a good job (despite how innacurate it usually is) of describing what ADIZ is…

“An air defense identification zone (ADIZ) is an area of airspace defined by a nation within which "the ready identification, the location, and the control of aircraft are required in the interest of national security"[1]. Typically, an aircraft entering an ADIZ is required to radio its planned course, destination, and any additional details about its trip through the ADIZ to a higher authority, typically an air traffic controller”

So ADIZ has nothing to do with NORAD area of responsibility nor does it mean that NORAD “had an outward looking posture”

You still do not believe the ADIZ is not what you were led to believe here on JREF? Then do some research of your own.

Next item of business. Air sovereignty and NORAD’s mission.

NORAD has 3 core missions since it’s creation in 1958. These are:

1 – surveillance and control of the airspace covering the United States and Canada – also known as Air Sovereignty

2 – Providing the NCAs with tactical warning and attack assessment of an aerospace attack against North America

3 – Providing an appropriate response to any form of an air attack

Air Sovereignty is defined by NORAD as "Monitoring and controlling the airspace covering North America" … well read it from the GAO report here (or go look at any of the official military or other government links that have been provided either in this thread or by your own OCTopie in other threads)

This is from page 17 of that GAO report here…
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/NSIAD-94-76

"With the breakup of the Soviet Union and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact in 1991, the military threat upon which NORAD had based its core structure had again changed significantly. Likewise, the Cuban threat was declining, and other military threats did not approach that of the Soviets during the Cold War.

NORAD recognized this drastic reduction in the military threat and determined that sufficient warning time existed to reconstitute forces needed to meet a re-emerging threat of the magnitude of the former Soviet Union. Consequently, NORAD revised the justification for its core forces, emphasizing peacetime air sovereignty. According to a recent NORAD strategy review, "The dramatically changed threat and... development of post-Cold
War defense policies suggest real possibilities for shifting NORAD's focus from deterring massive nuclear attack to defending both nations [Canada and the United States] by maintaining air sovereignty... .

The size of the core force would equate to that required to perform the peacetime Air Sovereignty mission."

*NORAD defines air sovereignty as providing surveillance and control of the territorial airspace*, which includes:

intercepting and destroying uncontrollable air objects;

*tracking hijacked aircraft;*

assisting aircraft in distress;

escorting Communist civil aircraft; and

intercepting suspect aircraft, including counterdrug operations and peacetime military intercepts."

The GAO report also says...

"NORAD plans to reduce the number of alert sites in the continental United States to 14 and provide 28 aircraft for the day-to-day peacetime air sovereignty mission. Each alert site will have two fighters, and their crews will be on 24-hour duty and ready to scramble within 5 minutes."

And if I’m not mistaken it was further reduced to 7 sites and 14 aircraft shortly before 9/11.

So when it comes to air sovereignty we can see that Dave lied when he said that it only included airspace over the oceans. A simple check on any “official” website could show this.

Now who was the OCTopus that called me a liar for saying Payne Stewarts plane was intercepted?

note here http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2164698&postcount=3 that...

"This was the intercept of Payne Stewart's Learjet 35, registration N47BA, which lost cabin pressure and flew across several states before crashing on October 25, 1999. According to the *National Transportation Safety Board* (NTSB) report http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2000/AAB0001.pdf on the incident, communication with the aircraft was lost at 0933 EDT. The Jacksonville Air Radar Traffic Control Centre (ARTCC) directly requested an intercept from the USAF. A test pilot from the 40th Flight Test Squadron at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, reached the Learjet at"0954 CDT - a full 81 minutes* after initial communication was lost."

So it seems that according to one of your own OCTopie force Payne Stewarts plane was intercepted. So if I’m wrong so is he. No big deal though as it is irrelevant to the topic of this thread.

Additionally here are some interesting pieces of information that fills out the information on NORAD.

Note this article here from 1997
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3731/is_199709/ai_n8766326/

"The new systems can detect aircraft by radar and track, identify and, if necessary, destroy aircraft by guided missiles. With computerized simulations the system can perform, retraining also will be easier Operators can go through a situation at their terminals as if it were happening.

The system is also upgradable with capability to include national missile and cruise missile defense, providing a capability not available in the past.

"It will enhance our ability to do *what many say is the most important job of the Air Force, and that is air sovereignty*," said Col Dan Navin, special assistant to the commander of 1st Air Force."

Note here
http://web.archive.org/web/20010429063809/http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/experience/the.bomb/route/01.cheyenne/
where it says...

"The Battle Management Center, in operation only since early 1998, is staffed by three people under ordinary circumstances. In the event of an increased alert status, this room full of office cubicles would be filled with personnel from all branches of the military.

One ongoing mission of the Battle Management Center is to coordinate "air sovereignty" efforts, monitoring every aircraft that enters U.S. or Canadian airspace -- some 2.5 million a year. NORAD is asked to investigate aircraft that do not file flight plans, contact ground controllers or identify themselves with transponders."

and here http://www.af.mil/news/airman/0196/border.htm it says...

"*Today NORAD, which monitors some 7,000 crossings of our airspace daily*, has stepped up its focus on a new, more devious villain—South American narcotics smugglers. Since the passing of the Defense Authorization Act of 1989, the command has battled in the trenches and on the front-line of the war on drugs."

Now just like he says here http://deanjackson60.googlepages.com/airamerica

"As is plainly obvious from the pre-9/11 literature quoted above on the capabilities of NORAD (for both the United States and Canada), the official accounts of NORAD's capabilities on 9/11 were a lie; a monstrous story concocted by the Pentagon and its controllers in the White House to explain away the non-response of NORAD on 9/11."

As was stated here http://deanjackson60.googlepages.com/thenoradpapersii

“As Commander-in-Chief, North American Aerospace Defense Command from August 1998 to February 2000, General Richard Myers would have known that NORAD’s mission included surveillance and control of the air space within the United States on 9/11.9 Therefore when the former commander of NORAD stated in testimony he gave before the 9/11 Commission pertaining to NORAD’s failure to anticipate the 9/11 attacks, "I can't answer the hypothetical. It's more - it's the way that we were directed to posture, looking outward" 10 he knowingly committed perjury

So my initial statement that General Myers lied is still accurate and no one has brought up anything to properly refute that.

[RedIbis]

Just give us something other than your speculation. Sometimes its good manners to put your phone or bleeper on silent for a meeting. But then I would not know whether Myers did this so I will not speculate.

This is comedy right? If not, what a pile of spineless sycophancy. What lengths you guys have to go to to excuse Myers unforgiveable conduct. Manners? This is an attack on our country!

[GStan]

This is comedy right? If not, what a pile of spineless sycophancy. What lengths you guys have to go to to excuse Myers unforgiveable conduct. Manners? This is an attack on our country!

Do you ever make any statements/arguments that do not contain an overt logical or informal fallacy?

[SteveAustin]

Just give us something other than your speculation. Sometimes its good manners to put your phone or bleeper on silent for a meeting. But then I would not know whether Myers did this so I will not speculate.

A man in his position is not supposed to be unreachable under any circumstances, lives may depend on it, manners be damned IT'S HIS JOB.

[Reheat]

I know this line of thought is not finished (it never is considering the fraud who started it), but I'd like to pursue a slightly different line of questions for Red.

Let's just imagine for the moment that Myers' was notified and did abdicate his responsibilities as you allege. Surely, you then have a good idea of what he could have done to change or even affect the outcome of 9/11.

I don't want to hear that he "should have been advising the POTUS" as you have characteristically spewed in the past. I want to know specifically what you think he SHOULD HAVE DONE? I want to know specifically what he did or did not do to deserve your accusations of malfeasance? After all, you have accused the man of very serious neglect, so you must know exactly what he did not do that he should have done in SPECIFIC TERMS.

You're the prosecutor, so outline what he did not do in specific terms, so we can all understand why these charges are being brought against him. You have to prove malfeasance or neglect of duty, so get with it. Let's see what you have?

[lapman]

*tracking hijacked aircraft;*

The question that you run away from is, who is responsible for determining that an aircraft is hijacked?

BTW, tracking is not the same as intercepting.

[Reheat]

so adiz has nothing to do with norad area of responsibility nor does it mean that norad “had an outward looking posture”


Stundied!

[dtugg]

This is comedy right? If not, what a pile of spineless sycophancy. What lengths you guys have to go to to excuse Myers unforgiveable conduct. Manners? This is an attack on our country!

And he knew this at the time how exactly?

And let's not forget that you're a MIHOPer Red. You can't jump around arguing that the attacks happened because certain government officials acted incompetently when you think that the whole thing was staged by the government. Well I guess you can. But that would make you an intellectually dishonest fraud. Oh wait...

[Dave Rogers]

So when it comes to air sovereignty we can see that Dave lied when he said that it only included airspace over the oceans.

You will, no doubt, be able to back up that accusation with a reference to the post in which I claimed that air sovereignty only included airspace over the oceans. Please feel free to do so. You may find it difficult.

Now who was the OCTopus that called me a liar for saying Payne Stewarts plane was intercepted?

I'm not aware of anyone either calling you a liar, or claiming that Payne Stewart's plane was not intercepted. The claim was that it was not intercepted by NORAD. This is a relevant point, as we're discussing NORAD's role as it relates to interceptions over land. Let's read your cite:

"This was the intercept of Payne Stewart's Learjet 35, registration N47BA, which lost cabin pressure and flew across several states before crashing on October 25, 1999. According to the *National Transportation Safety Board* (NTSB) report http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2000/AAB0001.pdf on the incident, communication with the aircraft was lost at 0933 EDT. The Jacksonville Air Radar Traffic Control Centre (ARTCC) directly requested an intercept from the USAF. A test pilot from the 40th Flight Test Squadron at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, reached the Learjet at"0954 CDT - a full 81 minutes* after initial communication was lost."

The 40th Flight Test Squiadron is not part of NORAD. Therefore, the sole interception over land in the decade up to 9/11 was not carried out by NORAD. That was the point you seemed ignorant of. And I didn't call you a liar, only ignorant of that point.

And last of all, getting back to Myers' statement:

"I can't answer the hypothetical. It's more - it's the way that we were directed to posture, looking outward"

Now, English is only my first language, but I can't see where in that statement he says "NORAD has no responsibility for air sovereignty over the United States". Could you please repost the quote, with bold type indicating the words where he says that?

Dave

[lapman]

Now who was the OCTopus that called me a liar for saying Payne Stewarts plane was intercepted?
Nobody. We said you lied when you claimed that it was a NORAD based intercept. The intercept was by USAF aircraft in cooperation with the civilian ARTCC. NORAD had nothing to do with it.

[Dave Rogers]

A man in his position is not supposed to be unreachable under any circumstances, lives may depend on it, manners be damned IT'S HIS JOB.

So can we see your evidence that someone tried to contact him and failed because he was unreachable?

Dave

[beachnut]

Did General Richard Myers lie to the 9/11 commission?


... looking outward." This is utterly false.
You bring lies about General Myers; you failed.

We were looking outward.

Name the last time a hijacked plane was shadowed by a NORAD aircraft before 2001. Did we shoot it down? Why would you shoot down an airliner with people on it? How would you know which plane to shoot down?

Name a plane NORAD has shot down with paying civilian passengers on a commercial airliner.

Two USAF pilots think your OP is a lie. Why?

Are you always so gullible?

Tracking hijacked aircraft does not mean shooting them down! Does not mean flying a plane to track!

Payne Stewart’s plane; 80 minutes to intercept, but it was NOT NORAD, the plane was not ARMED. ARE YOU A KID? You are at a skeptic forum and you are failing at understanding NORAD.

You don’t have a final conclusion what it means if you are right; what is your scenario? Cheney in the attic with a shotgun? Is this a cover-up like Cheney taking his friend to the hospital to cover-up the shooting? Roll out the big woo soon; my popcorn Machine is ready to make 5 big batches; GO

[SteveAustin]

You will, no doubt, be able to back up that accusation with a reference to the post in which I claimed that air sovereignty only included airspace over the oceans. Please feel free to do so. You may find it difficult.

Yes no problem...

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4573775&postcount=8

I also noted that the air sovereignty role is continually misrepresented as relating solely to operations within the land area of the United States, when in fact it clearly relates to the territorial waters of the United States and hence to defence from external threats.

And last of all, getting back to Myers' statement:

"I can't answer the hypothetical. It's more - it's the way that we were directed to posture, looking outward"

Now, English is only my first language, but I can't see where in that statement he says "NORAD has no responsibility for air sovereignty over the United States". Could you please repost the quote, with bold type indicating the words where he says that?

Dave

You keep dodging the issue don't you, waving your tentacles around trying to keep people distracted. That's something your very good at isn't it Dave.

That General Myers lied when he said "it's the way that we were directed to posture, looking outward". It is a proven lie. General Myers also did not say that NORAD had responsibility for air sovereignty over the United States. So he didn't say they did and he didn't say they didn't, what he DID say was a bold faced lie and an attempt to cover up the real criminals.

All your arm waving and all your smoke blowing is simply irrelevant distraction to this point for which I created this thread.

Now I for one do not mind people going off on tangents within my thread, as it is very simple to always point out the distractions, the dodges, the smoke and mirrors

[lapman]

So, Steve. I guess you have no idea of who is responsible for determining that an aircraft is hijacked. Great.

As far as Gen. Myers comment, there is this organization called the FAA that is responsible for monitoring all aircraft that are over CONUS. Therefore relieving NORAD from concentrating on any possible threat originating within the CONUS. So, he was correct in saying that they were looking outward since there was no reason to look inward since that was already covered by somebody else.

[Dave Rogers]

You will, no doubt, be able to back up that accusation with a reference to the post in which I claimed that air sovereignty only included airspace over the oceans. Please feel free to do so. You may find it difficult.

Yes no problem...

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4573775&postcount=8

I also noted that the air sovereignty role is continually misrepresented as relating solely to operations within the land area of the United States, when in fact it clearly relates to the territorial waters of the United States and hence to defence from external threats.

You fail. I pointed out that the air sovereignty role relates to the territorial waters of the United States, not that it relates only to those waters. Please link to a post where I told the lie that you're claiming I told.

And last of all, getting back to Myers' statement:

"I can't answer the hypothetical. It's more - it's the way that we were directed to posture, looking outward"

Now, English is only my first language, but I can't see where in that statement he says "NORAD has no responsibility for air sovereignty over the United States". Could you please repost the quote, with bold type indicating the words where he says that?


You keep dodging the issue don't you, waving your tentacles around trying to keep people distracted. That's something your very good at isn't it Dave.

That General Myers lied when he said "it's the way that we were directed to posture, looking outward". It is a proven lie. General Myers also did not say that NORAD had responsibility for air sovereignty over the United States. So he didn't say they did and he didn't say they didn't, what he DID say was a bold faced lie and an attempt to cover up the real criminals.

Proven by what? You've done nothing to demonstrate that NORAD was not directed to prioritise its resources towards defence primarily against external rather than internal threats. All you've proven was that NORAD had a responsibility to defend against internal threats (a fact that has never been disputed, however much you want to pretend it has) and that Myers was aware of this. Since you now admit that he never denied it, where exactly is the lie?

Your entire line of argument is an attempt to distract from the fact that you've failed to demonstrate that Myers's statement was a lie. As for "an attempt to cover up for the real criminals", that's pure speculation presented as fact, another favourite dishonest technique of the conspiracy theorist.

Dave

[johnny karate]

General Myers lied when he said "it's the way that we were directed to posture, looking outward". It is a proven lie. General Myers also did not say that NORAD had responsibility for air sovereignty over the United States. So he didn't say they did and he didn't say they didn't, what he DID say was a bold faced lie and an attempt to cover up the real criminals.

And yet with this information in the public domain no one has so much as lifted a finger to see that Myers is held accountable for his heinous crime. Why do suppose this is? Is it because the world is populated exclusively by people either not as smart as you and RedIbis, or people who lack moral conviction, as you and RedIbis have demonstrated yourselves to be? Do you forsee any circumstance in which Myers might be brought to justice, or will this just be something relegated to obscure corners of the Internet for impotent cowards to ceaselessly wail over?

[SteveAustin]

Proven by what? You've done nothing to demonstrate that NORAD was not directed to prioritise its resources towards defence primarily against external rather than internal threats. All you've proven was that NORAD had a responsibility to defend against internal threats (a fact that has never been disputed, however much you want to pretend it has) and that Myers was aware of this. Since you now admit that he never denied it, where exactly is the lie?

It's called a lie by omission. Note that what he said implied this.

Maybe you can point to me where it has been demonstrated that NORAD was directed to prioritise its resources towards defence primarily against external rather than internal threats?

I ask you because I did demonstrate that NORAD was directed to air sovereignty...which is the control and protection of all airspace over the US and Canada (including their territorial waters), here let me re-quote it for you again since you seem to have ignored it again...

"With the breakup of the Soviet Union and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact in 1991, the military threat upon which NORAD had based its core structure had again changed significantly. Likewise, the Cuban threat was declining, and other military threats did not approach that of the Soviets during the Cold War.

NORAD recognized this drastic reduction in the military threat and determined that sufficient warning time existed to reconstitute forces needed to meet a re-emerging threat of the magnitude of the former Soviet Union. Consequently, NORAD revised the justification for its core forces, emphasizing peacetime air sovereignty. According to a recent NORAD strategy review, "The dramatically changed threat and... development of post-Cold
War defense policies suggest real possibilities for shifting NORAD's focus from deterring massive nuclear attack to defending both nations [Canada and the United States] by maintaining air sovereignty..."


Your entire line of argument is an attempt to distract from the fact that you've failed to demonstrate that Myers's statement was a lie. As for "an attempt to cover up for the real criminals", that's pure speculation presented as fact, another favourite dishonest technique of the conspiracy theorist.

Dave

Now there goes the OCTopus waving his arms flailing around in another attempt to dodge and distract.

[GStan]

Semantic arguments ROCK!

[lapman]

I ask you because I did demonstrate that NORAD was directed to air sovereignty...which is the control and protection of all airspace over the US and Canada (including their territorial waters), here let me re-quote it for you again since you seem to have ignored it again...You clearly have zero clue about what your talking about. What are they protecting our airspace from? Prior to 9/11, what was the general consensus of where that threat would come from?

[16.5]

shifting NORAD's focus from deterring massive nuclear attack to defending both nations [Canada and the United States] by maintaining air sovereignty, and...

They did that pre-911 by directing their focus on external "outward" threats approaching the US and Canada from international airspace.

[Reheat]

I ask you because I did demonstrate that NORAD was directed to air sovereignty...which is the control and protection of all airspace over the US and Canada (including their territorial waters),

You are still confused about who is arguing what. No one here, DID YOU CATCH THAT? No one has or is denying the fact that NORAD is responsible for air sovereignty over the US and Canada. (Neither did Gen Myers.) How does NORAD do that? Does that mean NORAD controls the thousands of commercial and civilian flights over both Countries on an hourly or daily basis? If so, then why is it that the FAA of the US and MOT of Canada approve flight plans, delegate airspace, and exercise air traffic CONTROL over ALL air traffic overflying their respective Countries?

You obviously think you're smarter than most everyone else in the world, so please put this into context and explain to us how this all works instead of quoting your CT Web Site. You are so smart and knowledgeable that this should be no problem.

NORAD recognized this drastic reduction in the military threat and determined that sufficient warning time existed to reconstitute forces needed to meet a re-emerging threat of the magnitude of the former Soviet Union. Consequently, NORAD revised the justification for its core forces, emphasizing peacetime air sovereignty. According to a recent NORAD strategy review, "The dramatically changed threat and... development of post-Cold
War defense policies suggest real possibilities for shifting NORAD's focus from deterring massive nuclear attack to defending both nations [Canada and the United States] by maintaining air sovereignty..."

Yes, this is accurate, now HOW DOES IT WORK IN THE REAL WORLD? Is a NORAD fighter suppose to intercept and knock on the windscreen of every commercial flight and ask, "Have you been hijacked"? Or are they suppose to study that flight plan that has "hijacked" in the route of flight block and then launch an intercept in order to maintain air sovereignty? Or do they primarily monitor the ADIZ (there's that new word for you again) and depend mostly on the FAA and MOT to determine if there is a problem with air sovereignty over one of the respective Countries?

The ONLY problem here is that you don't understand how the system is supposed to work and you don't understand that what Gen Myers told the 911 Commission was a simplified answer to the question he was asked.

[Reheat]

This is comedy right? If not, what a pile of spineless sycophancy. What lengths you guys have to go to to excuse Myers unforgiveable conduct. Manners? This is an attack on our country!

....
I don't want to hear that he "should have been advising the POTUS" as you have characteristically spewed in the past. I want to know specifically what you think he SHOULD HAVE DONE? I want to know specifically what he did or did not do to deserve your accusations of malfeasance? After all, you have accused the man of very serious neglect, so you must know exactly what he did not do that he should have done in SPECIFIC TERMS.

You're the prosecutor, so outline what he did not do in specific terms, so we can all understand why these charges are being brought against him. You have to prove malfeasance or neglect of duty, so get with it. Let's see what you have?

I'm sure the one legged bird with the long beak has suddenly had an unexpected amount of work to do and doesn't have time to answer these questions. Nah, he surely wouldn't be running away to avoid difficult questions. After all he has never done that in the past, so he surely wouldn't do it now. I suppose he'll return when his work is finished and give us a thorough explanation just like he always does.....

[Rogue1stclass]

Yep, American planes in American skies, that's air sovereignty.

NORAD's post cold war job is keeping unauthorized planes from entering US airspace. Note that this is different from controlling the day-to-day aspects of air traffic in the United States. That's the FAA.

All of the 9/11 planes were authorized for flight in the United States. They were under the juristiction of the FAA, not NORAD. NORAD was geared to "look out" because, in general, that's where threats to air sovereignty come from.

It's pretty simple, really.

[beachnut]

Yep, American planes in American skies, that's air sovereignty.

NORAD's post cold war job is keeping unauthorized planes from entering US airspace. Note that this is different from controlling the day-to-day aspects of air traffic in the United States. That's the FAA.

All of the 9/11 planes were authorized for flight in the United States. They were under the juristiction of the FAA, not NORAD. NORAD was geared to "look out" because, in general, that's where threats to air sovereignty come from.

It's pretty simple, really.
911Truth does not use logic. The simple for rational people becomes impossible for 911Truth.

I want to know when they would shoot down airliners and how they know which one to shoot down. They never produce the scenario with hard times and action.

A sneak attack and 911Truth drops rational thought and makes up lies.

[911files]

The ONLY problem here is that you don't understand how the system is supposed to work and you don't understand that what Gen Myers told the 911 Commission was a simplified answer to the question he was asked.

Reheat, after going around with this fool yesterday (boredom got the better of me), I learned as usual that the guy is not interested in answers, but just wants to call someone a liar about something he himself knows nothing about. He just wants to malign another person's character and reputation because he has none of his own. I think it is just best to tell spoiled children to run-along and play in the street than to play the game. But who knows, I might get bored again later.

In the meantime, I have to finish uploading the Langley AFB stuff now that my DSL is back up. Good files though which prove conclusively that NORAD was doing its job on 9/11. Much better than this nonsense the 6 penny man is spouting.

[Reheat]

Reheat, after going around with this fool yesterday (boredom got the better of me), I learned as usual that the guy is not interested in answers, but just wants to call someone a liar about something he himself knows nothing about. He just wants to malign another person's character and reputation because he has none of his own. I think it is just best to tell spoiled children to run-along and play in the street than to play the game. But who knows, I might get bored again later.

Oh, I agree. His ignorance on the subject matter was exposed quite quickly. Sheeeeeez, he wants to discuss NORAD and he doesn't know what an ADIZ is?

He has totally embarrassed himself (at least, he should be embarrassed) and should now go running along and play with himself. (Steve, don't do it in the street as you might get run over by a vehicle.)

My objective today is to just pour some salt in the wounds of these maroons who have the audacity of malign the character (based upon nothing but sheer ignorance and malice) of a man who honorably served his Country for 40 years.

ETA: For those who don't know, Gen Myers was the Commander of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) from Aug 1998 to Feb 2000 just prior to joining the Joint Staff at the Pentagon.

[911files]

Well, just in case he is interested in learning more about reality, the Norfolk/Langley files are up.

NORFOLK TRACON ATC (http://aal77.com/faa/norfolk_atc.htm)

Yes Boone870, I'm starting on the Cleveland audios now :)

[Dave Rogers]

Maybe you can point to me where it has been demonstrated that NORAD was directed to prioritise its resources towards defence primarily against external rather than internal threats?

Well, there's the relevance of the Payne Stewart intercept, a crucial piece of evidence that you've completely failed to grasp. We all agree that NORAD, officially, had the responsibility for air sovereignty over the USA, however much you want to lie about what I said earlier. However, on the one occasion in ten years when an intercept over land was needed, NORAD didn't have the assets in place to carry out that interception, so the responsibility had to be assumed by a different USAF command. The circumstances of the Payne Stewart interception are prima facie corroboration of Myers' statement that NORAD's posture was primarily outward facing.

Now there goes the OCTopus waving his arms flailing around in another attempt to dodge and distract.

For someone who came to this forum complaining that the standard of debate was very low compared to the BBC forum you're used to, you're not exactly doing a lot to improve it with this sort of drivel.

Dave

[ElMondoHummus]

Dumb question: Why does anyone think responsibility over air sovereignty matters? The fact of the matter is, NORAD can't just step in for a suspected hijacking, they MUST wait for the FAA to 1. Notify them, and 2. Request assistance.

And even if they break procedure and intercept, they need to know where to go. Which brings us back to Gumboot's post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2164698#post2164698) about when NEADS finally found out about the hijackings and when those hijacked flights crashed. It's not like NORAD had jets capable of intercepting any single point in the US within X amount of time; the Payne Stewart flight clearly demonstrates this.

People can argue areas of responsibility until they're blue in the face, but the fact of the matter is, given the way the US air defense was set up back in 2001, there was no way to get Air Force or Air Natl Guard jets up in time to do anything meaningful. And it's still amazing that the Otis and Langley fighters got up when they did, even though they only either flew circles above Long Island (the Otis F-15s) or got to Washington too late to do anything (the Langley F-16s). To expect any more than what happened, when what happened already required a herculean effort, is insane, and it ignores the realities of that day.

Again:
Gumboot's timeline of events (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1845150&postcount=1).
Gumboot's "NORAD Response" (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=70300).

Utterly required reading for anyone making claims about what should've been done that day. You cannot start from some ideal point that US jets could go anywhere and intercept anything at any point over CONUS, you must recognize and understand the reality of how things were structured back then. Working from any other base is working from fiction, because it's not accepting where assets were or what was understood at what time by which party. That's critical information to have to truly understand that day.

[Cheap Shot]

ADIZ. This is not what you have been led to believe here on these forums. What the ADIZ is (if any of you had simply read the links that were provided by your own people you would know this as well) is simply “An air defense identification zone”, and that wikipedia link does a good job (despite how innacurate it usually is) of describing what ADIZ is…

“An air defense identification zone (ADIZ) is an area of airspace defined by a nation within which "the ready identification, the location, and the control of aircraft are required in the interest of national security"[1]. Typically, an aircraft entering an ADIZ is required to radio its planned course, destination, and any additional details about its trip through the ADIZ to a higher authority, typically an air traffic controller”

So ADIZ has nothing to do with NORAD area of responsibility nor does it mean that NORAD “had an outward looking posture”

You still do not believe the ADIZ is not what you were led to believe here on JREF? Then do some research of your own.

Try flying across an ADIZ inbound to the "good ole USA" without coordinating, you'll see what an intercept is all about.

[Cheap Shot]

Well, just in case he is interested in learning more about reality, the Norfolk/Langley files are up.

You mentioned in an earlier post that the FAA cleared the Langley fighters east out over the ocean, I thought "Giant Killer" cleared them out that way, I may be mistaken.

[911files]

NEADS scrambled them to 010, but the FAA put in a "canned" flight plan for 090 heading for 60 miles. Once handed off to Giant Killer, GK just went with the flow is my understanding. But you would certainly be better at deciphering the ATC lingo than I am.

[Dave Rogers]

I missed this one.

“An air defense identification zone (ADIZ) is an area of airspace defined by a nation within which "the ready identification, the location, and the control of aircraft are required in the interest of national security"[1]. Typically, an aircraft entering an ADIZ is required to radio its planned course, destination, and any additional details about its trip through the ADIZ to a higher authority, typically an air traffic controller”

So ADIZ has nothing to do with NORAD area of responsibility nor does it mean that NORAD “had an outward looking posture”

Let's get this straight. An ADIZ is where "the ready identification, the location, and the control of aircraft are required in the interest of national security", and this "nothing to do with NORAD area of responsibility"? How, exactly, is NORAD supposed to exercise air sovereignty, when identification, location and control of aircraft in the interest of national security are nothing to do with its area of responsibility? Fly around at random, failing to control the movement of unidentified aircraft that haven't been located?

As for the outward posture:

"*Today NORAD, which monitors some 7,000 crossings of our airspace daily*, has stepped up its focus on a new, more devious villain—South American narcotics smugglers. Since the passing of the Defense Authorization Act of 1989, the command has battled in the trenches and on the front-line of the war on drugs."

Now, somebody remind me, in case my understanding of geography isn't as good as I think it is. Is South America inside, or outside, the United States of America?

Dave

[Cheap Shot]

Now who was the OCTopus that called me a liar for saying Payne Stewarts plane was intercepted?

note here http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2164698&postcount=3 that...

"This was the intercept of Payne Stewart's Learjet 35, registration N47BA, which lost cabin pressure and flew across several states before crashing on October 25, 1999. According to the *National Transportation Safety Board* (NTSB) report http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2000/AAB0001.pdf on the incident, communication with the aircraft was lost at 0933 EDT. The Jacksonville Air Radar Traffic Control Centre (ARTCC) directly requested an intercept from the USAF. A test pilot from the 40th Flight Test Squadron at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, reached the Learjet at"0954 CDT - a full 81 minutes* after initial communication was lost."

So it seems that according to one of your own OCTopie force Payne Stewarts plane was intercepted. So if I’m wrong so is he. No big deal though as it is irrelevant to the topic of this thread.

The term intercept here is used generically, yes a plane flew up next to the aircraft, it was not a dedicated alert aircraft that conducted the intercept.

On 9/11 there were four aircraft available that were on alert status two from Otis, and two from Langley. Langley ended up launching three, because they had a spare aircraft available.

Colonel Marr at NEADS was very concerned about launching the fighters from Langley due to the fact they had no target to intercept. AAL11 and UAL175 had already impacted the towers. He was concerned about fuel load Tankers are not just sitting around waiting for a fighter to come up an gas, these have to be coordinated. The two fighters over NY were getting low on fuel, and without a target for the Langley fighters he wasn't in a hurry to release them, where was the enemy, he was not about to launch them and have his only assets in the sky running out of gas. He finally launched them based on my mistaken call that AAL11 was still airborne and on the way to DC.

I don't know if General Myers spoke with Colonel Marr or not but if he did and his Colonel advised him to wait until a target was identified what do you think the General should do. Do you trust your commander in the field, or do you go against his recommendation to wait.

These were not easy decisions and this was just one on a very difficult day, and among many he made that day on short notice dealing in seconds not hours or minutes.

The difference is you get seven years to look over all the decisons that were made that day in seconds, it kind of disgusts me, at least spend the same amount of time you spent reading up on your truther sites and review some of the contradicting data that is out there and then make some kind of informed statement. Ask questions, someone will answer them, making accusations with out being informed, what's with that.

[Cheap Shot]

NEADS scrambled them to 010, but the FAA put in a "canned" flight plan for 090 heading for 60 miles. Once handed off to Giant Killer, GK just went with the flow is my understanding. But you would certainly be better at deciphering the ATC lingo than I am.

We use the canned flightplan as well, so someone should have amended the flightplan to the "Bulls Eye" as long as they received one, sometimes you don't get everyting you want on the "circuit".

[Dave Rogers]

The term intercept here is used generically, yes a plane flew up next to the aircraft, it was not a dedicated alert aircraft that conducted the intercept.

It's worth noting, Cheap Shot, that in the post you're replying to SteveAustin is either misrepresenting or misunderstanding what I said in the post he was replying to. I pointed out that Payne Stewart's plane wasn't intercepted by NORAD, not that it wasn't intercepted at all. Apparently he didn't know that.

Dave

[Reheat]

You mentioned in an earlier post that the FAA cleared the Langley fighters east out over the ocean, I thought "Giant Killer" cleared them out that way, I may be mistaken.

CS, Langley tower gave the Quit's a 090/60 departure clearance, which was the standard AD departure out of Langley. Then, Norfolk Tracon and the Quit Flight lead continued to ASSUME that was their latest clearance forgetting about the reason/instructions for which they were scrambled.

Without a review of the airspace and traffic it is impossible to determine if they could have been cleared to comply with the NEADS scramble instructions earlier. The approximate 20-30 nm diversion to the East was the shared responsibility of both Quit 25 (the leader) and Norfolk Tracon. Giant Killer played a very minor role in this in that the fighters were only with them for a very short period before NEADS intervened.

In hindsight consideration, I'm sure they would all have reacted differently if they could do it all over again. Unfortunately, that's impossible.

If you've seen my comments on this in the past, it wouldn't have made any difference anyway. They simply scrambled TOO LATE, initially in pursuit of the phantom AA11A to have had a chance to have even intercepted AA77, let alone prevent him from striking the Pentagon.

[Cheap Shot]

I was replying to his statement, I knew what you were saying I wrote it due to his misrepresentation. On an off subject Van Arden who was a passenger on the plane with Payne Stewart graduated with me from the same high school, what's that called like six degrees of seperation.

[Cheap Shot]

In hindsight consideration, I'm sure they would all have reacted differently if they could do it all over again. Unfortunately, that's impossible.

We all would have liked a second chance.

[funk de fino]

This is comedy right? If not, what a pile of spineless sycophancy. What lengths you guys have to go to to excuse Myers unforgiveable conduct. Manners? This is an attack on our country!

I note you snipped out the part you would like to ignore. It was a staement of something that is true. First thing done in any of my meetings is that phones are put to silent, classes also. Are you saying this is not a usual thing to happen?

And again the fraud displays the fact that he has smeared this man wth no evidence to back up anything he claims. If you can bring us anything then do so or remain a liar. He thought it was a pilot error. Please provide evidence he knew during the meeting anything different.

[Boone 870]

I went through some of the NORAD staff's MFR's (http://www.archives.gov/legislative/research/9-11/commission-memoranda.html) to see if they agreed with Steve Austin's belief that Myers was lying when he said that NORAD was postured looking outward.

They didn't:


Edward Aires
Aires noted that the main purpose of NEADS before 9/11 was to look out over the water, and there was a rare occasion for operations over land.


Larry Arnold
Arnold noted that in the early 1990s NORAD's mission of air defense shifted to a mission of air sovereignty. Air defense was protective, whereas air sovereignty was intended to maintain control and prevent illegal entries into CONUS.


William A. Scott
...they [NORAD] still looked at the NORAD mission as a direct mission to protect the continental United States (CONUS) from external threats...


Robert Marr
Marr noted that on 9/11 NEADS was not directly connected to national interior radar systems. Those radar systems were and are monitored by the FAA.


Dawne Deskins
Deskins noted that the primary mission of NORAD has always been to look out over the oceans and identify targets.


Jeremy Powell
His primary responsibility was for surveillance. Surveillance will initiate a "pending track" on an unfamiliar target heading toward the US coastline from over the water.


Stacia Rountree
Rountree noted that the radar that was in place on 9/11 did have some some coverage on the interior, but did not receive low altitude feeds.

[funk de fino]

A man in his position is not supposed to be unreachable under any circumstances, lives may depend on it, manners be damned IT'S HIS JOB.

Ha ha, doofus time. He was not unreachable with a phone on silent or a beeper on silent. There were people outside the door who could have interupted even if he did not answer the phone or beeper. They were not in the middle of the Gobi desert or up Everest.

Try again and try not to put yourself up for the Stundie again.

[dtugg]

I went through some of the NORAD staff's MFR's (http://www.archives.gov/legislative/research/9-11/commission-memoranda.html) to see if they agreed with Steve Austin's belief that Myers was lying when he said that NORAD was postured looking outward.

I hope you understand that this only means that they are all lying and part of the coverup.

[911files]

I hope you understand that this only means that they are all lying and part of the coverup.

Yes, Boone870 keeps trying out for a job with the NWO. We are thinking about letting him onboard as a junior operative. If he keeps up this fine work he should have no problems.

[Reheat]

Bumpty, Bump

For the one-legged bird with the long beak. You have some unfinished business here to explain why you have maligned the subject of this thread.

Let's hear it. Surely you're not backing down from the useless hot air you spew.

[beachnut]

...
War defense policies suggest real possibilities for shifting NORAD's focus from deterring massive nuclear attack to defending both nations [Canada and the United States] by maintaining air sovereignty..."
...

http://www.cafb29b24.org/ (http://www.cafb29b24.org/)


We had to look at Midland Texas and the threat from within due to the
Commemorative Air Force


Cavanaugh Flight Museum in Addison, Texas


WARNING

[RedIbis]

Bumpty, Bump

For the one-legged bird with the long beak. You have some unfinished business here to explain why you have maligned the subject of this thread.

Let's hear it. Surely you're not backing down from the useless hot air you spew.

You seriously think I need to further explain why I criticized Myers? I think I made that as clear as it's going to get.

[stateofgrace]

You seriously think I need to further explain why I criticized Myers? I think I made that as clear as it's going to get.

Actually Red you are not criticizing General Myers; you are implying he is compliant in the mass murder of 3000 people.

With zero evidence.

[beachnut]

You seriously think I need to further explain why I criticized Myers? I think I made that as clear as it's going to get.
If only you could back up your lies and false information with reality based evidence instead of failed opinions, hearsay, lies and delusions that are the foundation of 911Truth. He knows you don’t have anything based on facts to make your opinions and thus we know you bring opinions to a fact fight.

Do you have anything more than an opinion to back up your implied lie or support for the failed OP?

[Reheat]

You seriously think I need to further explain why I criticized Myers? I think I made that as clear as it's going to get.

If I had to name the three people most responsible for allowing the attacks to occur, Myers would be very high on my short list.

Your big problem is that you didn't just criticize him, you made what would normally be considered a very serious accusation. However, considering the source your response doesn't surprise me at all. You have ZERO credibility already and this again proves that you have absolutely no clue about the subject matter. You're just spewing hot air as you always do. If you can't support what you say with something substantial (knowledge would be a beginning) then it would be better to keep your venomous mouth shut.

[johnny karate]

You seriously think I need to further explain why I criticized Myers? I think I made that as clear as it's going to get.

And you believe so vehemently in your "criticism", you went to the enormous and courageous effort of whining about it on the Internet.

Don't ever let it be said RedIbis is not a man of moral conviction. :rolleyes:

[RedIbis]

Actually Red you are not criticizing General Myers; you are implying he is compliant in the mass murder of 3000 people.

With zero evidence.

Actually, you are totally incorrect. I accused him of attending a little tea party instead of advising the president while the country was under attack.

[dtugg]

Actually, you are totally incorrect. I accused him of attending a little tea party instead of advising the president while the country was under attack.

But you think that the government did the attack. What do you think Myers should have been advising the President on. "Yes Mr. President, the false flag op is going as planned, NORAD is on stand down so we don't have to worry about them shooting down any of the remote control jets." Something like that?

[Reheat]

.....If I had to name the three people most responsible for allowing the attacks to occur, Myers would be very high on my short list.

Actually, you are totally incorrect. I accused him of attending a little tea party instead of advising the president while the country was under attack.

Those comments show you're not a bird, you're a slithering repulsive venomous snake.

[RedIbis]

Those comments show you're not a bird, you're a slithering repulsive venomous snake.

wow, namecalling is so persuasive and you're right, I'm not a bird.

[RedIbis]

But you think that the government did the attack. What do you think Myers should have been advising the President on. "Yes Mr. President, the false flag op is going as planned, NORAD is on stand down so we don't have to worry about them shooting down any of the remote control jets." Something like that?

No, nothing like that.

[dtugg]

No, nothing like that.

So tell me. What should the general have been advising the President about concerning an attack that was actually planned by the government?

[stateofgrace]

Actually, you are totally incorrect. I accused him of attending a little tea party instead of advising the president while the country was under attack.

Actually no I am not incorrect.

You have just stated he was a tea party when he should have been advising the president, right?

So why, unless you think he is complicate in mass murder, do you find this significant?

[RedIbis]

Actually no I am not incorrect.

You have just stated he was a tea party when he should have been advising the president, right?

So why, unless you think he is compliant in mass murder, do you find this significant?

Why are you even asking me these questions? The guy stayed in Cleland's office nearly the entire time of the attacks. You don't find that the least bit irresponsible?

[RedIbis]

So tell me. What should the general have been advising the President about concerning an attack that was actually planned by the government?

That's a very stupid question. You should not be surprised that I don't answer you.

[dtugg]

That's a very stupid question. You should not be surprised that I don't answer you.

No it's not. It just points how much of an intellectually dishonest fraud you are so you didn't answer it. Same as pretty much any direct questions people ask you.

[stateofgrace]

Why are you even asking me these questions? The guy stayed in Cleland's office nearly the entire time of the attacks. You don't find that the least bit irresponsible?

Because I am not the one who imagines General Myers is complicate in the mass murder of 3000 people, you do.

Do you now equate irresponsible to being responsible for the deaths of 3000 people ?

[RedIbis]

No it's not. It just points how much of an intellectually dishonest fraud you are so you didn't answer it. Same as pretty much any direct questions people ask you.

When was the last time you answered any of my questions?

[dtugg]

When was the last time you answered any of my questions?

I am almost positive that you have never asked me a question that I haven't answer. You are welcome to prove me wrong.

[RedIbis]

I am almost positive that you have never asked me a question that I haven't answer. You are welcome to prove me wrong.

Do you think that Gen. Myers, as the acting top miliatry official and advisor to the president, neglected his responsibilities and served his country honorably by drinking tea, incommunicado, with Sen. Cleland during the attacks?

[dtugg]

Do you think that Gen. Myers, as the acting top miliatry official and advisor to the president, neglected his responsibilities and served his country honorably by drinking tea, incommunicado, with Sen. Cleland during the attacks?

No. He nor anybody else even knew it was a terrorist attack until after the second plane hit. He is not psychic. I have seen no evidence that he continued his "tea party" after he was made aware of the second plane.

Now you:

How is Myers one of the three men most responsible for allowing the attacks to happen by having this little tea party when the government was the one that actually planned the attacks?

[RedIbis]

No. He nor anybody else even knew it was a terrorist attack until after the second plane hit. He is not psychic. I have seen no evidence that he continued his "tea party" after he was made aware of the second plane.

Now you:

How is Myers one of the three men most responsible for allowing the attacks to happen by having this little tea party when the government was the one that actually planned the attacks?

Thanks for answering my question directly. Seriously.

I don't know that the gov't planned the attacks, but I do for certain, since he told the story himself, that he didn't think it was important enough to leave his meeting while the rest of the world watched the attacks unfold.

That just seems dumb to me, at best. At worst, criminal negligence. If you don't agree, there's nothing I can do about that. I'll move on, I assure you.

[911files]

Do you think that Gen. Myers, as the acting top miliatry official and advisor to the president, neglected his responsibilities and served his country honorably by drinking tea, incommunicado, with Sen. Cleland during the attacks?

I don't think you have a clue what was going on in that "tea meeting" (if that is even an accurate representation) and as such have no right to even make the assertion.

[dtugg]

Thanks for answering my question directly. Seriously.

I don't know that the gov't planned the attacks, but I do for certain, since he told the story himself, that he didn't think it was important enough to leave his meeting while the rest of the world watched the attacks unfold.

That just seems dumb to me, at best. At worst, criminal negligence. If you don't agree, there's nothing I can do about that. I'll move on, I assure you.

I will take your non answer as a concession that Myers being responsible for allowing the attacks to happen makes no sense if the government planned it. Which brings us to why you are intellectual dishonest: You usually argue the MIHOP position. You can't argue both MIHOP and the incompetency/negligence angle as they are entirely contradictory. I am sure you know this. But you do it anyway because honesty and consistency aren't important to you. Finding ways to blame the government is all that matters.

[Reheat]

I don't think you have a clue what was going on in that "tea meeting" (if that is even an accurate representation) and as such have no right to even make the assertion.

Not only that, but he is unable to show the Gen Myers even knew of the second strike on the towers during the meeting. He does not know when Gen Myers left to return to the Pentagon nor does he know who the Gen was in contact with while he was enroute back to the Pentagon.

He has absolutely no clue what anyone does or who is responsible for what during an attack of this nature. He is unable to articulate who should have done what in specific terms because he doesn't know.

All he has done in this thread is make a unjustified slanderous attack on Gen Myers based on his own unabashed ignorance.

All he does know how to do well is to blow hot air on an Internet Forum in an apparent attempt to make himself feel important. He is in reality about as important and as significant as flatus in a hurricane.

[funk de fino]

Actually, you are totally incorrect. I accused him of attending a little tea party instead of advising the president while the country was under attack.


No, you are lying about what he knew and the fact he could have done anything. You have no idea what he knw during that meeting. If you did, you may have a point but you have zip except a bitter bias.

You are a coward, sunshine.

[RedIbis]

I don't think you have a clue what was going on in that "tea meeting" (if that is even an accurate representation) and as such have no right to even make the assertion.

Yes, I have the right, and yes, it's an accurate description since it comes from Myers himself. You've overlooked what I posted in #120.

[RedIbis]

No, you are lying about what he knew and the fact he could have done anything. You have no idea what he knw during that meeting. If you did, you may have a point but you have zip except a bitter bias.

You are a coward, sunshine.

How could I be lying if I didn't even address what he knew and what he could have done? I base my opinion entirely on what Myers himself has said.

I don't mind defending my position, but if you continue to fill your posts with childish namecalling, I won't respond to you.

[TexasJack]

How could I be lying if I didn't even address what he knew and what he could have done? I base my opinion entirely on what Myers himself has said.

I don't mind defending my position, but if you continue to fill your posts with childish namecalling, I won't respond to you.

What you are ignoring in post 120 is that Myers is talking about the first plane hitting the towers. Nobody can interpet that as a terrorist attack. It wasn't until the 2nd tower was hit that it was obvious.

[RedIbis]

What you are ignoring in post 120 is that Myers is talking about the first plane hitting the towers. Nobody can interpet that as a terrorist attack. It wasn't until the 2nd tower was hit that it was obvious.

I was thinking of writing a longer response, but there's no need to waste the time. That is just patently ridiculous.

[TexasJack]

I was thinking of writing a longer response, but there's no need to waste the time. That is just patently ridiculous.
Instead you reply with no resposne at all, that's what is patently ridiculous.

[Reheat]

I was thinking of writing a longer response, but there's no need to waste the time. That is just patently ridiculous.

The REASON you won't write a response is because you can't say anything that supports your malicious accusations with any reasonable amount of detail.

The reason you can't support your malicious accusations is because you don't have a clue.

That brings us full circle to the "hot air" again. I suggest you pull you usual trick and just run away. That will work better than just continuing with your "hot air".

[DavidJames]

Instead you reply with no resposne at all, that's what is patently ridiculous.
Red has been trolling this forum for coming up on 2 years and over 3600 posts.

He provides no facts, no evidence, not even a logical premise.

He has no problem accusing people of complicity in the murder of 3000 people, but he gets his panties in a bunch if he feels he's been insulted.

He is a pathetic and worthless troll.

[funk de fino]

How could I be lying if I didn't even address what he knew and what he could have done? I base my opinion entirely on what Myers himself has said.

I don't mind defending my position, but if you continue to fill your posts with childish namecalling, I won't respond to you.


You cannot defend it because you do not know what he knew and when. You would rather smear the man on a whim of bias.

[RedIbis]

The REASON you won't write a response is because you can't say anything that supports your malicious accusations with any reasonable amount of detail.

The reason you can't support your malicious accusations is because you don't have a clue.



The only support I need to support my criticisms of Myers is what he said himself.

[funk de fino]

The only support I need to support my criticisms of Myers is what he said himself.


Liar.

[beachnut]

Yes, I have the right, and yes, it's an accurate description since it comes from Myers himself. You've overlooked what I posted in #120.
You said.
I mean holy crap, "we'll make tea, and we'll have this little conversation about national security" while the attacks are occurring! And then this genius concludes, "Well, whatever."

Only the terrorists knew that they were attacks at 0900. Sad your delusions on 911 have interfered with your logic.

You are the only person at 0900 in the United States that knew it was an attack on the first impact. The rest of the country had no idea the speed of impact and thought it was an accident.

Your entire knowledge of 911 is laid on the faulty foundation of ignorance in all topics related to 911 and your complete believe in lies, hearsay, failed opinions, faulty logic, and delusions like all of 911Truth.

So far you are a liar on this topic due to your inability to apply logic with sound judgment.

You suffer from faulty logic and more problems that inhibit your understanding of 911 for over 7 years.

[johnny karate]

If I had to name the three people most responsible for allowing the attacks to occur, Myers would be very high on my short list.

That just seems dumb to me, at best. At worst, criminal negligence.

The only support I need to support my criticisms of Myers is what he said himself.


Here (http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/offices/index.html) are some people who might be interested in your theory.

Please let us know how they respond.

[RedIbis]

You said.

Only the terrorists knew that they were attacks at 0900. Sad your delusions on 911 have interfered with your logic.

You are the only person at 0900 in the United States that knew it was an attack on the first impact. The rest of the country had no idea the speed of impact and thought it was an accident.


Are you honestly suggesting that no one knew of the hijackings before 9am?

If not why was NORAD giving scramble orders at 8:37, before the impact of Flight 11, while Myers is drinking tea until just before the Pentagon was struck?

Still think it's reasonable for Myers to conclude it was just an accident?

[Mince]

Are you honestly suggesting that no one knew of the hijackings before 9am?

Knew? Unlikely. Suspected? Maybe. Taking precaution after losing radio contact with flight 11? Probably.

If not why was NORAD giving scramble orders at 8:37, before the impact of Flight 11, while Myers is drinking tea until just before the Pentagon was struck?

Precaution after losing contact with flight 11?

Still think it's reasonable for Myers to conclude it was just an accident?

Yes. It is reasonable for anyone to presume it was an accident until it was proved not an accident. And that proof didn't come until the impact of flight 175. I think even you know that.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

@RedIbis: Don't be a fool. He's saying that no one knew for sure that the only plane to have hit a building before 9:00am, Flight 11, was an attack, let alone part of a larger attack.

Hell, a supervisor at NY ATC was only informed of the second hijacking at 8:55am. There's no way Gen. Myers could have been informed of this before his meeting.

[MikeW]

Are you honestly suggesting that no one knew of the hijackings before 9am?
Here's Pamela Freni, "Ground Stop", page 63:

[Ben Sliney] entered the room and explained that the Boston ARTCC had just called with news of a possible hijacking...

At 8.40am, a first-line manager entered the [FAA HQ] meeting to inform them of the possible stabbing death of a flight attendant on that plane...

News of the first plane crash into the World Trade Centre began circulating through the building. Given the intuitive nature of this group of people, it is odd that none of them considered the two incidents - the hijacking and the crash - as being related, but according to Schuessler, something that seemed so bizarre as flying a hijacked plane full of people into a skyscraper didn't seem possible.

They didn't immediately make a connection between the hijacking and the crash. It's not just Freni, either. Read the FAA testimonies in the 9/11 Commission files and you'll find others saying they thought the crash was a small plane, or an accident. The NORAD tapes also have NEADs staff unsure about what's going on, right up to the second impact.

ETA: Major Charles Chambers in the NMCC also thought the first impact was a small plane, and said his instinct was "that the pilot had used the towers to point himself towards the area, lost conciousness, and autopilot had done the rest". Source (http://911myths.com/index.php/Image:DanaHyde_Box2_CharlesChambersDOD-NMCC.pdf)

[beachnut]

Are you honestly suggesting that no one knew of the hijackings before 9am?

If not why was NORAD giving scramble orders at 8:37, before the impact of Flight 11, while Myers is drinking tea until just before the Pentagon was struck?

Still think it's reasonable for Myers to conclude it was just an accident?
Are you going to ask incredibly stupid questions and fail to engage some sound judgment? Come on the first clue of a coordinated attack of hijacked aircraft and the opportunity to take action was flight 93 heroes stopping flight 93 and you crap on their memory with your shallow research and nonexistent logic.

Simple, the time to take action and understand 911 was the time the heroes on 93 took action. It is as simple as that.

To tell you the true when I saw the clear skies on 911 at NYC and the hole in the WTC I had a feeling something was up. NO pilot can be dumb enough to hit the WTC on a clear day; next to impossible.

Second impact, I thought UBL had bought planes and flown them with BOMBS into the WTC. I did not know the aircraft, especially flight 11 were speeding at 470 and 590 mph to create the impact equal to 2000-pound bombs.

As the complex plot; kill pilots, crash planes into buildings, was exposed, I expected those weak in knowledge and short on science would make up stupid delusions to satisfy their warped minds; 911Truth has not let me down.

BTW, what is the General going to do! I spent 28 years in the Military and the Generals do not stick the pointy end of the spear into the bad guys, the troops in the field do and our troops on 911 stood up quickly considering the strange sneak attack by a few terrorists who fell for nut case ideas and murdered Americans for sport and god because UBL said to do it. You think the General can ring the NORAD phone and start a response! On 911 our soldiers and a few insightful FAA employees started a response faster than the book called for! They dropped procedure and did the job.

Lucky I took typing and can mess up my thoughts on the computer so I don’t waste a day working on this tripe. You post short little failed ideas and never think about it as you apologize for terrorist by making stupid statements due to shallow research, little knowledge and a propensity to believe in lies, hearsay, and cherry picked statement twisted to suit your perverted 911delusions.


Are your posts short due to slow typing or poor typing skills? Why have you failed to find substantive evidence for your hearsay cherry picked based opinions on 911? I have to go back to chopping up trees and cleaning up the yard; have a great sunny Saturday and enjoy your ignorance on 911 topics; it sure save a lot of comprehensive reading and research to have such shallow views. Your ideas do not bear up as you are experiencing what it means to be at a skeptic’s forum; your ideas do not pass the test of truth, knowledge, sound judgment or logic.

Myers thought it was an accident like the rest of the world until he got further information. It was not confirmed for a while was it? Go ahead make up screwed up thoughts on something documented already and you are now making up lies.

[RedIbis]

Are you going to ask incredibly stupid questions and fail to engage some sound judgment? Come on the first clue of a coordinated attack of hijacked aircraft and the opportunity to take action was flight 93 heroes stopping flight 93 and you crap on their memory with your shallow research and nonexistent logic.

Simple, the time to take action and understand 911 was the time the heroes on 93 took action. It is as simple as that.

To tell you the true when I saw the clear skies on 911 at NYC and the hole in the WTC I had a feeling something was up. NO pilot can be dumb enough to hit the WTC on a clear day; next to impossible.

Second impact, I thought UBL had bought planes and flown them with BOMBS into the WTC. I did not know the aircraft, especially flight 11 were speeding at 470 and 590 mph to create the impact equal to 2000-pound bombs.

As the complex plot; kill pilots, crash planes into buildings, was exposed, I expected those weak in knowledge and short on science would make up stupid delusions to satisfy their warped minds; 911Truth has not let me down.

BTW, what is the General going to do! I spent 28 years in the Military and the Generals do not stick the pointy end of the spear into the bad guys, the troops in the field do and our troops on 911 stood up quickly considering the strange sneak attack by a few terrorists who fell for nut case ideas and murdered Americans for sport and god because UBL said to do it. You think the General can ring the NORAD phone and start a response! On 911 our soldiers and a few insightful FAA employees started a response faster than the book called for! They dropped procedure and did the job.

Lucky I took typing and can mess up my thoughts on the computer so I don’t waste a day working on this tripe. You post short little failed ideas and never think about it as you apologize for terrorist by making stupid statements due to shallow research, little knowledge and a propensity to believe in lies, hearsay, and cherry picked statement twisted to suit your perverted 911delusions.


Are your posts short due to slow typing or poor typing skills? Why have you failed to find substantive evidence for your hearsay cherry picked based opinions on 911? I have to go back to chopping up trees and cleaning up the yard; have a great sunny Saturday and enjoy your ignorance on 911 topics; it sure save a lot of comprehensive reading and research to have such shallow views. Your ideas do not bear up as you are experiencing what it means to be at a skeptic’s forum; your ideas do not pass the test of truth, knowledge, sound judgment or logic.

Myers thought it was an accident like the rest of the world until he got further information. It was not confirmed for a while was it? Go ahead make up screwed up thoughts on something documented already and you are now making up lies.

All that and you completely ignored my questions. I'll ask again because I want to be clear that you actually think this.

Are you honestly suggesting that no one knew of the hijackings before 9am?

[beachnut]

All that and you completely ignored my questions. I'll ask again because I want to be clear that you actually think this.

Are you honestly suggesting that no one knew of the hijackings before 9am?
Your question will solve 911?

Do you think no one knew of the hijacking before 9am? Let me see, 19 terrorists knew before 9am. Gee whiz, next question. The pilots on the planes were dead or they would have called in the hijacking, but the pilots on 911 never made it known there was a hijacking; why?

The crews on the planes called in that the planes were taken over and this filtered out to the FAA and others. What time each person knew about the hijackings and correlation to impacting planes in buildings would be interesting but after the fact worthless information.

Why do you ask stupid questions? When did you know there were terrorists flying planes into buildings?

So if the terrorist knew of the hijacking Myers knew?

Oh, the crew on flight 11 called in the take over of the flight and the stabbed people. The crews on the aircraft called in by name the terrorists who were part of the killing crew and passengers on the flights! SO?

Now when did you know on 911 each part of the complex plot of killing pilots, and flying planes into buildings?

So to call Myers a liar or in on the plot or anything your delusional ideas imply is stupid since you are using what Myers said as your evidence to make the incredibly stupid implication. So ask real dumb questions to prove you have no clue what Myers knew and when he knew it because you can’t read and comprehend but you can twist and make up lies with ease. Cool

Another 5 minutes of typing up ideas for a single line dumb question with zero correlation to 911 save to defend the failure of 911Truth delusions 7 plus years still no clue.


This is the eighth-year of failed logic by 911Truth, and your single line questions and shallow research still shine through like the stench of anti-intellectual tripe spewed by 911Truth hearsay and lie contraption of delusions rotting in ignorance on 911 deep in the pit of stupid ideas for 911. You are stuck twisting quotes to match up to your failed 911 ideas you have but you can’t define and post because they are illogical and pure fantasy. Your SIOP for 911 is nonexistent; why?

Tie Gen Myers stuff into a SIOP for 911. Can you do something more than one line questions of no consequence? Why not expose the plot to the authorities or major news outlets?

[tsig]

All that and you completely ignored my questions. I'll ask again because I want to be clear that you actually think this.

Are you honestly suggesting that no one knew of the hijackings before 9am?

So the general should have called the President and then they both jump into fighters to engage and destroy the enemy just like in the movies?

[911files]

So the general should have called the President and then they both jump into fighters to engage and destroy the enemy just like in the movies?

But in Independence Day (the movie), the President did just that. Why I even saw the President in Air Force One (the movie) personally fight off the terrorists who hijacked his plane. President Bush was a fighter pilot.

Yes, Myers and the Prez should have done just that. I want a new investigation to find out why these cowards just sat around reading to school children and sipping tea with Senators while this Nation was under attack!

[stateofgrace]

All that and you completely ignored my questions. I'll ask again because I want to be clear that you actually think this.

Are you honestly suggesting that no one knew of the hijackings before 9am?

Like you ignored this post, Red.

Here's Pamela Freni, "Ground Stop", page 63:


[Ben Sliney] entered the room and explained that the Boston ARTCC had just called with news of a possible hijacking...

At 8.40am, a first-line manager entered the [FAA HQ] meeting to inform them of the possible stabbing death of a flight attendant on that plane...

News of the first plane crash into the World Trade Centre began circulating through the building. Given the intuitive nature of this group of people, it is odd that none of them considered the two incidents - the hijacking and the crash - as being related, but according to Schuessler, something that seemed so bizarre as flying a hijacked plane full of people into a skyscraper didn't seem possible.


They didn't immediately make a connection between the hijacking and the crash. It's not just Freni, either. Read the FAA testimonies in the 9/11 Commission files and you'll find others saying they thought the crash was a small plane, or an accident. The NORAD tapes also have NEADs staff unsure about what's going on, right up to the second impact.

ETA: Major Charles Chambers in the NMCC also thought the first impact was a small plane, and said his instinct was "that the pilot had used the towers to point himself towards the area, lost conciousness, and autopilot had done the rest". Source (http://911myths.com/index.php/Image:DanaHyde_Box2_CharlesChambersDOD-NMCC.pdf)

Well ?

[Dave Rogers]

Do you think that Gen. Myers, as the acting top miliatry official and advisor to the president, neglected his responsibilities and served his country honorably by drinking tea, incommunicado, with Sen. Cleland during the attacks?

We got to a point, RedIbis, where I asked you whether your sole complaint about Myers was that nobody informed him that there was a terrorist attack in progress. At that point you seemed to have something more important to do than reply. I'd like to re-state the question.

Is your sole complaint about Myers that nobody told him that a terrorist attack was in progress? If not, how was he supposed to have become aware that an attack was in progress without being told? If so, given that this relates to the behaviour of others, not of Myers, how does this in any way imply neglect on the part of Myers himself? If you have evidence that Myers took action to prevent anyone communicating with him while he was in the meeting with Cleland, what specifically was this action, and what's your evidence for it?

Please don't start referring to previous posts where you claim incorrectly to have already replied to these questions. You haven't.

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

Are you honestly suggesting that no one knew of the hijackings before 9am?

I'll see your strawman and raise you one. Are you suggesting that, as soon as anyone knew of the hijackings, everyone knew of them?

Dave

[RedIbis]

We got to a point, RedIbis, where I asked you whether your sole complaint about Myers was that nobody informed him that there was a terrorist attack in progress. At that point you seemed to have something more important to do than reply. I'd like to re-state the question.

Is your sole complaint about Myers that nobody told him that a terrorist attack was in progress? If not, how was he supposed to have become aware that an attack was in progress without being told? If so, given that this relates to the behaviour of others, not of Myers, how does this in any way imply neglect on the part of Myers himself? If you have evidence that Myers took action to prevent anyone communicating with him while he was in the meeting with Cleland, what specifically was this action, and what's your evidence for it?

Please don't start referring to previous posts where you claim incorrectly to have already replied to these questions. You haven't.

Dave

You quoted my question, did you even have the courtesy to answer it before asking me two posts of questions?

[Dave Rogers]

You quoted my question, did you even have the courtesy to answer it before asking me two posts of questions?

Which one?

To the first, if Myers attended a meeting to discuss national security with Cleland, was not aware that a major terrorist attack was in progress, and was not informed that an attack was in progress until he left the meeting, then there cannot be any possible way these events can be construed by a reasonable person as constituting any kind of negligent or dishonorable conduct on his part.

To the second: Clearly, some USAF officers at least suspected that there was a hijacking in progress before 9am. It would be reasonable to expect them to scramble on the suspicion only. Therefore, while we cannot be certain that anyone was fully aware of the scale of the attack, it appears that some people were at least aware of the possibility of a hijacking before 9am. There's no evidence to suggest that Myers was one of them.

Your turn.

Dave

[BigAl]

To the second: Clearly, some USAF officers at least suspected that there was a hijacking in progress before 9am. It would be reasonable to expect them to scramble on the suspicion only.
Dave

Nope. Jets only have so much time in the air before they need a refuel. Launching them before there was a target is counterproductive.

[Dave Rogers]

Nope. Jets only have so much time in the air before they need a refuel. Launching them before there was a target is counterproductive.

Good point, but the target was known to be AA11, so I can see a scenario where it was judged advisable to scramble for an intercept before everyone was 100% certain that a hijacking was in progress. Either way, there were clearly USAF officers sufficiently certain of the hijacking of AA11 before 9am to scramble fighters.

RedIbis, it seems that nobody is suggesting that nobody knew of the hijackings before 9am. In particular it seems, from reading the post you were replying to, that Beachnut wasn't suggesting that nobody knew of the hijackings before 9am.

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

Bump for RedIbis. I answered your questions. Any chance you could answer mine? Post #218 has them in full.

Dave

[RedIbis]

We got to a point, RedIbis, where I asked you whether your sole complaint about Myers was that nobody informed him that there was a terrorist attack in progress. At that point you seemed to have something more important to do than reply. I'd like to re-state the question.

Is your sole complaint about Myers that nobody told him that a terrorist attack was in progress? If not, how was he supposed to have become aware that an attack was in progress without being told? If so, given that this relates to the behaviour of others, not of Myers, how does this in any way imply neglect on the part of Myers himself? If you have evidence that Myers took action to prevent anyone communicating with him while he was in the meeting with Cleland, what specifically was this action, and what's your evidence for it?

Please don't start referring to previous posts where you claim incorrectly to have already replied to these questions. You haven't.

Dave

Dave, I think we've reached a point where you and I are just going to disagree on what we think about Myers. Your questions, in all due respect, just seem preposterous to me and I can't figure out why you and others here are so willing to give the guy a pass on this one. I'll provide this example and hopefully this will put a civil end to this line of discourse.

You ask: "Is your sole complaint about Myers that nobody told him that a terrorist attack was in progress? If not, how was he supposed to have become aware that an attack was in progress without being told?

1) No, it's not my sole complaint because he should have been keenly aware of the events as they unfolded since the first impact occurred before he entered Cleland's office. Nobody had to tell me that the attacks were in progress, yet I was able to get information about it before he did, and he is the top military authority acting on that day. This is also a climate in which many terrorist warnings were occurring in the previous days and weeks, so it's unforgivable that he would shut himself up in Cleland's office.

2) Again, your defense of Myers is premised on the fact that as the top military official on that day, he was incommunicado, no beeper, no cell phone, no office phone in Cleland's office, not even one staff member with a working fist that would bang the hell out of the door to get his attention.

This is a huge stretch you have to accept to defend him. If you disagree, there are no more ways that I can state my position, as I've done numerous times on this forum already.

Arguably, Myers is one of the last Americans to learn about the extent of the attacks, when he should have been among the very first to learn about it. That must have been some damn good tea.

[Dave Rogers]

1) No, it's not my sole complaint because he should have been keenly aware of the events as they unfolded since the first impact occurred before he entered Cleland's office. Nobody had to tell me that the attacks were in progress, yet I was able to get information about it before he did, and he is the top military authority acting on that day. This is also a climate in which many terrorist warnings were occurring in the previous days and weeks, so it's unforgivable that he would shut himself up in Cleland's office.

2) Again, your defense of Myers is premised on the fact that as the top military official on that day, he was incommunicado, no beeper, no cell phone, no office phone in Cleland's office, not even one staff member with a working fist that would bang the hell out of the door to get his attention.

I'd like to comment a little further on the bolded parts of your post. You seem to be suggesting in (1) that Myers should not have attended any meetings on national security at a time when national security was a major issue, because being at a meeting on national security would prevent him from responding immediately to a threat. You seem to be suggesting in (2) that you have certain knowledge that Myers took measures to prevent himself being interrupted during his meeting with Cleland. (1) is absurd, and you've yet to present any evidence for (2). In particular, how exactly was Myers responsible for the fact that nobody banged on the door?

I appreciate that you feel that Myers should have known that the attacks were in progress before anyone else, and that you feel he should be punished for incompetence for not knowing this. The fact that I understand that this is your point of view doesn't mean that I find it reasonable.

Dave

[RedIbis]

I'd like to comment a little further on the bolded parts of your post. You seem to be suggesting in (1) that Myers should not have attended any meetings on national security at a time when national security was a major issue, because being at a meeting on national security would prevent him from responding immediately to a threat. You seem to be suggesting in (2) that you have certain knowledge that Myers took measures to prevent himself being interrupted during his meeting with Cleland. (1) is absurd, and you've yet to present any evidence for (2). In particular, how exactly was Myers responsible for the fact that nobody banged on the door?

Dave

That's fine. To you it was better for him to attend a meeting about national security, as opposed to handling the biggest national security emergency in our country's history. I'm done with this Dave. If that's a debunker victory, enjoy the cake.

[Dave Rogers]

That's fine. To you it was better for him to attend a meeting about national security, as opposed to handling the biggest national security emergency in our country's history. I'm done with this Dave. If that's a debunker victory, enjoy the cake.

OK, so to summarise, you've got no evidence he took any steps to prevent anyone contacting him, you think he should have known something nobody else realised at the time, and if anybody disagrees you'll throw a strawman argument back at them and run away. By the usual standards, that's a typical truther "victory".

Dave

[lapman]

OK, so to summarise, you've got no evidence he took any steps to prevent anyone contacting him, you think he should have known something nobody else realised at the time, and if anybody disagrees you'll throw a strawman argument back at them and run away. By the usual standards, that's a typical truther "victory".

Dave
Typical twoofer hindsight argument. So the argument is that because we know now that the first crash was on purpose, Myers should have known. Red cannot provide evidence to show that a hijacking is considered a major national security issue as of 9/11 that would require his full attention. However, Myers is supposed to have ESP to just know that something was going on and immediately cancel the meeting.

[RedIbis]

you think he should have known something nobody else realised at the time,

Dave

How did you actually type that without realizing it would be posted in a public forum and considered absolutely ridiculous?

[Reheat]

However, Myers is supposed to have ESP to just know that something was going on and immediately cancel the meeting.

Not only that, but the one-legged long-beaked bird has no clue exactly what Gen Myers' job is. That issue was discussed the last time this came up and he should have learned that Gen Myers has very little authority or ability to do anything worthwhile/significant during a incident of this nature.

Gen Myer' job on the JCS is to advise/plan on/for LONG RANGE objectives. The infrastructure is already in place to respond to this type of incident and there is very little Gen Myers can or will in a real time scenario.

Like many other twoofers he likely thinks things work as they do in Hollywood movies with Generals sitting in their over stuffed chairs, smoking a cigar, and making all of the real time critical decisions. It doesn't quite work like that and Gen Myers knows his most important function is to stay out of the way and read the after action report.

About the only thing from a Command and Control perspective that didn't happen on 9/11 that should have happened was that the NORAD fighters should have had "shoot down" authority after the second aircraft hit the towers. However, due to the disconnect between the FAA, the NMCC, NORAD, and the National Command Authority (NMC) that decision was made late and according to all information available it never reached NORAD even after the decision was made.

Anytime Red or anyone else thinks people are irreplaceable, they need to conduct an simple experiment. Just stick your finger in a glass of water and see if it leaves a hole! That is a pretty close analogy to how the system really works.

[Reheat]

How did you actually type that without realizing it would be posted in a public forum and considered absolutely ridiculous?

Only by people like you!

[Dave Rogers]

How did you actually type that without realizing it would be posted in a public forum and considered absolutely ridiculous?

Apart from the hijackers, who knew at 9am on 9/11 that a major attack was in progress on the USA using airliners as manned missiles? Please cite your sources.

Dave

[A W Smith]

That must have been some damn good tea.

Maybe he thought it was thunder (http://www.celestialseasonings.com/products/detail.html/black-teas/morning-thunder)?

[RedIbis]

Apart from the hijackers, who knew at 9am on 9/11 that a major attack was in progress on the USA using airliners as manned missiles? Please cite your sources.

Dave

Oh I don't know, NEADS maybe, or as the Commission suggests "the military."

It [the Commission Report] says “the first notification received by the military—at any level—that American 11 had been hijacked” is when Boston Center calls NEADS just before 8:38 a.m. (see (8:37 a.m.) September 11, 2001). [9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 20]

You can also add the FAA and the major flight control centers. Three minutes after 9 and I think Myers was one of the only humans on the planet, in range of a TV or radio who did not know we were under attack.

[Dave Rogers]

It [the Commission Report] says “the first notification received by the military—at any level—that American 11 had been hijacked” is when Boston Center calls NEADS just before 8:38 a.m. (see (8:37 a.m.) September 11, 2001). [9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 20]

Nice job of answering a question I didn't ask. Would you like to re-read the post you replied to, and see where you got it wrong?

Dave

[Crungy]

Apart from the hijackers, who knew at 9am on 9/11 that a major attack was in progress on the USA using airliners as manned missiles? Please cite your sources.

Dave

From reading his posts on this thread and others I see that Red continues his DiMaggio like streak as being the most dishonest poster on this forum.

[RedIbis]

Nice job of answering a question I didn't ask. Would you like to re-read the post you replied to, and see where you got it wrong?

Dave

While we're playing the semantics game, a hijacked airliner is a manned missile.

[lapman]

While we're playing the semantics game, a hijacked airliner is a manned missile.
Oh, so you can show that 100% of all hijacked aircraft have been used as manned missiles?

[Dave Rogers]

While we're playing the semantics game, a hijacked airliner is a manned missile.

At 9am on 9/11, nobody other than the hijackers knew that an attack was in progress using hijacked airliners as manned missiles to strike targets in the USA. It's clear that some people were aware that an airliner had crashed into WTC1, and that others were aware that an airliner had been hijacked, but the two events hadn't been connected, as the FAA believed that flight 11 was still in the air. Therefore, you're accusing Myers of incompetence for not knowing something that nobody else but the hijackers knew, and which arguably he couldn't have known, and of negligence because nobody else told him about it until the time that somebody told him about it. There's no semantics there.

Dave

[funk de fino]

Oh I don't know, NEADS maybe, or as the Commission suggests "the military."

It [the Commission Report] says “the first notification received by the military—at any level—that American 11 had been hijacked” is when Boston Center calls NEADS just before 8:38 a.m. (see (8:37 a.m.) September 11, 2001). [9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 20]

You can also add the FAA and the major flight control centers. Three minutes after 9 and I think Myers was one of the only humans on the planet, in range of a TV or radio who did not know we were under attack.

Stop lying.

[T.A.M.]

While we're playing the semantics game, a hijacked airliner is a manned missile.

While we are playing semantics, a hijacked airliner, is POTENTIALLY, a manned missile.

TAM;)

[johnny karate]

While we're playing the semantics game, a hijacked airliner is a manned missile.


Classic double standard nonsense from the intellectually dishonest. If you apply semantics to one of his arguments, he responds:
I used that phrase informally... I didn't expect anyone to be so tediously literal. I'll try not to make that assumption again.


And besides:
I'm done with this Dave.


Since he lacks the self-control to be true to his word, I think we should just let him off the hook. He has nothing new, or interesting, to offer. And I'm sure he has to get back to his busy schedule of not submitting ironclad proof of heinous crimes to the proper authorities.

[RedIbis]

At 9am on 9/11, nobody other than the hijackers knew that an attack was in progress using hijacked airliners as manned missiles to strike targets in the USA. It's clear that some people were aware that an airliner had crashed into WTC1, and that others were aware that an airliner had been hijacked, but the two events hadn't been connected, as the FAA believed that flight 11 was still in the air. Therefore, you're accusing Myers of incompetence for not knowing something that nobody else but the hijackers knew, and which arguably he couldn't have known, and of negligence because nobody else told him about it until the time that somebody told him about it. There's no semantics there.

Dave

Bolded to indicate where you make an astounding amount of absolutist assumptions.

[lapman]

Bolded to indicate where you make an astounding amount of absolutist assumptions.
No. You have been presented with evidence that fully supports this. You, on the other hand, have absolutely nothing other than "because I said so."

[Mince]

Bolded to indicate where you make an astounding amount of absolutist assumptions.

Bolded to indicate where you utterly fail to demonstrate that General Myers knew---or even suspected---a hijack/crash scenario was taking place prior to Flight 175 crashing into WTC 2 (or even offer a scenario where General Myers should have reasonably believed a hijack/crash episode was in progress).

By the way, this post of yours seems to be a bit of "absolutists assumption" itself.

[Crungy]

While we are playing semantics, a hijacked airliner, is POTENTIALLY, a manned missile.

TAM;)

Thanks. ;)

I don't what's worse, his dishonesty or his silly, childish and wholly transparent gamers of evasion. Seriously, the hardest part of his posting must be to keep a straight face.