FBI ongoing investigation? [Archive]

CptColumbo

12th March 2007, 11:32 PM

So the official story isn't even official yet???

The CT community likes to label the generally accepted story of the events of 9-11 as the "Official Story," as a way to make it seem like it is solely the work of the USG (and therefore immediately suspect). In reality it is the product of not just the investigations and findings of various government agencies, it is also the result of the work of journalists and independent researchers and scientists. Investigations are still ongoing and probably will never be finished, as there is much we will probably never know. However, these unknowns will most likely be of little impact to the overall picture of what we understand happened.

R.Mackey

13th March 2007, 12:18 AM

Professing disbelief in the "Official Theory" because the FBI is still investigating is like refusing to learn fractions until Cramér's conjecture is proven.

If you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding!

Puppycow

13th March 2007, 12:40 AM

How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?

beachnut

13th March 2007, 12:45 AM

So the official story isn't even official yet???What would Webster Tarpley do? Have you found anything true in his book yet?

I doubt if you can point to the "official story" documents. Where is this so called "official story"?

Do CTers actually know where the "official story" is kept?

Does the FBI have it? www.fbi.gov (http://www.fbi.gov) Now I wonder why UBL is wanted by the FBI?

If UBL believes the CTers, UBL should just come on over and straighten things out! Darn, if he is innocent he should come on over. I would suspect, since there are a whole bunch of guys wanted, over 9/11 issues, there is a ongoing FBI investigation.

Since all the CTers are such stupendous researchers, including the truther super experts, should go join the FBI and set this whole thing straight.

skepticalcriticalguy

13th March 2007, 12:46 AM

Investigations are still ongoing and probably will never be finished, as there is much we will probably never know. However, these unknowns will most likely be of little impact to the overall picture of what we understand happened.

Umm... That's comforting to think.

skepticalcriticalguy

13th March 2007, 12:48 AM

I doubt if you can point to the "official story" documents. Where is this so called "official story"?

I've been told at this very forum that the "official story" consists of the FEMA/Kean-Hamilton/NIST triumvirate.

beachnut

13th March 2007, 01:23 AM

I've been told at this very forum that the "official story" consists of the FEMA/Kean-Hamilton/NIST triumvirate.You need to set caps lock and bold this, skepticalcriticalguy! Please fill the forum with your intelligence!

That is as good as expected from someone who thinks Webster Trapley has facts on 9/11. It appears you are showing how researched challenged you are. That seems you have limited yourself to what others say, and you truly can not find the "official story". Based on your previous posts I seriously doubt you will ever find the "official story" or anything that resembles reality. You may want to call your mother and tell her your education was a failure and there is serious doubt about you ever becoming a researcher.

the guys over at www.fbi.gov (http://www.fbi.gov) may not be calling

skepticalcriticalguy

13th March 2007, 01:25 AM

You need to set caps lock and bold this, skepticalcriticalguy! Please fill the forum with your intelligence!

That is as good as expected from someone who thinks Webster Trapley has facts on 9/11. It appears you are showing how researched challenged you are. That seems you have limited yourself to what others say, and you truly can not find the "official story". Based on your previous posts I seriously doubt you will ever find the "official story" or anything that resembles reality. You may want to call your mother and tell her your education was a failure and there is serious doubt about you ever becoming a researcher.

NUT, lame post.

boloboffin

13th March 2007, 02:23 AM

How can you have any pudding if you don't eat your meat?

You!

Yes, you!

Stand still, laddie!

MG1962

13th March 2007, 03:22 AM

You!

Yes, you!

Stand still, laddie!

Next you will be telling me the Wall fell at free fall speed

hellaeon

13th March 2007, 03:38 AM

Next you will be telling me the Wall fell at free fall speed

You can clearly see the Wall was demolished at the end. Explosives on the top blowing it downwards. The mushroom cloud was a sign of nukes and there were bombs because I can hear explosions.

JimBenArm

13th March 2007, 04:31 AM

You can clearly see the Wall was demolished at the end. Explosives on the top blowing it downwards. The mushroom cloud was a sign of nukes and there were bombs because I can hear explosions.
But what about the thermite? There is no way that the nukes could have done it unless they got a thermite assist!
Sheesh, you guys don't know anything!

gumboot

13th March 2007, 04:50 AM

Next you will be telling me the Wall fell at free fall speed

It fell faster than freefall, because it didn't "fall" at all. It was pulled downwards by force, thus it had the force of gravity + the additional pulling down force acting on it.

Evidence?

Since, my friend, you have revealed your
Deepest fear,
I sentence you to be exposed before
Your peers.
Tear down the wall!
-Pink Floyd - The Wall; The Trial

(my bolding)

-Gumboot

steve s

13th March 2007, 09:56 AM

You!

Yes, you!

Stand still, laddie!

**** OFF!!!

:p

One of the few songs to get the F-word past the radio censors. I can think of two others that managed to do it. Both are classic rock songs. One of them is played fairly regularly and should be pretty easy. The other one is a bit more obscure. Can you guess them?

(sorry for the derail.)

Steve S.

Panoply_Prefect

13th March 2007, 10:50 AM

Oh, man this turned into something else. The reason I asked was hit by a CT at another board with the claim, regarding Pentagon and AA77, that:

1. The NTSB didnt investigate the AA77 crash, which shows the cover-up, since they were afraid that the NWO conspiracy would be exposed, or sumthin. We cleared that out, with me pointing to the role of NTSB and the FBI, courtesy of people at this board and the NTSB/FBI homepage respectivly. In short the NTSB investigates accidents, the FBI crimes. 911 was not an accident it was a federal crime.

2. Next claim was that the FBI had taken everything away, destroyed it, classified everything and then closed the investigation. I pointed out that (CT response in red):

There were DNA ("planted)", aircraft debris (first "not analyzed properly" "no evidence but photos, which could be any plane" then in addition "planted", FDR ("showed north of CITGO, and so high it was an obvious flyover" and finally "planted")

and I made a post here to check if anyone knew if FBI had closed the investigation, which obviously is not the case since they still have suspects not yet prosecuted ("investigation is really halted 'technically'").

So I feel its reasonable established that the FBI will prosecute more people involved in 911 and thus the investigation is still open. If anyone has any more knowledge of public info on their work, please post in this thread.

Cheers,
SLOB

Panoply_Prefect

13th March 2007, 10:57 AM

So the official story isn't even official yet???

Could you point me to the official site where there is a "story" that is labeled "The Official Story"?

Cheers,
SLOB

skepticalcriticalguy

13th March 2007, 01:58 PM

**** OFF!!!

:p

One of the few songs to get the F-word past the radio censors. I can think of two others that managed to do it. Both are classic rock songs. One of them is played fairly regularly and should be pretty easy. The other one is a bit more obscure. Can you guess them?

(sorry for the derail.)

Steve S.

Who Are You by The Who

skepticalcriticalguy

13th March 2007, 01:59 PM

Could you point me to the official site where there is a "story" that is labeled "The Official Story"?

Cheers,
SLOB

If I had time, I'd find the post here, in response to my question, where a highly respected member of this forum told me it was the Fema report, the NIST report, and the Kean-Hamilton tissue.

(Except he didn't say "tissue").

beachnut

13th March 2007, 02:54 PM

If I had time, I'd find the post here, in response to my question, where a highly respected member of this forum told me it was the Fema report, the NIST report, and the Kean-Hamilton tissue.

(Except he didn't say "tissue").
Still have not found what, or where the official story is. That would take real research. So you finally found out Webster Tarpley's book was total trash on 9/11. What new source have you to point to the not so factual CT world of 9/11 lies and fraud? Bring on some new stuff.

You will have problems finding facts how could you find that post? And then what would that prove but you are fixed on one thing. So when did you find out Webster Tarpley's book was full of lies?

skepticalcriticalguy

13th March 2007, 03:02 PM

Still have not found what, or where the official story is. That would take real research. So you finally found out Webster Tarpley's book was total trash on 9/11. What new source have you to point to the not so factual CT world of 9/11 lies and fraud? Bring on some new stuff.

You will have problems finding facts how could you find that post? And then what would that prove but you are fixed on one thing. So when did you find out Webster Tarpley's book was full of lies?

Dude, relax on this Tarpley thing. You're a bit obsessive. Considering you never read it.

Some of you here ought to read some of the "Truth" books out there. It might help you argue against them. And you might pick up a few things. Most "Truthers" don't read, after all. They just look at pictures and videos. Right?

skepticalcriticalguy

13th March 2007, 03:04 PM

Still have not found what, or where the official story is.

Yeah, I know. The elusive "official story."

Maybe someday the FBI will finish its investigation. I wonder what they'll come up with...

beachnut

13th March 2007, 03:14 PM

Dude, relax on this Tarpley thing. You're a bit obsessive. Considering you never read it.

Some of you here ought to read some of the "Truth" books out there. It might help you argue against them. And you might pick up a few things. Most "Truthers" don't read, after all. They just look at pictures and videos. Right?
Telling a lie now? I have read it you CT guys are always wrong.

Does he ever fix the 20 minutes in the third edition? I was 80 minutes to intercept Payne Stewart's jet. Why can CTers not check simple facts?

You said Tarpley's book was the thing! What is Trapley's book now but a bunch of junk.

I am thinking you are the one who may not of read his book because you can not produce any facts from it. Did you know he messed up Payne Stewart's stuff? Has he corrected in the 3rd edition?

You have read it, is your edition corrected for the 20 minute stuff or is Webster still a liar? Please tell me.

PhantomWolf

13th March 2007, 03:15 PM

Yeah, I know. The elusive "official story."

Maybe someday the FBI will finish its investigation. I wonder what they'll come up with...

Well considering they are part of the plot, what do you think? :rolleyes:

steve s

13th March 2007, 10:27 PM

Who Are You by The Who

That's one.

Steve S.

skepticalcriticalguy

14th March 2007, 01:06 AM

Telling a lie now? I have read it you CT guys are always wrong.

Does he ever fix the 20 minutes in the third edition? I was 80 minutes to intercept Payne Stewart's jet. Why can CTers not check simple facts?

You said Tarpley's book was the thing! What is Trapley's book now but a bunch of junk.

I am thinking you are the one who may not of read his book because you can not produce any facts from it. Did you know he messed up Payne Stewart's stuff? Has he corrected in the 3rd edition?

You have read it, is your edition corrected for the 20 minute stuff or is Webster still a liar? Please tell me.

You haven't read it. And you know it.

It's only on the 2nd edition right now. With lots of new stuff about the 15 drills, and Able Danger. I don't have the 2nd Edition yet. I don't know if he addresses the Paine Stewart mistake. But he did mention in a lecture I heard recently that there is some discrepency as to the details of Paine Stewart incident, depending on your source. I didn't get everything he was saying about it. I'll check it out, try to find it, and get back to you. I think it was in his April 1, 2006 lecture in Seattle.

Question for you: The news media gets stories wrong all the time. Sometimes they correct them, sometimes they don't. So, do you discredit a news outlet forever because of that one mistake? For example; look at the BBC's Building 7 story. WRONG! So why listen to anything else they ever report? Hmmmm?

Tarpley gets the timing of the Paine Stewart intercept wrong, a detail, so he's a liar. Like the way you all handled the Tom Flocco error.

skepticalcriticalguy

14th March 2007, 01:12 AM

Well considering they are part of the plot, what do you think? :rolleyes:

They probably have Dave Frasca running the investigation.

skepticalcriticalguy

14th March 2007, 01:14 AM

That's one.

Steve S.

Jet Airliner by Steve Miller slips in the S--- word!! Does that count for an extra credit point?

(Still thinking on that second F--- word song. I'm thinking Nugent).

skepticalcriticalguy

14th March 2007, 01:20 AM

That's one.

Steve S.

Is it Not Now John by Pink Floyd?

beachnut

14th March 2007, 01:23 AM

You haven't read it. And you know it.

It's only on the 2nd edition right now. With lots of new stuff about the 15 drills, and Able Danger. I don't have the 2nd Edition yet. I don't know if he addresses the Paine Stewart mistake. But he did mention in a lecture I heard recently that there is some discrepency as to the details of Paine Stewart incident, depending on your source. I didn't get everything he was saying about it. I'll check it out, try to find it, and get back to you.

Question for you: The news media gets stories wrong all the time. Sometimes they correct them, sometimes they don't. So, do you discredit a news outlet forever because of that one mistake? For example; look at the BBC's Building 7 story. WRONG! So why listen to anything else they ever report? Hmmmm?The 3rd edition is out now.

But it is still lies and you can not point to an exercise or a drill that was going on during 9/11. Steward's intercept is wrong by Tarpley. And all the other stuff you have. Not one fact yet. You know the exercise never started. Darn, more lies by WT.

When you start trusting others you get no facts, just lies. Sorry to harp on WT's book but it is a bad source and as yet you have not produced one fact to support the CT stuff from his book. You must not be reading it very well.

Webster says 20 minutes and he is off by an hour. Wow. His exercise stuff is false. It was funny you still have not found a fact in his book. Is this indicative of all your research on 9/11?

About news sources, they are challenged too. You have to know your limitations and others limitations. But with WT, he has no facts and he only distorts 9/11 for his political goals or to sell books.

Get his book out and show us some hard facts that Tarpley has! Come one you said you read the book, tell us what is the top fact in the book. And tell us why Stewart's story is all messed up. Tarpley can not even tell time, how do you expect him to research his book properly.

Remember multiple sources help. But in CT land there are no credible sources found yet. 5 years and not one source with facts.

5 years. Tarpley is a bad source; does anyone disagree?

skepticalcriticalguy

14th March 2007, 01:36 AM

The 3rd edition is out now.

But it is still lies and you can not point to an exercise or a drill that was going on during 9/11. Steward's intercept is wrong by Tarpley. And all the other stuff you have. Not one fact yet. You know the exercise never started. Darn, more lies by WT.

When you start trusting others you get no facts, just lies. Sorry to harp on WT's book but it is a bad source and as yet you have not produced one fact to support the CT stuff from his book. You must not be reading it very well.

Webster says 20 minutes and he is off by an hour. Wow. His exercise stuff is false. It was funny you still have not found a fact in his book. Is this indicative of all your research on 9/11?

About news sources, they are challenged too. You have to know your limitations and others limitations. But with WT, he has no facts and he only distorts 9/11 for his political goals or to sell books.

Get his book out and show us some hard facts that Tarpley has! Come one you said you read the book, tell us what is the top fact in the book. And tell us why Stewart's story is all messed up. Tarpley can not even tell time, how do you expect him to research his book properly.

Remember multiple sources help. But in CT land there are no credible sources found yet. 5 years and not one source with facts.

5 years. Tarpley is a bad source; does anyone disagree?

More crap.

So, are you claiming you have read the THIRD EDITION, the brand new shiny THIRD EDITION of 9/11 Synthetic Terror Made in the USA? Well, are you?

As for drills; 15 ongoing on that day. Team8plus and Total411 cover this. As does Tarpley in his 2nd edition of Synthetic Terror. Which you certainly got in your shiny new 3rd edition you claim to have thoroughly read and researched).

Like any journalist, including the BBC, Fox Noise, CNN, New York Times, Washington Post, Al Jazeera, etc, report stories wrong all the time. Every day, Nut. And sometimes they even admit to getting bad information. (Like that WTC7 collapse story. Which went out 15-20 minutes early in Berlin, also, BTW). So why do you believe them?

Even the FBI reported some of the wrong hijackers. According to the Director. So is everything they tell us from that point on a pack of lies? Hmmm? (And they only corrected themselves, sort of, when confronted about it).

gumboot

14th March 2007, 02:17 AM

As for drills; 15 ongoing on that day. Team8plus and Total411 cover this. As does Tarpley in his 2nd edition of Synthetic Terror. Which you certainly got in your shiny new 3rd edition you claim to have thoroughly read and researched).

I'd certainly like to see some information about these alleged 15 drills. I know quite a lot about the "drills" that were happening on 9/11. I'd also be curious to hear what their definition of "drill" is.

Do you have a link, or can you name these 15 "drills"?

-Gumboot

gumboot

14th March 2007, 02:29 AM

Oh, and by the way, the error in the Payne Stewart incident is not a minor detail. The event is used as evidence of how smoothly a military intercept is supposed to go.

However the key facts (all wrong or not mentioned):
1) The intercept was not carried out by NORAD
2) The intercept took 81 minutes
3) The precise position of N47BA was known at all times

Have an enormous importance in relation to 9/11 as on 9/11 it WAS NORAD trying to perform intercepts, the position of the hijacked aircraft were not known, and the longest intercept window was only 41 minutes.

In actual fact the intercept time required for N47BA was the same as the ENTIRE FLIGHT DURATION for UA93, and took LONGER than the total flight duration for each of the other three flights.

Thus, logically, even had NORAD been asked to intercept each flight THE MOMENT IT TOOK OFF they still would have had insufficient time to intercept any of the flights.

So as you can see, getting this time wrong is NOT a small detail.

-Gumboot

skepticalcriticalguy

14th March 2007, 02:57 AM

skepticalcriticalguy

14th March 2007, 02:59 AM

gumboot

14th March 2007, 03:37 AM

In my opinion, Able Warrior and Able Danger are the key to what happened on 9/11. In my opinion. (That means, don't say PROVE IT!!!)

Able Warrior is a USSOUTHCOM biannual SOCOM exercise. USSOUTHCOM's area of responsibility is South America.

Able Danger is not a military drill or exercise.

Care to try again?

-Gumboot

beachnut

14th March 2007, 10:40 AM

In my opinion, Able Warrior and Able Danger are the key to what happened on 9/11. In my opinion. (That means, don't say PROVE IT!!!)
Have you called your mother and to tell her your education was a failure and there is serious doubt about you ever becoming a researcher.

No, Able Warrior and Able Danger are not key to what happen on 9/11. What planet do you live on, prisonplanet? Once you involve the military, and if you had some plot, you would be turned in and exposed by the military.
Due to knowledge, logic, and fact; This has to be on of the most challenged allegation yet.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?act=idx
who are you at LCF?

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?act=idx
Or did they ban you for having just junk.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?act=idx
I bet they will ban you over there first post, out of the box, ban. Or can you only remember the lies of 9/11 and one password.

Jennie C.

14th March 2007, 10:48 AM

Never mind, there were enough who beat me to Pink Floyd wisecracks.

beachnut

14th March 2007, 11:12 AM

I have to go to work, but I'll try to get you some info tonight.

Here are a couple sites:
http://team8plus.org/news.php
http://www.total411.info/

woo sites. You will not have a job long if you tell the people you work with about your woo stuff.

You really have the top woo sites. You really need to post over at this place!

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?act=idx

You never say anything about 9/11. You are just a lemming posting web sites of junk on 9/11. Why even post? What are your facts? What do you have we have not seen? Your web site are just full of lies and junk. Why waste our time and your time on lies. Present some new facts. We all agree that Webster Tarpley's books are full of lies, what new source from woo land needs debunking? What new facts will you present? What do you have to take to the FBI to break this wide open as so many 9/11 truther drones brag?

skepticalcriticalguy

15th March 2007, 01:32 AM

You will not have a job long if you tell the people you work with about your woo stuff.

OK, Bill O'Reilley. Thanks for the heads up. I won't bring it up around the water cooler.

gumboot

15th March 2007, 04:35 AM

OK, Bill O'Reilley. Thanks for the heads up. I won't bring it up around the water cooler.

How are you going with that info about the "15 drills"? I had a look at those websites, and frankly I'm not interested in trawling through the chaotic garbage they have there trying to find what you're talking about. I noticed one of them is promoting Killtown's "No plane at Shankesville" video.

-Gumboot

skepticalcriticalguy

16th March 2007, 12:22 AM

How are you going with that info about the "15 drills"? I had a look at those websites, and frankly I'm not interested in trawling through the chaotic garbage they have there trying to find what you're talking about. I noticed one of them is promoting Killtown's "No plane at Shankesville" video.

-Gumboot

I hate to just sling a link to a Youtube/Google video, but my time is limited.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-609179074068244932&q=webster+tarpley+seattle&hl=en

In this lecture, Tarpley cover most of the "drills" (your quotes) that were going on. Keep in ind that some of them are ongoing drills; not necessarily scheduled to start the morning of 9/11. He also talks about drills on 7/7/05 in London.

I would say jump to about 2/3 into it, where he concentrates on these drills. But then you will miss his analysis of Able Warrior/Able Danger, which is covered earlier in the lecture.

Hell, why not; if you can take the time, watch the whole thing. It will help you understand where the "rogue network within the government MIHOP" people are coming from. I'm sure parts will annoy the hell out of you, because it's been "debunked," but go with it. A lot of people are starting to listen to this guy. It's not the "Bush did it!" or "Cheney did it!" typical woo stuff. Ironically, it even opens the door to the possibilty that Al Qaida "did it," but as a contractor (as David Shayler has suggested; he claims MI6 hired Al Qaida to off Qadaffi (sp?) of Libya).

RAMS

16th March 2007, 12:40 AM

So the official story isn't even official yet???

Correct. The NRO and the NSA are still looking at hard data concerning Islamic groups and the trace back of events just prior to 911.

I know that Marshall Space Flight Center (NASA-MSFC) recieved a large amount of debris from the WTC complex for analysis and that too is under wraps publicly.

I am anxious for the data on the latter, especially.

Robert A.M. Stephens, LLC ®
NASA Fine Art Documentation Program
Vision Motion Dynamic-FX-FX
behold the rage
________________________________
Have Jeep, Have Heart, Will Travel

skepticalcriticalguy

18th March 2007, 11:49 AM

I know that Marshall Space Flight Center (NASA-MSFC) recieved a large amount of debris from the WTC complex for analysis and that too is under wraps publicly.

Of course it is.

beachnut

18th March 2007, 11:57 AM

I hate to just sling a link to a Youtube/Google video, but my time is limited.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-609179074068244932&q=webster+tarpley+seattle&hl=en

In this lecture, Tarpley cover most of the "drills" (your quotes) that were going on. Keep in ind that some of them are ongoing drills; not necessarily scheduled to start the morning of 9/11. He also talks about drills on 7/7/05 in London.

I would say jump to about 2/3 into it, where he concentrates on these drills. But then you will miss his analysis of Able Warrior/Able Danger, which is covered earlier in the lecture.

Hell, why not; if you can take the time, watch the whole thing. It will help you understand where the "rogue network within the government MIHOP" people are coming from. I'm sure parts will annoy the hell out of you, because it's been "debunked," but go with it. A lot of people are starting to listen to this guy. It's not the "Bush did it!" or "Cheney did it!" typical woo stuff. Ironically, it even opens the door to the possibilty that Al Qaida "did it," but as a contractor (as David Shayler has suggested; he claims MI6 hired Al Qaida to off Qadaffi (sp?) of Libya).
Webster Tarpley is debunked; he is not a credible source for 9/11 information. Find at least 2 or 3 independent sources to help you one this you! The only thing you learn from Tarpley is how stupid he is on 9/11. He is just a BS artist and you have failed to grasp the facts of 9/11 and you are too lazy to start. Start by doing your own fact finding and explain why any of his junk is worth anything. It is all BS; stuff of bad pulp fiction.

If you do not have time to properly research these idiots and tell us if it is true then do not post trash and lies about 9/11. If you are too lazy to do the research and prove the idiot is telling the truth save us and you the embarrassment of your weak research skills. You only show how shallow and disrespectful you are of the 9/11 event and those that died by bringing up lie after lie and trying to pass it off as fact on 9/11.

BTW when you mention drills most will know you are full of BS too.

Gravy

18th March 2007, 12:05 PM

Gravy

18th March 2007, 12:18 PM

I know that Marshall Space Flight Center (NASA-MSFC) recieved a large amount of debris from the WTC complex for analysis and that too is under wraps publicly.

I am anxious for the data on the latter, especially.I hadn't heard this. Do you have any sources for that info, or know what type of debris they're analyzing, and why?

Perhaps they're looking for Star Wars beams. :eek:

R.Mackey

18th March 2007, 12:27 PM

I can't find any results yet on NASA NTRS, or anything relevant at all.

Guessing in the dark, Marshall does a lot of work on combustion (rocket propulsion, natch) and has a number of small test stands. I'd speculate that they may be modeling impact, effects of the initial blast, or collapse dynamics and comparing to recovered steel.

orphia nay

28th May 2007, 12:09 AM

I'd certainly like to see some information about these alleged 15 drills. I know quite a lot about the "drills" that were happening on 9/11. I'd also be curious to hear what their definition of "drill" is.

Do you have a link, or can you name these 15 "drills"?

-Gumboot

I've just come across this Tarpley "drills" claim in another forum. They gave me a link a video, as they do :rolleyes: , but I found a (woo) site that lists 15 "drills" in their 9/11 timeline.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&before_9/11=militaryExercises

By my count:

1. Northern Vigilance

2. Vigilant Guardian

3. FBI/CIA drill at Monterey

4. Global Guardian

5. Fort Belvoir (near the Pentagon) base security exercise

6. NEADS

7. Andrews Airforce base, North Carolina exercise

8. Fort Monmouth, NJ fake chemical disaster drill

9. NRO, Chantilly, Virginia exercise

10. Vigilant Warrior? (could be a myth based on a slip of the tongue)

11. Fort Myer, near the Pentagon, air crash rescue class

12. NORAD hijacking simulation

13. AWACS training mission off the coast of Florida

14. Ellington Air National Guard base training mission

15. OEM NY Tripod bioterrorism drill

Now, my first question is, how many drills were normally run on any given day throughout the country?

Since your time is limited, I'll give you two simple questions.

1) NEADS dealt with all the 9/11 hijackings. Did they run any drills on 9/11?

2) Did the U.S. military run any drills on 9/11 involving hijackings?

I may have to use those questions.

Gravy

28th May 2007, 01:18 AM

I imagine that there were many, many more military training exercises either underway or planned for 9/11 than those Tarpley lists. The U.S. military is very large and is involved in training constantly.

These are the NORAD exercises either underway or planned for 9/11.

1) Operation Northern Vigilance. This was a yearly exercise involving real aircraft in Alaska and northwest Canada which responded to Russian training exercises. It began on Sept. 9. The Russians called off their exercise when they learned of the attacks.

2) Vigilant Guardian and Global Guardian. These were annual NORAD-wide command-post exercises (CPX), which were simulations not involving real aircraft. They were designed to test response to a simulated nuclear attack from Russia.

Tarpley lists NEADS as a war game. NEADS is part of NORAD, the Northeast Air Defense Sector. NEADS and its 4 alert fighters on the east coast responded to the 9/11 attacks. NEADS was scheduled to begin its Vigilant Guardian exercise at 0900 on 9/11. Of course when the attacks happened the exercise was canceled. NEADS ran no exercises on 9/11.

There were no hijacking exercises run on 9/11. At least one (a simulation not involving real aircraft) had been scheduled for later that day but of course was not run.

No "blips" were inserted on any civilian Air Traffic Control radar screens. This simply is not done. Think of the dangerous confusion it would cause.

Vigilant Warrior was not part of the exercises or operations around 9/11. As you noted, its mention was a slip of the tongue by Richard Clarke.

The Office of Emergency Management/FEMA Tripod II bioterrorism drill was neither scheduled for nor run on 9/11. That exercise was scheduled for September 12.

None of the exercises listed would have affected the outcome of the attacks had they not been run.

gumboot

28th May 2007, 02:16 AM

Thanks Orphia, I can respond to that list a little later.

Just one pedantic thing...

It is incorrect to refer to "Operation Northern Vigilance" as an exercise. It was not an exercise, in any size, shape or form. It was a real-world operation, in response to real-world movement of real-world Russian aircraft.

The brief response to the wargames, as Gravy is quite correct to point out, is that only one set of wargames (Global Guardian and Vigilant Guardian are part of the same overall exercise referred to as "Vigilant Overview") involved the forces required to respond to the attacks. These exercises did not involve any operational units, they did not involve the FAA, and they did not impair the response. Indeed, according to Richard Meyers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (and the sponsor of the Vigilant Overview exercises), these exercises improved the military response, as it meant operational positions were filled with personnel that normally would not be filled except under a higher level of DEFCON.

While it didn't ensure a successful intercept, Conspiracy Theorists ignore the fact that NORAD's activities for the days continued well into the afternoon with many successful intercepts and the establishment of CAPs over every single US city, supported by AWACS and Airbourne Tankers. To go from the lowest level of readiness, to implementing a modified form of SCATANA (the military emergency plan designed for use in the event of a full scale Nuclear attack) in the space of a few hours is a phenomenal achievement.

-Gumboot

gumboot

28th May 2007, 06:13 AM

I've just come across this Tarpley "drills" claim in another forum. They gave me a link a video, as they do :rolleyes: , but I found a (woo) site that lists 15 "drills" in their 9/11 timeline.

All right, let's have a look.

1. Northern Vigilance

Isn't a drill.

2. Vigilant Guardian

Command post exercise. Improved response time.

3. FBI/CIA drill at Monterey

Irrelevant to immediate response to attacks.

4. Global Guardian

See Vigilant Guardian. (They're both components of the same exercise).

5. Fort Belvoir (near the Pentagon) base security exercise

Security exercises as a single army base are not relevant to the immediate response to the attacks.

6. NEADS

NEADS were involved in the Vigilant Guardian exercise. See above. It enhanced response.

7. Andrews Airforce base, North Carolina exercise

Not an exercise. Two fighters from the 121st Fighter Squadron based at Andrews AFB were on a training flight. Training is what armed forces do every day when they are not at war.

8. Fort Monmouth, NJ fake chemical disaster drill

As per Fort Belvoir.

9. NRO, Chantilly, Virginia exercise

The NRO control satellites. Not relevant to immediate responses to 9/11.

10. Vigilant Warrior? (could be a myth based on a slip of the tongue)

A myth. Vigilant Warrior does not comply with military exercise codename regulations.

11. Fort Myer, near the Pentagon, air crash rescue class

Houses the US Army Band, 1st Batt of the Old Guards, and notable senior officers. Not relevant to immediate response to 9/11 (notable officers were at work, as attack happened during the day).

12. NORAD hijacking simulation

Major Nasypany (NEADS MCC) had designed an airliner hijacking as part of the Vigilant Guardian exercise (see above). It was to be an international flight coming across the Atlantic, hijacked, and landed in Cuba. According to Nasypany it was scheduled for approx 0930.

13. AWACS training mission off the coast of Florida

14. Ellington Air National Guard base training mission

As before, training does not equal a major exercise or drill. Military units train every single day.

Ellington was one of the 7 alert sites on 9/11, so that point could be interesting, however they weren't part of NEADS (I think WADS) and were too far to do anything. I find it highly unlikely that the two alert F-16s at Ellington were also taking part in the training mission.

15. OEM NY Tripod bioterrorism drill

Was not scheduled to start until Sept 12. Can only have improved immediate response, not hindered it. Was called "Tripod II" - a joint FEMA/Department of Justice exercise.

So when we actually look at it, not even getting into the validity of these claims above, we get a total of three exercises involving the US military, only one of which related (even remotely) to any immediate military response to 9/11, and by its nature, this exercise enhanced response time.

Well, that was thrilling.

-Gumboot

jaydeehess

28th May 2007, 06:39 AM

Like any journalist, including the BBC, Fox Noise, CNN, New York Times, Washington Post, Al Jazeera, etc, report stories wrong all the time. Every day, Nut. And sometimes they even admit to getting bad information. (Like that WTC7 collapse story. Which went out 15-20 minutes early in Berlin, also, BTW). So why do you believe them?

A book is NOT a breaking news report. A book should be researched and the writer has the leisure of time to carry out that research. A reporter on a breaking story acts on the information as it comes to him/her and has little time or opportunity to check the reports he/she gets.

That makes it quite obvious that your comparison of Tarpley's erroneous statements concerning Payne (learn the man's name OK) Stewart's aircraft, and the BBC reporting of the premature demise of WTC 7 is way off the mark. It apples to oranges SCG.