Blame it all on NORAD, sure

[Belz...]

Do you ever think that geggy just has everyone on ignore?

That would explain a great many things...

 

[Pardalis]

geggy's signature:

"Not ONE structural engineer in America has any idea what had happened to WTC7. How do you conspiracy clowns explain that one?"

Yeah but EVERY structural engeneer on the PLANET know what happenned to the WTC towers. So what's your point?

 

[Pardalis]

geggy Scorecard

Posts: 224
Sense: 0

I think geggy is well under 0.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Call me crazy (or "CIA disinfo operative" for the 800th time) but wouldn't it make more sense for an ebil gubmint conspirator to schedule a boot-polishing and/or bathroom inspection for 9-11 to make the window of opportunity as wide as possible?

Or am I just talking out my ass here?

 

[Pardalis]

From 9/10 to 9/14, The NORAD fighters are due to stay in Alaska and Canada until the end of of the Russian exercise during Operation Northern Vigilance. At the some time between 10:32 am and 11:45 am on 9/11, Russian President Vladimar Putin will call the White House to say the Russians are voluntarily halting their exercise.

geggy, if you cut and paste from the same source but in consecutive posts, it's still in breach of rule 4.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

geggy's signature:

"Not ONE structural engineer in America has any idea what had happened to WTC7. How do you conspiracy clowns explain that one?"

Yeah but EVERY structural engeneer on the PLANET know what happenned to the WTC towers. So what's your point?

It's another lie.

WTC7 was severly damage by debris from the twin towers. It had a major fire that wasn't fought or controlled, a 40,000 gallon fuel tank that fed and accelerated the fires and it had an unusual truss system due to its being constructed over a Con-Ed substation several stories high.

WTC7 was itself a "perfect storm" for collapse.

 

[Pardalis]

It's another lie.

WTC7 was severly damage by debris from the twin towers. It had a major fire that wasn't fought or controlled, a 40,000 gallon fuel tank that fed and accelerated the fires and it had an unusual truss system due to its being constructed over a Con-Ed substation several stories high.

WTC7 was itself a "perfect storm" for collapse.

Yeah. Geggy's signature is not going to last very long, isn't the report on the WTC7 collapse due very soon?

 

[gumboot]

From 9/10 to 9/14, The NORAD fighters are due to stay in Alaska and Canada until the end of of the Russian exercise during Operation Northern Vigilance. At the some time between 10:32 am and 11:45 am on 9/11, Russian President Vladimar Putin will call the White House to say the Russians are voluntarily halting their exercise.

Geggy, we have been over this. By the way, are you aware that this operation is one of the claimed "exercises" NORAD was involved in? Do you understand that Northern Vigilance is not an exercise?

Have you read the official NORAD Press Release about Northern Vigilance, dated 9 september 2001?

NORAD conducted operation Northern Denial from December 1 to 14, 2000 in response to a similar, but smaller scale, Russian deployment of long-range bombers at northern Russian air bases.

See how there is nothing special about this Geggy? See how they did it before 2001?

Are you saying Russia is ALSO an ebil gibment conspirat0r? Are you Geggy? Consider the implications of such a claim. Do you believe the Russian Government were part of the 9/11 plot?

-Andrew

 

[defaultdotxbe]

loose change says:

The second, "Northern Vigilance", moved fighter jets to Canada and Alaska to fight off an imaginary Russian fleet.

the NORAD press release says:

The North American Aerospace Defense Command shall deploy fighter aircraft as necessary to Forward Operating Locations (FOLS) in Alaska and Northern Canada to monitor a Russian air force exercise in the Russian arctic and North Pacific ocean.

can you smell the truth on that one?

 

[gumboot]

can you smell the truth on that one?

I believe this is perhaps a purposeful deception by LC.

There was in fact a NORAD exercise on 9/11 relating to an imaginary Russian attack.

It was the annual exercise called "Guardian". It is done every year and assesses NORAD's response to a Nuclear Attack.

The DoD has two types of exercise:

FIX - Field Exercise, either "Live" (involving full operational units) or a "TEWT" (Tactical Exercise Without Troops" which involves specific people (say all officers) but not all personnel

CPX - Command Post Exercise - these do not involve any activities in the field at all.

Guardian involves two CPXs as the exercise involves two different commands. Command centres are each allocated an alphabetic range from which to choose an exercise name.

As we know, Guardian consisted of two parts: "Global" and "Vigilant". If we look up the DoD Alphabetic Block we can see that:

26. GG-GL - USSTRATCOM - US Strategic Command ("Global")
86. VG-VL - USSPACECOM - US Space Command ("Vigilant")

So we know the two command elements involved in the NORAD exercise were US Strategic Command ("Global Guardian") and US Space Command ("Vigilant Guardian").

Loosers have incorrectly identified the "exercise involving a Russian bomber attack" as Northern Vigilance (and accompanying Northern Guardian in Iceland) thus incorrectly assume the Guardian exercises must be something else.

In reality there were 2 NORAD events going on during 9/11 (both of which were ongoing from previous days...) relating to Russian nuclear bombers. One was an exercise and one was a real world operation.

LC seems to have used this to confuse their audience, and thus exaggerate the extent of NORAD activities on 9/11.

Of course all of this is academic anyway, as neither the exercise nor the real world operation involved NEADS or the 14 fighters on duty to protect the US that day.

-Andrew

 

[MarkyX]

Just a really quick question for everyone.

Because there was an obvious coverup to save one's skin in this Pentagon ordeal, do you think there should be another investigation to see if they are any other government entities on that day trying to save their jobs over a proper investigations?

 

[gumboot]

Because there was an obvious coverup to save one's skin in this Pentagon ordeal, do you think there should be another investigation to see if they are any other government entities on that day trying to save their jobs over a proper investigations?

I'm of two minds.

In an ideal world, I'd say yes. Truth is most important.

Unfortunately it's not an ideal world. More specifically, we live in a blame-rich world. Everything bad that happens is someone's fault, and those at fault must be blamed. They must pay.

Of course, we know who is to blame. The Radical Islamic Terrorists that took over those planes.

But for a lot of people that's not good enough. It's unpleasant to think they are capable of doing such a thing (this is the same thought logic that produces CT). So instead any mistep by any authority - be that the airlines or government agencies or the military or whoever, will be blamed instead.

I can picture law suits galore. Newspaper articles tearing into the government.

Here in New Zealand I have intimate first hand knowledge of what happens to government departments that are targetted for blame in the media. That exact same thing has utterly destroyed our police force.

The impact has become very real, and ultimately the country itself is suffering because of a zealous media and a culture of blame.

So... what is gained by uncovering questionable actions by government (and I myself can't really see how any actions on the day of 9/11 could have prevented the attacks occuring)? What benefit does the American people, and the Country itself gain from such an investigation?

And what might the cost be? What government departments might suffer the fate of the New Zealand Police as a result of being blamed for 9/11 (either in part or in full)?

So yeah.

On first glance, the answer is obvious to me - absolutely, the truth is all that matters, if there are doubts about other departments, find out.

But then, I have to ask "what are the ramifications for the country?". It might just be better to let the thing lie. Or do private internal investigations.

Shrugs.

-Andrew

 

[Joytown]

Just a really quick question for everyone.

Because there was an obvious coverup to save one's skin in this Pentagon ordeal, do you think there should be another investigation to see if they are any other government entities on that day trying to save their jobs over a proper investigations?

I do .. and I'll tell you why. While I agree that obviously the people reponsible are the terrorists, I think it goes beyond find out who was CYA-ing. It goes to looking at what didn't work in the system that allowed 9-11 to happen at all. How could a situation come about where "the system was blinking red" in terms of terrorism and still we as a country got blindsided by 19 terrorists. How could the National Security Advisor come on TV and say ", "No one could have imagined them using planes as missiles." when in fact this was not an unknown scenario? Why was our Government so ill prepared for this? And I don't ask this question of some desire to bag on the Bush Admin, but if we don't see where we screwed up, how will we ever fix it?

It speaks to the same reason we needed NIST and FEMA reports and why they are valuable. Fire safety engineers, structural engineers, emergency response planners, architects, etc are using the information gleaned from those reports to make buildings safer. They took where the weaknesses were and are looking to improve things. Do you feel our Gov't has a significantly better handle on terrorism now as a result of the 9-11 Commission report?

Can we say that there was the same level of scrutiny applied to the U.S. Gov't that we have applied to the physical evidence at the 9-11 sites? I think that in order to better prevent another attack on our Country we need an honest and probing investigation into our Gov't actions in the weeks and months leading up to 9-11 (I have my own theories on what happened but that's not the real point).

Unfortunately a lot of time has passed, and I don't think a new investigation will be as effective as the one we should have done in the first place, but I still think we need to know what happened THEN so we can try to prevent it from happening AGAIN! I also posit that as long the 9-11 CT'ers continue to frame the cries for a new investigation in terms of "Inside Job" and 'WTC7 was a demo", they make it likely we'll ever see another investigation.

-joytown

(Political Rant: I think it's CRIMINAL how much the Bush administration resisted having the 9-11 investigations at all, and equally criminal how much they stonewalled, evaded, and put roadblocks in front of the investigations. Unfortunately as long as the party that was in office during 9-11 is still in office, we'll never see a open and probing investigation into 9-11. Equally unfortunate is that the Bush admin's actions in the matter or in large part what fuels a lot of the 9-11 Conspiracies. The 9-11 commission investigation and report was an unfortunate by-product of election year politics - involving a party who screwed up pretty badly and didn't want the information of how badly they screwed up to get into the public eye so-as not to lose the next election.).

 

[gumboot]

(Political Rant: I think it's CRIMINAL how much the Bush administration resisted having the 9-11 investigations at all, and equally criminal how much they stonewalled, evaded, and put roadblocks in front of the investigations. Unfortunately as long as the party that was in office during 9-11 is still in office, we'll never see a open and probing investigation into 9-11. Equally unfortunate is that the Bush admin's actions in the matter or in large part what fuels a lot of the 9-11 Conspiracies. The 9-11 commission investigation and report was an unfortunate by-product of election year politics - involving a party who screwed up pretty badly and didn't want the information of how badly they screwed up to get into the public eye so-as not to lose the next election.).

I mostly agree with you here. My only criticism is the notion that the current administration screwed up.

I totally disagree. I believe the seeds that made the success of the terrorist attack inevitable were laid the the decade before 9/11, when the US repeatedly failed to treat terrorism as a serious threat - both at home and abroad.

And Going into my own rant...

I believe this is a wider problem. The entire west made the same failures, ever since the 70's, when terrorism really started to hit us hard. I believe most of the west is still making the exact same errors. We still don't treat terrorism as a serious threat.

I think the worst repercussion of our failures over the last 30 years or so are still to come.

-Andrew

 

[MarkyX]

Pretty much so. People view terrorism as something not a big thing (talking to you Moore), even though they killed 3000 people, destroyed the New York Economy, and numerous buildings on that day.

What I don't believe in is that 9/11 being an inside job or a new world order. What I do believe in, though, is the US government has proven time and time again that they are bumbling fools. Despite the increase of terrorist attacks throughout the past 30 years, as you mentioned, nothing was changed at the home front. You still had your post-cold-war policies in effect. My guess is 9/11 was a wakeup call that the current security policies at the time past their expiration date.

You cannot pin the blame on strictly Bush though. The United States had years and years to upgrade and even at a few ocassions, take down Osama, but never went for the opening. Now with the recent release of NORAD tapes, proving that there is a coverup (although not sinister or vile as Alex Jones or Avery like to put forth) of saving one's ass.

The sad part, people like Jim Fetzer and Alex Jones are delaying a possible change. As long as there is a voice that wants to accuse Bush of crimes he did not commit or don't have any real evidence, the government will always be in the defensive. Perhaps when Dylan, Alex, Professor Jones, and Jim stop attacking an illusional enemy that can't fight back, then they might be some actual changes.

Until then, I shall continue to be the knife in the 9/11 Denier's back.

 

[geggy]

It was the annual exercise called "Guardian". It is done every year and assesses NORAD's response to a Nuclear Attack.

The Guardian exercise is usually held in October every year except for 2001 when it was pulled back to september during the week of the 11th.

Dick cheney was one of the responsibles for designing and scheduling the wargame exercises on the morning of 9/11. The purpose of these exercises was to deliberately trick those involved in the training into thinking the WTC attack was a part of the drill...because no one ever antipicated something like 9/11 would occur, hence the slow reaction. These exercises were also designed to keep fighter jets, anti-terrorism units, etc., out and away from the hijacked plane's flight path and their destinations.

And George Bush, the supposedly commander in cheif, was stranded in Florida on that morning during the attacks, so guess who was already in Washington DC and took over as the commander of cheif? The vice president.

 

[Pardalis]

Hey geggy boy! How's your frontal lobe doing?

The Guardian exercise is usually held in October every year except for 2001 when it was pulled back to september during the week of the 11th.

So?

If they were the ones behind the attacks, wouldn't the attacks have occured october 11th?

Dick cheney was one of the responsibles for designing and scheduling the wargame exercises on the morning of 9/11. The purpose of these exercises was to deliberately trick those involved in the training into thinking the WTC attack was a part of the drill...because no one ever antipicated something like 9/11 would occur, hence the slow reaction. These exercises were also designed to keep fighter jets, anti-terrorism units, etc., out and away from the hijacked plane's flight path and their destinations.

Of course you know all that from your great experience in this field...

What do you do for a living again?

And George Bush, the supposedly commander in cheif, was stranded in Florida on that morning during the attacks, so guess who was already in Washington DC and took over as the commander of cheif? The vice president.

Bush was still commander in chief. But anyways, if he had been incapacitated, that's expected that the vice president should take over. It's certainly not up to Bush's dog to take over.

 

[gumboot]

Now with the recent release of NORAD tapes, proving that there is a coverup

One thing that I wasn't aware of, but am now...

Really there was no cover up. The tapes have only been released publicly to Vanity Fair recently, but the 9/11 Commission had a hold of them much sooner.

In fact the 9/11 commission CONFRONTED the NORAD officers about the difference between their own testimony and the tapes. The irony is their actual response was BETTER than their testimonies.

The 9/11 commission concluded that SOME (read: not all) of their testimony was knowingly false because NORAD wanted to present a scenario in which they would have shot down UA93 before it reached Washington DC, had the passengers not intervened.

The commission concluded this was false. I'm not entirely sure, based on my own reading of the tapes. I think they "might" have intercepted it, and I think the Andrews AFB fighters had a pretty decent chance of intercepting it.

-Andrew

 

[gumboot]

The Guardian exercise is usually held in October every year except for 2001 when it was pulled back to september during the week of the 11th.

Usually, Geggy. Usually. Not always.

Dick cheney was one of the responsibles for designing and scheduling the wargame exercises on the morning of 9/11.

Source? My understanding is the VP is outside the military chain of command. In any event, Vigilant Overview exercises (which is what Vigilant Guardian was) are CJCS approved and CinC NORAD sponsored. Nothing to do with the VP.

The purpose of these exercises was to deliberately trick those involved in the training into thinking the WTC attack was a part of the drill...because no one ever antipicated something like 9/11 would occur, hence the slow reaction.

Well it failed miserably. NEADS' response to the garbled intel they received was exceptional. Nasypany (The Mission Crew Commander), in particular made some intuitive calls that were spot on.

These exercises were also designed to keep fighter jets, anti-terrorism units, etc., out and away from the hijacked plane's flight path and their destinations

How did they manage that? The exercises did not include fighter jets or anti-terrorism units.

What is the standard anti-terrorism unit tactic for preventing a hijacked airliner being used as a giant bomb?

And George Bush, the supposedly commander in cheif, was stranded in Florida on that morning during the attacks, so guess who was already in Washington DC and took over as the commander of cheif? The vice president.

The only serious criticism I have of the air defense response to September 11 was the delay in getting a shoot down order - IMHO there should have been systems in place, and permission should not have needed to go as high as the executive.

-Andrew

 

[jon]

Now that it's been publicly established that NORAD lied in their timesheet and the fact Pentagon covered it up, which both are treasonous offense (like anyone will be held accountable for it) what reasons do you have to believe in the commission report?

Firstly, the 9/11 Commission Report was critical about NORAD's account of events.

Secondly, you do know that 9/11 Commission Staff and Commissioners have "thought that e-mails and other evidence provided enough probable cause to believe that military and aviation officials violated the law by making false statements to Congress and to the commission, hoping to hide the bungled response to the hijackings". They have therefore turned "over the allegations to the inspectors general for the Defense and Transportation departments, who can make criminal referrals if they believe they are warranted". So, thanks to the 9/11 Commission, those who made false statements may well face prosecution.

So the 9/11 Commission was critical about NORAD's testimony, and has referred the case on for possible prosecution. Seems like a pretty reasonable response to me (perhaps they could have been quicker and more decisive re. prosecution, but for a group of people to come to a decision does take time...)