Norad-Tapes around 10:07: "terminate all exercise inputs"

[jammonius]

Two points, that immediately settle this issue.

a) "Inputs" doesn't mean what you think it means.

b) NEADS SOCCs and ROCCs have two computer systems; one for real-world operations and one for exercises and simulations. There's no cross-over.

Greetings, it is good to have your input into this thread (no pun ...

Source your claim "there's no cross-over" if you would please.

all the best

 

[gumboot]

Greetings, it is good to have your input into this thread (no pun ...

Source your claim "there's no cross-over" if you would please.

all the best

I do not have the most remote interest in engaging in discussion with you. You have demonstrated a fundamentally inability to learn, so I would be wasting my time.

Neither NORAD nor the FAA run training or exercises on their "real world" computer systems. This is a fact. Deal with it.

Your talk of "exercise transmissions" to the FAA is a prime example of your failure to apply critical thinking. The FAA were not conducting an exercise of any kind, and when they do conduct training, this is done in a physically separate room to the ATC control room. When the FAA say they don't know where the transmission came from, this means they don't know what specific flight it came from - because the speaker did not identify their flight. What they do know is that it came from a real airliner.

Even pretending the FAA were involved in NORAD's exercise (which they weren't), there were no exercise transmissions to receive because it was a Command Post exercise, which does not involve flying units.

Secondly, the NORAD exercise never happened. It was scheduled to begin at 0900 but the hijacking of AA11 occurred first and the exercise was cancelled.

These are all very basic facts that are readily available to anyone who takes the time to learn anything about the matter. The fact that you haven't demonstrates you're not interesting in determining facts, which leads me to the undeniable conclusion that engaging in discussion with you is a complete waste of my time.

 

[jammonius]

I do not have the most remote interest in engaging in discussion with you. You have demonstrated a fundamentally inability to learn, so I would be wasting my time.

I'm sorry you have found it necessary to engage in the above exchange. That said, and consistent with your expressed desire, I will not expect a further reply from you.

Neither NORAD nor the FAA run training or exercises on their "real world" computer systems. This is a fact. Deal with it.

I do not think you have a basis that is either expressed in reason or supported by anything whatsoever, other than your declaration, for the above statement.

I do not question people's beliefs. You are free to believe anything you find necessary to believe for as long as you need to believe it.

But, as the record stands, you have failed and you have refused to source your claim. It is, therefore, unsubstantiated and lacks any support, other than that you have said it and have said with some umbrage, as it were. Umbrage does not constitute substantiation. Umbrage is rooted in one's emotional makeup.

Your talk of "exercise transmissions" to the FAA is a prime example of your failure to apply critical thinking. The FAA were not conducting an exercise of any kind, and when they do conduct training, this is done in a physically separate room to the ATC control room. When the FAA say they don't know where the transmission came from, this means they don't know what specific flight it came from - because the speaker did not identify their flight. What they do know is that it came from a real airliner.

The above is mildly informative after a fashion. However, as to the subject matter of my posts, it misses the point entirely.

I have plainly said:

"The significance of the MILITARY EXERCISES is that they are a means by which the events of 9/11 could actually have been carried out if they were disguised as exercises, but were, in fact "real."

The tapes confirm that the difference between what was "real" and what was "exercise" was not readily discernible."


You appear to miss, entirely, the issue of DECEPTION, which is, indeed, the essence of 9/11. In some ways, I regret that it does not appear likely that you and I will be able to have an ongoing discussion. The emotion of 9/11, centered in the need of some to attribute only the best of motives to either governmental entities or the MIC or some combination of those entity structures serves to preclude rational discussion of what the evidence shows happened on 9/11. I get that and I do not mind it at all.

Even pretending the FAA were involved in NORAD's exercise (which they weren't), there were no exercise transmissions to receive because it was a Command Post exercise, which does not involve flying units.

I'm sorry, Gumboot, but the above misses the mark by a mile. You are engaging in an assumption-riddled attempt to resurrect a claim that I have shown rather conclusively; namely, that it was not possible to distinguish "real" from "exercise" amongst those who were tasked with tracking presumed jetliners that were not actually real. My claims are based on data and on assessment of it. That and that only.

Secondly, the NORAD exercise never happened. It was scheduled to begin at 0900 but the hijacking of AA11 occurred first and the exercise was cancelled.

Your above quoted assertion is contradicted by the following information:

"Lieutenant Colonel Dawne Deskins and other day shift employees at NORAD’s Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) in Rome, NY, start their workday. [6:30AM]NORAD is conducting a week-long, large-scale exercise called Vigilant Guardian. [Newhouse News Service, 1/25/2002] Deskins is regional mission crew chief for the Vigilant Guardian exercise. [ABC News, 9/11/2002] "
...

Accounts by participants vary on whether 9/11 is the second, third, or fourth day of the exercise. [Code One Magazine, 1/2002; Newhouse News Service, 1/25/2002; Ottawa Citizen, 9/11/2002] Vigilant Guardian is a command post exercise (CPX), and in at least some previous years was conducted in conjunction with Stratcom’s Global Guardian exercise and a US Space Command exercise called Apollo Guardian. [US Congress, n.d.; GlobalSecurity (.org), 4/14/2002; Arkin, 2005, pp. 545] All of NORAD is participating in Vigilant Guardian on 9/11. [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 6/3/2002]
Exercise Includes Simulated Hijacking - Vanity Fair reports that the “day’s exercise” (presumably Vigilant Guardian) is “designed to run a range of scenarios, including a ‘traditional’ simulated hijack in which politically motivated perpetrators commandeer an aircraft, land on a Cuba-like island, and seek asylum.” [Vanity Fair, 8/1/2006]

Source: http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a630vigilantguardian#a630vigilantguardian

These are all very basic facts that are readily available to anyone who takes the time to learn anything about the matter. The fact that you haven't demonstrates you're not interesting in determining facts, which leads me to the undeniable conclusion that engaging in discussion with you is a complete waste of my time.

Gumboot, it is ironic that you refuse to source your claims, on the one hand, and then post up the above, on the other.

take care

 

[JoeyDonuts]

Well, you've sold me jammonius.

You've demonstrated that there are significant holes and lapses within the official account of 9/11 to cast reasonable doubt onto the official narrative.

Now what do we do?

I have a silk-screener in my garage, would that help?

 

[TSR]

The fact is, the controllers DID NOT know the difference between real or simulated inputs.

.
Then why does your quote make a distinction between "real world" and "exercise?"
.

 

[fess]

I do not play 20 questions games with posters. If there is a point you want to make, would you please come right on out and bring it. Stand firm, don't be shy, obey the rules of posting, if you are so inclined, and say whatever it is you want to say. I will not engage you in your rhetorical ploys.

Clear?

Why is it that I knew this would be your answer. Your answer is just another load of rhetorical bovine defecation at the very best.

Your lack of an answer only proves that you haven’t been in any of the aforementioned types of exercises, whether they be command or operational types.

Stand firm you say? I do, and I am by no means shy, as you may soon find out. And, if I were to tell you exactly what I want to tell you, I would know what it is to be suspended. However, I do know one thing is certainly correct… you are a liar, and a fraud!

Is that clear, big boy!

 

[bio]

(...)

Secondly, the NORAD exercise never happened. It was scheduled to begin at 0900 but the hijacking of AA11 occurred first and the exercise was cancelled.

(...)

that is not true, as we know from the Norad-tapes and even from Richard Myers, he talked with Richard Clark around 9:25:

Richard Clarke asks Joint Chiefs of Staff Vice Chairman Richard Myers, "I assume NORAD has scrambled fighters and AWACS. How many? Where?" Myers, who is at the Pentagon, replies, "Not a pretty picture, Dick. We are in the middle of Vigilant Warrior, a NORAD exercise, but... Otis has launched two birds toward New York. Langley is trying to get two up now [toward Washington]. The AWACS are at Tinker and not on alert." Clarke asks, "Okay, how long to CAP [combat air patrol] over DC?" Myers replies, "Fast as we can. Fifteen minutes?"
Clarke, 2004, pp. 5

IF you have a clue, what the "exercise-inputs" were about, and who could cancel them (it is redacted in the transcript), provide meaning- and truthfully posts.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

that is not true, as we know from the Norad-tapes and even from Richard Myers, he talked with Richard Clark around 9:25:

Richard Clarke asks Joint Chiefs of Staff Vice Chairman Richard Myers, "I assume NORAD has scrambled fighters and AWACS. How many? Where?" Myers, who is at the Pentagon, replies, "Not a pretty picture, Dick. We are in the middle of Vigilant Warrior, a NORAD exercise, but... Otis has launched two birds toward New York. Langley is trying to get two up now [toward Washington]. The AWACS are at Tinker and not on alert." Clarke asks, "Okay, how long to CAP [combat air patrol] over DC?" Myers replies, "Fast as we can. Fifteen minutes?"
Clarke, 2004, pp. 5

IF you have a clue, what the "exercise-inputs" were about, and who could cancel them (it is redacted in the transcript), provide meaning- and truthfully posts.

Vigilant Guardian, not Vigilant Warrior. Exercises run for days and can even go on for weeks. They are broken down into individual drills. No drills were running yet when the hijackings took place. The people who were supposed to run and monitor that days planned drills were not in position to initiate the drills when NORAD was first told of the hijackings.

Major Nasypany was out taking a walk when the first reports came in and had to be called back to take command of the situation. One of his first comments was that the drill wasn't supposed to start for an hour (he said this at ~0843 according to the NORAD tapes).

Have you ever participated in military drills? I have, thousands of them over 8+ years. Most were initiated internally but many were also a part of larger exercises. In general the first hint of a day of drills was in the Plan Of the Day (POD) where it says something along the lines of "Ships Drills (0900 to 1100 & 1300 to 1700)", this was usually in the POD 4 or 5 days a week. We weren't told what type of drills to expect or where they would be focused but we could guess based upon whatever upcoming major inspection we had coming up (Weapons or Engineering) and that there were certain mandatory drills that had an expiration date (once a week, once a month ect).

People who go on about the drills on 9/11 have no clue as to how they are planned, how they are run, who initiates and monitors them and a myriad of other details ranging from the mundane to specific requirements for how a drill must be run (including when a drill must be terminated). Absolutely clueless.

 

[MikeW]

that is not true, as we know from the Norad-tapes and even from Richard Myers, he talked with Richard Clark around 9:25

Best not rely on Clarke's timeline, it's flawed for multiple reasons. Myers was talking to Max Cleland at this time, for instance, both he and Cleland say so.

 

[JoeyDonuts]

Exactly.

A ship or military unit may be put into a "training environment" for multiple days at times, with the actuall drill or drill(s) commencing at any time determined by the Combat Systems/Engineering/Force Protection Training Teams. This is USN "fleet" lingo, but similar things exist in the USAF/USA/USMC.

But, I'm sure bio and jammonius know that from experience.

 

[BigAl]

I do not play 20 questions games with posters. If there is a point you want to make, would you please come right on out and bring it. Stand firm, don't be shy, obey the rules of posting, if you are so inclined, and say whatever it is you want to say. I will not engage you in your rhetorical ploys.

Clear?

Cut and paste much?

 

[Dave Rogers]

If memory serves, a lot of those exercises that were being performed on 9/11 were recurring exercises; i.e. ones that are repeated year to year and updated as necessary. And the ones that were new were being performed with the intent of making them recurring exercises.

Wasn't at least one of them being done in order to shadow Russian exercises going on at the same time, with the subtext that there would be defences in place and ready to fight if Russia should suddenly choose to turn its exercises into something else? In which case, anyone claiming the exercises were a cover for an inside job is, in effect, claiming that Russia was also complicit in 9/11.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Okay, I admit to femalish curiosity and clicked on one of Jammo's posts to see it despite his being on my ignore list.

Remind me not to do that again; the stupid burned my retinas.

I keep doing that too. I think we need some kind of support group.

"Hi, my name's Dave, and I'm a jammoholic. "

"Hi Dave"

"I haven't viewed a jammonius post for two days now."

Supportive applause from the room.

"And with your help, I hope to make it through the whole week!"

Dave

 

[progge]

NEADS knew, that it lost its fighters to other command structures existing on 9/11. There was confusion, see the statements of the langley pilots.

Borgstrom says they are "all three on different frequencies... and [are] getting orders from a lot of different people."
Filson, 2003, pp. 66

There are different, various official explanation developing during the years for that anomaly, until middle 2003 for example that the fighters were heading towards Flight 93, therefor they were not heading towards Washington D.C around 09:30.

Why the transcript of the Norad-Tapes are redacted, that nobody can find out, who could end the exercise-inputs?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5978051&postcount=15

Bolded something for you.

 

[BigAl]

NEADS knew, that it lost its fighters to other command structures existing on 9/11. There was confusion, see the statements of the langley pilots.

No planes or pilots were "lost" for the purposes of air defense for training or any other reason.

 

[bio]

your answers are disappointing empty of rational arguments.

 

[gumboot]

See people, this is why I don't bother any more. This thread is filled wall-to-wall with displays of a gross refusal to engage brain matter.

Why waste what precious little time one has on this earth bashing one's proverbial head against a proverbial brick wall?

See, earlier, my statement that the exercise had not started, and was not scheduled to start until 0900. There's ample evidence of this. Aside from statements in interviews from NORAD staff, there's the evidence from the tapes themselves - the Ops Floor was in "standby" mode at the time of the first hijacking. The MCC wasn't even there, and had to be paged (along with most of the other Ops staff). This is clear in the audio tapes.

Showing that it was the 2nd or 5th or 20th day of the exercise doesn't undermine this. These exercises do not run 24HR. They're conducted in normal work hours. 0900 to 1700 each day, or similar. Yes, Vigilant Guardian had been running for a couple of days. No, it had not started for that day.

It takes only the most basic engagement of brain matter to grasp this obvious and clearly demonstrated fact. Those who fail to grasp it do so through their own refusal to seek fact, favouring instead to remain ignorant, because from a position of ignorance they can speculate to their heart's content.

 

[DGM]

But, as the record stands, you have failed and you have refused to source your claim. It is, therefore, unsubstantiated and lacks any support, other than that you have said it ...........

Look at the pot calling the kettle black! You have just accused gumboot of doing exactly what you have done in every single post you've made. The difference with him is he can back-up what he says, he only chooses not to waste his time on you (and I can't blame him).

 

[gumboot]

IF you have a clue, what the "exercise-inputs" were about, and who could cancel them (it is redacted in the transcript), provide meaning- and truthfully posts.

In NORAD speak an "input" is any data fed manually into the system, and is the responsibility of the Manual Input Technician. They don't input false data however; they input real-world data that isn't automatically fed into the system. The MIT answers to the Air Surveillance Technician.

In the case of exercises, the correct term is "simulation", and all simulated inputs are the responsibility of the Simulation Supervisor, who heads the Simulation Section (a team consisting of various members of the SOCC, created specifically for the exercise in question).

The Simulation Supervisor answers to the MCC, while on all matters relating to the running of the SAOC the MCC is in command under authority of the SAOC Director and the Battle Commander. In the case of 9/11 it appears that Nasypany (the MCC) was himself the Simulation Supervisor, while Dawne Deskins, Assistant Director of the SAOC, was reportedly the Exercise Director.

In all instances NEADS were not required in any way to gain permission or approval from higher command before terminating any simulations that might have been scheduled.

All of this is sourced from ACCI 13-SAOC "Air Defense Command And Control Operations".

 

[dafydd]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5995744&postcount=42

Why can you never answer yes or no to a simple question? What is the matter with you? Let's try again,have you ever been involved in a military exercise? Yes or no?