Norad
- Thread starter psy kick
- Start date
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 21,203
Why would the NORAD bosses lie and doctor the timeline in such a way that the resultant timeline they presented to the 9/11 Commission, and was shown to be wrong by the 9/11 Commission resulting in the DoJ being brought in to investigate and determine the real timeline, actually protrayed them in a WORSE light and made them look MORE incompetent than the REAL timeline would have?
If the 9/11 Commission was supposed to be a whitewash, why didn't they simply accept NORAD's first timeline? Why did they instigate a new investigation into what happened at NORAD and get a new and properly constructed Timeline using the phone records and NORAD tapes?
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 21,203
Actually this thread really show how rediculous and ignorant about 9/11 most of the CTs are. The timeline which NORAD presented to the 9/11 Commission, and was sudsequently proven wrong, and which two CTs have basically called a lie here, actually would be FAR BETTER for the 9/11 "Truth" Movement than the subsequent one worked out from the Tapes. NORADs inital timeline was so focused on the four planes and tried to fit all the things that happened into a four plane context that they said they knew about Flight AA77 far eariler then they actually did. They said that the fighter which were really launched to intercept the Ghost AA11 were launched to intercept AA77. They also claimed to have known about UA93 eariler, and had several other incidences eariler than really happened. The initial timeline should have been a CTs dream as it would have shown that NORAD did act incomptently and was way too slow, but instead they throw away all this juicy CT evidence to try and claim that NORAD lied to the Commission by making themselves look so shockingly bad.
I didn't actually know this. That is great. Thanks for explaining.
Homeland Insurgency
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2008
- Messages
- 1,705
Where did I say they accepted it? Why did they have to go to the DOJ in the first place? NORAD LIED. The 9/11 commission had no power.
Why don't you tell me who was held accountable and how for giving a false time line? Who was held accountable for being incompetent?
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
The inquiry into the FAA and USAF accounts of 9/11 determined that officials did not knowingly give false information.
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 21,203
I never claimed that you claimed they accepted it, I wanted to know why they didn't accept it if as you claim they were a white wash and and had no power?
Why should anyone have been held accountable when it was discovered that the reason the timeline was out was because they used erronous information rather then checking the best source? Why should they have been held accountable for it when the timeline they gave was a WORSE account of NORADs capability than the real story. You seem to be claiming that the heads of NORAD should have been punished for saying they really screwed up badly when the truth was they didn't.
If NORAD was the legitimate professionals you say how do you account for the fact that they let 4 planes go unintercpeted on 9/11?
Either they were incompetent that day or they were told to stand down.
Last edited:
can't the answer be somewhat in the middle? whats with the polar thinking?
i say, our national defenses were confused, screwed up, got bad info, and then tried to hide their mistakes from the 9-11 Commission.
what, if anything, should anyone at NORAD or NEADS be charged with? obstruction of justice.
i say, our national defenses were confused, screwed up, got bad info, and then tried to hide their mistakes from the 9-11 Commission.
what, if anything, should anyone at NORAD or NEADS be charged with? obstruction of justice.
Last edited:
But NORAD is very professional agency. They do lots or wargames and exercises to train for things like this.
What wargames and exercises did they have to train for the possibility of domestic airliners being hijacked and used as guided missiles? Please educate me.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
No they don't. What would they base the games on. Nothing even remotely similar had ever happened prior to 9/11. Why do you feel the need to pull all of your arguments out of your back side?
If I recall, there may have been one wargame scenario, or Emergency Response Scenario, that involved a plane as a missile...I am not sure.
Even if there was, it would help minimally when confronted with FOUR HIJACKED AIRLINERS SIMULTANEOUSLY, used as missiles within 1 hour of each other.
And by the way, as someone who has run a mock disaster, preparation helps, but it is far from a vaccine against such an attack.
TAM
Even if there was, it would help minimally when confronted with FOUR HIJACKED AIRLINERS SIMULTANEOUSLY, used as missiles within 1 hour of each other.
And by the way, as someone who has run a mock disaster, preparation helps, but it is far from a vaccine against such an attack.
TAM
They respond to aircraft off course or hijacked all the time. How fun and easy to post the facts.
http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/norad/
It is standard operating procedure (SOP) to scramble jet fighters whenever a jetliner goes off course or radio contact with it is lost. Between September 2000 and June 2001, interceptors were scrambled 67 times. 1 In the year 2000 jets were scrambled 129 times.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Can you tell us where these intercepts were made, for what reason and how long they took? Ignoring these FACTS helps "truthers" justify their argument. How about it ALTIMA?
ETA If you wouldn't mind. How many of these were commercial aircraft?
Last edited:
jets were scrambled on 911.
What is the point. I see nowhere there, where it says these ìnterceptors`actually intercepted anything.
Scrambled does not mean instantly in the air.
Scrambled does not mean intercepted.
You have provided no details on these scramblings, as to how many resulted in intercepts, and how long it took from the scramble to the intercept, and how far away from the target were the jets at the time of scrambling...etc...
pure junk n garbage
TAM
What is the point. I see nowhere there, where it says these ìnterceptors`actually intercepted anything.
Scrambled does not mean instantly in the air.
Scrambled does not mean intercepted.
You have provided no details on these scramblings, as to how many resulted in intercepts, and how long it took from the scramble to the intercept, and how far away from the target were the jets at the time of scrambling...etc...
pure junk n garbage
TAM
First of all don't cite some 9/11 conspiracy website, I don't care what the say.
Second of all, the only time a domestic airliner was intercepted over the United States in ten years before 9/11 was Payne Stewarts plane in 1999 and it took them longer than they had for any of the 9/11 flights. And the transponder was still on. All the intercepts you are talking about are planes coming into the United States from oversees.
Third, 9/11 was the only case of a hijacking in the US in a long time.
You fail.
87 minutes for Paynes plane, IIRC. Early in the woo, truthers use to quote some number about 22-27 minutes, but were failing to realize that when you account for the change in time zones, the actual time for intercept was in the 80-90 minute range.
TAM
TAM
Just becasue you do not agree with what it states does not make it a conspiracy site.
87 minutes for Paynes plane, IIRC. Early in the woo, truthers use to quote some number about 22-27 minutes, but were failing to realize that when you account for the change in time zones, the actual time for intercept was in the 80-90 minute range.
TAM
So fun and easy to prove you wrong with facts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_South_Dakota_Learjet_crash
a U.S. Air Force F-16 test pilot from the 40th Flight Test Squadron at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, who happened to be in the air nearby, was directed by controllers to intercept N47BA.
Last edited: