NORAD had drills of jets as weapons

WASHINGTON — In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties.

Yeah, duh. That's been thought of for years. Don't confuse political rhetoric with reality--it's not.

The question is whether one knows it's happening or not, and whether and who wants to order F-16's to shoot down fully loaded passenger planes, and frankly, whether it's a good idea to splash two of them down onto Manhattan at rush hour. If you're wrong, your life is over. And no matter what you do, you're wrong. Even how it turned out, you're wrong. You simply cannot win, but inaction doesn't put those orders onto your head.

It probably made more sense to let them crash almost anywhere, even into a targeted building, to contain the wreckage and fatalities, than it would to send thousands of tons of superheated shrapnel and flaming fuel onto the heads of commuters. Rest assured, no one in their right mind, in any gov't, is going to publicly discuss that sort of cold-hearted death calculus. That's why they use bromides like "unimaginable."

To me it's at least evidence that the government was indeed aware of the possibility that hijacked airliners may be used to attack strategic targets.

Making a decision to shoot down passenger planes would surely be a very difficult thing to do. But if you are aware of the NORAD procedures that were in place during that time, you'll find that in the event that an airplane turns off its transponder, NORAD immediately takes control of the situation. NORAD has the authority to protect important areas from attack. Especially vital military and government areas like the Pentagon, the capitol building, and the White House. Well, now you can say that someone didn't make the decision to shoot down the planes because they figured that the outcome might be worse. But what about the fact the none of these planes were intercepted by NORAD? Because they would've clearly had enough time to do so once the transponders were turned off.

---

NORAD had drills of jets as weapons

WASHINGTON — In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties.

Yeah, duh. That's been thought of for years. Don't confuse political rhetoric with reality--it's not.

The question is whether one knows it's happening or not, and whether and who wants to order F-16's to shoot down fully loaded passenger planes, and frankly, whether it's a good idea to splash two of them down onto Manhattan at rush hour. If you're wrong, your life is over. And no matter what you do, you're wrong. Even how it turned out, you're wrong. You simply cannot win, but inaction doesn't put those orders onto your head.

It probably made more sense to let them crash almost anywhere, even into a targeted building, to contain the wreckage and fatalities, than it would to send thousands of tons of superheated shrapnel and flaming fuel onto the heads of commuters. Rest assured, no one in their right mind, in any gov't, is going to publicly discuss that sort of cold-hearted death calculus. That's why they use bromides like "unimaginable."

To me it's at least evidence that the government was indeed aware of the possibility that hijacked airliners may be used to attack strategic targets.

Like I said, duh. The gov't has been aware of that possibility for years, if not decades.

Making a decision to shoot down passenger planes would surely be a very difficult thing to do. But if you are aware of the NORAD procedures that were in place during that time, you'll find that in the event that an airplane turns off its transponder, NORAD immediately takes control of the situation. NORAD has the authority to protect important areas from attack. Especially vital military and government areas like the Pentagon, the capitol building, and the White House. Well, now you can say that someone didn't make the decision to shoot down the planes because they figured that the outcome might be worse. But what about the fact the none of these planes were intercepted by NORAD? Because they would've clearly had enough time to do so once the transponders were turned off.

I don't know how much experience you have with the U.S. military, but I have plenty. And it sounds like you have next to none because it sounds like you are quoting a military SOP in the face of an unexpected attack. Those are just words on a piece of paper, sometimes they are religiously followed, often they are routinely ignored. They fall out of date, they are created to placate gov't oversight committees, they are unrealistic, there is no room in the budget, there is no manpower, and on and on and on and on.

This wasn't an attack that wasn't contemplated, but it was one that was unexpected. No one knew that those planes were to be used as missiles, and so basically everyone waited to see what would happen. No matter what the SOP said, be that NORAD, the FAA, Dubya's group, the different military commands, the different ATC groups, et cetera.

The point? It's no surprise "NORAD" got pantsed like this, but it's extremely unlikely such a thing would happen again. But it could. Make it different enough to get people to hesitate, and you're 1/2 way there. Were the planes Tu-95 Bear bombers that the BMEWS system located coming in low and fast over Thule, my bet is that the response would likely have been quite different and substantially more effective...

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

sounds like you are quoting a military SOP in the face of an unexpected attack.

Expected or unexpected, interceptions of suspicious aircraft flying towards or near restricted airspace was a common occurrence.

Those are just words on a piece of paper, sometimes they are religiously followed, often they are routinely ignored. They fall out of date, they are created to placate gov't oversight committees, they are unrealistic, there is no room in the budget, there is no manpower, and on and on and on and on.

There's nothing that indicates that a lack of budget or manpower played a role in the intercept failures. In cases like this, where transponders are turned off, procedures are not routinely ignored. Where did you get that idea from? I don't know why you're saying that these kinds of intercepts are unrealistic either, they happened all the time.

---

sounds like you are quoting a military SOP in the face of an unexpected attack.

Expected or unexpected, interceptions of suspicious aircraft flying towards or near restricted airspace was a common occurrence.

That doesn't mean that people took the actions that they were supposed to, or that the contingency plans were even likely to be effective, because they were large, American, commercial jets filled with passengers.

Those are just words on a piece of paper, sometimes they are religiously followed, often they are routinely ignored. They fall out of date, they are created to placate gov't oversight committees, they are unrealistic, there is no room in the budget, there is no manpower, and on and on and on and on.

There's nothing that indicates that a lack of budget or manpower played a role in the intercept failures. In cases like this, where transponders are turned off, procedures are not routinely ignored. Where did you get that idea from? I don't know why you're saying that these kinds of intercepts are unrealistic either, they happened all the time.

You are right, nothing indicates a "lack of budget or manpower played a role" which doesn't address, as I said, out of date plans, or fluff created to placate gov't oversight committees, or are unrealistic ideas, or actual SOP (the types that aren't written down) or any number of other reasons. The fact that you say that "where transponders are turned off, procedures are not routinely ignored. Where did you get that idea from?" doesn't address the point which was that you have no idea whatsoever what procedures are regularly followed or aren't.

Given that EVERYONE in the Chain of Command, in all of the chains involved, is going to hesitate to give weapons free shoot down orders, that was all they needed, transponders or not.

Like I said, were the planes Tu-95 Bear bombers that the BMEWS system located coming in low and fast over Thule, my bet is that the response would likely have been quite different and substantially more effective. No one would care if all of those were shot down over Toronto.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

9/11 Mysteries - Demolitions *recut*

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8129564295534231536&q=

2 hr 0 min 24 sec - Sep 25, 2006
opposingdigits.com


.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Hm, really scaring. It tells just one side of the medal, though.
With the other side being the "official version" I still have to say that from a rather scientific point of view the evidence for a demolition is indeed very feasible and alarming.

What keeps you from believing it is kind of trying to undestand how huge our universe is. You simply can't imagine it - and who would imagine that 911 could be an insider job. But maybe it's safer to pull up such a show instead of a small crime simply because the public will never believe it. Ever. And even I still can't believe it to be honest, maybe you need to be totally corrupted by power and money to do so.

Visiting Auschwitz can show you what humans are capable of, though.

Found a sceptical video on this issue, so by comparing the arguments we might at least come to some conclusions.
Screw 911 Mysteries

Another video I just found, don't know with which conclusion because I just began to watch:
Demolition Experts

911: The Greatest Lie Ever Sold - By Anthony Hilder



.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

I watched that film, too - but I don't like it. The problem is that they are probably right in most cases, but discredit it by throwing silly stuff into it and strange people.

Best film IMHO is the demolition experts ones - especially combined with the screw the mysteries one. In conclusion I'd say that the demolition experts remedies some of the complaints of the "screw Mysteries" vid which is disturbing.

To people like BrainSmashR:
I would like to warn you, even though you won't listen and I shouldn't even care anyways. To be honest I don't know if I would not have supported the Nazis if I would have been born in that time. You get washed away in a wave of national euphory, it feels good to think you are superior and on first glance things improved for people. But only so long as freedom is completely removed. You might be a supporter, but if you are unlucky someone might asperse you. You might work for public service or as a policemen as many people did who died in the WTC and the pentagon, but will be sacrificed. And if you get it one day it's too late, you are under control and there are cameras elsewhere, biometric data taken, your phonelines can be wired and you have to fear for your life if you oppose the system.
Let's be glad Germany lost WW2 and let's make sure there will be no other Nazi regime elsewhere. If we don't we will all pay our price (even if you will very probably have to suffer more) - the only difference is that I already guess so while you do not.

Some more interesting stuff:

Terror Storm

Flight 93

Road to Tyranny

Some more interesting stuff:

Terror Storm

Flight 93

Road to Tyranny

Thanks MAC

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

who would imagine that 911 could be an insider job.

<--- ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

HAVE YOU SEEN THE 9-11 TRUCKER?

---

Finally managed to see Road to Tyranny and Terrorstorm completely.
While Road to Tyranny is getting a bit strange at the end concerning eradication of 80 percent of the world population by stuff like flour, aspartam and vaccination it still presents a lot of disturbing evidence. Terror Storm is even more disturbing, and the big danger is that freedom gets eroded over time and surveillance is improved until the time has come to take over.
Enabling_Act_of_1933

There will be no opposition because you risk your life - and with all the new technology keeping people under control and eliminating troublemakers will be easy.

What really makes me sad is that it seems the governments do indeed abuse the believe of average guys like me, that a government would never ever target its own citizens. That politicians are patriotic and work at least to some degree for their country. But cold blooded mass murderers - jesus, it's so hard to believe that they have probably a walk-over just because it's so hard to believe. But all that cameras not working, accidental drills, insiders speaking up - sorry, but I come to the believe that the evidence is indeed overwhelming. And the worst is that it does probably not matter at all if the Democrats or Republicans are in power. The only way to stop this would probably be to sue the people involved - if no one gets punished this will continue till its too late. And the laws allowing to escape punishment (f.e. Libby, Rove, Halliburton) need to be changed, the constitution needs to be uphold and loopholes need to be shut.

BrainSmashR and Rush, did you watch the movies? Would be really interested to hear what's your opinion.

Rush, did you watch the movies? Would be really interested to hear what's your opinion.

Yeah, I've watched them all, and I re-watch them as they get updated and changed.

Personally, I think they suck. As an example, I don't think the Screw 911 Mysteries guy always gets it right, he does a good job of noting the glaring errors that arise when people discuss large complicated incidents. In this case they use expanded definitions or ideas that are large enough to encompass ideas that don't necessarily apply.

You can see examples in this thread, e.g., the idea that because NORAD had an SOP that it was religiously followed or that it's impossible during an unexpected event, those in charge might have hesitated, overruled it, make hindsight mistakes, or given different commands.

I don't find much of it convincing, other than as a starting point for further research. That means finding BOTH sides of the story, not, as usually occurs here, the "I just want to post the ideology that I believe in from sites I agree with," side. Or the Michael Moore/Ann Coulter side--they're almost always wrong. Funny. But wrong.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

How did they "Pull" building 7?

Why no wreckage at the Pentagon and of Flight 93?

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

How did they "Pull" building 7?

Who is "they," and what do you mean by "pull?"

Why no wreckage at the Pentagon and of Flight 93?

"No wreckage," that's funny. All you have to do is look, this is the first site and it took me about 3 seconds:

Wreckage.

And there's "no wreckage" of Flight 93 because I think Max Fennig was on that flight and you know who did you know what...

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Does someone know if there is anything from official sources about any kind of explosion at the towers? Besides from the plane impacts.

---

Who is "they," and what do you mean by "pull?"

I knew you didn't watch the vids.

"No wreckage," that's funny. All you have to do is look, this is the first site and it took me about 3 seconds:

Wreckage.

A grueling 3 seconds I'm sure. I refueled 737s - 747s at SFO while completing my ground school for pilot training and I can tell you this is not a commercial airliner. This is equivalent in mass to a few car rims and about 10 car hoods.

And there's "no wreckage" of Flight 93 because I think Max Fennig was on that flight and you know who did you know what...

No idea what your blathering about here. X-File joke? I never watched the show.


.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

I scrolled through all these links to these so called 'evidence sources' of 9/11 being an inside job conspiracy. Didn't see anyone mention the rather definitive Popular Mechanics magazine article on the subject. No link will be provided for you by me as it seems these conspiracy theorists have too much time on their hands already and doing a google search for it will put their minds to somewhat constructive use.

Often, when monumental and especially tragic events occur like 9/11, a political assassination, or a space shuttle disaster occurs it's difficult for people to just accept that the why and the how is in fact simple. They think, 'surely there must be something more to this...something MORE sinister involved'. This helps to assuage some people's fears that they're vulnerable and that survival on earth isn't always guaranteed. For others it's a way to vent their political hatreds and agendas. The general Europeans anti american typical rants and envious motives is the best example.

Listen to Michael Medved's radio show. He is on 5 days a week and has a 'conspiracy day' every wednesday or thursday. Interesting how he tends to ask these 9/11 conspiracy theorists at the end of their phone calls if they believe man landed on the moon. Not surprisingly, the answer is 'no' more often than one would think. (again, not going to post a link for you people. Idle internet fingers are the devil's workshop. Evidence for this can be found in abundance in the many posts above).

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

I knew you didn't watch the vids.

Then, as usual, you would be wrong. It's been a long time since I've seen them. Did you have any substantive argument?

A grueling 3 seconds I'm sure. I refueled 737s - 747s at SFO while completing my ground school for pilot training and I can tell you this is not a commercial airliner. This is equivalent in mass to a few car rims and about 10 car hoods.

That's nice that you provided your opinion, but you need to provide arguments. I mean what's your point? That plane hit that building at full tilt, of course it was little more than bits, not to mention how much of it burned up. But so there's less wreckage than you would have preferred. Are you figuring that someone fired a missile, and then, during the middle of the day, a bunch of MIB's showing up in trucks to scatter heavy pieces of landing gear and fuselage around?

No idea what your blathering about here. X-File joke? I never watched the show.

I'm not blathering, it IS an x-Files joke. The joke is appropriate here because it matches the level of discussion presented so far.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...