Video Flagged Dead

NORAD on 9/11: What was the U.S. military doing that day?

Canadian television journalist Barry Zwicker addresses the many self conflicting stories of what the U.S. military was doing the day of 9/11.

http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=operation_northern_vigilance
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=vigilant_guardian
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=vigilant_warrior
marblessays...

From www.washingtonsblog.com:

... Dick Cheney was in charge of all counter-terrorism exercises, activities and responses on 9/11. See this Department of State announcement; this CNN article; and this essay.

In fact, 5 war games were scheduled for 9/11, including games that included the insertion of false radar blips onto air traffic contollers’ screens. Specifically, on the very morning of September 11th, five war games and terror drills were being conducted by several U.S. defense agencies, including one “live fly” exercise using REAL planes.

Then-Acting Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force General Richard B. Myers, admitted to 4 of the war games in congressional testimony — see transcript here or http://www.spiegltech.com/media/McKinney2.rm">video here (6 minutes and 12 seconds into the video).

Norad had run drills for several years of planes being used as weapons against the World Trade Center and other U.S. high-profile buildings, and “numerous types of civilian and military aircraft were used as mock hijacked aircraft”. In other words, drills using REAL AIRCRAFT simulating terrorist attacks crashing jets into buildings, including the twin towers, were run. See also http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/news_photos/Contingency_Planning_Photos.html">official military website showing 2000 military drill, using miniatures, involving a plane crashing into the Pentagon.

Indeed, a former Los Angeles police department investigator, whose newsletter is read by 45 members of congress, both the house and senate intelligence committees, and professors at more than 40 universities around the world, claims that he obtained an on-the-record confirmation from NORAD that on 9/11, NORAD and the Joint Chiefs of Staff were conducting a joint, live-fly, hijack exercise which involved government-operated aircraft posing as hijacked airliners.

On September 11th, the government also happened to be running a simulation of a plane crashing into a building.

In addition, a December 9, 2001 Toronto Star article (pay-per-view; reprinted here), stated that “Operation Northern Vigilance is called off. Any simulated information, what’s known as an ‘inject,’ is purged from the screens”. This indicates that there were false radar blips inserted onto air traffic controllers’ screens as part of the war game exercises.

Moreover, there are indications that some of the major war games previously scheduled for October 2001 were moved up to September 11th by persons unknown.

Now here’s where it gets interesting … Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta testified to the 9/11 Commission:

“During the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President … the plane is 50 miles out…the plane is 30 miles out….and when it got down to the plane is 10 miles out, the young man also said to the vice president “do the orders still stand?” And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said “Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary!?”

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y]

(this testimony is confirmed here and here).

So even if 9/11 wasn’t foreseeable before 9/11, it was foreseeable to Dick Cheney – who had been attacking democracy for nearly 40 years – as the plane was still 50 miles away from the Pentagon.

marblessays...

From www.washingtonsblog.com:

The military put out 3 entirely different stories about what happened on 9/11. Specifically, Norad was forced to give 3 entirely different versions of what happened that day, as each previous version was exposed as false, or as providing evidence that the government could in fact have intercepted the hijacked planes had they followed standard protocols.

The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission, who led the 9/11 staff’s inquiry, said “I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years…. This is not spin. This is not true.”

Indeed, the falsity of Norad’s explanations were so severe that even the 9/11 Commission considered recommending criminal charges for the making of false statements.

marblessays...

The government could have intercepted the hijacked planes had they followed standard protocols.

From http://www.911summary.com/:

Director of the U.S. "Star Wars" space defense program in both Republican and Democratic administrations, who was a senior air force colonel who flew 101 combat missions (Col. Robert Bowman) stated that 9/11 was an inside job. He also said:

"If our government had merely [done] nothing, and I say that as an old interceptor pilot—I know the drill, I know what it takes, I know how long it takes, I know what the procedures are, I know what they were, and I know what they’ve changed them to—if our government had merely done nothing, and allowed normal procedures to happen on that morning of 9/11, the Twin Towers would still be standing and thousands of dead Americans would still be alive. [T]hat is treason!" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMYzwf01Z7I)

U.S. Army Air Defense Officer and NORAD Tac Director, decorated with the Purple Heart, the Bronze Star and the Soldiers Medal (Capt. Daniel Davis) stated:

"there is no way that an aircraft . . . would not be intercepted when they deviate from their flight plan, turn off their transponders, or stop communication with Air Traffic Control ... Attempts to obscure facts by calling them a 'conspiracy Theory' does not change the truth. It seems, 'Something is rotten in the State.' "

MycroftHomlzsays...

@marbles massively copy and pasting stuff from websites is rude and trollish. I am fine with you having a different belief than me, I am not cool with you trolling the site. I think you can effectively state you beliefs with out being a troll. So, please stop it.

marblessays...

>> ^MycroftHomlz:

@marbles massively copy and pasting stuff from websites is rude and trollish. I am fine with you having a different belief than me, I am not cool with you trolling the site. I think you can effectively state you beliefs with out being a troll. So, please stop it.


Rude and trollish huh? What's wrong... your beliefs are rational, logical and fact-based, right? Sounds like confirmation bias to me.

I think you can effectively ignore my "trolling the site" and continue to down-vote anything that challenges your ill-founded beliefs without feigning revulsion of some imaginary offense. So, please fuck off.

marblessays...

Warning! More rude trollish massively copy and pasting stuff from websites below:

9/11 Truth vs Denial vs Pseudo-truths and Other Lies

David Watts on the Backfire Effect:

“The Truth: When your deepest convictions are challenged by contradictory evidence, your beliefs get stronger.”

9/11 is a perfect example. Despite the mountain of contradictory evidence of the official story, most people’s belief that what they are being told by the authorities and media becomes even stronger. If people were able to assimilate the contradictory evidence, they would understand that 9/11 was a false flag operation.

“The great masses of the people… will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one.” — Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

“The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists.” — J. Edgar Hoover, former FBI director

“Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big ones are kept secret by public incredulity.” — Marshall McLuhan, Canadian educator, philosopher, and scholar–a professor of English literature, a literary critic, a rhetorician, and a communication theorist.

MycroftHomlzsays...

Please don't confuse the issue. It is trollish to cut and paste from websites huge walls of text. Period. (@dag Is there a policy on this? What about "please fuck off." comment?)

>> ^marbles:

>> ^MycroftHomlz:
@marbles massively copy and pasting stuff from websites is rude and trollish. I am fine with you having a different belief than me, I am not cool with you trolling the site. I think you can effectively state you beliefs with out being a troll. So, please stop it.

Rude and trollish huh? What's wrong... your beliefs are rational, logical and fact-based, right? Sounds like confirmation bias to me.
I think you can effectively ignore my "trolling the site" and continue to down-vote anything that challenges your unfounded preconceptions without feigning revulsion of some imaginary offense. So, please fuck off.

dannym3141says...

If there is a rule about such a thing as "please fuck off" it's news to me - i've had an established member of the community attempt to literally make things up and label me as a paedophile once and was told that was fair game.

However, i don't see why finding and quoting facts is trolling. Especially when you post a video that seems to me to be a conspiracy theory thing. You can't really post a video that suggests or implies things and then complain when someone attempts to disprove it in the comments. I'd say you've got more reason to complain if he wasn't quoting sources. Quoting sources makes his argument more acceptable if anything!

hpqpjokingly says...

@MycroftHomlz

Don't pick on marbles, he's got teh TRUTH!


@marbles

Please continue to enlighten the Sift with your valuable insight into the workings of the shadow powers puppeteering the world! You are a prophet among men! Only you can save the Siftites from their slavery to reason, evidence and logic the NWO's mind control magnetic waves!

MycroftHomlzsays...

I don't think I have ever made a trollish comment that was not in jest on any sift, let alone yours. And damn straight, I want @dag to look at his comments and consider hobbling him for 1) making profane and inappropriate comments not in jest 2) posting ridiculously long "copy and paste" walls of text.

I don't like it when anyone does it. And it has nothing to do with your beliefs. This is the crap that makes people want to leave the sift. It is time to call people on it.

srdsays...

>> ^MycroftHomlz:

And damn straight, I want @dag to look at his comments and consider hobbling him for 1) making profane and inappropriate comments not in jest 2) posting ridiculously long "copy and paste" walls of text.
I don't like it when anyone does it. And it has nothing to do with your beliefs. This is the crap that makes people want to leave the sift. It is time to call people on it.


I've thought about wading in here for 10 minutes, but hey, I'm bored

Wrt 1.: you are aware of how that ridiculous statement makes you sound? (Hint: Prudish old lady who is shocked, nay, dismayed at that loutish language!)

2.: FWIW, I wouldn't consider quoting/pasting information relevant to the video at hand trollish. On the contrary, according to the urban dictionary definition of a troll, I'd say your comments on this page are a lot closer to that definition.

I can't really see why you're getting so worked up over this - if you don't like what marbles has to say, there is that little 'ignore' link next to his comments that you can click. Problem solved and no bruised egos anywhere

marblessays...

>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^marbles:
You know what's funny is @MycroftHomlz, @hpqp, and few others love making "rude and trollish" comments on my sifts.

But how would you regulate to stop someone posting meaningful information?


I wasn't saying that I cared, just pointing out that some people are ignorant to what trolling is. If it bothered me what someone was posting, I'm pretty sure putting that person on ignore would solve my problem. But evidently some people are bed-wetting crybabies that think the sift revolves around them.

dagsays...

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

You called? After a cursory read through of this thread, I'm not sure what all this bother is about. The material that @marbles is posting is back-up material, original or not. I have to think that the dispute is coming about because others don't agree with the content, that's OK - don't vote for it.

dagsays...

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

If it's walls of text meant to be just an annoyance - yes, I would agree with you. If it's a few paragraphs of supporting information and links that someone who is interested in the video might want to read, I would have to disagree.

I have to be honest and say I haven't even watched this video - which is why I haven't voted on it - (9/11 overload) but everything seems to be in order here. To be clear, I don't think this rises to the level of trolling or spamming - which is perhaps bandied about a bit too frequently.


>> ^MycroftHomlz:

@dag, no man. I think I have been pretty clear here. Spamming a post with cut and paste text is trollish. It has nothing to do with the content.

marblessays...

NORAD on 9/11: Ordered to stand down

According to the newly released audio published here, NORAD was finally giving clearance to shoot at 10:32, about a half hour after United 93 reportedly went down and about an hour after AA 77 reportedly hit the Pentagon.

Fighter pilots at 10:09 were denied clearance to fire.

If you listen to some of the earlier audio, you will also realize that NORAD and FAA were getting false reports, false radar blips, or some other misinformation. Seems somebody was playing three-card Monte with Flight AA 11.

Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists




notify when someone comments
X

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
  
Learn More