Debunking 9/11 hoax

Miscellaneous hoaxes, conspiracies and all around bad things not covered elsewhere.

Postby MM_Dandy » Wed Aug 31, 2005 9:02 pm


================================================
Attention!:
I moved posts concerning the 9/11 attacks here from the
Truth and Knowledge thread.
I apologize for any and all confusion this may cause.
================================================
User avatar
MM_Dandy
Moderator
Moderator
King of Obscurity
 
Posts: 4927
Joined: Thu May 12, 2005 9:02 pm
Location: Canton, SD, USA

More information

Postby Soothsayer » Wed Aug 31, 2005 9:03 pm

The 9/11 Commission Final Report says little of substance about the multiple confirmed war games running on 9/11. Only one such exercise, VIGILANT GUARDIAN, is mentioned by name, but merely in a footnote of the report. The multiple war games have been documented by the mainstream press extensively, but widely ignored even by the so-called 9/11 Commission.

During the commission’s final public hearing on June 17, 2004, General Ralph Eberhart, the man heading NORAD on 9/11 was asked – who was in charge of coordinating the multiple war games running on the morning of 9/11?

He responded: "No Comment." The Commission asked no question of substance regarding the war games in their report or in pubic hearings.

Threats were identified during the 1990s including terrorists’ use of aircraft as weapons. Exercises were conducted to counter this threat, but in the first chapter the report states:

"the military was unprepared for the transformation of commercial aircraft into weapons of mass destruction."

This is a complete and total lie, and the commission feels obligated to state this lie not once, but three times in chapter one of their report. The report goes on to state:

"The threat of terrorists hijacking commercial airliners within the United States—and using them as guided missiles—was not recognized by NORAD before 9/11"

The report repeats this lie one more time when it says FAA/NORAD protocols to respond to a hijacking on 9/11 presumed the following:

"the hijacking would take the traditional form: that is, it would not be a suicide hijacking designed to convert the aircraft into a guided missile."

Suicide hijacking scenarios had been known to be a real possibility since at least 1995. The final report itself specifically references this fact. Exercises for such scenarios had been proposed & conducted in the past, shortly before 9/11, and on the morning of 9/11 itself.

The list of intelligence and exercises for such a scenario is extensive. At the G8 Conference in Genoa Italy in July of 2001 (just two months before the 9/11 attacks) Italian and Egyptian authorities had been aware of threats that airliners would be hijacked and crashed into the conference to kill President Bush. This threat is mentioned in part later in the commission’s report.

On April 18, 2004 in an article titled “NORAD had drills of jets as weapons,” USA Today reported a drill planned in July of 2001 and conducted “later” which posed hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets – including the World Trade Center.

How can the commission say there was a “failure of imagination” for such a scenario occurring when it has been documented in the mainstream press that such scenarios were thoroughly exercised by NORAD & all related agencies?

The report goes on to state the following about FAA protocols:

"The protocols did not contemplate an intercept"

If that is true, then why do the FAA protocols footnoted for this statement – from FAA regulations Air/Ground Communications Security Order 7610.4J – state the following:

Section 2. ESCORT PROCEDURES
7-2-1. FACILITY NOTIFICATION

The FAA hijack coordinator will advise the appropriate center/control tower of the identification of the military unit and location tasked to provide the hijack escort. The center/control tower shall coordinate with the designated NORAD SOCC/ROCC/military unit advising of the hijack aircraft's location, direction of flight, altitude, type aircraft and recommended flight plan to intercept the hijack aircraft. The center/control tower shall file the coordinated flight plan.

How can the commission state that an “intercept wasn’t contemplated” for a fighter escort when the FAA law they are referencing uses the word “intercept” to define the escort procedure they are speaking of?

Rational people should be able to see the inconsistency of the official story.
User avatar
Soothsayer
NWOobie
NWOobie
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2005 3:01 pm
Location: Outside the Box

Postby Bill EE » Wed Aug 31, 2005 9:19 pm

This took 2 seconds. Soothsayer wrote:
During the commission’s final public hearing on June 17, 2004, General Ralph Eberhart, the man heading NORAD on 9/11 was asked – who was in charge of coordinating the multiple war games running on the morning of 9/11?

He responded: "No Comment." The Commission asked no question of substance regarding the war games in their report or in pubic hearings.


Just reviewed the transcript and General Eberhart did testify, he never answered "no comment."

Soothsayer also brough up Operation VIGILANT WARRIOR - it took place in 1994 as an exercise to move troops from the US to QATAR. Amazing how far ahead they planned.

Don't have time right now to finish going through this mess.
"Mars" is also a chocolate bar found on Earth. These are highly concentrated sources of carbohydrates, which are of vital importance to many carbon based life forms. Mars bars are slightly rippled with a flat underside. They are sometimes used in English courtship rituals in which the female performs various allegorical oral acts with the chocolate bar, which is donated by the male as part payment for this spectacle.
User avatar
Bill EE
Disinformation Agent
Disinformation Agent
 
Posts: 462
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 5:04 am
Location: San Diego, CA

More food for thought:

Postby Soothsayer » Wed Aug 31, 2005 9:47 pm

What was the value-added benefit for the 9/11 hijackers in turning off their transponder signals?

The planes remained visible to radar; the transponders merely ID'd the flights....and yet the transponders of all four flights were switched off.

What was gained?

I think the answer is found in the proliferation of wargames on September 11, particularly the exercise called "Vigilant Guardian": the live-fly simulation of hijackings in the US Northeast staged by the Joint Chiefs and NORAD the very morning of the attacks.

At one time on 9/11 as many as 22 aircraft appeared to be hijacked, and suddenly the necessity of switching off the transponders becomes evident.

With loss of transponder signals the planes became bogies, and discriminating real from simulated hijackings became next to impossible.

This confusion compounded the paralysis already introduced to the system by drawing most of the Eastern seaboard's combat-ready interceptors into Northern Canada for the wargame "Northern Vigilence," and changing the standing orders for a shootdown in June 2001 by removing the discretion of field commanders and placing it solely in the hands of the Secretary of Defense.
User avatar
Soothsayer
NWOobie
NWOobie
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2005 3:01 pm
Location: Outside the Box

Postby Animal » Wed Aug 31, 2005 10:01 pm

There are many, many Military and Police organizations which train for hostage recue. The FBI's Hostage Recue Team, Navy SEALs, various Police SWAT teams. They have done this since hijacking became popular in the 1960s.

Given the number of agencies training for this scenerio, is it really beyond coincidents that one of them just happened to be training on September 11, 2001?

I think that Soothsayer could be helped by going to:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0764554239/002-4792854-1736051?v=glance

Regards.
User avatar
Animal
Illuminatus
Illuminatus
 
Posts: 1050
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:46 pm
Location: Right behind you.

Postby Bill EE » Wed Aug 31, 2005 10:55 pm

Found a quick moment. Soothsayer said:
If that is true, then why do the FAA protocols footnoted for this statement – from FAA regulations Air/Ground Communications Security Order 7610.4J – state the following:

Section 2. ESCORT PROCEDURES
7-2-1. FACILITY NOTIFICATION

The FAA hijack coordinator will advise the appropriate center/control tower of the identification of the military unit and location tasked to provide the hijack escort. The center/control tower shall coordinate with the designated NORAD SOCC/ROCC/military unit advising of the hijack aircraft's location, direction of flight, altitude, type aircraft and recommended flight plan to intercept the hijack aircraft. The center/control tower shall file the coordinated flight plan.

How can the commission state that an “intercept wasn’t contemplated” for a fighter escort when the FAA law they are referencing uses the word “intercept” to define the escort procedure they are speaking of?


This one is expecially nice (good job Soothsayer) - this became effective on 19 FEB 2004. A little bit after the 9/11 attacks. This one is available on the FAA website. It appears you are quoting the procedure implemented after the 9/11 attacks.

On September 28, 2001 the FAA announced:
WASHINGTON - The FAA today alerted civilian pilots of their responsibility to avoid restricted airspace and the procedures to follow if intercepted, in light of the Department of Defense announcement that pilots near or in restricted or prohibited airspace face a forced landing, or as a last resort, use of deadly force by military aircraft...

Earlier, pilots who flew in restricted or prohibited areas received a warning from Air Traffic Control and then faced suspension or revocation of their licenses or a fine. Now a pilot faces interception by military aircraft and then a forced landing at the first available airport. The Department of Defense has stated that deadly force will be used only as a last resort after all other means are exhausted.


site: http://www.faa.gov/apa/pr/pr.cfm?id=1415

Seems like interceptions were not the norm before 9/11.

Now Soothsayer - I am getting tried of doing your homework. BOP requires you provide the primary source. So far all you have provided is BS.

So stop :glp-crying: that we are not looking at your evidence and provide some.
"Mars" is also a chocolate bar found on Earth. These are highly concentrated sources of carbohydrates, which are of vital importance to many carbon based life forms. Mars bars are slightly rippled with a flat underside. They are sometimes used in English courtship rituals in which the female performs various allegorical oral acts with the chocolate bar, which is donated by the male as part payment for this spectacle.
User avatar
Bill EE
Disinformation Agent
Disinformation Agent
 
Posts: 462
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 5:04 am
Location: San Diego, CA

Postby Animal » Thu Sep 01, 2005 1:00 am

User avatar
Animal
Illuminatus
Illuminatus
 
Posts: 1050
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:46 pm
Location: Right behind you.

Postby Lance » Thu Sep 01, 2005 1:40 pm

Animal wrote:This should be enough proof:

http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon.php


Wow.
No trees were killed in the posting of this message.
However, a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

==========================================

Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a few hours.
Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
User avatar
Lance
Administrator
Administrator
Cheeseburger Swilling Lard-Ass who needs to put down the remote and get off the couch.
 
Posts: 91394
Joined: Thu May 12, 2005 5:51 pm
Location: Oswego, IL

Postby Bill EE » Thu Sep 01, 2005 6:40 pm

Damn Soothsayer - you didn't even last four pages! Where are the the hard core woo-woo :glp-rofl:
"Mars" is also a chocolate bar found on Earth. These are highly concentrated sources of carbohydrates, which are of vital importance to many carbon based life forms. Mars bars are slightly rippled with a flat underside. They are sometimes used in English courtship rituals in which the female performs various allegorical oral acts with the chocolate bar, which is donated by the male as part payment for this spectacle.
User avatar
Bill EE
Disinformation Agent
Disinformation Agent
 
Posts: 462
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 5:04 am
Location: San Diego, CA

Postby Kesh » Thu Sep 01, 2005 8:02 pm

Animal wrote:This should be enough proof:

http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon.php


Proof, my ass.

It does raise a few questions, but proof? First of all, the majority of those quotes aren't cited. They give names, but no publications, news broadcast channels or anything else to corroborate that they are accurate.

Second, there's a few glaring inconsistencies in the clips themselves, including some of the plane wreckage stills featuring virtually no debris at all (when their claim was "all airline crashes leave a lot of wreckage"). As well as off-the-wall things like "What are these parts?" for about two seconds, before off to the next 'point.' (Not to mention horrible, horrible Flash artifacts and poor, distracting animations.) There's even a few laughably bad Photoshop jobs thrown in for effect (the "simulation" of jet-liner backwash on a highway, for example).

And I'm glad I had sound off at the time. Why the hell would you set a video like that to Marilyn Manson? (I even like Manson, and it would've been annoying as hell over that video.)

So, no. That doesn't qualify as proof. It does qualify as "crap" that happens to combine a lot of vague assumptions, bad animation, poorly thought out music choices, and one or two legitimate questions.
Kesh
NWOobie
NWOobie
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 2:25 am
Location: Kentucky, USA

Postby twinstead » Thu Sep 01, 2005 8:12 pm

Some people just have a strange idea of what constitutes proof.
AKA DogFishHead on GLP

The great thing about being a cynic is that in the end, you are either right or pleasantly surprised
User avatar
twinstead
Government Shill
Government Shill
 
Posts: 219
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 6:42 pm
Location: Cleveland, OH

Postby Animal » Thu Sep 01, 2005 8:43 pm

Kesh wrote:
Animal wrote:This should be enough proof:

http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon.php


Proof, my ass.



I would rather not embark on an expedition to prove that you have an ass. It does appear, however, that you would require such an expedition, done in person, before you would accept the fact that, yes, you do actually have an ass.

The old axiom of "absence of evidence does not constitute evidedence of absence" does not apply here. In fact it supports the exact opposite.
User avatar
Animal
Illuminatus
Illuminatus
 
Posts: 1050
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:46 pm
Location: Right behind you.

Postby Kesh » Thu Sep 01, 2005 8:48 pm

I could easily prove that I do, indeed, have an ass. However, I think that would violate forum rules. ;)
Kesh
NWOobie
NWOobie
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 2:25 am
Location: Kentucky, USA

Postby Lance » Thu Sep 01, 2005 8:50 pm

Kesh wrote:I could easily prove that I do, indeed, have an ass. However, I think that would violate forum rules. ;)


Bet it wouldn't.

And if you do [violate the rules] I hereby give you special dispensation.

I just want to see how you're going to prove it.
No trees were killed in the posting of this message.
However, a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

==========================================

Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a few hours.
Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
User avatar
Lance
Administrator
Administrator
Cheeseburger Swilling Lard-Ass who needs to put down the remote and get off the couch.
 
Posts: 91394
Joined: Thu May 12, 2005 5:51 pm
Location: Oswego, IL

Postby Animal » Thu Sep 01, 2005 8:57 pm

Kesh wrote:I could easily prove that I do, indeed, have an ass. However, I think that would violate forum rules. ;)


That's a lame cop-out and also is irrelevent to the discussion. My point was that you will not accept any evidence which you personally have not verified and which is counter to your preconceptions. They mere idea that you would even joke about the ability to prove that you have an ass pretty much makes my case.

I win.

Though I am a bit curious (and not a little afraid) to know how you would prove such a thing.
User avatar
Animal
Illuminatus
Illuminatus
 
Posts: 1050
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:46 pm
Location: Right behind you.

Postby Kesh » Thu Sep 01, 2005 9:45 pm

Lance wrote:
Kesh wrote:I could easily prove that I do, indeed, have an ass. However, I think that would violate forum rules. ;)


Bet it wouldn't.

And if you do [violate the rules] I hereby give you special dispensation.

I just want to see how you're going to prove it.


Are you really sure you'd want to see skinny white boy ass plastered on the forums? ;)
Kesh
NWOobie
NWOobie
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 2:25 am
Location: Kentucky, USA

Postby Kesh » Thu Sep 01, 2005 9:48 pm

Animal wrote:
Kesh wrote:I could easily prove that I do, indeed, have an ass. However, I think that would violate forum rules. ;)


That's a lame cop-out and also is irrelevent to the discussion. My point was that you will not accept any evidence which you personally have not verified and which is counter to your preconceptions. They mere idea that you would even joke about the ability to prove that you have an ass pretty much makes my case.


Actually, I have been corrected and accepted those corrections on other forums before.

I win.


In science, one cannot declare themselves a winner so easily.

Though I am a bit curious (and not a little afraid) to know how you would prove such a thing.


Be afraid. Be very afraid. ;)
Kesh
NWOobie
NWOobie
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 2:25 am
Location: Kentucky, USA

Postby Lance » Thu Sep 01, 2005 11:00 pm

Kesh wrote:Are you really sure you'd want to see skinny white boy ass plastered on the forums? ;)


Who would we know it's yours?

It could be a hired "stand-in ass".
No trees were killed in the posting of this message.
However, a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

==========================================

Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a few hours.
Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
User avatar
Lance
Administrator
Administrator
Cheeseburger Swilling Lard-Ass who needs to put down the remote and get off the couch.
 
Posts: 91394
Joined: Thu May 12, 2005 5:51 pm
Location: Oswego, IL

Postby Animal » Thu Sep 01, 2005 11:26 pm

Lance wrote:Who would we know it's yours?

It could be a hired "stand-in ass".


"Stand-in-Ass"? Sound like some weird Japanese anime porn.
User avatar
Animal
Illuminatus
Illuminatus
 
Posts: 1050
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:46 pm
Location: Right behind you.

Postby Kesh » Fri Sep 02, 2005 12:41 am

Lance wrote:
Kesh wrote:Are you really sure you'd want to see skinny white boy ass plastered on the forums? ;)


Who would we know it's yours?

It could be a hired "stand-in ass".


I suppose the only true proof would be if you met me in person, then watched as I posted here to the board. Of course, even then, one could claim that the real me had just handed my username and password to someone else.

That leads to the same things as, "You can't prove we went to the moon without going to the moon and finding the US flag there. And even if you do, it's just a trick!" Sometimes, no amount of proof is enough.

I guess the question is, then, what would it take for you to believe it was my ass being shaken in front of a webcam? :lol:
Kesh
NWOobie
NWOobie
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 2:25 am
Location: Kentucky, USA

Postby Animal » Fri Sep 02, 2005 12:45 am

Again, you just made my point about the Pentagon flash video I posted. I'm glad that you've come around and accepted the fact that it was a hoax.
User avatar
Animal
Illuminatus
Illuminatus
 
Posts: 1050
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:46 pm
Location: Right behind you.

Postby Kesh » Fri Sep 02, 2005 2:51 am

Yep. That whole Flash video was a complete hoax. 8)
Kesh
NWOobie
NWOobie
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 2:25 am
Location: Kentucky, USA

Postby Cl1mh4224rd » Fri Sep 02, 2005 10:39 am

Hmm... I bet Sooth is over at GLP trying to wave a victory flag.

"I provided them 'irrefutable' evidence, then made a fool of myself, then they proved me wrong! Zetas right ag-- I mean, they're quaking in their boots!"
User avatar
Cl1mh4224rd
Government Shill
Government Shill
 
Posts: 174
Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 9:44 pm
Location: Belle Vernon, PA, USA

Postby Мастер » Fri Sep 02, 2005 12:26 pm

Cl1mh4224rd wrote:Hmm... I bet Sooth is over at GLP trying to wave a victory flag.


It doesn't matter what the lowest common denominators are doing...
They call me Mr Celsius!
User avatar
Мастер
Moderator
Moderator
Злой Мудак
Mauerspecht
 
Posts: 23929
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 2:56 pm
Location: Far from Damascus

Postby Мастер » Fri Sep 02, 2005 6:14 pm

Bill EE wrote:Damn Soothsayer - you didn't even last four pages! Where are the the hard core woo-woo :glp-rofl:


Folded like a cheap accordion. I'm going to have to lower his woo rating for this...
They call me Mr Celsius!
User avatar
Мастер
Moderator
Moderator
Злой Мудак
Mauerspecht
 
Posts: 23929
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 2:56 pm
Location: Far from Damascus

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracy Theories and Hoaxes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests