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.
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?
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.
Kesh wrote:
Proof, my ass.
Kesh wrote:I could easily prove that I do, indeed, have an ass. However, I think that would violate forum rules. ;)
Kesh wrote:I could easily prove that I do, indeed, have an ass. However, I think that would violate forum rules. ;)
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.
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.
I win.
Though I am a bit curious (and not a little afraid) to know how you would prove such a thing.
Kesh wrote:Are you really sure you'd want to see skinny white boy ass plastered on the forums? ;)
Lance wrote:Who would we know it's yours?
It could be a hired "stand-in ass".
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".
Bill EE wrote:Damn Soothsayer - you didn't even last four pages! Where are the the hard core woo-woo
Return to Conspiracy Theories and Hoaxes
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests