Norad-Tapes around 10:07: "terminate all exercise inputs"

jammonius said:
There was no discernible difference between what was real and what wasn't.
Click to expand...
And here we see the crux of jammonius' problem. To sane people, it is indeed possible to discern the difference between reality and science fiction. It was quite discernible (to a sane person) that commercial flights slammed into the ground in PA, the Pentagon, and the WTC towers 1 and 2.

Really, you ought to get some help for your problem. I'm not kidding. Just run these ideas (or your postings here) past a mental-health professional and see what they say. What can it hurt?
 
fess said:
Jammonius;
Have you ever been involved in a large scale military exercise? Statements like this;...

Posted by Jammonius:
"Precisely. With next to no one knowing exactly what the purpose of any of them actually was. Rather, each person knew solely and only what they needed to know to do their part; i.e., push this or that button, report on what this or that monitor said and so on, all as is clearly revealed in the ebb and flow of the NORAD/NEADS transcripts under review in this thread."
...tend to make me believe that you haven't.
Click to expand...


I do not play 20 questions games with posters. If there is a point you want to make, would you please come right on out and bring it. Stand firm, don't be shy, obey the rules of posting, if you are so inclined, and say whatever it is you want to say. I will not engage you in your rhetorical ploys.

Clear?
 
jammonius said:
I do not play 20 questions games with posters. If there is a point you want to make, would you please come right on out and bring it. Stand firm, don't be shy, obey the rules of posting, if you are so inclined, and say whatever it is you want to say. I will not engage you in your rhetorical ploys.

Clear?
Click to expand...

Just one question;
Have you ever been involved in a large scale military exercise?
Click to expand...
A one word answer, please.
 
Last edited:
jammonius said:
The following observation stands as unrefuted and unaddressed:

The significance of the MILITARY EXERCISES is that they are a means by which the events of 9/11 could actually have been carried out if they were disguised as exercises, but were, in fact "real."

The tapes confirm that the difference between what was "real" and what was "exercise" was not readily discernible.
Click to expand...
.
Is refuted by:
.
jammonius said:
That is the proper context in which the following statment occurred:

"I've never seen so much real world happen during an exercise."
Click to expand...
.
Seems like this person was very clear on the difference between real and exercise, which is why he knew that a lot of "real" was happening during an exercise.

I mean, otherwise, he'd've said, "I've never seen so much real world happen during real world stuff" or "I've never seen so much exercise happen during an exercise."

Or perhaps, "Gee, it's so confusing -- was that real world or was that exercise?"
.
 
Last edited:
progge said:
jammonius, you maybe would not catch the difference, but NEADS personnel knew that what was happening was "real world stuff", not an exercise. Actually, the very first call from ZBW cleared up every possible confusion.
Click to expand...

NEADS knew, that it lost its fighters to other command structures existing on 9/11. There was confusion, see the statements of the langley pilots.

Borgstrom says they are "all three on different frequencies... and [are] getting orders from a lot of different people."
Filson, 2003, pp. 66

There are different, various official explanation developing during the years for that anomaly, until middle 2003 for example that the fighters were heading towards Flight 93, therefor they were not heading towards Washington D.C around 09:30.:eek:


"Yes, there is an exercise maestro."
Don Arias, 1st Air Force and Continental United States NORAD Region public affairs

Why the transcript of the Norad-Tapes are redacted, that nobody can find out, who could end the exercise-inputs? Who was the maestro?
 
bio said:
NEADS knew, that it lost its fighters to other command structures existing on 9/11. There was confusion, see the statements of the langley pilots.

Borgstrom says they are "all three on different frequencies... and [are] getting orders from a lot of different people."
Filson, 2003, pp. 66

There are different, various official explanation developing during the years for that anomaly, until middle 2003 for example that the fighters were heading towards Flight 93, therefor they were not heading towards Washington D.C around 09:30.:eek:


"Yes, there is an exercise maestro."
Don Arias, 1st Air Force and Continental United States NORAD Region public affairs

Why the transcript of the Norad-Tapes are redacted, that nobody can find out, who could end the exercise-inputs? Who was the maestro?
Click to expand...

With posts like this you may never figure out 911. You don't make any sense with all your nonsense.
 
TSR said:
.
Is refuted by:
.

.
Seems like this person was very clear on the difference between real and exercise, which is why he knew that a lot of "real" was happening during an exercise.

I mean, otherwise, he'd've said, "I've never seen so much real world happen during real world stuff" or "I've never seen so much exercise happen during an exercise."

Or perhaps, "Gee, it's so confusing -- was that real world or was that exercise?"
.
Click to expand...

Your speculation is as good as any, of course. And, you can believe whatever you want to believe, again, of course.

However, the way forward here is to assess the actual NORAD/NEADS tapes and see if they shed any light on the matter, thus eliminating the need, let alone the propriety, of engaging in speculation.

There the issue is put to rest. The fact is, the controllers DID NOT know the difference between real or simulated inputs.

For instance, we all know that Air traffic controller Pete Zalewski was the one who thought he recognized a foreign, Middle Eastern-sounding voice, but does not make out the specific words that are attributed to the conversation he overheard, namely, the famous “we have some planes” declaration.

Zalewski did however respond saying: “Who’s trying to call me?” Seconds later, in the next transmission, the transmission includes: “Nobody move. Everything will be OK. If you try to make any moves you’ll endanger yourself and the airplane. Just stay quiet,” according to the 9/11 Commission and mainstream media stallwart MSNBC, 9/9/2006.

But Bill Peacock, the FAA director of air traffic services, (confirmed by the FAA transcript) later says:

“We didn’t know where the transmission came from, what was said and who said it.”

And, David Canoles, the FAA’s manager of air traffic evaluations and investigations, adds:

“The broadcast wasn’t attributed to a flight. Nobody gave a flight number.”

The FAA report that is the source of the OP simply says with respect to these claimed transmissions that they came from:

“an unknown origin.”


See: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB165/faa7.pdf
pg. 4/59

So, there you have it. The voice transmissions were of unknown origin, meaning they could not be distinguished as being either real or exercise.

That is the point, posters and lurkers. Radio transmissions that are unidentified, blips on a radar screen that are electronic and therefore subject to simulation, are inherently indistinguishable by the people sitting in front of monitors and/or listening to something coming into there ears via headsets, speakers, phones or similar devices.

Come on posters and lurkers, put on your objective thinking caps.

Once again, I am not questioning, let alone challenging, what people believe.

If you believe jetliners were hijacked on 9/11; fine. Believe as you will for as long as you can and as ardently as is necessary.

The point here is only and solely that the data here under consideration cannot be determined to be either real or exercise.

So, in conclusion, your post refutes nothing and this post confirms that your claim of refutation is not viable on the basis of the available data that is provided here and sourced.

Thanks for your post.
 
Last edited:
jammonius said:
And, you can believe whatever you want to believe, again, of course.
Click to expand...

I normally ignore your mad raving lunacy, but you are talking through you ass now without even knowing where your ass is located.

You mix up NEADS and the FAA as if they are the same. It is quite obvious that NEADS personnel knew they were operating "real world" from the initial phone call from Scoggins at Boston. You have absolutely no clue.

As for the "unidentified" radio transmission, there are such things as logical conclusions that can be drawn by sane rational people. The fact that you can't or won't is a testament that you are neither.
 
jammonius said:
Your speculation is ...
Click to expand...

Why are your posts equal to jet engine parts are Plymouth wheel cover delusions? How are you so consistent at not posting anything rational? Are you making fun of insane people like Judy Wood and Dr. Jones?

The nonsense you posted made no sense. Can you try to be clear up what you are trying to say and what it means relative to the topic started by another person who has no clue what happen on 911 after 8 years?


You never get anything right about 911.
There was no discernible difference between what was real and what wasn't.
Click to expand...
For you reality does not exist as you post lies and moronic analysis on 911.
 
Last edited:
Okay, I admit to femalish curiosity and clicked on one of Jammo's posts to see it despite his being on my ignore list.

Remind me not to do that again; the stupid burned my retinas.

Jammo, I'll address you directly just to point out one little issue with your conclusion... here it comes... are you ready?

*ahem*

NEADS AND FAA ARE TWO ENTIRELY SEPARATE ENTITIES; NEADS COULD NOT POSSIBLY HAVE HEARD THE TRANSMISSION YOU REFER TO IN POST #50 BECAUSE THEY WERE, AT THE TIME, PAYING ATTENTION TO THE EXERCISE TRANSMISSIONS. FAA WAS THE ENTITY WHICH HEARD THAT TRANSMISSION.

You seem to be enamored of different colored and sized fonts; thought I'd speak to you in your language. Next time, I highly suggest you get your facts straight before you start talking out of your butt.
 
Sabrina said:
Okay, I admit to femalish curiosity and clicked on one of Jammo's posts to see it despite his being on my ignore list.

Remind me not to do that again; the stupid burned my retinas.

Jammo, I'll address you directly just to point out one little issue with your conclusion... here it comes... are you ready?

*ahem*

NEADS AND FAA ARE TWO ENTIRELY SEPARATE ENTITIES; NEADS COULD NOT POSSIBLY HAVE HEARD THE TRANSMISSION YOU REFER TO IN POST #50 BECAUSE THEY WERE, AT THE TIME, PAYING ATTENTION TO THE EXERCISE TRANSMISSIONS. FAA WAS THE ENTITY WHICH HEARD THAT TRANSMISSION.

You seem to be enamored of different colored and sized fonts; thought I'd speak to you in your language. Next time, I highly suggest you get your facts straight before you start talking out of your butt.
Click to expand...

Usually, when someone does a drumroll of sorts, like, say, use of an *ahem* a "gotcha" game is likely being introduced. As you may know, Sabrina, I do not play "gotcha" games. I am not interested in who is winning/losing/catching up/falling behind/way ahead or behind or whatever.

I prefer to let the data, or the lack of it, to stand or fall on its own merit, as each poster or lurker presents it, and to assess the sources for reliability and cogency and to base my discussion accordingly. The discussion centers on the claims that can be made from the available data and the drawing of conclusions, reasonably and consistently.

This process is, to me, an exchange of information, I am not trying to prove you wrong or me right. That is what others, like say, Lapman, does; you know "Lapman right, jammonius wrong". I hope that sort of posting doesn't appeal to you overmuch.

OK, with that frame of reference in mind, let's take a look at what your post offers:

NEADS AND FAA ARE TWO ENTIRELY SEPARATE ENTITIES; NEADS COULD NOT POSSIBLY HAVE HEARD THE TRANSMISSION YOU REFER TO IN POST #50 BECAUSE THEY WERE, AT THE TIME, PAYING ATTENTION TO THE EXERCISE TRANSMISSIONS. FAA WAS THE ENTITY WHICH HEARD THAT TRANSMISSION.
Click to expand...

I think you are attempting to take comfort in being able to assert a distinction, resulting in a false choice, and in something that makes no difference at all.

NEADS and FAA had signficant overlap in connection with the events of 9/11, including direct discussion. Neither could distinguish "real" from "exercise" and both had data to work with that made no sense and that could not be reliably determined to be correct or incorrect, related to exercises or not.

Here's how it worked:

Members of staff at NORAD/NEADS had difficulty locating Flight 11 and other aircraft on their radar screens. Lt. Col. Dawne Deskins of NEADS will say that when the FAA first calls and reports the first hijacking “He [FAA] gave me the latitude and longitude of that track… [but] there was nothing there.”

The foregoing is, then, clearly consistent with false imagery being used under the quise of an exercise that was real, alright, real in the sense that it was designed to make it appear as if jetliners were hijacked when, in fact, no such thing happened as there were no jetliners involved, all is more fully substantiated by the observable and reported data supplied by the eye and ear witnesses and by the stupidly false video imagery that absolutely did not correspond with the proper sounds that should have been associated with the event, not to mention the crash and explosive dynamics that were entirely consistent with Evan Fairbanks descriptive language of:

"a bad special effect."

Colin Scoggins, the military liaison at the FAA’s Boston Center, later recalls: “I was giving NEADS accurate location information on at least five instances where AA 11 was, yet they could never identify him.… I originally gave them an F/R/D, which is a fix/radial/distance from a known location; they could not identify the target. They requested latitude/longitudes, which I gave them; they still could not identify the AA 11.… I gave them 20 [miles] south of Albany heading south at a high rate of speed, 600 knots, then another call at 50 south of Albany.”

Source: http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a837unablelocate#a837unablelocate

th_267_dawne_deskins2050081722-9049.jpg

LtCol. Dawne Deskins didn't have a clue what was real and what was exercise.

For a more complete assessment of Deskins and of the military exercises taking place, including reference to use of simulating hijackings see:

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a630vigilantguardian#a630vigilantguardian


all the best
 
Last edited:
Reheat said:
I normally ignore your mad raving lunacy, but you are talking through you ass now without even knowing where your ass is located.

You mix up NEADS and the FAA as if they are the same. It is quite obvious that NEADS personnel knew they were operating "real world" from the initial phone call from Scoggins at Boston. You have absolutely no clue.

As for the "unidentified" radio transmission, there are such things as logical conclusions that can be drawn by sane rational people. The fact that you can't or won't is a testament that you are neither.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make and/or how you are trying to make it. That is because you rely too heavily on simple emotional rant, as is clearly evident in your use of playground language and tactics.

Can you, perhaps, rethink whatever it is you are trying to say and post it a bit more cogently?

take care
 
Two points, that immediately settle this issue.

a) "Inputs" doesn't mean what you think it means.

b) NEADS SOCCs and ROCCs have two computer systems; one for real-world operations and one for exercises and simulations. There's no cross-over.
 
gumboot said:
Two points, that immediately settle this issue.

a) "Inputs" doesn't mean what you think it means.

b) NEADS SOCCs and ROCCs have two computer systems; one for real-world operations and one for exercises and simulations. There's no cross-over.
Click to expand...

Greetings, it is good to have your input into this thread (no pun ... :)

Source your claim "there's no cross-over" if you would please.

all the best
 
jammonius said:
Greetings, it is good to have your input into this thread (no pun ... :)

Source your claim "there's no cross-over" if you would please.

all the best
Click to expand...



I do not have the most remote interest in engaging in discussion with you. You have demonstrated a fundamentally inability to learn, so I would be wasting my time.

Neither NORAD nor the FAA run training or exercises on their "real world" computer systems. This is a fact. Deal with it.

Your talk of "exercise transmissions" to the FAA is a prime example of your failure to apply critical thinking. The FAA were not conducting an exercise of any kind, and when they do conduct training, this is done in a physically separate room to the ATC control room. When the FAA say they don't know where the transmission came from, this means they don't know what specific flight it came from - because the speaker did not identify their flight. What they do know is that it came from a real airliner.

Even pretending the FAA were involved in NORAD's exercise (which they weren't), there were no exercise transmissions to receive because it was a Command Post exercise, which does not involve flying units.

Secondly, the NORAD exercise never happened. It was scheduled to begin at 0900 but the hijacking of AA11 occurred first and the exercise was cancelled.

These are all very basic facts that are readily available to anyone who takes the time to learn anything about the matter. The fact that you haven't demonstrates you're not interesting in determining facts, which leads me to the undeniable conclusion that engaging in discussion with you is a complete waste of my time.
 
Last edited:
gumboot said:
I do not have the most remote interest in engaging in discussion with you. You have demonstrated a fundamentally inability to learn, so I would be wasting my time.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry you have found it necessary to engage in the above exchange. That said, and consistent with your expressed desire, I will not expect a further reply from you.

Neither NORAD nor the FAA run training or exercises on their "real world" computer systems. This is a fact. Deal with it.
Click to expand...

I do not think you have a basis that is either expressed in reason or supported by anything whatsoever, other than your declaration, for the above statement.

I do not question people's beliefs. You are free to believe anything you find necessary to believe for as long as you need to believe it.

But, as the record stands, you have failed and you have refused to source your claim. It is, therefore, unsubstantiated and lacks any support, other than that you have said it and have said with some umbrage, as it were. Umbrage does not constitute substantiation. Umbrage is rooted in one's emotional makeup.

Your talk of "exercise transmissions" to the FAA is a prime example of your failure to apply critical thinking. The FAA were not conducting an exercise of any kind, and when they do conduct training, this is done in a physically separate room to the ATC control room. When the FAA say they don't know where the transmission came from, this means they don't know what specific flight it came from - because the speaker did not identify their flight. What they do know is that it came from a real airliner.
Click to expand...

The above is mildly informative after a fashion. However, as to the subject matter of my posts, it misses the point entirely.

I have plainly said:

"The significance of the MILITARY EXERCISES is that they are a means by which the events of 9/11 could actually have been carried out if they were disguised as exercises, but were, in fact "real."

The tapes confirm that the difference between what was "real" and what was "exercise" was not readily discernible."


You appear to miss, entirely, the issue of DECEPTION, which is, indeed, the essence of 9/11. In some ways, I regret that it does not appear likely that you and I will be able to have an ongoing discussion. The emotion of 9/11, centered in the need of some to attribute only the best of motives to either governmental entities or the MIC or some combination of those entity structures serves to preclude rational discussion of what the evidence shows happened on 9/11. I get that and I do not mind it at all.

Even pretending the FAA were involved in NORAD's exercise (which they weren't), there were no exercise transmissions to receive because it was a Command Post exercise, which does not involve flying units.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, Gumboot, but the above misses the mark by a mile. You are engaging in an assumption-riddled attempt to resurrect a claim that I have shown rather conclusively; namely, that it was not possible to distinguish "real" from "exercise" amongst those who were tasked with tracking presumed jetliners that were not actually real. My claims are based on data and on assessment of it. That and that only.

Secondly, the NORAD exercise never happened. It was scheduled to begin at 0900 but the hijacking of AA11 occurred first and the exercise was cancelled.
Click to expand...

Your above quoted assertion is contradicted by the following information:

"Lieutenant Colonel Dawne Deskins and other day shift employees at NORAD’s Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) in Rome, NY, start their workday. [6:30AM]NORAD is conducting a week-long, large-scale exercise called Vigilant Guardian. [Newhouse News Service, 1/25/2002] Deskins is regional mission crew chief for the Vigilant Guardian exercise. [ABC News, 9/11/2002] "
...

Accounts by participants vary on whether 9/11 is the second, third, or fourth day of the exercise. [Code One Magazine, 1/2002; Newhouse News Service, 1/25/2002; Ottawa Citizen, 9/11/2002] Vigilant Guardian is a command post exercise (CPX), and in at least some previous years was conducted in conjunction with Stratcom’s Global Guardian exercise and a US Space Command exercise called Apollo Guardian. [US Congress, n.d.; GlobalSecurity (.org), 4/14/2002; Arkin, 2005, pp. 545] All of NORAD is participating in Vigilant Guardian on 9/11. [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 6/3/2002]
Exercise Includes Simulated Hijacking - Vanity Fair reports that the “day’s exercise” (presumably Vigilant Guardian) is “designed to run a range of scenarios, including a ‘traditional’ simulated hijack in which politically motivated perpetrators commandeer an aircraft, land on a Cuba-like island, and seek asylum.” [Vanity Fair, 8/1/2006]

Source: http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a630vigilantguardian#a630vigilantguardian

These are all very basic facts that are readily available to anyone who takes the time to learn anything about the matter. The fact that you haven't demonstrates you're not interesting in determining facts, which leads me to the undeniable conclusion that engaging in discussion with you is a complete waste of my time.
Click to expand...

Gumboot, it is ironic that you refuse to source your claims, on the one hand, and then post up the above, on the other.

take care
 
Well, you've sold me jammonius.

You've demonstrated that there are significant holes and lapses within the official account of 9/11 to cast reasonable doubt onto the official narrative.

Now what do we do?

I have a silk-screener in my garage, would that help?
 
jammonius said:
I do not play 20 questions games with posters. If there is a point you want to make, would you please come right on out and bring it. Stand firm, don't be shy, obey the rules of posting, if you are so inclined, and say whatever it is you want to say. I will not engage you in your rhetorical ploys.

Clear?
Click to expand...

Why is it that I knew this would be your answer. Your answer is just another load of rhetorical bovine defecation at the very best.

Your lack of an answer only proves that you haven’t been in any of the aforementioned types of exercises, whether they be command or operational types.

Stand firm you say? I do, and I am by no means shy, as you may soon find out. And, if I were to tell you exactly what I want to tell you, I would know what it is to be suspended. However, I do know one thing is certainly correct… you are a liar, and a fraud!

Is that clear, big boy!
 
Last edited:
gumboot said:
(...)

Secondly, the NORAD exercise never happened. It was scheduled to begin at 0900 but the hijacking of AA11 occurred first and the exercise was cancelled.

(...)
Click to expand...

that is not true, as we know from the Norad-tapes and even from Richard Myers, he talked with Richard Clark around 9:25:

Richard Clarke asks Joint Chiefs of Staff Vice Chairman Richard Myers, "I assume NORAD has scrambled fighters and AWACS. How many? Where?" Myers, who is at the Pentagon, replies, "Not a pretty picture, Dick. We are in the middle of Vigilant Warrior, a NORAD exercise, but... Otis has launched two birds toward New York. Langley is trying to get two up now [toward Washington]. The AWACS are at Tinker and not on alert." Clarke asks, "Okay, how long to CAP [combat air patrol] over DC?" Myers replies, "Fast as we can. Fifteen minutes?"
Clarke, 2004, pp. 5

IF you have a clue, what the "exercise-inputs" were about, and who could cancel them (it is redacted in the transcript), provide meaning- and truthfully posts.
 
bio said:
that is not true, as we know from the Norad-tapes and even from Richard Myers, he talked with Richard Clark around 9:25:

Richard Clarke asks Joint Chiefs of Staff Vice Chairman Richard Myers, "I assume NORAD has scrambled fighters and AWACS. How many? Where?" Myers, who is at the Pentagon, replies, "Not a pretty picture, Dick. We are in the middle of Vigilant Warrior, a NORAD exercise, but... Otis has launched two birds toward New York. Langley is trying to get two up now [toward Washington]. The AWACS are at Tinker and not on alert." Clarke asks, "Okay, how long to CAP [combat air patrol] over DC?" Myers replies, "Fast as we can. Fifteen minutes?"
Clarke, 2004, pp. 5

IF you have a clue, what the "exercise-inputs" were about, and who could cancel them (it is redacted in the transcript), provide meaning- and truthfully posts.
Click to expand...

Vigilant Guardian, not Vigilant Warrior. Exercises run for days and can even go on for weeks. They are broken down into individual drills. No drills were running yet when the hijackings took place. The people who were supposed to run and monitor that days planned drills were not in position to initiate the drills when NORAD was first told of the hijackings.

Major Nasypany was out taking a walk when the first reports came in and had to be called back to take command of the situation. One of his first comments was that the drill wasn't supposed to start for an hour (he said this at ~0843 according to the NORAD tapes).

Have you ever participated in military drills? I have, thousands of them over 8+ years. Most were initiated internally but many were also a part of larger exercises. In general the first hint of a day of drills was in the Plan Of the Day (POD) where it says something along the lines of "Ships Drills (0900 to 1100 & 1300 to 1700)", this was usually in the POD 4 or 5 days a week. We weren't told what type of drills to expect or where they would be focused but we could guess based upon whatever upcoming major inspection we had coming up (Weapons or Engineering) and that there were certain mandatory drills that had an expiration date (once a week, once a month ect).

People who go on about the drills on 9/11 have no clue as to how they are planned, how they are run, who initiates and monitors them and a myriad of other details ranging from the mundane to specific requirements for how a drill must be run (including when a drill must be terminated). Absolutely clueless.
 
bio said:
that is not true, as we know from the Norad-tapes and even from Richard Myers, he talked with Richard Clark around 9:25
Click to expand...
Best not rely on Clarke's timeline, it's flawed for multiple reasons. Myers was talking to Max Cleland at this time, for instance, both he and Cleland say so.
 
Exactly.

A ship or military unit may be put into a "training environment" for multiple days at times, with the actuall drill or drill(s) commencing at any time determined by the Combat Systems/Engineering/Force Protection Training Teams. This is USN "fleet" lingo, but similar things exist in the USAF/USA/USMC.

But, I'm sure bio and jammonius know that from experience.
 
jammonius said:
I do not play 20 questions games with posters. If there is a point you want to make, would you please come right on out and bring it. Stand firm, don't be shy, obey the rules of posting, if you are so inclined, and say whatever it is you want to say. I will not engage you in your rhetorical ploys.

Clear?
Click to expand...

Cut and paste much?
 
Sabrina said:
If memory serves, a lot of those exercises that were being performed on 9/11 were recurring exercises; i.e. ones that are repeated year to year and updated as necessary. And the ones that were new were being performed with the intent of making them recurring exercises.
Click to expand...

Wasn't at least one of them being done in order to shadow Russian exercises going on at the same time, with the subtext that there would be defences in place and ready to fight if Russia should suddenly choose to turn its exercises into something else? In which case, anyone claiming the exercises were a cover for an inside job is, in effect, claiming that Russia was also complicit in 9/11.

Dave
 
Sabrina said:
Okay, I admit to femalish curiosity and clicked on one of Jammo's posts to see it despite his being on my ignore list.

Remind me not to do that again; the stupid burned my retinas.
Click to expand...

I keep doing that too. I think we need some kind of support group.

"Hi, my name's Dave, and I'm a jammoholic. "

"Hi Dave"

"I haven't viewed a jammonius post for two days now."

Supportive applause from the room.

"And with your help, I hope to make it through the whole week!"

Dave
 
bio said:
NEADS knew, that it lost its fighters to other command structures existing on 9/11. There was confusion, see the statements of the langley pilots.

Borgstrom says they are "all three on different frequencies... and [are] getting orders from a lot of different people."
Filson, 2003, pp. 66

There are different, various official explanation developing during the years for that anomaly, until middle 2003 for example that the fighters were heading towards Flight 93, therefor they were not heading towards Washington D.C around 09:30.:eek:
Click to expand...

:confused:

bio said:
Why the transcript of the Norad-Tapes are redacted, that nobody can find out, who could end the exercise-inputs?
Click to expand...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5978051&postcount=15

Bolded something for you.
 
bio said:
NEADS knew, that it lost its fighters to other command structures existing on 9/11. There was confusion, see the statements of the langley pilots.
Click to expand...

No planes or pilots were "lost" for the purposes of air defense for training or any other reason.
 
See people, this is why I don't bother any more. This thread is filled wall-to-wall with displays of a gross refusal to engage brain matter.

Why waste what precious little time one has on this earth bashing one's proverbial head against a proverbial brick wall?

See, earlier, my statement that the exercise had not started, and was not scheduled to start until 0900. There's ample evidence of this. Aside from statements in interviews from NORAD staff, there's the evidence from the tapes themselves - the Ops Floor was in "standby" mode at the time of the first hijacking. The MCC wasn't even there, and had to be paged (along with most of the other Ops staff). This is clear in the audio tapes.

Showing that it was the 2nd or 5th or 20th day of the exercise doesn't undermine this. These exercises do not run 24HR. They're conducted in normal work hours. 0900 to 1700 each day, or similar. Yes, Vigilant Guardian had been running for a couple of days. No, it had not started for that day.

It takes only the most basic engagement of brain matter to grasp this obvious and clearly demonstrated fact. Those who fail to grasp it do so through their own refusal to seek fact, favouring instead to remain ignorant, because from a position of ignorance they can speculate to their heart's content.
 
jammonius said:
But, as the record stands, you have failed and you have refused to source your claim. It is, therefore, unsubstantiated and lacks any support, other than that you have said it ...........
Click to expand...

Look at the pot calling the kettle black! You have just accused gumboot of doing exactly what you have done in every single post you've made. The difference with him is he can back-up what he says, he only chooses not to waste his time on you (and I can't blame him).
 
Last edited:
bio said:
IF you have a clue, what the "exercise-inputs" were about, and who could cancel them (it is redacted in the transcript), provide meaning- and truthfully posts.
Click to expand...



In NORAD speak an "input" is any data fed manually into the system, and is the responsibility of the Manual Input Technician. They don't input false data however; they input real-world data that isn't automatically fed into the system. The MIT answers to the Air Surveillance Technician.

In the case of exercises, the correct term is "simulation", and all simulated inputs are the responsibility of the Simulation Supervisor, who heads the Simulation Section (a team consisting of various members of the SOCC, created specifically for the exercise in question).

The Simulation Supervisor answers to the MCC, while on all matters relating to the running of the SAOC the MCC is in command under authority of the SAOC Director and the Battle Commander. In the case of 9/11 it appears that Nasypany (the MCC) was himself the Simulation Supervisor, while Dawne Deskins, Assistant Director of the SAOC, was reportedly the Exercise Director.

In all instances NEADS were not required in any way to gain permission or approval from higher command before terminating any simulations that might have been scheduled.

All of this is sourced from ACCI 13-SAOC "Air Defense Command And Control Operations".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom