War games - 9/11

[TimeTraveler]

On the morning of September 11th 2001, there were multiple war games taking place by the U.S. Airforce and NORAD. The point of this thread is to try and figure out how those war games may have affected the response by NORAD and the FAA and also to find out who was in charge of those war games.

 

Vigilant Guardian

Vigilant Warrior

Northern Vigilance

Northern Guardian

 

Tripod II

 

On May 8, 2001, President Bush made Dick Cheney to coordinate development of US government initiatives to combat terrorist attacks on the United States. (Source: Crossing the Rubicon, Michael C. Ruppert - Cited from White House Press release, may 8, 2001)

 

I have asked Joe Allbaugh, the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), to create an Office of National Preparedness. This office will be responsible for implementing the results of those parts of the nationale effort overseen by Vice President Cheney that deal with consequence management. Specifically it will coordinate all federal programs dealing with weapons of mass destruction consequence management mwithin the Department of Defense, Health and Human Services, Justice, and energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and other federal agencies... (Source: Crossing the Rubicon, Michael C. Ruppert - cited as official statement of George W Bush, May 8, 2001

 

Would that have put Dick Cheney in charge of overseeing all wargames on Sept 11? Perhaps Gen. Ralph E. Eberhart was? Or maybe both?

 

Did the wargames distract from efforts to react to the terrorists attacks on 9/11?

 

In his book, Crossing the Rubicon, Michael C. Ruppert accuses Dick Cheney intentionally confusing the system, a system that has never failed prior out of 60+ engagements, to allow the attacks to happen.

 

Link: http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/011805_simplify_case.shtml

 

There are 3 major points made within this book that are crucial to proving Cheney's guilt. I shall first list them and then go on to prove each point as laid out in Crossing the Rubicon.

 

Means - Dick Cheney and the Secret Service: Dick Cheney was running a completely separate chain of Command & Control via the Secret Service' date=' assuring the paralysis of Air Force response on 9/11. The Secret Service has the technology to see the same radar screens the FAA sees in real time. They also have the legal authority and technological capability to take supreme command in cases of national emergency. Dick Cheney was the acting Commander in Chief on 9/11.

 

Motive - Peak Oil: At some point between 2000 and 2007, world oil production reaches its peak; from that point on, every barrel of oil is going to be harder to find, more expensive to recover, and more valuable to those who recover and control it. Dick Cheney was well aware of the coming Peak Oil crisis at least as early as 1999, and 9/11 provided the pretext for the series of energy wars that Cheney stated, "will not end in our lifetime."

 

Opportunity - 9/11 War Games: The Air Force was running multiple war games on the morning of 9/11 simulating hijackings over the continental United States that included (at least) one "live-fly" exercise as well as simulations that placed "false blips" on FAA radar screens. These war games eerily mirrored the real events of 9/11 to the point of the Air Force running drills involving hijacked aircraft as the 9/11 plot actually unfolded. The war games & terror drills played a critical role in ensuring no Air Force fighter jocks - who had trained their entire lives for this moment - would be able to prevent the attacks from succeeding. These exercises were under Dick Cheney's management.[/quote']

 

As crazy as it may sound he delivers some compelling evidence, in my opinion. Read the full article for more information into some evidence and allegations.

[Pangloss]

As crazy as it may sound he delivers some compelling evidence, in my opinion.

 

Really.

 

Okay.

 

What (specifically) do you feel was contained in the above post (post #1) that you would consider to be "evidence"?

 

And what (specifically) do you feel that it is evidence of? Not "that the government was collusive", I mean specifically what you believe that means they were actually doing that is evidence of collusion with the terrorists.

 

Note that you used the word "evidence". I expect you, therefore, to either (a) adhere to the rules of evidence, or (b) choose a different word.

 

What I'm looking for from you here is something along these lines:

 

"Artifact #264 indicates markings of an unknown origin. I believe this indicates proof that aliens landed in Roswell in 1947."

 

As opposed to something along these lines:

 

"Nobody was actually looking at the sky on that fateful day in Roswell in 1947. Therefore I believe this is evidence that aliens landed."

 

The key word here is "specific". Where-there's-smoke-there's-fire arguments carry zero weight with me. You can storm the castle all you want -- more power to you -- but you'll be storming it on your own.

[TimeTraveler]

Really.

 

Okay.

 

What (specifically) do you feel was contained in the above post (post #1) that you would consider to be "evidence"?

 

And what (specifically) do you feel that it is evidence of? Not "that the government was collusive"' date=' I mean specifically what you believe that means they were actually doing that is evidence of collusion with the terrorists.

 

Note that you used the word "evidence". I expect you, therefore, to either (a) adhere to the rules of evidence, or (b) choose a different word.

 

What I'm looking for from you here is something along these lines:

 

"Artifact #264 indicates markings of an unknown origin. I believe this indicates proof that aliens landed in Roswell in 1947."

 

As opposed to something along these lines:

 

"Nobody was actually looking at the sky on that fateful day in Roswell in 1947. Therefore I believe this is evidence that aliens landed."

 

The key word here is "specific". Where-there's-smoke-there's-fire arguments carry [i']zero[/i] weight with me. You can storm the castle all you want -- more power to you -- but you'll be storming it on your own.

 

Thats a fair a reasonable request. And I will adhere to it, but I need your help in guiding the direction of this thread. Both you and I, and anyone else who participates in this thread need to be objective and consider both sides. Put it this way, I would sleep easier if I knew this theory was wrong. But, I cannot dismiss it because in a crazy way it makes alot of sense.

 

So what I propose is lets look at the evidence and information scientifically but also investigatively, because I think we can agree that in the case of an investigation, especially mass murder, there is relatively little scientific fact unless forensic science is involved; in this case there was none.

 

So what we need to establish is what we consider "evidence", "fact" and "speculation/opinion". We also need to determine a beginning point as a platform to begin this "investigation" or "discussion". Do you have any preferances on a starting platform?

 

As long as this doesn't turn into an insult/flame fest and remains a calm and rationale discussion I will be happy.

[Pangloss]

I'm not sure the debate we're proposing will let you sleep easier, because it seems to me that the problem your having is one of faith, and the "evidence" only seems compelling because it's not challengable. The debate we'd have on this would be a remarkably one-sided one. You'd say something, and I would respond with "cite his source", to which you would respond with silence. Or you'll convey a circumstantial point (violating the rules of the debate), to which I will respond, "demonstrate how this proves collusion", for which you will have no reply either.

 

In short, all I'm doing here is providing the critical thinking you should have already done before drawing the conclusion you've drawn. (You need to stop saying you haven't drawn any conclusions, by the way, because you keep going on to indicate that you've done exactly that. You're not splitting that hair very effectively at all.)

 

So in short, I'm not trying to offend you -- if you want to believe that, by all means, more power to you. But the grounds for the debate I outlined above do not appear to exist at all. Again, I'm not really interested in a "where there's smoke there's fire" debate. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying I'm not interested. From my point of view, it would be like trying to convert a True Believer. Pointless.

 

If you desire my participation, the onus is on you to demonstrate that you have something more than unanswered and unanswerable (on our part) allegations. (If you don't, no biggie, I won't think any less of you.)

[TimeTraveler]

I'm not sure the debate we're proposing will let you sleep easier, because it seems to me that the problem your having is one of faith, and the "evidence" only seems compelling because it's not challengable.

 

I think you have me wrong, it has nothing to do with faith. I don't "believe" it's possible in the sense of faith, so I guess it's more that I "consider" it possible, and it deserves serious investigation.

 

You'd say something, and I would respond with "cite his source", to which you would respond with silence. Or you'll convey a circumstantial point (violating the rules of the debate), to which I will respond, "demonstrate how this proves collusion", for which you will have no reply either.

 

I don't think I would have a problem citing his sources, he does an awesome job of citing them. If by circumstanstial point you mean saying something like "if this was like this, then this could have been like this and this might have happened." there is none of that. But I'm not trying to make this a debate either, rather a discussion, where you can show me flaws or holes, and I can display parts of the evidence.

 

In short, all I'm doing here is providing the critical thinking you should have already done before drawing the conclusion you've drawn. (You need to stop saying you haven't drawn any conclusions, by the way, because you keep going on to indicate that you've done exactly that. You're not splitting that hair very effectively at all.)

 

I have done plenty of critical thinking on this, and I have come to a conclusion. There needs to be another investigation. I have not said I know for a fact anyone is guilty, nor do I. There could be a logical explination, but I have not seen it.

 

So in short, I'm not trying to offend you -- if you want to believe that, by all means, more power to you.

 

I don't believe that you have. You may have taken a few small jabs but no biggie. I enjoy discussion with you, even if we disagree sometimes. Thats the whole point of coming to message boards. To talk to people about stuff. Some people enjoy attacking people, but I don't think you do, nor have you offended me really.

 

From my point of view, it would be like trying to convert a True Believer.

 

Like I said before I think you got the wrong impression.

 

If you desire my participation, the onus is on you to demonstrate that you have something more than unanswered and unanswerable (on our part) allegations. (If you don't, no biggie, I won't think any less of you.)

 

Your participation is up to you. I will admit that some evidence will fall in the unanswered and unanswerable allegations, as some answers fall behind the shroud of classified information that we will probably not see for years and years, if ever. But thats only some.

 

The point would be only for us to lay out some evidence, discuss it and decide if it all of it adds up to deserve a serious investigation.

 

So it's up to you.

[Pangloss]

The point would be only for us to lay out some evidence' date=' discuss it and decide if it all of it adds up to deserve a serious investigation.

[/quote']

 

 

But I already think that, or at least don't have a problem with it. What I'm offering you here is not a chance to produce more circumstantial evidence that suggests that further investigation might be a good idea, but rather a chance to produce evidence that the government was actually complicit in 9/11.

 

Whether you want to take that position by "coming clean" with us, or by playing Devil's Advocate, doesn't matter to me, I'll treat with you the same way in either case. As I've said before, it's no skin off my back what you believe.

 

If you're not interested in defending that position, and insist that you don't support his suggested conclusions, then the only course is to simply agree and move on. There's no point in arguing about something both we say we agree on.

[TimeTraveler]

But I already think that, or at least don't have a problem with it.

 

Okay, I was under the wrong impression as to your opinion about a second investigation.

 

What I'm offering you here is not a chance to produce more circumstantial evidence that suggests that further investigation might be a good idea, but rather a chance to produce evidence that the government was actually complicit in 9/11.

 

Okay. Sounds fair.

[The Rebel]

http://www.geocities.com/bushatbooker/ ???? Probably debateable, but then all contentious stuff usually is.

 

Take what you will from:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1522987.stm - Deployment to middle east 1 week before 9/11 attack

http://www.thedebate.org/ - website questioning the ideas of the war on terror (Iraq and Afghanistan)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4354269.stm - Secret US plans

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/21535/ - Secret US plans

http://www.gregpalast.com/opeconthemarch.html - Secret US plans

http://smh.com.au/articles/2002/10/06/1033538848021.html?oneclick=true - Foreign Policy Agenda

http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/world-top-ten-oil-reserves-countries-map.html - Top Oil reserves

 

I can't deny I'm suspicious but there is no way of coming up with the answer as there will always be conjecture.

 

As to pro-antiterror campaigns suggest 9/11 and the history of al-queda, saddam, etc. be looked at.

 

Have fun.

[Pangloss]

Have fun with what? That? That's just wild conjecture, exactly the sort of thing I'm not interested in debating. I hope TT understands that.

[TimeTraveler]

Interesting links Rebel, thanks.

 

Have fun with what? That? That's just wild conjecture, exactly the sort of thing I'm not interested in debating. I hope TT understands that.

 

I'll muster a post up probably for tomorrow, any preferance as to where we start?

[Pangloss]

That's fine, I probably won't be on again tonight. It doesn't matter to me.

[TimeTraveler]

Hey Pangloss,

 

I did not have time to make that post yesterday, got a break in the weather so it's time to get busy landscaping my yard. But I think I will start here with PROMIS technology. Here's a couple links, I'll check back tonight or tomorrow:

 

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/012005_ptech_pt1.shtml Part 1

 

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/012705_ptech_pt2.shtml Part 2

[Pangloss]

Well there's no particular rush, but this isn't what I had in mind at all. Please review our discussion and, if you're still so inclined, respond in the agreed-upon manner, when you have time. Thanks, and good luck with the lawn.

[TimeTraveler]

Sounds good.

 

What I want to first do is establish what PROMIS technology is, what it is designed to do, what it is capable of doing, who uses it and why, that it is used and incorporated in government organizations and systems. Then I want to establish that "injects" were inserted by use of this technology into the FAA's radar system, which caused major confusion and severly hindered the counter measures of allowing our defensive mechanisms to defend us.

[Pangloss]

Again, that's not what we're debating. What we're debating is whether or not that was deliberate, as part of an effort to (specifically) collude or cooperate with the 9/11 terror attack. You're attempting to prove collusion, not confusion.

 

I'll simply grant (for the sake of discussion) the latter -- that the tests or practice or whatever it was that was being run that day caused confusion and/or hindered efforts. I'm not sure why it matters -- it's not like we had missiles or airplanes ready to go up there and shoot down terrorist-controlled passenger planes. But it's stipulated for the sake of discussion.

[TimeTraveler]

Pangloss,

 

Sometimes you have to crawl before you can walk.

 

What I said I will establish in my last post does not suggest complicity. But it needs to be understood and established for evidence that will presented after.

 

But I posted that so you could fill me in on what parts you already knew about so I don't end up showing you evidence your already aware of. Your supposed to read my mind and know that kind of stuff since I forgot to say it in that post.

[Pangloss]

I would suggest that you simply post any evidence of any kind. Something. Anything will do. It doesn't matter what.

[TimeTraveler]

I am going to concede. I have been to busy to make any posts. Maybe at a later time we can continue.

 

So, congratulations.