U.N. delegates walk out / 911 to investigated - Ahmedinejad

[gambit]

No, the only 'entertaining' aspect is your preditable attempt, yet again, to sidetrack off the point of contention. Once again, I proved the point that Mubarak is a bought man, to the tune of $2 billion/year.

Yeah...The US is the larget singular aid donor to the Palestinians and we got nothing. Wish the dollar is as mighty as you would like to convince people to believe.

The racist remark has nothing to do with Muslims; try and focus on more than one thread of conversation at a time. The racist tag is in regards to your continued references to 'the ME', Arabs, Pakistanis and Somalis -- always in a derogatory manner. Instead of focussing on the event under discussion, you constantly attempt to veer off track with derogatory allegations about these groups.

I guess your overly sensitivity is getting the better of you if you consider criticizing the despotic governments in the ME as 'racism'.

Kinda hard to 'debunk' me when you already conceded the first half of the argument to me.

Yes...That there were institutional barriers, operational flaws, and shortsightedness that hindered US military response. No 'inside job' exist.

The 'mighty' Pakistanis? Feeling desperate again, eh?

Yes...Am desperate to see how Pakistan could have handle something like 9/11.

Let the education begin...

Yes...Let it begin...Just as how I have debunked just about all issues regarding 'stealth' and radar detection, I am going to show everyone how wrong you are about this...

The next generation of air traffic control - Military & Aerospace Electronics

The next generation of air traffic control

Sep 1, 2001

By J.R. Wilson

Researchers from the FAA, NASA, and industry are putting together the first phases of Free Flight—a fundamental shift in how commercial air traffic flows over U.S. airspace and throughout the world. Much of this effort revolves around how to move as much responsibility for air control from the ground and into the aircraft themselves. Time will tell if this approach can work.

Back in 2001, NEADS radars were monochromatic, standalone, externally looking systems, and not as capable as their civilian counterparts. They were not designed to accept the more advanced FAA radar data being installed as part of an upgrade of the entire US airspace traffic control system. So if we go back to post 83 back on pge 6, because of the aircraft dependency feature of the new system, if any airliner turned off its transponder, not only will civilian controllers unable to see this aircraft, whatever residual data the civilian controller has will not be transferable to the NEADS air defense system if there is a desire to do so. For the civilian system, the primary radar is the back-up, this may sound counterintuitive but this is the truth. For NEADS, its radar is the equivalent of the civilian primary system, and both will pick up unwanted items like weather and terrain.

I don't care if they are assigned to Santa Claus...

Of course you do not care. You already made up your mind that 9/11 was 'inside job'. So of course you do not care that you have no military experience, no aviation experience, no knowledge of how the US military hierarchy works...And the list goes on. Your ignorance is irrelevant to you.

When the country is under attack and the Secret Service has reason to believe DC may be at risk, then the military's job is to coordinate and respond.

On the morning of 9.11.2001, the time period under discussion, DC was heavily guarded -- by the most powerful military on the planet.

As protector of the National Command Authority, the Secret Service does have some authority over some military assets, but generally only if those military assets are assigned as part of the protection details. No difference than how the Secret Service would have some authority over local law enforcement wherever the President or Vice President may be, then once the President leave the local area, the Secret Service would lose that limited authority over the local law enforcement detail assigned to assist them. On Sept 11, 2001, Bush was in Florida and Cheney was in DC and the Secret Service already had Cheney in a safe location. Neither man was under any immediate threat.

And the US military did respond...

Defense.gov News Article: Homeland Defense: Guard Members Safeguard U.S. Turf, Skies

WASHINGTON, Dec. 6, 2001 – National Guard members have been performing a variety of homeland defense missions on the ground and in the air since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on America.

The 1st Air Force pilots are Air Guard members, said Arnold, who also commands the Continental United States North American Aerospace Command Region -- charged with the air defense of the North American continent.

It is important for any country to be able to safeguard its land borders -- and skies -- from intrusion or attack by potential adversaries, Arnold said. In the United States, he said, air sovereignty encompasses both law enforcement and national security domains.

"Air sovereignty in the broader sense means -- in combination with the other agencies -- controlling our skies, controlling our borders," Arnold noted. First Air Force, he added, works closely with the Federal Aviation Administration.

If aircraft approaching U.S. airspace don't have proper FAA clearance, "then it becomes our responsibility to go out there and identify them," Arnold noted. If intruders are suspected of smuggling, he said, 1st Air Force would "call law enforcement officials to grab hold of these folks."

Air sovereignty, however, is a law enforcement issue and also a national defense issue, Arnold said. During the Cold War, U.S. air defenses focused on long-range Soviet Bear bombers, he noted. After the Cold War, the U.S. military prepared for the threat of terrorism from the air, Arnold noted, but not originating from within the country and certainly not involving the use of U.S. commercial airliners as flying bombs.

"Prior to Sept. 11, we were concerned about a terrorist attack from outside of the United States, possibly by a cruise missile being launched from a ship, or some kind of aircraft flying in that had hostile intent toward the United States," he remarked.

The Air Sovereignty Alert Force consists of seven Air National Guard (ANG) alert sites, with 14 fighters and pilots on call 24/7: Homestead AFB, Fla; Tyndall AFB; Langley AFB, Va.; Otis Air National Guard Base, Mass.; Portland International Airport, Ore.; March ARB, Calif.; and Ellington Field, Texas. Andrews AFB was never part of NORAD's primary alert bases.

Still trying that diversion tactic about Secret Service 'orders', eh?

I just repeated plain English statements from the 9/11 commission report. The Secret Service made a request. The military took 90 minutes to respond. If that seems like lunacy to you, take it up with the 9/11 commission.

But if there is any lunacy, it is NOT with the 9/11 Commission Report, but with YOUR distorted interpretation of it. And are you certain that it took the USAF 90 min to launch?

Newhouse A1

8:43 A.M.: SEARCH

Master Sgt. Maureen Dooley started doing the math.

If Flight 11 cruised at a normal speed, maybe 350 knots, in a certain direction, it would be right -- she directed a technician to zero in on a sector northeast of New York -- there!

They saw blips, dozens of them -- the swarm of a Tuesday morning aerial rush hour. Somewhere in there was Flight 11.

8:46 A.M.: SCRAMBLE

The Battle Cab, a long, glassed-in office, overlooks the Ops Room like a low-slung balcony in a darkened theater. In a corner booth, an officer waits for the unthinkable: the coded message indicating America is at war.

Six minutes after Boston Center's call, NEADS scrambled two armed F-15s at Otis Air Base on Cape Cod.

"We had no idea where the aircraft was," recalled Maj. James Fox, who gave the order. "We just knew it was over land, so we scrambled them towards land."

8:46 A.M.: TOWER ONE

As the first plane hit the World Trade Center, the F-15s were rumbling off the runways at Otis.

"I remember somebody running into the Ops Room," Deskins said. "They said they'd just seen on CNN that an aircraft hit the World Trade Center."

A quiet tremor rolled through the room, replaced by the buzz of urgent questions into phones. What kind of aircraft hit the building? A small plane? A large plane? Could it be Flight 11?

9:03 A.M.: TOWER TWO

A second plane hit the Trade Center. The F-15s were still 71 miles away.

9:24 A.M.: FLIGHT 77

A third plane, American Airlines Flight 77 from Washington to Los Angeles, changed course and stopped responding.

Instantly, Rome scrambled fighter jets from the nearest air base, Langley in Virginia. Again, Fox dispatched the jets without targets. That would come later.

Now, NEADS was phoning Air Guard commanders across the Northeast, posing questions that hours earlier would have seemed ludicrous. Did the unit have available pilots? Mechanics? Crew chiefs? What could it get airborne in two hours? In 24 hours? In 48?

Fox directed a Combat Air Patrol, or CAP, over New York City: Jets were in place to take out a hijacked plane if necessary.

9:38 A.M.: WASHINGTON

When Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, the jets from Langley were about 100 miles away.

"Now, I just felt it was personal," Deskins recalled.

Said Fox, "At that point, I'm just reacting."

At least four other planes were behaving strangely, according to the FAA. Each might be another hijacking. Most notably, United Airlines Flight 93 had turned off its transponder in Ohio.

The chain of command is thus...

- Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The air traffic control facility that first became aware of a hijacking would alert the FAA's channels of authority, which would be from the local air traffic control facility to FAA headquarters in Washington DC.

- National Military Command Center (NMCC). If the FAA desire military assistance or to simply have the military on standby, the FAA's hijack coordinator would contact the NMCC, who would request authorization from the Secretary of Defense.

- North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD). Assuming military assets are authorized for release by the SecDef to assist the FAA in a hijacking, the NMCC would contact NORAD transmitting that release authorization.

- Continental NORAD Region (CONR). Once the NMCC authorized military asset release, NORAD would contact CONR.

- Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS). Now known as the Eastern Air Defense Sector. Anyway...CONR would contact NEADS who would finally issue the launch order.

Otis AFB was the nearest Air Sovereignty Alert base that could respond and as we can see by the timeline, the USAF responded and launched after WTC 1 was hit. The problem on Sept 11, 2001, was that NONE of the four hijacked airliners transmitted the 7500 code which would indicate an airliner was under duress. This inevitably would contribute to the delay of respond mechanisms outlined above. I challenge you to show how Pakistan could have handled this better back then. Ohhh...Sorry...I momentarily forgot you have no experience at such things...

Anyway...At 0837 hr, Otis had two F-15s on 'battle stations' order, which is not a launch order but to have the pilots suit up and into their fighters, ready to launch. Otis is no stranger from airline hijackings...

Context of 'February 11, 1993: Hijacking Raises Concern of Plane Being Crashed into New York Building'

A 20-year-old Ethiopian man hijacks a Lufthansa Airbus bound from Frankfurt to Addis Ababa, via Cairo. Wielding a gun (which is subsequently found to be just a starter pistol), he forces the pilot to divert the plane to New York. The 11-hour ordeal ends after the plane lands at JFK International Airport and the hijacker surrenders to the FBI.

Air Force Responds - In response to the hijacking, F-15 fighter jets are scrambled from Otis Air National Guard Base in Cape Cod, Massachusetts, from where fighters will also be launched in response to the first hijacking on 9/11 (see 8:46 a.m. September 11, 2001). Later, F-16s are scrambled from Atlantic City, New Jersey. The fighters intercept the Lufthansa aircraft off the coast of eastern Canada, and initially trail it from a distance of about ten miles. As the plane approaches JFK Airport, the fighters move in to a distance of five miles. They do a low fly-by as the plane lands at JFK. They circle overhead for a while, until the hijacking situation is resolved, and then return to their bases.

The 1993 Lufthansa hijacking was also under established protocols as outlined above.

At this time, because of the lack of the 7500 code, everyone was under the impression of an 'apparent' hijacking. Everyone was talking in terms of 'it looks like' or 'I think' or 'it sounds real'. No one was certain that AA 11 was hijacked. But of course by the grace of Allah, Pakistan air traffic controllers would have known, right? Not until Betty Ong calling from AA 11, at 0819 hr, that there was confirmation that her flight was hijacked. Otis never received the Betty Ong hijack confirmation. That was why the F-15s did not launched until 0846 hr.

Now we must head back to radar operations. For an airliner that turned off, or lost, its transponder, assuming we are now using the primary system, which is counterintuitively the 'back up' system, the radar operator must attempt to identify that aircraft from among many 'tracks' and assorted non-aircraft returns. For the FAA radar operator, he would be assisted by 'data tags' that were generated by the many aircrafts that are still transmitting their transponder codes.

This is what a 'normal' transponder assisted radar scope look like...

So for the FAA radar operator, once any aircraft turned off, or lost, its transponder, it effectively 'disappeared' from the scope.

This FAA source...

http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim/Chap4/aim0405.html

...Shows the difference between the primary (back-up) and Air Traffic Control Radar Beacon System (ATCRBS) views.

For the NEADS radar operator, he would have no such 'data tags'. All he would see are 'tracks' and assorted non-aircraft returns. He must look at a 'suspect' for about 30 seconds before he can declare that a return, even a moving one, is an aircraft. He then attach a 'tactical display number' to that track, commanding the radar system to pay extra attention to it. The system then require an additional 30 seconds to generate target information such as heading, altitude, speed, and lat/long position. Those target information are usually provided by the transponder, aka 'data tags' or the 'beacon' in ATCRBS. For the FAA radar operator, if he switch to the primary view, those 'data tags' would be transferred over and the track that does not have a 'data tag' would be a suspect aircraft worthy of extra attention. The NEADS radar operator have no such luxury. Another problem is that radar coverage is limited to no lower than 2000 ft altitude.

So when the FAA spoke to CONR's Major General Larry Arnold, the FAA had no valid target information on AA 11 to give to the military. The last NORAD response to a US bound hijacking was that Lufthansa 1993 where the hijack ended with a reasonable peaceful end. There were no reasons for the US not to hope for the same end and to respond with anything different on Sept 11, 2001. After the F-15s were airborne at 0846 hr, the USAF was still waiting for any directions on where to go with those F-15s. But I guess that with the grace of Allah, Pakistan would have done sooooo much better, right?

Am not done educating you yet...

 

[Developereo]

Wish the dollar is as mighty as you would like to convince people to believe.

The point under debate was whether the US has bought Mubarak's loyalty. Point proven. Now, if you wish to discuss the macroeconomics of the global currency market, I suggest you open another thread.

I guess your overly sensitivity is getting the better of you if you consider criticizing the despotic governments in the ME as 'racism'.

Nothing overly sensitive given your always derogatory references to Pakistanis, Somalis, Arabs and Muslims in general.

Yes...Let it begin...Just as how I have debunked just about all issues regarding 'stealth' and radar detection,

stealth, eh? We're talking Boeing 747s.
You sure you are not confusing threads here?

I am going to show everyone how wrong you are about this...

Kinda hard to show 'everyone' anything when you keep losing track of the discussion and start mixing up threads in your mind.

To remind you, you claimed that, prior to 9/11, the US authorities hadn't thought of hijacked airliners being used as weapons. I proved you wrong with a list of exercises conducted by various authorities. They had been practising for precisely this type of scenario for almost ten years. The only difference was that, except for one exercise, they were mostly expecting airliners hijacked abroad, not domestically. Not that it matters -- a suspicious hijacked airliner is just that, regardless of where it got hijacked.

Back in 2001, NEADS radars were monochromatic [...]

Oi!
Enough with the radars!
I will show below why all your radar science is irrelevant to this discussion.

Of course you do not care. You already made up your mind that 9/11 was 'inside job'.

No, I made up my mind based on the fact that the military failed to respond adequately to an event that it had been practising for for almost a decade!

So of course you do not care that you have no military experience, no aviation experience, no knowledge of how the US military hierarchy works...And the list goes on. Your ignorance is irrelevant to you.

Far-fetched excuses are irrelevant to me. I have enough experience as a private pilot to know that any aircraft that deviates from its flight plan and turns off its transponder becomes of interest to air traffic control. It doesn't imply malicious intent, but it does become of interest to the conrollers.

In the context of 9/11, after the first crash, any aircraft that turned off its transponder and deviated off course would be of immense interest to the FAA. Yet, the FAA didn't notify NORAD about AA77 until 9:24AM even though it went 'offline' at 8:56AM -- 12 minutes after the first crash into WTC.

And are you certain that it took the USAF 90 min to launch?

Andrews took 90 minutes to launch. Otis launched in about 12 minutes but those fighters were responding to the NYC events.

The chain of command is thus...

File this one under 'excuses'. Otis launched just fine.

I challenge you to show how Pakistan could have handled this better back then. Ohhh...Sorry...I momentarily forgot you have no experience at such things...

You might have more success convincing people if you stick to the topic instead of launching off into vitriole.

But of course by the grace of Allah, Pakistan air traffic controllers would have known, right?

Allah again, eh?

Now we must head back to radar operations.

OK, if you insist.

9/11 Cover-up Documents

American Airlines Flight 77, which would hit the Pentagon at 9:37 a.m., took off from Dulles International Airport near Washington at 8:10 a.m., flew west for 45 minutes, then turned east.

"Whoever was flying it had turned off the transponder," Gen. Weaver noted, referring to the device that identifies an airliner to air traffic control.

"They came back on the [radar] scope at 9:10 in West Virginia," Gen. Weaver said. With the F-15s that had scrambled from Otis Air Force Base about 350 miles away, Air Guard F-16 Falcon fighters from Langley Air Force Base, Va., were ordered to try to intercept American 77.

The Northeast Air Defense Sector "scrambled F-16s that were on alert at Langley Air Force Base at 9:35. The crash happened at 9:37," Gen. Weaver said.

So AA77, sans transponder, was already on the scope at 9:10AM -- 26 minutes after the first crash in NYC -- yet Langley were twirling their thumbs until 9:35AM.

Too bad your exalted veteranship missed this little tidbit, making your entire radar presentation about as relevant as the mating habits of the Bolivian fruit-fly.

 

[gambit]

and to close off

NORAD is already planning for the Amalgam Virgo 02 exercise. This exercise, scheduled for June 2002, will involve the simulation of two simultaneous commercial aircraft hijackings. One plane, a Delta 757, flown by Delta pilots, will fly from Salt Lake City, Utah to Elmendorf Air Force Base in Anchorage, Alaska. It will be “hijacked” by FBI agents posing as terrorists. The other plane will be a Navy C-9 bound from Oak Harbor, Washington to Vancouver, British Columbia, and will be “hijacked” by Royal Canadian Mounted Police. On both planes, military personnel will act as civilian passengers. US and Canadian fighters are to respond, and either force the planes to land or simulate shooting them down. Describing Amalgam Virgo 02 to the 9/11 Commission, NORAD’s Major General Craig McKinley later says, “Threats of killing hostages or crashing were left to the script writers to invoke creativity and broaden the required response for players.” About 1,500 people will participate in the exercise. USA Today will note that this is an exception to NORAD’s claim that, prior to 9/11, it focused only on external threats to the US and did not consider the possibility of threats arising from within the US. 9/11 Commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste will similarly comment that this planned exercise shows that, despite frequent comments to the contrary, the military considered simultaneous hijackings before 9/11. [CNN, 6/4/2002; American Forces Press Service, 6/4/2002; Associated Press, 6/5/2002; 9/11 Commission, 5/23/2003; USA Today, 4/18/2004]

Yes...Amalgam Virgo 02 was scheduled for...uuhh...2002? And 9/11 occurred on 2001, correct? The '01 exercise was against cruise missiles launched from outside the US.

The only one injecting Iraq, Russia, Pakistan, Somaila and ME politics into this discussion is you. Does that mean you are secretly a moooslim? Say it ain't so, gambit.

It ain't so...And am mightly glad that am not a muslim.

This whole discussion is about the morning of 9.11.2001. The assertion, amply substantiated, has always been that on that morning, Washington DC was a shoot-to-kill no-fly zone. We are not talking about what happens over Washington during the summer, or in Moscow or Islamabad or anywhere else. We are talking about the skies over DC at that specific time.

No...This is only a part of the discussion. But about this particular issue, do not try to weasel out of your gullibility, which is this...

Washington DC is a class B no-fly zone with a standing order to shoot down.

That was an underlined 'is'. The word 'is' indicate at least a long term, if not permanent, status of something. You got busted for not thinking through something you read.

What part of "The warning should have weeded out all legitimate aircraft that had not yet complied with the FAA grounding directive" did you not understand?

Right...An airliner do not always fly with full fuel load, only enough to get to his destination and some extra for a safety margin. So in your fantasy world, the moment air traffic control issued the order, the sky was immediately cleared. No one had to worry about finding an available airport. No airport had to worry about capacity because all of them are certified for 'heavies' with plenty of room to spare. I guess you are not much of an air traveler or a dishonest one.

Here is your quote:

But the point here is that our open society gave the hijackers all the flight information they need

Seems pretty clear to me. Just because they publicize some events doesn't mean they publicize every event. What part do you have trouble parsing?

Now that is just dishonest. But hey...What else should we expect from you? When I said 'all the flight information' it was meant to be publicly available airline flight information, not military exercises. There is no need for the 9/11 hijackers to know ANYTHING about our military exercises. It is only your ridiculous assumption that they need to know. Right now...It would take anyone no more than a couple hours to search US airline flight schedules to find several flights entering a city on the same day or even hour.

So what if the USAF's response was unacceptable? How does this proved there was a 'conspiracy'? If you acknowledge that there were institutional flaws, bureaucratic delays, and operational flaws, then you have effectively debunked yourself.

I acknowledge no such thing. It is your list of excuses for the delay.

And it is a legitimate list of 'excuses'. Let me guess, by the grace of Allah, Pakistan is perfect and immuned from institutional flaws and inept bureaucrats? But then this goes back to my original statement that in order for the 9/11 conspiracy theory that this is an 'inside job' to be believable, everything about the US government must be perfect.

First it was Saddam and them pesky Ay-rabs. Now its UN corruption that is to blame. Sure, everybody is at fault, except the US which railroaded the sanctions through in the first place.

Railroaded? If members of the UN, the ME, and of the Security Council can ignore those sanctions for their own financial gains, no one can call it 'railroaded' with a straight face, unless said face is shedding convenient crocodile tears for Iraq. Under OFFP, the US was the largest singular buyer of Iraqi oil, with the hope that the money will be responsibly managed by the UN with the cooperation of other ME states to benefit the Iraqis.

I know enough about your so-called 'knowledge' of Islam to know where you got it from. That is enough to render you irrelevant in any serious debate about Islam.

If I 'debate' about Islam, it will not be because of the possibility of conversion. Take that any way you wish. If I 'debate' about Islam, it will be as to how the religion is used to justify beliefs and actions that are contrary to my own perceptions of humanity. Take that any way you wish. And thank whatever 'God' there might be, there is a local 'extremist' mosque nearby that I can observe and see how I am regarded as an inferior human being simply because I am not a muslim.

Since we both agree that OBL 'escalated' the conflict, he would have expected a more severe response.

Let us grant you the latitude that ObL expect a 'more severe response'. So how does this prove beyond any reasonable doubt that ObL know, or at least believe, that the American response would be to invade Afghanistan, which is NOT even the most severe response we could have?

Most people believe bin Laden underestimated US.

No disagreement there.

Good...Then we can settle the question that whether or not he knew how America would respond for attacking NYC. And the answer is -- NOT.

No problems. There are plenty of things the USAF do that they admit is 'not reasonable'. Now how does this proved there was a 'conspiracy theory'?

Given the fact that, contrary to the military's claims, similar scenarios had been reheased previously, the question arises why it took 90 minutes to respond.

Wrong...Do you even understand what the word 'rehearse' really mean...

rehearse - definition of rehearse by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

To practice...

To perfect or cause to perfect (an action) by repetition.

To 'rehearse' is to repeat an established procedure. Anyone who has ever worked in a large organization knows that to 'rehearse' a procedure, like a fire drill, is not the same thing as to speculate on a hypothetical situation then perform an 'exercise' to see if the current procedures are applicable to that hypothetical situation. All the scenarios that you presented as 'evidences' of an 'inside job'...

Complete 911 Timeline: Military Exercises Up to 9/11

At some point between 1991 and 2001, a regional NORAD sector holds an exercise simulating a foreign hijacked airliner crashing into a prominent building in the United States, the identity of which is classified. According to military officials, the building is not the World Trade Center or the Pentagon. The exercise involves some flying of military aircraft, plus a “command post exercise” where communication procedures are rehearsed in an office environment. [CNN, 4/19/2004]

and

Numerous training exercises are held around the US, based on the scenario of terrorist attacks that involve aircraft hijackings. Richard Clarke, the counterterrorism “tsar” from 1998 until October 2001, will later testify that, before 9/11: “In many, many cities and probably most metropolitan areas, the FBI had worked with the state and local authorities to plan responses to certain kinds of terrorist attacks. We then held a series of exercises around the country. For example, on weapons of mass destruction attacks, we had had a whole series of exercises about hijackings of aircraft.” [US Congress, 6/11/2002

and

According to USA Today, “In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conduct exercises simulating what the White House [later] says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties.” One of the imagined targets is the World Trade Center. According to NORAD, these scenarios are regional drills, rather than regularly scheduled continent-wide exercises. They utilize “[n]umerous types of civilian and military aircraft” as mock hijacked aircraft, and test “track detection and identification; scramble and interception; hijack procedures; internal and external agency coordination; and operational security and communications security procedures.” The main difference between these drills and the 9/11 attacks is that the planes in the drills are coming from another country, rather than from within the US. Before 9/11, NORAD reportedly conducts four major exercises at headquarters level per year. Most of them are said to include a hijack scenario (see Before September 11, 2001). [USA Today, 4/18/2004; CNN, 4/19/2004]

...Are exactly that -- exercises to test an organization's ability to respond to speculations. Exercises exposes operational flaws and institutional limitations that could adversely impede the organization's ability to respond. Anyone who ever worked in a large organization knows that the greater the necessary changes that exercises implied, the longer the time it will take to implement those changes, and often exercises are subsequent to each other to test procedures in a controlled environment BEFORE we implement permanent changes.

So in you we have someone who probably never worked in a large organization in his life, let alone be in the military, and is now imposing his own ignorance onto this subject.

you are left with the truth that it was 19 muslims, not Zionists in cahoots with the CIA under orders from the Freemasons in association with the Illuminati,

All righty, then...

Very good. Whistle your faith away while 'extremists' continues to commit terrorism in the name of that faith. It will not be long, as if not already, that Islam will be further and stronger associated with 'extremism' to the point where what is considered 'extremism' now will be normal tomorrow. Good luck and I hope you are whistling a good tune.

 

[gambit]

The point under debate was whether the US has bought Mubarak's loyalty. Point proven. Now, if you wish to discuss the macroeconomics of the global currency market, I suggest you open another thread.

Nope...The point was that the ME despots are supposedly in US pay. The fact that most of them are not, including the Palestinians with whom the US is the largest singular aid donor, proved you and your pals wrong.

Nothing overly sensitive given your always derogatory references to Pakistanis, Somalis, Arabs and Muslims in general.

Calling your governments despots is not being derogatory. Nowhere have I said that Arabs are ugly or of lesser IQ. There goes that victim mentality again.

stealth, eh? We're talking Boeing 747s.
You sure you are not confusing threads here?

Yep...Just as how I debunked many claims about 'stealth', I am proving you to be ignorant about many things regarding Sept 11, 2001.

To remind you, you claimed that, prior to 9/11, the US authorities hadn't thought of hijacked airliners being used as weapons. I proved you wrong with a list of exercises conducted by various authorities. They had been practising for precisely this type of scenario for almost ten years. The only difference was that, except for one exercise, they were mostly expecting airliners hijacked abroad, not domestically. Not that it matters -- a suspicious hijacked airliner is just that, regardless of where it got hijacked.

Of course it does matter and this is where you are wrong and/or dishonest. Probably both. If the suspicious inbound is from without, the US military can exercise its authority on its own initiative. If the hijack is within, the the FAA has jurisdiction and we have a different chain of commands and protocols to follow.

No, I made up my mind based on the fact that the military failed to respond adequately to an event that it had been practising for for almost a decade!

Ah...So now it is 'adequately'? Funny of the claim that the US military have been practicing this kind of scenario for almost a decade. Care to speculate on what happened when the Presidential 747 was flying over NYC for a photo-op and caused a minor panic in the city? I would think that if we so perfected on how to intercept wayward airliners that such a goof would be unthinkable.

Far-fetched excuses are irrelevant to me. I have enough experience as a private pilot to know that any aircraft that deviates from its flight plan and turns off its transponder becomes of interest to air traffic control. It doesn't imply malicious intent, but it does become of interest to the conrollers.

Bravo...!!!

So how long should it be before any military, US or Pakistan, decide to authorize lethal use of weapons? Ooopsss...I guess you cannot answer because Pakistan does not have much of a civil aviation community to answer...

In the context of 9/11, after the first crash, any aircraft that turned off its transponder and deviated off course would be of immense interest to the FAA. Yet, the FAA didn't notify NORAD about AA77 until 9:24AM even though it went 'offline' at 8:56AM -- 12 minutes after the first crash into WTC.

Andrews took 90 minutes to launch. Otis launched in about 12 minutes but those fighters were responding to the NYC events.

OK, if you insist.

9/11 Cover-up Documents

American Airlines Flight 77, which would hit the Pentagon at 9:37 a.m., took off from Dulles International Airport near Washington at 8:10 a.m., flew west for 45 minutes, then turned east.

"Whoever was flying it had turned off the transponder," Gen. Weaver noted, referring to the device that identifies an airliner to air traffic control.

"They came back on the [radar] scope at 9:10 in West Virginia," Gen. Weaver said. With the F-15s that had scrambled from Otis Air Force Base about 350 miles away, Air Guard F-16 Falcon fighters from Langley Air Force Base, Va., were ordered to try to intercept American 77.

The Northeast Air Defense Sector "scrambled F-16s that were on alert at Langley Air Force Base at 9:35. The crash happened at 9:37," Gen. Weaver said.

So AA77, sans transponder, was already on the scope at 9:10AM -- 26 minutes after the first crash in NYC -- yet Langley were twirling their thumbs until 9:35AM.

After WTC 1 was hit, the general assumption was that it was an accident involving a small general aviation aircraft, not an airliner. There was no reason at that time to suspect anything of malice for WTC and for any aircraft whose transponder does not respond. This kind of baseless and illogical declarations by you is typical of those who have no interests in facts and truths. It was not until after AA 175 and WTC 2 that it became clear to everyone that these were deliberate attacks. Andrews was not part of the Air Sovereignty Alert Force and therefore was under no obligations to have 'alert' fighters. By the time AA 77 was tagged as a 'possible hijack' so were other airliners and general aviation aircrafts within radar range, even when their transponders responded to queries. For example...US Airways 6805 declared itself under visual flight rules (VFR) to ground controllers. That alone would be and was suspicious because only in an extreme emergency, as in life or death situation, would an airliner unleash itself and be independent. US Airways 6805's pilots witnessed the hit on WTC 2 so they knew the true nature of what they heard on the radios. Other airliners were not so fortunate and were requesting instructions on what to do. Controllers had to prioritize what they know to land these aircrafts safely. Any airliner whose transponder that did not respond to queries just added to the confusion.

The fact that Otis responded after WTC 2 was hit proved you wrong that NORAD was not in communication with the FAA and as far as AA 77 goes, NEADS was already informed of 77's suspicious status and it was Major Kevin Nasypany who ordered his controller, TSgt Jeremy Powell, to keep the Otis fighters towards NYC and to call Langley to intercept 77's last known location. It was at 0924 hr that Langley launched, not when the FAA notified NORAD of anything regarding AA 77. As the Langley fighters were taking off, NEADS was still struggling to find AA 77. You took Weaver's comment out of context, no surprise there. When he said:'They came back on the [radar] scope at 9:10 in West Virginia,' Weaver was just explaining the very same problem that I explained earlier, that even though an aircraft's transponder is not responding, the aircraft itself can still be on the primary radar, just very difficult and time consuming to ascertain its identity. Further, AA 77 also flew into an area of limited radar coverage that was also part of Weaver's context.

How many countries, including Pakistan, have the experience of managing multiple airline hijackings in one day?

Too bad your exalted veteranship missed this little tidbit, making your entire radar presentation about as relevant as the mating habits of the Bolivian fruit-fly.

Now am beginning to suspect you are not the pilot you claimed to be. Anyone who claimed to be a pilot and yet is so cavalier about radar should be suspect. That is like saying one is a pilot but one has low regard for Bernouli.

File this one under 'excuses'. Otis launched just fine.

In light of your failure to explain how Pakistan would have done better, we should file your arguments under 'garbage'. So tell US...How many countries, including Pakistan, have the experience of managing multiple airline hijackings in one day?

Here we go...

White House Overflights Breach Strict Security Zone; FAA Warns Pilots, Traffic Controllers - The Washington Post | HighBeam Research - FREE trial

Article: White House Overflights Breach Strict Security Zone; FAA Warns Pilots, Traffic Controllers

Article from: The Washington Post

Article date: September 21, 1998 Author: Don Phillips

An American Airlines jetliner flew directly over the White House two months ago, through some of the country's most sensitive restricted airspace, apparently because of a mix-up at Reagan National Airport's radar control facility.

The July 16 incident presented no danger to President Clinton or anyone else on the ground or in the air, and the aircraft was flying high enough that likely no one even noticed, other than air traffic controllers, the pilots and the Secret Service.

So even after all those exercises that you asserted should have US 'perfect' in how to intercept wayward airliners, we have one that flew over the White House.

Busting TFRs - Plane & Pilot Magazine | PlaneAndPilotMag.com

Terms like Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) and temporary flight restriction (TFR) quickly came into widespread use among the general-aviation pilot group. Those terms had been around for years. Military fighters and the ADIZ protected American coasts from intrusions by Russian Bear Bombers throughout the Cold War. TFRs were used for presidential security and other extraordinary events. But they weren’t part of a pilot’s everyday life. You didn’t get intercepted and forced down if you flew through a TFR.[/b

Wow...What was it you said about being a pilot? So how many times have you or any pilot you know were intercepted? Am willing to be -- zilch. Because you are not a pilot.

Plane That Caused Capitol Evacuation Nearly Shot Down (washingtonpost.com)

By Spencer S. Hsu
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 8, 2004;

More than 2,000 aircraft "of interest" have been detected over Washington airspace since January 2003, Beardsworth said. The number of aircraft violating the no-fly zone fell from 164 in the six months before Jan. 20, 2003, to 30 after that date through May, 14, 2004.

All 30 intruders were successfully identified, Beardsworth said. By comparison, another federal official said that two years ago, military jets could identify and intercept only about 40 percent of intruders in training drills.

The above article is dated 2004. So even after Sept 11, 2001, we could intercept barely half in exercises.

If you are a pilot as you claimed, then you should know that for the US, general aviation pilots can fly without a flight plan. It is advisable that they do file a flight plan, but as long as they do not tresspass into restricted airspace, there will be no trouble.

General Aviation in 50 Years

Another problem plaguing general aviation is the absence of flight plans. Although not required, a flight plan increases safety and also employs the assets of search and rescue if an issue arises following flight.

Don't Cross That Line | Flight Today | Air & Space Magazine

A general aviation airplane without a flight plan, chugging into restricted airspace, does not take long to stick out from the herd. If the Airvan continues to ignore the fighters in its face, EADS will pass an alert up a chain of command, where unspecified persons will have to decide what to do about it, perhaps within minutes, if the off-course pilot swings west toward the nation’s capital.

On April 6, 2009, what turned out to be a mentally disturbed young Canadian pilot entered U.S. airspace over Lake Superior without warning, and led Air National Guard F-16s on a five-hour chase over four states before finally landing on a country road in Missouri.

So where is the 'shoot to kill' order for the US airspace violation by this Canadian pilot? Why was there a 'five-hour' chase? Is the F-16 faster than a Cessna prop job?

Like I said, the only way you can support these loony 9/11 conspiracy theories is if the US government is perfect in every way with no room to spare. Else the available evidences, as far as aviation goes, absolutely debunked you.

 

[SpArK]

Ahmadinejad launches probe into truth behind 9/11
Thursday, October 14, 2010, 10:45


Beirut, Oct 14: Reiterating his contention that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated, the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has announced the launch of a probe into the Sep 11 'events'.


“I announce that the formation of an independent and neutral team to examine the facts and discover the truth of the September 11 events is the demand of all the peoples of the region and the world," Ahmadinejad said at a rally here on Wednesday, Oct 13 night, reported The Telegraph.


The President, on a visit to Lebanon, toured Shia Muslim strongholds of south Beirut, the report added.

Ahmadinejad has, several times, in the past argued that the Sep 11, 2001 attacks were not what the United States makes it look like.

Ahmadinejad's assertion of the same at the UN General Assembly, prompted the US as well as the United Kingdom to stage a walk out in Sep 2010.

The Iranian president claimed "most nations" believed the US government was behind the Sep 11 attacks, citing a theory "that some segments within the US government orchestrated the attack to reverse the declining American economy, and its grips on the Middle East, in order to save the Zionist regime."

"The majority of the American people as well as most nations and politicians around the world agree with this view," he added.

Even before his statement at the United Nations, Ahmadinejad had made the same claim in March 2010 two days ahead of his official trip to Afghanistan.

The Iranian state media had quoted him as saying that the 9/11 attacks were a "big lie" intended to pave the way for the invasion of a war-torn nation.



Iran President Ahmadinejad | 9/11 Attacks | United States | UN General Assembly | Afghan - Oneindia News

 

[gambit]

Now what kind of conspiracy theory can I come up with that...???

 

[Developereo]

Yes...Amalgam Virgo 02 was scheduled for...uuhh...2002? And 9/11 occurred on 2001, correct?

Indeed it was, and neither I nor the authors of that website missed that fact. The salient point, which escaped your notice, evidently, was this:

USA Today will note that this is an exception to NORAD’s claim that, prior to 9/11, it focused only on external threats to the US and did not consider the possibility of threats arising from within the US. 9/11 Commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste will similarly comment that this planned exercise shows that, despite frequent comments to the contrary, the military considered simultaneous hijackings before 9/11.

And am mightly glad that am not a muslim.

I will ignore irrelevancies in order to keep the focus on the main topic.

That was an underlined 'is'. The word 'is' indicate at least a long term, if not permanent, status of something. You got busted for not thinking through something you read.

The only thing that got busted here are your English comprehension skills. I don't normally make an issue of people's English skills, or lack thereof, but you are crying out for it. The use of the present tense is perfectly valid usage even when describing a past narrative. Here's a passage you yourself quoted...

A 20-year-old Ethiopian man hijacks [...] he forces the pilot [...] The 11-hour ordeal ends after the plane lands at JFK International Airport and the hijacker surrenders to the FBI.

So in your fantasy world, the moment air traffic control issued the order, the sky was immediately cleared.

I will refer you again to that remedial English book. This is the second time you have demonstrated failure to understand this fairly simple English sentence. I can't help you any further on this one.

I guess you are not much of an air traveler or a dishonest one.

Desperation time again, eh?

Now that is just dishonest. But hey...What else should we expect from you? When I said 'all the flight information' it was meant to be publicly available airline flight information, not military exercises.

The subject under discussion was how the hijackers timed their attack to coincide with the simulated-hijacking exercise underway -- a military exercise -- and you wrote

But the point here is that our open society gave the hijackers all the flight information they need

And it is a legitimate list of 'excuses'. Let me guess, by the grace of Allah, Pakistan is perfect and immuned from institutional flaws and inept bureaucrats? But then this goes back to my original statement that in order for the 9/11 conspiracy theory that this is an 'inside job' to be believable, everything about the US government must be perfect.

Nobody's expecting perfection; you keep using that word, not I.

If members of the UN, the ME, and of the Security Council can ignore those sanctions for their own financial gains, no one can call it 'railroaded' with a straight face, unless said face is shedding convenient crocodile tears for Iraq.

Irrelevant (see above).

If I 'debate' about Islam, it will not be because of the possibility of conversion.

Conversion?
That megalomania of yours knows no limits, does it? But I guess that is the classic definition of megalomania!

If I 'debate' about Islam, it will be as to how the religion is used to justify beliefs and actions that are contrary to my own perceptions of humanity.

Anyone who cavalierly dismisses the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent kids just because they are Ay-rab Mooooslims doesn't have much humanity to begin with.

thank whatever 'God' there might be, there is a local 'extremist' mosque nearby that I can observe

We all know you get your 'education' about Islam sitting on your couch watching Faux News.

and see how I am regarded as an inferior human being simply because I am not a muslim.

No different than the Islamophobes who regards Muslims as inferior.
Again, this is off-topic.

Let us grant you the latitude that ObL expect a 'more severe response'. So how does this prove beyond any reasonable doubt that ObL know, or at least believe, that the American response would be to invade Afghanistan, which is NOT even the most severe response we could have?

And where exactly has this little red herring crept into our discussion? Did I ever mention anything about Afghanistan? In any case, irrelevant.

To 'rehearse' is to repeat an established procedure. Anyone who has ever worked in a large organization knows that to 'rehearse' a procedure, like a fire drill, is not the same thing as to speculate on a hypothetical situation then perform an 'exercise' to see if the current procedures are applicable to that hypothetical situation.

Sigh, you are desperately clutching at straws. The purpose of the drills was precisely to practise responding to these hypothetical scenarios:

Complete 911 Timeline: Military Exercises Up to 9/11

The exercise involves some flying of military aircraft, plus a “command post exercise” where communication procedures are rehearsed in an office environment. [CNN, 4/19/2004]

They utilize “[n]umerous types of civilian and military aircraft” as mock hijacked aircraft, and test “track detection and identification; scramble and interception; hijack procedures; internal and external agency coordination; and operational security and communications security procedures.” The main difference between these drills and the 9/11 attacks is that the planes in the drills are coming from another country, rather than from within the US.

...Are exactly that -- exercises to test an organization's ability to respond to speculations. Exercises exposes operational flaws and institutional limitations that could adversely impede the organization's ability to respond.

Precisely!

Anyone who ever worked in a large organization knows that the greater the necessary changes that exercises implied, the longer the time it will take to implement those changes, and often exercises are subsequent to each other to test procedures in a controlled environment BEFORE we implement permanent changes.

I would say eight to ten years is a pretty long time.

So in you we have someone who probably never worked in a large organization in his life, let alone be in the military, and is now imposing his own ignorance onto this subject.

Touched a nerve, did I?

Very good. Whistle your faith away while 'extremists' continues to commit terrorism in the name of that faith. It will not be long, as if not already, that Islam will be further and stronger associated with 'extremism' to the point where what is considered 'extremism' now will be normal tomorrow. Good luck and I hope you are whistling a good tune.

Irrelevant.

Nope...The point was that the ME despots are supposedly in US pay. The fact that most of them are not, including the Palestinians with whom the US is the largest singular aid donor, proved you and your pals wrong.

My comment was about Mubarak, specifically, and I proved you wrong. If you want to debate the larger Middle East with another poster, feel free to do so separately.

Calling your governments despots is not being derogatory. Nowhere have I said that Arabs are ugly or of lesser IQ.

You use derogatory adjectives when referring to Pakistanis, Arabs and Muslims. You address people by their ethnicity or religion, instead of as individuals.

I debunked many claims about 'stealth'

Great! We'll give you a medal
But irrelevant.

, I am proving you to be ignorant about many things regarding Sept 11, 2001.

You were proven wrong about the timeline, the history of hijacked airliner exercises, and the availability of military information to civilians.

No wonder you keep trying to go off-topic.

If the suspicious inbound is from without, the US military can exercise its authority on its own initiative. If the hijack is within, the the FAA has jurisdiction and we have a different chain of commands and protocols to follow.

Once an aircraft is over US airspace, the FAA is in control. Why would criminals hijack an airliner over the Atlantic and give away their presence prematurely when they want to do their dirty deeds within the US anyway?

I guess you cannot answer because Pakistan does not have much of a civil aviation community to answer...

Yuck, yuck, yuck!

After WTC 1 was hit, the general assumption was that it was an accident involving a small general aviation aircraft, not an airliner. There was no reason at that time to suspect anything of malice for WTC and for any aircraft whose transponder does not respond. This kind of baseless and illogical declarations by you is typical of those who have no interests in facts and truths. It was not until after AA 175 and WTC 2 that it became clear to everyone that these were deliberate attacks.

Once again...
9/11 Facts Timeline

8:46 AM: Flight 11 crashes into the WTC (World Trade Center) north tower. [approximately 26 minutes after controllers lost contact][New York Times, 9/12/01]

[...]

8:52 AM: Two F-15s take off from Otis Air Force Base. [Washington Post, 9/15/01] They go after Flight 175. Major General Paul Weaver, director of the Air National Guard, states "the pilots flew like a scalded ape, topping 500 mph but were unable to catch up to the airliner. We had a nine-minute window, and in excess of 100 miles to intercept 175,'' he said. ''There was just literally no way.'' [Dallas Morning News, 9/15/01] F-15's fly at up to 2.5 times the speed of sound [1875 mph or 30+ miles a minute or 270+ miles in nine minutes] and are designed for low-altitude, high-speed, precision attacks. [BBC]

8:56 AM: By this time, it is evident that Flight 77 is lost. The FAA, already in contact with the Pentagon about the two hijackings out of Boston, reportedly doesn’t notify NORAD of this until 9:24, 28 minutes later. [see 9:10 AM for comparison, New York Times, 10/16/01]

9:03 AM: Flight 175 crashes into the south WTC tower. [23 minutes after NORAD notified, 43 minutes after air traffic control lost contact with pilots][New York Times, 9/12/01, CNN, 9/12/01]

By the time AA 77 was tagged as a 'possible hijack' so were other airliners and general aviation aircrafts within radar range, even when their transponders responded to queries.

AA77 was not like 'other airliners'. It had its transponder turned off, just like the two airliners that had just crashed into WTC. That alone made it stand out like a sort thumb.

The fact that Otis responded after WTC 2 was hit proved you wrong that NORAD was not in communication with the FAA

When did I ever claim that FAA was not in touch with NORAD? The timeline I quoted earlier states that communication explicitly.

Now am beginning to suspect you are not the pilot you claimed to be. Anyone who claimed to be a pilot and yet is so cavalier about radar should be suspect. That is like saying one is a pilot but one has low regard for Bernouli.

OK, OK, OK. Radar is king. All hail to radar.
Even when it is irrelevant to the discussion.

In light of your failure to explain how Pakistan would have done better, we should file your arguments under 'garbage'. So tell US...How many countries, including Pakistan, have the experience of managing multiple airline hijackings in one day?

You are claiming incompetence, we get it!

you asserted should have US 'perfect' in how to intercept wayward airliners

Can you point out where I used the word 'perfect'?

Wow...What was it you said about being a pilot? So how many times have you or any pilot you know were intercepted? Am willing to be -- zilch.

As I explained before, I once wandered too close to Miramar and two fighters showed up alongside.

Because you are not a pilot.

Nerve still hurting, eh?

If you are a pilot as you claimed, then you should know that for the US, general aviation pilots can fly without a flight plan. It is advisable that they do file a flight plan, but as long as they do not tresspass into restricted airspace, there will be no trouble.

OK, I will admit that I always thought it was mandatory. I was taught to file, and I always filed, when I flew. Just a good habit to get into.

 

[ARSENAL6]

A dictatorship is one where basic human rights and freedoms are denied to its own citizens., like the kind common in the ME.

OK heres back home:

- :Guantanamo Bay
- :Slavery of Blacks as well as faulsifying evidence against black
people
- :the terrorist group the KKK
- : MAsscre and elimating the Native Americans
- : US Govnerment on a crusade against Muslim.

Now what kind of conspiracy theory can I come up with that...???

THe Kind of conspiracy that evagelical christain , KKK and Islmaphobe groups conjure up when they realise that they can't win against islam
and Islam is the Right religion. Or that they are tooooo much in jealous mode to see one of Earths special people Muslim Humans aka Pakistan doing better for its self.
Pretty sad huh .