9/11 Live: The NORAD Tapes

Here is a Vanity Fair exclusive that takes a very close look into the events of 911 and what may really have taken place. This is a very thought provoking article that may or may not confirm what many have thought for years, and that is the fact the US Military may have actually shot down US Commercial aircraft and then covered it up. Keep in mind these are live transcripts with normal human reactions that took place on that day and the tapes are unedited.

Warning some of the following contains very graphic street language so if it offends you DO NOT Read or Listen to the transcript.



These transcripts really made me think and admittedly prior to today I was very doubtful that the US would have shot down some of its own commercial aircraft. Now I am not so sure and think many will find it very thought provoking just as I did.

Make sure you have java enabled to listen to the tapes if you don't you will not be able to listen to the actual sound clips.

Once again Remember the WARNING if you might be offended by strong foul language DO NOT View or listen.


Related News Links:
www.pbs.org
abcnews.go.com
Common Dreams.Org

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
The ATS "9/11 Fine Focus" Initiative
9-11...DID BUSH KNOW?







[edit on 8/2/2006 by shots]

[edit on 8-2-2006 by Springer]

Shots why are you doubtful? Do you mean you thought we would never give such an order or that we couldn’t physically shoot down the civilian aircrafts? Personally those tapes and that report make clear to me how un-capable we were at that time of shooting down United 93 or any of the other 9/11 planes. And it seems to me from reading that article that the "cover up" being discussed in another thread seems to be nothing more than the military trying to cover its behind by trying to make itself look as if they were more capable and alert on 9/11 than they really were.

its a good find shots, but i would be more impressed if they had a link to the full transcript instead of just posting the clips that fit into their story.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Do you mean you thought we would never give such an order or that we couldn’t physically shoot down the civilian aircrafts?

When I first posted the story admittedly it was in hast and I wanted to get the story up before other conspiracy sites did and at that time, I had not listened to all the tapes. Also I was not sure the tapes were in fact real and I thought there might be a possibility the author might have fudged somethings.

But now I have had time to digest and listen to them all. It was at that time I came to my new conclusion. I really never had a doubt that if need be that the government would shoot down a plane, in my mind, I was kind of hoping that the reports that the passengers had taken over and were the hero's of the day, which now appears was not the case

Well if they could lie about something like this what else are they capable of lying about. It's good to see you broadening your horizons somewhat shots

[edit on 2/8/06 by subz]

good find. im not sure what to think besides it was a big cluster****. they had no clue what was going on and the only person who did didnt get thru.

Originally posted by snafu7700
its a good find shots, but i would be more impressed if they had a link to the full transcript instead of just posting the clips that fit into their story.

I also had a big problem with them posting only the portions that they wanted. I am still wondering how they got their hands on what they did to be honest. Surely if Vanity Fair can get their hands on a few tapes one would think the NY Times with all their so called inside sources would have them all, but I guess in this case the leaks were not in their clique

as far as only posting tidbits of the tape i can see bot sides of the coin.

1. if i had 30 hours of tape to post i would need a few thousand dollars of bandwidth a month.

2. if i wanted to make a case and i had 30 hours of tapes i could certainly mislead my audience by only posting the right tidbits (and thereby taking the original content out of context.

Ok even if they did shoot it down, what other options did they have to utilize to prevent a far worse tragedy? I was never in doubt myself. However, for anyone who wishes to chastize them for what happened, we have to understand it was a real life scenario, and not some Hollywood production. We cannot fly some stealth craft right by it and drop in some special ops force to regain control. For one the timeline just did not allow for that kind of operation to even be considered. Secondly, the mere physic of it just is not feasable.

So what other options did we have? Try and negotiate with extremists (if they were indeed even onboard)? I believe the military was intentionalyl mislead and blinded by rogue elements, and they did their best to prevent another attack on our beloved country given the scenario that unfolded.

Originally posted by shots
I was kind of hoping that the reports that the passengers had taken over and were the hero's of the day, which now appears was not the case

Huh? Can you elaborate on this? I certainly didn't get the impression from the tapes and from the facts the article presented that they were capable of shooting down any of the four flights that day let alone United 93.

i read the transcript and i don't see where they say anything about "shooting it down".... They said the fighters are not cleared to shoot, just to be there and at least it would be a presence. Apparently they though they could deviate the remaining aircraft that could have been hijacked.

FOX: Do whatever you need to divert. They are not cleared to fire.

www.vanityfair.com...

Then the part where they say the plane went down.

10:15:00
WATSON: United nine three, have you got information on that yet?
WASHINGTON CENTER: Yeah, he's down.
WATSON: What—he's down?
WASHINGTON CENTER: Yes.
WATSON: When did he land? Because we have confirmation—
WASHINGTON CENTER: He did—he did—he did not land.

i don't see anything in there remotely implying that it was shot down... and i don't know why members are saying "the government lied"....lied about what?....

If this tape does something is prove that "9/11 was not a government job"...

I also just spent the time reading through all of that, and listened to all the tapes as well.

I didn't hear or read anything at all about "shooting" a plane or United 93 down?? I didnt even hear a reference to a missile other than the AIM9s in the face earlier, but that wasnt aboout 93

Shots, please show me where in that vanity fair link you posted there is evidence or even a reason to believe that the US Military may have actually shot down US Commercial aircraft and then covered it up. I do need some sleep so perhaps I missed something, but I dont think so

[edit on 3-8-2006 by warpboost]

Indeed it is a good find. And I have been listening to stories all day about this. I think we all have to keep an open mind and let the evidence be sorted out. With that being said, reading the transcripts does make me question whether 9/11 occurred because the government wanted it by letting the chips fall where they may. Furthermore, it makes me wonder whether the government didn't want to "prevent" it from happening by "helping out" in some way in order to manipulate the feelings of the American public and the world.

Then, if this evidence is proven that 9/11 could have been fabricated, then the entire set of events that happened afterward could be justifiably a lie.

And then, you would have to question what in the world were we doing to bring ourselves to this point in time and whether it was worth it.

Talk about drip-feeding the truth.
The fog of bureaucracy has enabled incompetence to take precedence for the explanation behind a catalogue of lies. Even members of the official 9/11 commission believed that they were being lied to at the time, and that news has just hit the stands (www.abovetopsecret.com...).

I guess if you spread it out over a period of time, people tend to not give a damn or just plain forget what it was all about in the first place.

Rotten to the core.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
I certainly didn't get the impression from the tapes and from the facts the article presented that they were capable of shooting down any of the four flights that day let alone United 93.

Well I did. If they did not have the capability to shoot down, why would they say "They are not cleared to fire."?

Maybe I'm being naive, but I would think they would want the scrambled fighters as well as other personel to know whether they had clearance to shoot or not so that they wouldn't shoot something down by accident

Originally posted by shots
Well I did. If they did not have the capability to shoot down, why would they say "They are not cleared to fire."?

First let me post this.

The recordings tell a different story, and not only because United 93 had crashed before anyone in the military chain of command even knew it had been hijacked.

Now, shots they suspected that numerous other aircraft had been hijacked and some of these 'suspect' aircraft (which in real life were friendly) were heading toward the Whitehouse. When the commander says they don’t have authorization to fire he is referring to these 'suspect' aircraft not to American 77 which has already crashed and not to United 93. The fighters might have been able to shoot down the 'suspect' targets but not 93 or any of the other three true hijacked planes. At this time United 93 is in the middle of Pennsylvania (while the fighters are in the DC area) and minutes away from crashing and no one in the military even knew it had been hijacked.

[edit on 3-8-2006 by WestPoint23]

Westpoint I was addressing only this portion of your post , which was "I certainly didn't get the impression from the tapes and from the facts the article presented that they were capable of shooting down" In other words you did not get the impression they were capable and I said they were capable.

Obviously they were capable of shooting any aircraft if they had permission or they would not have told them what they did.




[edit on 8/3/2006 by shots]

Err… I think that’s called misquoting, if I’m not mistaken? Let me try, "I certainly didn't get the impression... that they were capable of shooting down any of the four flights that day let alone United 93." Now as you can see, I never said they couldn't shoot down some of the later misidentified friendly aircraft, I was referring to the four hijacked planes, as can be clearly read.

So besides a command to not shoot down aircraft coming into the DC area (after all four hijacked planes are down) is there anything else that makes you believe a shoot down of 93 was possible?


[edit on 3-8-2006 by WestPoint23]

Westpoint, can you explain how a plane that simply crashes into the ground, creating a relatively small crater, also create a debris spread of about 8 miles, and lands one of its engines hundreds of feet away in a forest?