NORAD pulled fighters to Alaska and Canada

reply to post by REMISNE


How unusual, ULTIMA1, oops I mean Phixer2, oops I mean Roger.

Didnt seem to hold up very well in court for the Moussaoui trial now, did it? Seem that your knowledge of evidence is limited.

Originally posted by gavron
Didnt seem to hold up very well in court for the Moussaoui trial now, did it? Seem that your knowledge of evidence is limited.

You mean like your limited knowledge that the evidence at the Moussaoui trial was not good enough to charge OBL with being behind 9/11 according to the Department of Justice and the FBI.

Kind of proves how many problems there are with the offical story.


[edit on 29-10-2009 by REMISNE]

reply to post by REMISNE

...I didn's say OBL, now did ? I said Moussaoui.

If the evidence wasnt good enough, wouldnt he be a free man?

Please try to read and understand before replying.

reply to post by REMISNE

Specification: In that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak Bin'Attash, Ramzi Binalshibh, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali and Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi, persons subject to trial by military commission as alien unlawful enemy combatants, did, at various locations, from in or about 1996 to in or about May 2003, conspire and agree with usama bin laden, Ayman al Zawahiri, Mohamed al Kahtani; Mohammed Atef(a/k/a Abu Hafs al Masri), 19 individuals who hijacked four commercial airliners on September 11,2001: (American Airlines Flight 11, hereinafter AA #11) Mohamed Atta, Satam al Suqami, Waleed al Shehri, Wail al Shehri, Abdul Aziz al Omari; (United Airlines Flight 175, hereinafter UA #175) Marwan al Shehhi, Hamza al Ghamdi, Ahmed al Ghamdi, Mohand al Shehri, Fayez Rashid Ahmed Hassan Al Qadi Banihammad (hereinafter Fayez Banihammad); (United Airlines Flight 93, hereinafter UA #93) Ziad Samir Jarrah, Ahmad Ibrahim A. al Haznawi, Ahmed al Nami, Saeed al Ghamdi; (American Airlines Flight 77, hereinafter AA #77) Hani Hanjour, Khalid al Mihdhar, Nawaf al Hazmi, Majed Moqed, Salem al Hazmi; and various other members and associates of the al Qaeda organization, known and unknown, and willfully join an enterprise of persons with the intent to further the unlawful purpose of the enterprise; to commit the following offenses triable by military commission: attacking civilians, attacking civilian objects, intentionally causing serious bodily injury, murder in violation of the law of war, destruction of property in violation of the law of war, and terrorism, said agreement and enterprise sharing a common criminal purpose, known to the five accused, to attack the United States, its people, and their property, said conspiracy resulting in the deaths of 2,973 persons. (See Charge Sheet Appendix A for a list of victims killed in the attacks).

www.defenselink.mil...

There is a reason why the FBI hasnt charged Osama with 9/11. The MILITARY is the one currently charged with trying terrorists, so the military is the one filing charges and if you read Khalid Sheikh Mohammeds charge sheet (see above) you will see that Osama IS listed as a conspirator.

And if you read this article it points out the fact that KSM hasnt been indicted in a Federal court....but will be IF the trials are moved to the Federal courts from the military ones.

www.nydailynews.com...

Of course, there is this...

A Spanish judge has formally charged 35 men, including Osama Bin Laden and an Arab televison journalist, with involvement in the 11 September attacks on the United States

news.bbc.co.uk...

And this....

FBI Chief Robert Mueller talking to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 2003

The al-Qaeda terrorist network headed by Usama Bin Laden is clearly the most urgent threat to US interests. The evidence linking al-Qaeda to the attacks of September 11 is clear and irrefutable, and our investigation of the events leading up to 9/11 has given rise to important insights into terrorist tactics and tradecraft, which will prove invaluable as we work to prevent the next attack.

www.fbi.gov...


Im sorry...what were you saying about Osama?

Originally posted by gavron
...I didn's say OBL, now did ? I said Moussaoui.

If the evidence wasnt good enough, wouldnt he be a free man?

Please try to read and understand before replying.

The evidence might have been just enough to find Moussaoui guilty, which we all know he was going to be found guilty no matter what the evidence.

Its just too bad the evidnece in the Moussaoui trail was not good enough to have OBL charged with being behind 9/11.

If the same evidence was used to defend the official story it would be torn apart in court by any half decent lawyer.

Originally posted by PHIXER2
Fighters that could have been used to help intercept the planes on 9/11were pulled away for an excercise.

www.norad.mil...

Sept. 9, 2001

CHEYENNE MOUNTAIN AFS, Colo. – The North American Aerospace Defense Command shall deploy fighter aircraft as necessary to Forward Operating Locations (FOLS) in Alaska and Northern Canada to monitor a Russian air force exercise in the Russian arctic and North Pacific ocean.

NORAD-allocated forces will remain in place until the end of the Russian exercise.

Ignorance is like an aura of invincibility around some Troothers, preventing the evil Logic Monster from entering.

The linked NORAD press release talks about "More than 350 American and Canadian military men and women were in involved in the deployment.".

One Navy fighter squadron of approximately 12 jets employs approximately 350 officers and enlisted.

How many fighters (available for escort/interception, discounting posse comitatus restrictions) does the United States Air Force have in its inventory? From www.af.mil, 745 F-15's plus variants (i.e. Strike Eagles) and 1,280 F-16 variants. That's 2,025 fighter aircraft available in CONUS for possible airliner interception.

How many went up to Canada and Alaska on this deployment? I can't find an exact number, but with with only around 350 personnel involved, it could not be more than 10 to 12 aircraft.

Let's see......12 aircraft (for the sake of argument, lets make them alL American - no Canadian) sent to Alaska/Canada to watch the Russians taken from a total pool of 2,025 fighters leaves 2,013 aircraft to defend the US.

Yeah, if I were the author of the OP and a Troother I'd be concerned about those numbers, as well.

Disclaimer: This was just a rough back-of-the-envelope calculation to show how idiotic this claim was. The actual numbers are by a larger magnitude even more convincing since the above aircraft do not include those assigned to the Air National Guard, who's actual job it is for INCONUS defense of airspace. Those well-over-2,000 aircraft would have been scattered all around the US on AF bases and Air National Guard bases in the 48 states. Very, very, very few of them could have been called upon on Sept 11th in a manner that would or could have made a difference. To suggest otherwise is hugely irresponsible and ignorant of the facts.

Anyone who says or thinks or opines or suggests or postulates or states that exercises on 11 September, 2001 contributed to a dearth of aircraft available for use is out of their mind and woefully ignorant and significantly hilarious all at the same time.

[edit on 3-11-2009 by trebor451]

Originally posted by trebor451
NORAD-allocated forces will remain in place until the end of the Russian exercise.

As stated the aircaft that were pulled will remain in the place untill end oif exercise.

It does not matter the number pulled and the number left, it just that there were planes pulled that could have been used to intercept the planes on 9/11.

Originally posted by REMISNE
It does not matter the number pulled and the number left, it just that there were planes pulled that could have been used to intercept the planes on 9/11.

A dozen or so planes are used for the exercise....

So, the other 2013 fighter aircraft couldnt handle the job? (not counting the National Guard aircraft). By missing 12 aircraft, the US airspace is compromised! Oh Noes!!!!

Originally posted by REMISNE
If the same evidence was used to defend the official story it would be torn apart in court by any half decent lawyer.

So, you are saying the lawyers that defended Moussaoui were incompetent then? That's what you seem to be implying. Since you seem to know so much about the legal process, perhaps you should contact Moussaoui and recommend a "half decent lawyer" so he can be re-tried.

Ridiculous...

Originally posted by gavron
So, you are saying the lawyers that defended Moussaoui were incompetent then? That's what you seem to be implying. ..

No i am stating the simple fact that the evidnece used in the trail might have been enough to charge Moussaoui,, BUT it is not good enough to charge OBL with being behind 9/11 as stated by the DoJ and the FBI.

You cannot even show basic evidence like the FBI/NTSB reports that show proper ID of the planes.

Originally posted by REMISNE
You cannot even show basic evidence like the FBI/NTSB reports that show proper ID of the planes.

...you mean the reports that have not yet been released to the public, due to their ongoing investigation? You know that, hell, EVERYONE here knows that.

How many times are you going you use that sad line of questioning....when you know the answer already, Roger. Pathetic.

Originally posted by REMISNE
No i am stating the simple fact that the evidnece used in the trail might have been enough to charge Moussaoui,, BUT it is not good enough to charge OBL with being behind 9/11 as stated by the DoJ and the FBI..

umm, ok. So it's considered evidence in one trial...but magically is not evidence in the next trial? Care to explain how evidence becomes non-evidence? Do you have an example of when evidence was used in one trail, but was "not good enough" in another trial?

Perhaps you need to understand how evidence works in a trial, Roger. You're just being silly...

Originally posted by gavron
...you mean the reports that have not yet been released to the public, due to their ongoing investigation? You know that, hell, EVERYONE here knows that.

How many times are you going you use that sad line of questioning....when you know the answer already, Roger. Pathetic.

Thanks for agreeing with me that people do not have the evidence to know what really happened that day as i have been trying to show.

You just need to spread this fact to the rest of the people on here.

[edit on 5-11-2009 by REMISNE]

Originally posted by gavron
umm, ok. So it's considered evidence in one trial...but magically is not evidence in the next trial?

Shall i list all the problems with the evidence to suport the official story?

Why you do not have enough evidence to charge OBL?



[edit on 5-11-2009 by REMISNE]

Originally posted by REMISNE
Shall i list all the problems with the evidence to suport the official story?

I'm talking about the evidence used in the trial of Moussaoui....which was admitted, and "good enough" (as you call it), for a conviction.

You make it sounds like evidence is good for one trial, but that very same evidence is invalid in another.

Originally posted by REMISNE
...people do not have the evidence to know what really happened that day as i have been trying to show.

People DO have preliminary reports. Not the precious final report you are crying about. It's not our fault that you cannot accept those preliminary reports.

You didnt answer my question though, Roger. Why do you consistantly ask that very same question time after time (on multiple forums before you get banned)...when you know the reports have not been released?

It just puzzles me....

Originally posted by gavron
You didnt answer my question though, Roger. Why do you consistantly ask that very same question time after time (on multiple forums before you get banned)...when you know the reports have not been released?

It just puzzles me....

People keep stating they know what happened that day, but you and i both know they cannot know what happened that day when the final reports have not been released.