Flight 11 hijacked before take-off?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by shasta9600

 

There is no such thing as one "official" story.

So the one story that was told to the world by our government officials is...? Silly me. When the government comes out and officially endorses as well as even tells to begin with, a story - that is the official story. One story told by government officials. That is what an official story is. I cannot wait to read how you explain this away.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by shasta9600

 

There is no such thing as one "official" story.

What does exist is a compilation of facts and scenarios, as observed, cataloged and reported from the moment the first airplane (AAL 11) hit the first Tower.

By 'Official Story', I'm talking about the series of events that the government of the U.S claims that their investigations, prove happened on 9/11/01.

Do you believe the results of their investigation and are you satisfied with their conclusions about the scenario of events? In more basic terms.....do you believe what the U.S government has said happened that day? Not anybody elses theories, just theirs.

[edit on 17-12-2009 by shasta9600]

reply to post by weedwhacker


Hey Weedy? Did you list the other times that the black boxes were never recovered and I missed it? If so, my apologies. If not, could you please?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Shadow Herder

 

Sorry, but everything you think you are relaying here as "fact" is just more of the same disinfo that has grown up on the 'conspiracy' websites that litter the Internet.

The majority of this garbage has NO basis in actual fact...but, once the lies get written, people find it easier to believe what they've read, rather than to do some real research to verify the claims.

The above post is a prime example.

Exactly which claims from the list are bunk?

reply to post by Lillydale


You asked, "Which claims in the list were bunk?", referring to the 'Shadow Herder' post.


Well, let's see what what stated there, and what can be verified:

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
Of course there were "hijackers" int he cockpit before take off in some of the crafts used. Some of these exercises were passive meaning that some passengers had no clue. Other hijacking were controlled.

Quite a few bold claims there. Where is the documentation? Anything to show this to be true, other than the 'word' of a CT website somewhere?

Bunk. No corroboration.

There is ample proof out there that states the methods of the exercises on 911 using real aircraft and fake signature 'blips' on radar.

Now there is "ample" so-called 'proof'?? Where is it? Hiding?

Another question is did someone or some group hijack the mocked hijack aircraft using remote? How many of these live fly planes were actually flown by live pilots?

And this...now it's just more of the silliness that has infected the topic.


But, when all else fails, this is the general fall-back catch-all triumphantly, glorious, exquisitely ridiculous nonsense of it all:

Understand that it has been admitted that there are people employed to come to forums just like this one to obsefucate the truth and protect the agencies involved i.e USAF, Norad, ect.

"Nuf said.

reply to post by weedwhacker


Yes I did. See how easy this is when you stop being arrogant and making up things about people and just attempt to answer an honest question?

Originally posted by Lillydale
reply to post by weedwhacker

 

Yes I did. See how easy this is when you stop being arrogant and making up things about people and just attempt to answer an honest question?

Maybe weedwhacker might be kind to answer one of my numerable questions, I fear though, he only wants to cherry pick definitions or weaker arguments with palatable flaws.

It is sad but you must be airtight with the biased. Then they cannot answer without being a fool. If they are smart, they will not answer - but then self deceived

Perhaps I will not get an answer to my questions.

Originally posted by Weedwhacker
This will turn out to be just another in a long line of steaming piles of moose droppings.

As I have mentioned numerous times, answering by dismissing a question before consideration is most unwise . Or were we all distracted with a great volume of assumptions , not seeing the most basic - the topic is a question - it is one thing to dismiss data, but to dismiss a question should be unforgivable.. philosophically or scientifically speaking !

If we want to speak about logic we should make conclusions after considering the question, no? I await replies to my numerable questions still.

Perhaps I will not get an answer to my questions. They must have been irrelevant. (as immediately presumed by weedwhacker of the OP)

Abductee



[edit on 18-12-2009 by UFOabducteebe]

Originally posted by ExPostFacto
What clicked in my head was the discussion regarding the other black box records found by pilots for truth that indicated the cockpit door was closed the entire period of the flight. I hadn't looked into either subject matter at all...it's just stuff I read on these boards that almost seemed like they complimented each other.

In my opinion, this is intentional. There is controversy because of the FDR and the cockpit door; so, it's likely they are spreading dis-info that corroborates a closed cockpit door while still remaining close to the OS.

Misdirection.

[edit on 12/18/2009 by JPhish]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by truthquest

 

Back to the claim though, it seems ridiculous that the hijackers would be allowed to take off after entering the cockpit.

This will turn out to be just another in a long line of steaming piles of moose droppings.

This is ludicrous from the get-go, it is so outrageous it doesn't even bear examination.

There is NO WAY this is true. Absolutely not. Zero possiblity.

The only "zero possibility" is the flight recorders were not found.

Never in the history of aviation has a flight recorder not been found.

Those moose droppings were insider puts and "J_w Lightning" insurance claims.

911 was obviously an inside job it takes a subhuman gang member with Odigo Instant Message service to disagree.

reply to post by beijingyank

The only "zero possibility" is the flight recorders were not found.

Never in the history of aviation has a flight recorder not been found.

WRONG !!!!

AIR FRANCE 447

The investigation continues, but is severely hampered by the lack of the flight data recorders, eyewitness accounts and radar tracks. On 20 August, it was announced that the black-box search was halted. At the end of August however, the BEA announced it would resume the search in the Northern hemisphere's autumn of 2009. In a memorial held in Rio de Janeiro, France's Minister of State for Cooperation said that the third phase of search for the black boxes will commence in February 2010.

Also Flight recorders are often damaged by the impact - in some cases
the data is lost

American 77 which hit Pentagon - Cockpit recorder was unreadable. Flight
data recorder survived.

Here is another case of the flight recorder not surviving

Yemenia Airlines 626 - June 30, 2009

Paris: France's accident investigation agency says the black boxes from a Yemenia Airways flight that crashed into the Indian Ocean in June are damaged.

The Bureau of Investigations and Analysis, or BEA, says it's still trying to recover the information held in the flight's black boxes.
In a statement on Friday, the agency said, "At this stage, no explanation for the possible causes of the accident is yet possible."
The French agency said experts began examining the boxes from the Airbus 310 plane on Monday. The boxes were fished out of deep waters northwest of Grand Comoros island late last month by underwater robots.
Yemenia Flight 626 from Paris to Moroni, the capital of Comoros, plunged into the ocean June 30, killing 152 people. Only a teenage girl survived the crash.

I supoose you will claim this is some conspiracy .....

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Lillydale
Can you prove her call was real?

Easy- She called her husband Theodore and he talked to her. Her husband is the most qualified person in the world to know it whether or not it was Barbara Olsen he talked to.

Go ahead, say that Theorode Olden is a disinformation agent and he's lying. I triple dog dare you.

How about we state that what you are saying is wrong and therefore what Teddy said was lying.

Olson’s Story Contradicted by the FBI The most serious official contradiction of Ted Olson’s story came in 2006 at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called 20th hijacker. The evidence presented to this trial by the FBI included a report on phone calls from all four 9/11 flights. In its report on American Flight 77, the FBI report attributed only one call to Barbara Olson and it was an “unconnected call,” which (of course) lasted “0 seconds.”9 According to the FBI, therefore, Ted Olson did not receive a single call from his wife using either a cell phone or an onboard phone. Back on 9/11, the FBI itself had interviewed Olson. A report of that interview indicates that Olson told the FBI agents that his wife had called him twice from Flight 77.10 And yet the FBI’s report on calls from Flight 77, presented in 2006, indicated that no such calls occurred. This was an amazing development: The FBI is part of the Department of Justice, and yet its report undermined the well-publicized claim of the DOJ’s former solicitor general that he had received two calls from his wife on 9/11.

Another 'debunker' re-educated on the facts courtesy of Swing Dangler.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Lillydale

 

You asked, "Which claims in the list were bunk?", referring to the 'Shadow Herder' post.


Well, let's see what what stated there, and what can be verified:

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
Of course there were "hijackers" int he cockpit before take off in some of the crafts used. Some of these exercises were passive meaning that some passengers had no clue. Other hijacking were controlled.

Quite a few bold claims there. Where is the documentation? Anything to show this to be true, other than the 'word' of a CT website somewhere?

Bunk. No corroboration.

There is ample proof out there that states the methods of the exercises on 911 using real aircraft and fake signature 'blips' on radar.

Now there is "ample" so-called 'proof'?? Where is it? Hiding?
"Nuf said.

Its not hiding at all. It is located with the 9/11 Commission files released to the public. NORAD Exercises Hijack Summary

The US military conducted a training exercise in the five days before the September 11. These exercises included simulated aircraft hijackings by terrorists, according to a 9/11 Commission document. In one of the scenarios, implemented on September 9, terrorists hijacked a London to New York flight, planning to blow it up with explosives over New York.

In the September 9 simulation, the fictitious hijackers' goal appears to have been to kill citizens of New Yorker with falling debris after the plane's explosion in mid-air. As part of the military exercise, the passenger jet was intercepted and the plane was forced away from the city. When the hijackers realized they were not near New York, they blew up the plane "over land near the divert location," killing all on board. The military unit most involved in this scenario was NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS), which also played a major part in the air defense response to the 9/11 attacks, two days after the scenario!

Numerous Hijacks Listed

Three days earlier, on September 6, 2001, NORAD simulated two hijackings as part of the same exercise, which was called "Vigilant Guardian." In one scenario, a fictitious terrorist organization called Mum Hykro hijacked a Boeing 747 from Tokyo to the US and made a "threat of harm to passengers and possibly large population within US or Canada." The terrorists intended to "rain terror from the skies onto a major US city unless the US declares withdrawal from Asian conflict." The plane is listed as being bound for Anchorage, Alaska, although the hijackers changed course for Vancouver in Canada, and then for San Francisco, California. Liaising with the FAA, NORAD provided "covert shadowing" of the hijacked plane.

In a second hijack scenario on the same day, ten members of another fictitious terrorist group, called Lin Po, hijacked another 747 to Anchorage, this time originating from Seoul, South Korea. The hijackers were armed with weapons thanks to ground crews work before takeoff. Keep in mind, the 9/11 hijackers also had weapons on board. Were they helped by ground crews much like this simulation? Gas containers were also smuggled on board and could be detonated on the plane. Two of the plane’s passengers were murdered, and the CIA and NSA warned that the group had the means to pull off an attack with chemical and biological weapons. In response to the hijack, NORAD's commander in chief ordered fighters from the Alaskan NORAD Region (ANR) to intercept and shadow the hijacked plane, and get into "position to shoot down aircraft."

NORAD's Southeast Air Defense Sector received training via another scenario included in the Vigilant Guardian exercise which was run the day before 9/11, although this followed the more traditional scenario of Cubans hijacking a flight from Havana and demanding to be taken to New York for political asylum in the US. The plane would end up landing at Dobbins Air Force Base in Georgia.

The document lists hijack exercises going as far back as 1998. Several of which had involved flights originating in the United States. In one hijacking scenario, a January 1999 exercise included the simulated takeover of a Miami to Oklahoma City flight and the hijacking of a San Diego to Anchorage flight the next day. This of course involved NORAD and contradicts General Richard Myer's testimony to the 9/11 Commission.

At the release of the 9/11 Commission Report in July 2004, the panel’s chairman Tom Kean famously said that the main reason the 9/11 attacks were not prevented was that there had been a "failure of imagination." However, the hijack simulation planners proved Mr. Kean wrong. In one example, in a September 1999 exercise, hijackers on a 747 bound from Hong Kong to Canada had sarin gas on board, and threatened to blow up the plane releasing the gas into a population center below. An exercise the following month included the simulation of a terrorist group hijacking a plane with American and Canadian citizens on board. The plane was bound from France to Canada, and the terrorist group was said to have the "will and means to strike North America with WMD." Communications with the passenger plane were lost after the hijacking, but the flight crew battled the terrorists and regained control of the plane at the last second.

An exercise in October 1998 included terrorists hijacking a 747 with the intent of committing a "suicide run into [a] metropolitan area of" San Francisco. Does that sound familiar?
And an October 2000 exercise included the simulated hijacking of a plane bound from London to Cairo. The scenario was that "100 religious fanatics will take over the aircraft," but the "aircraft will land at JFK [airport in New York] without incident and [the] FBI will escort [the] hijackers."

Another debunker re-educated by Swing Dangler

reply to post by Swing Dangler


What did you do, just copy/paste?

Or, are you really such an excellent writer?



No matter....I don't need any "education" from you.

Apparently, what is needed is a better understanding of what a 'scenario' is, what a 'drill' is, and what "make-believe" is by some of these conspiracy theorists.

The real need for an 'education' lies within the ranks of those folks who simply don't understand what they read, or cannot fathom that even within those scenarios only a minor handful of individuals were involved.

And, a drill, or staged training event, is a planned and thought-out exercise.

Real life intrudes in ways that NO amount of planning can always anticipate.

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by beijingyank

 

The only "zero possibility" is the flight recorders were not found.

Never in the history of aviation has a flight recorder not been found.

WRONG !!!!

AIR FRANCE 447

The investigation continues, but is severely hampered by the lack of the flight data recorders, eyewitness accounts and radar tracks. On 20 August, it was announced that the black-box search was halted. At the end of August however, the BEA announced it would resume the search in the Northern hemisphere's autumn of 2009. In a memorial held in Rio de Janeiro, France's Minister of State for Cooperation said that the third phase of search for the black boxes will commence in February 2010.

Also Flight recorders are often damaged by the impact - in some cases
the data is lost

American 77 which hit Pentagon - Cockpit recorder was unreadable. Flight
data recorder survived.

Here is another case of the flight recorder not surviving

Yemenia Airlines 626 - June 30, 2009

Paris: France's accident investigation agency says the black boxes from a Yemenia Airways flight that crashed into the Indian Ocean in June are damaged.

The Bureau of Investigations and Analysis, or BEA, says it's still trying to recover the information held in the flight's black boxes.
In a statement on Friday, the agency said, "At this stage, no explanation for the possible causes of the accident is yet possible."
The French agency said experts began examining the boxes from the Airbus 310 plane on Monday. The boxes were fished out of deep waters northwest of Grand Comoros island late last month by underwater robots.
Yemenia Flight 626 from Paris to Moroni, the capital of Comoros, plunged into the ocean June 30, killing 152 people. Only a teenage girl survived the crash.

I supoose you will claim this is some conspiracy .....

Hmm Indian Ocean. Good rebuttal. Do you have a land based crash where the black boxes were never found?

reply to post by Swing Dangler


Well....here you go:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Swing Dangler
That is exactly what I was gonna say.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Swing Dangler

 

What did you do, just copy/paste?

Or, are you really such an excellent writer?



No matter....I don't need any "education" from you.

Apparently, what is needed is a better understanding of what a 'scenario' is, what a 'drill' is, and what "make-believe" is by some of these conspiracy theorists.

The real need for an 'education' lies within the ranks of those folks who simply don't understand what they read, or cannot fathom that even within those scenarios only a minor handful of individuals were involved.

And, a drill, or staged training event, is a planned and thought-out exercise.

Real life intrudes in ways that NO amount of planning can always anticipate.

It is from my own blog so yes and yes and thank you.
Now did you happen to read any of those exercises especially the ones that were taking place on 9/11?

I think the point/s would be:

1. The administrations excuse that no one could anticipate an event like this taking place was a lie.

2. If 9/11 is an inside job as it appears to be, the terrorist event was masked by the exercises and drills to confuse the air defense system, to slow and even prevent in time an air defense response, and to give plausible denialbility to the chain of command whether they were involved or not.

I would suggest this is exactly why NORAD lied, the Bush official lied, etc. To cover up the operation going live and those most likely to be involved or to CYOA officials that may have been delayed or prevented from carrying out their duties. How many people were reprimanded again for this massive air defense failure?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Swing Dangler

 

Well....here you go:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Wow, I'm surprised you posted this..

Here is a quote from your Milwaukee Sentinel of 1989 paper:

Officials had said Saturday that the voice and flight data or black boxes were badly burned but still could be used.

How could they determine THAT if they NEVER found them??

So in summary they DID find the black boxes, but the damage to them prevented the data from being used.

So we are back to my original request: Has there ever been a land based aircraft crash/accident where the black boxes were never FOUND?

Another debunker re-educated by Swing Dangler....

reply to post by Swing Dangler


Well, again the interpretation (by you, and/or possibly others) on your blog of those exercises and their effectiveness vis-a-vis preventing or dealing with an actual hijacking event tremendously inflates their value in a real world scenario.

The primary purpose of those sorts of exercises is simply to test and practice the COMMUNICATION systems, and command and control functions of various agencies involved, and how they interconnect.

Anyone who's ever participated in such events knows this to be the case.

1. The administrations excuse that no one could anticipate an event like this taking place was a lie.

Yeah. Remember the August, 2001 NIE that came to light?? Very embarrassing for the Bush administration.

Which one was that, again? Oh, in case you forgot, it had the words "bin Laden determined to strike within the United States", or something to that effect. There were clues as well, other bits and pieces, relating the possibility of a hijacked airliner as a possible weapon of terror.

VERY embarrassing for the Bush people, any you bet your butt they tried to cover up their gross INCOMPETENCE!! That does not, in any way, lead logically to the assertion that they PLANNED the damned thing!

2. If 9/11 is an inside job as it appears to be,...

Hang on, right there. It "appears to be' in your opinion, and in that of a very small, tiny fraction of usually normal people, as well.

Tell us, HOW did this "inside job" get planned so effectively in only seven months' time???

... the terrorist event was masked by the exercises and drills to confuse the air defense system, to slow and even prevent in time an air defense response, and to give plausible denialbility to the chain of command whether they were involved or not.

Huh? You, yourself, noted that the exercises took place earlier. And, do you think they encompassed the ENTIRE U.S.? Sheesh! Think about it....when[]b] was 9/11?? A Tuesday, right? What you likely had there were a bunch of 'weekend warriors' fulfilling their monthly Guard obligations.

But, of course, ANY little hint of something is enough for the conspiracy theorists to latch on to....

I would suggest this is exactly why NORAD lied,...

NORAD only 'lied' in the feeble imaginations of the conspiracy buffs.

... the Bush official lied, etc.

Already told you why the Bush officials covered up...their negligence, the FBI's negligence, the CIA's negligence, and their inability to put the pieces of the puzzle together in time, mostly due to the tremendous egos, and turf wars that existed within the various agencies.

b]To cover up the operation going live...

Oh, that's a load of hogwash!!!

How many people were reprimanded again for this massive air defense failure?

There was no "failure"!!!

How many times do people need to be reminded that a threat from WITHIN the ADIZ was not deemed the most likely situation...

The airplanes were NOT 'hostiles' when they were operating normally, were they? The transponders were turned to standby, NOW there's no secondary radar information, only primary targets to acquire...and NORAD's focus was outward, towards incoming hostiles...

Trying to intercept within the U.S. boundaries is a lot more difficult than you seem to understand.

AND, if so, then what????

Shoot them down? The debris is still going to fall to the ground, and controlling where it hits is not possible.

Unless you think a hijacker is just going to comply with the intercepting fighters' instructions???

Your words:

As part of the military exercise, the passenger jet was intercepted and the plane was forced away from the city.

Please explain HOW the hijacked passenger jet could be "forced" to go anywhere.

This really hasn't been thought out very well by the conspiracy groups....




[edit on 22 December 2009 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by weedwhacker


NORAD was not just looking outward. Why do debunkers continually repreat the lies of Myers???

Testifying before the 9/11 Commission General Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the commission in response to a question on NORAD’s failure to anticipate the 9/11 attacks, “I can’t answer the hypothetical. It’s more - it’s the way that we were directed to posture, looking outward.”


This crucial piece of evidence also proves that NORAD radars and defenses do not just "look" outward for external threats. Of those exercises I posted, indeed 6 out of the 28 of these NORAD hijack exercises originated in the United States and ended in the United States!!! Look outwards only??

OOOPS so much for the looking outward excuse.

I would suggest you study the history of covert operations and how they are carried out. This was my suggestion behind the exercises going live.

Now before you get re-educated again, go back through and read those exercises again.