9/11 media happenings

[Jazzz]

I'm not trolling. If you want to put words in my mouth expect me to point it out. With you going nuts like this - amazingly accusing me of trolling to save yourself having to look at the issue of why you don't deal with pk properly - I'm even less inclined than usual to indulge your interrogations, which I have no obligation to do whatsoever.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

I'm not trolling. If you want to put words in my mouth I'm perfectly at liberty to point it out. With you going nuts like this - amazingly accusing me of trolling to save yourself having to look at the issue of why you don't deal with pk properly - I'm even less inclined than usual to indulge your interrogations, which I have no obligation to do whatsoever.

Ah, but you do avoid answering perfectly reasonable questions, while demanding the most pointless answers for your own. (You Tit)

 

[Jazzz]

Ah, but you do avoid answering perfectly reasonable questions, while demanding the most pointless answers for your own. (You Tit)

It's very rare that I press a question or issue, maybe three times in this thread. The only one I did with you was on your claim that official answers to the family steering group's questions were in the public domain. You completely failed to back that up claim. I just pointed out that you had failed to back it up and then let it drop. Pretty soft going considering the nonsense you were producing about it 'oh I can't be bothered to find it' etc.

You'll never find me bashing on like editor.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

You'll never find me bashing on like editor.

Because it'd show up the tens if not hundred + times you've ignored questions asked to you.

It'd show up your hypocricy, your inability to find facts not posted on prisonplanet and otherwise show you up.

The only one I did with you was on your claim that official answers to the family steering group's questions were in the public domain. You completely failed to back that up claim.

Not quite true. I said that they:

hadn't done their research

That answers to all their questions were in the public domain from offical sources so in short:

Like fuck i didn't sunshine. I showed that one of the questions was the result of stunning ignorance as NORAD was not responsible for tracking civilian planes. Another one meaningless since there was no such planes "tailing" the two planes that hit the towers. One i found clear and unambiguous answers for with minimal effort.

However there was one question that i was unable to find anything other than common sense to answer: ie why NORAD didn't take action to prevent further attacks untill after the second attack. The fact that NORAD did, is clearly irrelevant, suppose that would be another case of the families involved not doing their research again wouldn't it?

So in short, you're talking out of your arse you stupid blinkered fuckwit, again.

Now how about answering the short, so simple even you can manage them, questions i wasted posing to you?

 

[detective-boy]

Hold the front page!

The building which collapsed in Whitechapel must have been a controlled disposal!!! There's a picture in the Standard tonight which clearly shows huge clouds of dust billowing across the street even though it was just a small, four-storey terraced building!

What forces cause buildings to turn into dust like that ... why, explosives, obviously!!!

(Mind you, the rubble is being carefully tested for traces of same by HSE, et al, even as we speak ...)

 

[TheArchitect]

Hold the front page!

The building which collapsed in Whitechapel must have been a controlled disposal!!! There's a picture in the Standard tonight which clearly shows huge clouds of dust billowing across the street even though it was just a small, four-storey terraced building!

What forces cause buildings to turn into dust like that ... why, explosives, obviously!!!

(Mind you, the rubble is being carefully tested for traces of same by HSE, et al, even as we speak ...)

That's not dust. That's a pyroclastic flow. Apparently.

 

[Jazzz]

Like fuck i didn't sunshine. I showed that one of the questions was the result of stunning ignorance as NORAD was not responsible for tracking civilian planes. Another one meaningless since there was no such planes "tailing" the two planes that hit the towers. One i found clear and unambiguous answers for with minimal effort.

However there was one question that i was unable to find anything other than common sense to answer: ie why NORAD didn't take action to prevent further attacks untill after the second attack. The fact that NORAD did, is clearly irrelevant, suppose that would be another case of the families involved not doing their research again wouldn't it?[/b]

That's absolute crap. You didn't find any official answers, you just came up with your own. You haven't found an official statement 'NORAD is not responsible for tracking civilian aircraft' you just made it up yourself.

You think the families should be content with your feeble answers instead of official ones? I wouldn't if I was them.

Their questions have been unanswered - well over 100 of them. I'm on their side. You and most other posters on this thread are not.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

You haven't found an official statement 'NORAD is not responsible for tracking civilian aircraft' you just made it up yourself.

I'm sorry, you wot?

If a hijack was confirmed, procedures called for the hijack coordinator on duty to contact the Pentagon’s National Military Command Center (NMCC)
and to ask for a military escort aircraft to follow the flight, report anything unusual, and aid search and rescue in the event of an emergency.

Made it up? At worst i failed to prove it you despicable little shit.

The FAA and NORAD had developed proto-cols for working together in the event of a hijacking. As they existed on 9/11, the protocols for the FAA to obtain millitary assistance from NORAD required multiple levels of notification and approval at the highest levels of government.
FAA guidance to controllers on hijack procedures assumed that the aircraft pilot would notify the controller...
<snip>
If a hijack was confirmed, procedures called for the hijack coordinator on duty to contact the Pentagon’s National Military Command Center (NMCC)
and to ask for a military escort aircraft to follow the flight, report anything unusual, and aid search and rescue in the event of an emergency.

The result is clear, NORAD was not, despite your own exclamations that they must be, responsible for detecting hijackings. Yet again you let your own arrogance, your own view of how the world should be, overwhelm the reality of how it is. Now, if you'd be so kind: ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTIONS.

Coward.

 

[WouldBe]

Made it up? At worst i failed to prove it you despicable little shit.

Yet again you let your own arrogance, your own view of how the world should be overwhelm the reality of how it is. Now, if you'd be so kind: ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTIONS.

Coward.

How does that show that NORAD was responsible for tracking civilian aircraft? If NORAD were tracking civilian flights they would be immediately aware of departure form flight path and wouldn't have to be informed by the FAA.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

How does that show that NORAD was responsible for tracking civilian aircraft? If NORAD were tracking civilian flights they would be immediately aware of departure form flight path and wouldn't have to be informed by the FAA.

I never claimed that they were. So either you're talking to Jazzz or you need to re-read my post.

 

[Jazzz]

There's absolutely nothing in any of that to show that NORAD must rely on the FAA and is not responsible for acting independently if need be. It's military, the FAA is not. And cut out the abuse.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

There's absolutely nothing in any of that to show that NORAD must rely on the FAA and is not responsible for acting independently if need be. It's military, the FAA is not. And cut out the abuse.

Fuck off and answer the questions. The document clearly states that NORAD DID rely upon the FAA, any chance in a million detection before hand would merely be a freak lucky event. In short you're wrong, you know you're wrong but you won't say so. In the unlikely event of you not knowing you're wrong, you're an idiot.

PS. You're a tit and the abuse will continue as long as you refuse to play fair. Tit.

 

[WouldBe]

I never claimed that they were. So either you're talking to Jazzz or you need to re-read my post.

I'm tired.

Wibble.

 

[Jazzz]

Fuck off and answer the questions. You're wrong, you know you're wrong but you won't say so. In the unlikely event of you not knowing you're wrong, you're an idiot.

PS. You're a tit.

What projection! You said that there were already official answers to the family's questions, in which case it's rather bizarre that they couldn't answer them, and in fact you were simply talking bollocks. But rather than admit it you're just blustering and pretending that your own assumptions are somehow official pronouncements! And being abusive.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Another question for Jazzz to ignore, find any offical document that states NORAD's responsability for detecting a hijacking.

I'm off to have fun, enjoy your own little special world in the meantime Jazzz.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

What projection! You said that there were already official answers to the family's questions, in which case it's rather bizarre that they couldn't answer them, and in fact you were simply talking bollocks. But rather than admit it you're just blustering and pretending that your own assumptions are somehow official pronouncements! And being abusive.

Not in the slightest, the site and all those represented upon it are fucking idiots, incapable of reading, digesting and understanding the written word.

Just
Like
You

 

[Jazzz]

Not in the slightest, the site and all those represented upon it are fucking idiots, incapable of reading, digesting and understanding the written word.

Just
Like
You

That's an extraordinary statement to make of the family steering group which represented the concerns of the bereaved families on 9/11!

Here's a speech outlining the resonsibilites of NORAD, given in 1997. This just came up quickly on google.

NORAD provides aerospace warning and aerospace control for North America. In short, the command monitors any potential air or space threat to the two nations, provides warning and assessment of that threat for both governments and responds defensively to any air-breathing threat to North America.

Air Force Gen. Howell M. Estes III, commander in chief, North American Aerospace Defense Command and U.S. Space Command, before the Senate Armed Services Committee, March 13, 1997.

Pretty unequivocal.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

That's an extraordinary statement to make of the family steering group which represented the concerns of the bereaved families on 9/11!

Here's a speech outlining the resonsibilites of NORAD, given in 1997. This just came up quickly on google.

Air Force Gen. Howell M. Estes III, commander in chief, North American Aerospace Defense Command and U.S. Space Command, before the Senate Armed Services Committee, March 13, 1997.

Pretty unequivocal.

Pretty fucking meaningless. I asked for "any offical document that states NORAD's responsability for detecting a hijacking." Not a one liner that says nothing at all about civilian air trafic. Try again, but of course, you won't. Cowardly tit.

I don't give a shit what you think Jazzz, if i wanted to know that i'd just log onto prison planet and check there.

 

[Jazzz]

That speech shows that NORAD was responsible for aerospace control and monitoring "any potential air-breathing threat". That clearly must include hijacked aircraft flying off course.

But I don't need speak for NORAD. You are the one making out that your ideas constitute official announcements, not me. But how dare you accuse the 9/11 families as being 'incapable of understanding the written word"... I think that shows where you are coming from and just how abusive you are.

 

[editor]

... amazingly accusing me of trolling to save yourself having to look at the issue of why you don't deal with pk properly - I'm even less inclined than usual to indulge your interrogations, which I have no obligation to do whatsoever.

Ah look. A fresh excuse! Thing was, I was asking you to clarify your wild claims a looooooong time before pk turned up.

So about these "curious" passengers, the ones supposed to die and the invisible explosives: any chance of a reply yet or are you going to keep up the dishonest wriggling and thread disruption?

 

[MikeMcc]

That speech shows that NORAD was responsible for aerospace control and monitoring "any potential air-breathing threat". That clearly must include hijacked aircraft flying off course.

But I don't need speak for NORAD. You are the one making out that your ideas constitute official announcements, not me. But how dare you accuse the 9/11 families as being 'incapable of understanding the written word"... I think that shows where you are coming from and just how abusive you are.

It doesn't necessarily mean anything of the sort. it depends on what they thought of as threats at that time. Given that NORAD didn't have their own hardware to be able to monitor the internal airspace does suggest that they didn't consider a major risk from internal flights. 9/11 was a first for that. According to the co-operative research website they had to use a specialist unit to analyse the primary radar returns from the FAA radars to track the aircraft and that took time to set up, addded to the FAA controllers delays in informing NORAD and the command and control cock-ups when the alarm was raised (commanders not immediately present, mis-identification of hijacked aircraft.

Apparently there was even an exercise in progress for parts of NORAD, but the scenario dealt with incoming bombers (a cold war type scenario).

 

[editor]

, So, you really reckon that the way to rebut jazzz's ideas is to attack the man himself?

I often find the best way to rebutt someone's ideas is to engage them in a conversation about them, ask probing questions and try to learn the credibility of their claims.

It's also useful to enquire as to the source of their claims and perhaps take a look at the impartiality or bias of the original author.

Sadly, none of the above is possible with Jazzz because he just throws wild facts around and then runs a mile when anyone dares asks him for any specific details about his bonkers claims.

 

[soulman]

I often find the best way to rebutt someone's ideas is to engage them in a conversation about them, ask probing questions and try to learn the credibility of their claims.

It's also useful to enquire as to the source of their claims and perhaps take a look at the impartiality or bias of the original author.

Sadly, none of the above is possible with Jazzz because he just throws wild facts around and then runs a mile when anyone dares asks him for any specific details about his bonkers claims.

That's not what you were asked. Don't waffle just answer the question man...

 

[Jazzz]

It doesn't necessarily mean anything of the sort. it depends on what they thought of as threats at that time. Given that NORAD didn't have their own hardware to be able to monitor the internal airspace does suggest that they didn't consider a major risk from internal flights.

But this is nuts. Yes NORAD have made certain statements attempting to excuse their failures (not under oath, of course) but they beggar belief.

Any aircraft flying off course or hijacked represents an aerial threat and that is defined as NORAD's responsibility to monitor and deal with. And questions from the families about why they failed to must be properly answered under oath. It is inconceivable that they can track incoming ICBMs but not 767s.

The idea that they were caught off-guard by a novel method of attack is easily disproved. kamikaze attacks were used by the Japanese against the US in WWII. Since then,

What if I told you that a key player on the day of the 9/11 attacks and afterwards was on a committee that considered airliners used as weapons in 1972? What if I told you that person was Rudolph Giuliani? Would you believe me?

"Nearly three decades before the Sept. 11 attacks, a high-level government panel developed plans to protect the nation against terrorist acts ranging from radiological "dirty bombs" to airline missile attacks, according to declassified documents obtained by The Associated Press.......The group was formed in September 1972 by President Nixon after Palestinian commandos slaughtered 11 Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympic Games.....The committee involved people as diverse as Henry Kissinger to a young Rudolph Giuliani, the once-secret documents show."

"In what the government describes as a bizarre coincidence, one U.S. intelligence agency was planning an exercise last Sept. 11 [2001] in which an errant aircraft would crash into one of its buildings.....'It was just an incredible coincidence that this happened to involve an aircraft crashing into our facility,' Haubold said. 'As soon as the real world events began, we canceled the exercise'." National Reconnaissance Office

Pentagon Research

1999-September 11, 2001: NORAD Exercise Simulates Crashes into US Buildings; One of Them Is the World Trade Center

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 these 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]

9/11 Timeline

Links contain plenty more examples. NORAD had responsibility to deal with any aerial threat, and the aerial threat posed by hijacked aircraft was well known.

 

[editor]

Pentagon Research

Wow. 'Pentagon Research.' That sounds a bit official.
Oh, hang on, look at the front page:

This website as it currently exists is approximately 5 months out of date. There are factual errors here I am aware of

Great start!

Oh, and look, Pentagon Research man has come up with yet another explosives theory!

I believe the "exit hole" was caused by secondary explosives.

More toss for the gullible.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

That speech shows that NORAD was responsible for aerospace control and monitoring "any potential air-breathing threat". That clearly must include hijacked aircraft flying off course.

Conjecture, incorrect conjecture to boot. You have nothing, absolutely nothing to say that NORAD was responsible for identifying hijacked aircraft, not a theory, not a statement, not even a bloody method for it to happen. You're a joke and your theory is worse.

But I don't need speak for NORAD. You are the one making out that your ideas constitute official announcements, not me. But how dare you accuse the 9/11 families as being 'incapable of understanding the written word"... I think that shows where you are coming from and just how abusive you are.

And that you're so afraid of the truth that you'll ignore repeated questions shows just how fucking pointless talking to you is. How dare i? Just because they lost family members does not make them right, if they are stupid enough to put thier names to those questions then they deserve to have thier stupidity pointed out. Fucks sake "Tailed"? How the flying fuck do you tail an aircraft that's been crashed into a tower building before your plane has even been launched.

Now: Answer the questions you sack of shite, i've wasted my time responding to yours, at least have the decency to do the same. When you do that i will be polite and as long as you continue to pretend to be a sensible human being i'll refrain from telling you what i think of you.

 

[Jazzz]

Wow. 'Pentagon Research.' That sounds a bit official.
Oh, hang on, look at the front page:
Great start!

Oh, and look, Pentagon Research man has come up with yet another explosives theory! More toss for the gullible.

The quotes I produced were sourced unless I'm mistaken. What may be on the rest of the site is neither here nor there.

 

[fela fan]

fela, nary a posting session of yours goes past without you commenting on how the US is the most evil nation on earth, about how it's FP has 'killed millions' over the years etc - this isn't me 'interpreting' what you say - even on this thread you begin your commentry from the position that the whole of 9/11 was directly caused by the USG in a MIHOP/LIHOP scenario, and that this is 'no surprise' to you because 'the US has killed millions around the world, why is it so hard for you to imagine that they would kill their own?' (OK, not a direct quote but a close enough paraphrase I reckon).

As with Jazz, you begin from the theory that the US *had* to be responsible for whatever reasons and then fit evidence to your theory as opposed to looking at the evidence and coming up with a theory.

I don't know if jazzz does that, but i don't. Take that or leave it.

Your first paragraph is not that far from being correct, but you've still made a major leap in inference, and you're wrong.

Yes my posts are anti american foreign policy, in a big way. Yes i've railed on about them for over two decades now. But your inferences are your inferences. As you'd see if we chatted face to face for just a few minutes.

You keep making the classic urban mistake of assuming things of other people based on what they say, while not taking into account what they didn't say due to extreme limitations of writing communication compared to the spoken variety which goes ahead hundreds of times faster.

 

[Jazzz]

Conjecture, incorrect conjecture to boot. You have nothing, absolutely nothing to say that NORAD was responsible for identifying hijacked aircraft, not a theory, not a statement, not even a bloody method for it to happen. You're a joke and your theory is worse.

What absolute crap. They were responsible for monitoring and defending ALL aerial threats and the threat posed by hijacked aircraft was well known.

But let's repeat - YOU are the one claiming to speak for NORAD. The Family Steering Group has done far better research than you if I may say. They're not satisfied with the official stonewalling, I'm not, and neither should be anyone else who genuinely gives a damn about the loss of their loved ones. You are the joke here BTL, and the less of a leg to stand on you have the worse your abuse gets.

As you find it 'pointless' talking to me, I expect you to shut up.

 

[fela fan]

So I guess, in a way, he's won.

Maybe that is why so many here get so uptight over what jazzz says. Because he's won!

Good ref you are mate. Even if jazzz didn't agree with the reasons behind your call.