9/11 NORAD Transcripts

[$kelet0r]

Don't know if this is old or not but I found it quite interesting
Basically an article with the recordings of the USAF response to the hijackings, it's a tad disturbing at times.

WATSON: What?
DOOLEY: Whoa!
WATSON: What was that?
ROUNTREE: Is that real-world?
DOOLEY: Real-world hijack.
WATSON: Cool!

:O
http://www.vanityfair.com/features/general/060801fege01

 

[tehsolace]

it just goes to show how unprepared the US really was to an attack like 9/11. we just werent expecting 4 plane hijackings, and with a single flip of the beacon switch in the cockpit, we had no idea where they were or where they were going... and communication of the problem was VERY slow.

 

[VictimOfScience]

Man, that's a good (though disturbing) read.

I can't believe the amount of miscommunication and procedural BS that caused that day to be much worse than it might've been had we known then what we know now. Yikes. One can only hope that things have changed slightly over the last five years....

 

[clarky003]

The reason they were confused was because of multiple war games taking place on the very same day, making it difficult for NORAD and the US military to seperate the real world event from the training exercises.

http://www.wanttoknow.info/050317wargames911

 

[Slacker]

Yeah, in United 93 it showed how no one had any idea what was going on, and at some points they had the idea that 10+ planes may have been hijacked. That must have been a chaotic ****ing day.

 

[Korgoth]

Yeah, in United 93 it showed how no one had any idea what was going on, and at some points they had the idea that 10+ planes may have been hijacked. That must have been a chaotic ****ing day.

Just to clarify for you though, united 93 was a work of fiction based on actual events. Therefore, much of the movie was purely speculative, and at times, mostly conjecture. Take it with a grain of salt.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

The reason they were confused was because of multiple war games taking place on the very same day, making it difficult for NORAD and the US military to seperate the real world event from the training exercises.

The first line of your link:

Dear friends, Cynthia McKinney is a brave congresswoman from Georgia who has had knowledge of the 9/11 cover-up almost since that tragic day.

Sigh.

Here's the sensible real version of events from that same link:

CMK: The question was [...] whether or not the activities of the four wargames going on on September 11th actually impaired our ability to respond to the attacks.

RM: The answer to the question is no, it did not impair our response, in fact General Eberhart who was in the command of the North American Aerospace Defense Command as he testified in front of the 9/11 Commission I believe - I believe he told them that it enhanced our ability to respond, given that NORAD didn't have the overall responsibility for responding to the attacks that day. That was an FAA responsibility.

Funny how you keep posting these things, yet refuse to summarize them into a comprehensive document in exchange for my offer of $10100 dollars.

See also:

http://www.911myths.com/html/false_blips.html

 

[Slacker]

Just to clarify for you though, united 93 was a work of fiction based on actual events. Therefore, much of the movie was purely speculative, and at times, mostly conjecture. Take it with a grain of salt.

Well yeah, but it was based on what really happened, and I'm pretty sure the parts involving the Personel on the ground trying to find out what was going on helped write the scenes, and also starred as themselves in the movie.

 

[jimbo118]

wow awesome find dude, thats very interesting...

 

[CrazyJeepDriver]

Weird, I wouldnt like to be there when that happened, nice find.

 

[$kelet0r]

it's really long so i'm actually still reading it

As it turns out, it's just as well the pilots are not cleared to shoot. Delta 1989 and the Canadian scare turn out to be false alarms. American 11 and United 93 are already down. And the fast-moving target near the White House that the armed fighters are racing to intercept turns out to be a friendly—a mistake by a civilian controller who was unaware of the military's scrambles, as weapons techs Huckabone and Citino, and their senior director, Fox, suddenly realize.

**** me - were they planning on shooting everything down just in case? :O

 

[Shakermaker]

Great find. Those audio clips are chilling.

 

[clarky003]

The first line of your link:



Sigh.

Here's the sensible real version of events from that same link:



Funny how you keep posting these things, yet refuse to summarize them into a comprehensive document in exchange for my offer of $10100 dollars.

See also:

http://www.911myths.com/html/false_blips.html

oh sorry, your majesty.

But it is a fact that there were 4 seperate war games going on, on the day that contributed to the confusion of the real world event.

Did you even read your article you posted? it only mentions one war game Northern Vigilance and rants on about false blips...? lol, I'm talking about the exercises simply being a contributing factor in the confusion of what was real and what wasn't on the day.

Northern Vigilance

The Vigilant Warrior and Vigilant Guardian Training Exercises

The Global Guardian Exercise

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_games_in_progress_on_September_11,_2001

Just quoting 911myths and saying this is what really happened is all and great but they are clearly in bias to the bush administrations version of events, and considering their reputation would you totally believe everything the people in charge of that site have to say.

Alot of their debunking is merely an opposing theory that often cant be verified with any real solid physical evidence, but it is also the same for the other theories, and unfortunately like I said before only some solid chemical evidence will ever verify those theorys, there are suspicious acts and physical attributes that contradict the official theory and that is enough to keep certain people skeptical.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

The FAA wasn't engaged in any training excercises. NORAD was.
NORAD had basically nothing to do with dealing with highjackers.

So, even if a war game in Alaska TOTALLY CRIPPLED THE ENTIRETY OF NORAD, the nation would still be as defended enough under the then-current (low) standards.

Evidence you've provided to the contrary, that training excercises killed the world as part of a cover-up:

Nothing.


So yes, when the only other option is your flurry of fact-based logical dissertations I'm obviously going to trust the people who aren't insane.

You're not insane?
Then prove it by supporting your conspiracy theories with actual rational facts.
The quickest and easiest way to do so would be to win my $10000 prize.

Veritably all you need to do to win the prize is simply write something that isn't insane.

You can do it!

 

[clarky003]

I'm sorry mech but if you read my origional post I never mentioned a thing about a conspiracey, It was merely in the reference to the training exercises I gave.. but you still had to make it personal and target me. Which also just makes it more evident that you are just not paying attention and will snap at me any chance you get.

NORAD are involved, and if you read those exercises the US military organised them. The response is a shared responsibility because they control the airspace you nonce.

I simply won't accept your stupid challenge from principal that I've tried thoroughly to put comprehensive points across before and you just ignore the possibility with plain denial, but thats your opinion, if your not willing to consider or contemplate there is no point.. as it is merely an intranet discussion .

So finally you can take your 'drumhead trial' like thread and discrimination and targeting against me.. proffessing me as some kindof nutjob (instead of addressing the larger issues and subject matter directly) and quite frankly shove it up your arse :cheers: .

 

[bliink]

Everyone stop flaming or I will bust a cap in you

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I no flamey - yet courtesy is a motto to reaffirm, I decree in tandem!

Yet still there are speakings to be had, w/ foul language de-presented, we must conclude.

NORAD are involved, and if you read those exercises the US military organised them. The response is a shared responsibility because they control the airspace you nonce.

The FAA had been responsible for civil aviation security (AKA response to highjackings) since a series of highjacking incidents in the 1960s.
The Department of Homeland Security has only recently taken over most of the anti-highjacking role.

(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FAA)

NORAD was created to protect against threats coming in from OUTSIDE the country, and it is only after 9/11 that that role has changed to monitoring air traffic INSIDE the US as well.

(source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norad)

FAA and NORAD are different in the exact same way the CIA and the FBI are different. There is an obvious difference between national and international.


In other words, you have just lied to everyone here.
When you claim to know the truth when a three-minute search of wikipedia proves that everything you say is wrong, that is called lying.
Falsehood disseminated through negligence is still falsehood.
See why I ask for sources?
Sources prevent you from lying to us.

Claiming that you don't use conspiracy theories is likewise a lie.
Clarky, you keep saying over and over again that you never mention conspiracies and don't believe in conspiracies.
Yet I don't think you have ever made an argument based off a website that David Icke wouldn't personally endorse.
Now, if you're trying to make a valid point that isn't a conspiracy theory, the best plan may be not basing your entire claim off of a website that, in the first line, treats the existence of an international 9/11 conspiracy as so obvious as to be undeniable.

So am I really "making it personal" by simply reading and understanding the link you asked us all to read?
Was I simply supposed to ignore the first line, source and overall tone of the document?


So when I reject blatant lies like:
"The response to a highjacking was a shared responsibility between the FAA and NORAD."
That's not denial.
That's reality.

That's why, I think, it is so difficult for you to accept that I am not just dismissing you out of hand or with prejudice of some sort.
You're so far into it that simply asking for factual information makes me a Bush administration flunkie in your mind.

All I am asking you to do is stop lying.
I am basically offering you $10000 to stop lying.

And you're turning the money down simply because you have decided that you cannot make any more sense than you are now.
You said:
"I've tried thoroughly to put comprehensive points across before and you just ignore the possibility with plain denial".
That, for all purposes, simply means:
"I tried to lie but you just aren't gullible enough."


I am now offering to pay you $100,000 to stop lying, under the terms of the Clarky Challenge.
I'm fairly wealthy. I can afford it.

If you are already telling the truth, you have nothing to lose.
If I am proven truly irrational and "in denial", you win the money instantly.
The contest is monitored by anyone with an internet connection. I cannot disguise any error.

So all you need to do is stop lying and you win $100,000 dollars.