Is it true?

[Emmanuel]

1. that Osama Bin Laden and Mohammed Atta were CIA assets, AKA on US government payroll?
2. that the Hijackers were trained how to fly here in the US?
3. that 7 of 19 hijackers are still alive and well?
and finally
4. that there were over 15 NORAD drills on the day of 9/11/01?

Thank you.

[Musashi]

Yes, yes, no maybe?

[nomuse]

And how many NORAD drills were on the day of 9/10/01?

How many other foreign nationals have gone to flight schools in the US?

How many other CIA assets are there? Have any of them acted against the interests of the US in the past? Have any of them been released from payroll due to changes in policy or kinds of action on their part?

So far, you have not demonstrated that this list contains anything remarkable.

[Dave J]

1. that Osama Bin Laden and Mohammed Atta were CIA assets, AKA on US government payroll?
2. that the Hijackers were trained how to fly here in the US?
3. that 7 of 19 hijackers are still alive and well?
and finally
4. that there were over 15 NORAD drills on the day of 9/11/01?

Thank you.

The hijackers indeed took flight training, which they paid for with cash, here in the US. Everything from small Cessnas to large jet simulation time. Nothing illegal there, many middle eastern nationals train(ed) here in the past.

NORAD always has exercises at various levels, from unit to NORAD wide, so an exercise on 9/11 is nothing unusual. Having real world air events that made events in the exercise pale by comparison certainly introduced some confusion into the mix. It's important to remember that, on that morning, exercise or not, the NORAD "order of battle" was ill equipped for the events of that day.

The other two questions I have heard about, but don't know anything firm.

[R.A.F.]

Emmanuel...you realize, don't you, that people are waiting for your answers on the other thread you were posting on?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

1. that Osama Bin Laden and Mohammed Atta were CIA assets, AKA on US government payroll?
Maybe not (http://911myths.com/html/bin_ladin_links_to_the_cia.html)...


2. that the Hijackers were trained how to fly here in the US?
Yep.


3. that 7 of 19 hijackers are still alive and well?
Nope (http://911myths.com/html/still_alive.html)...

[PhantomWolf]

How about No, Yes, No, and Maybe depending on what you consider an exercise.

1) I'll admit I'm unsure of Atta's background, but OBL was never a CIA asset, and unlike a lot of people believe he was not even trained by the CIA. He belonged to a group of Arabs who volunteered to join the Afghani war against the Soviet Union. While the Afghani Fighters were trained and finaced by the CIA, the Arab fighters weren't, and infact had their own financial and supply lines, ironically run by OBL himself. Both Al Quaeda and the US have repeatedly denied that OBL or his people were funded by the US.

2) The Hijackers enrolled in flight schools in the US and learnt to fly under the cover of wanting to get jobs as commercial pilots with middle eastern airline companies.

3) When the first lists were complied there were a few people that were mixed up, it was sorted out reasonably quickly. The rest are simply pilots or people of middle eastern decent that have the same or similar names as the hijackers, but since the correct photo list was released there have been no more claims of them still being alive, rather the old original mistaken claims just keep getting recycled. Al Queada has also released a video honoring the 19 calling them Matyrs to Islam and in such acknowledging their deaths in the attacks.

4) NORAD and many other groups are involved in exercises all the time. On 9/11 they were running several major ones including a simulated military attack over Alaska, and one over the Altantic. They were also doing a drill based on a light aircraft failing to gain altitude on take off and crashing into a nearby building. Some claim that they were also doing a hijacking simulation, but there is no actual evidence of this beyond the initial unsupported claim, though again it has been picked up and repeated across many CT sites, often being mixed with the crash senario with the claim that they were running a simulation of a hijacked plane being crashed into a building. They may have been running a number of minor simulations, but there were only the three major ones, and according to NORAD it actually helped rather than hindered because they had full stations for the exercises whereas normally they'd have had to wait for people to be called in and arrive.

[Faultline]

I've arrived late to this thread. But I'd like to see an answer. Perhaps Emmanuel could elaborate on the relevance of these questions.

(Like I can't guess:lol:)

[liverpool]

4) NORAD and many other groups are involved in exercises all the time. On 9/11 they were running several major ones including a simulated military attack over Alaska, and one over the Altantic. They were also doing a drill based on a light aircraft failing to gain altitude on take off and crashing into a nearby building. Some claim that they were also doing a hijacking simulation, but there is no actual evidence of this beyond the initial unsupported claim, though again it has been picked up and repeated across many CT sites, often being mixed with the crash senario with the claim that they were running a simulation of a hijacked plane being crashed into a building.

They run exercises all the time?

How you got any evidence to back up your amazing claim?


They may have been running a number of minor simulations, but there were only the three major ones, and according to NORAD it actually helped rather than hindered because they had full stations for the exercises whereas normally they'd have had to wait for people to be called in and arrive.

According to NORAD, that have been exposed as liars...

What we all witnessed on that fateful morning was them on a good day?

That is an outrageous claim.

The fact that the pentagon was hit 35 minutes after the second plane hit the WTC, is the biggest smoking gun of all.

The fact that 9 minutes after the first plane hit the WTC flight 77 went off course, and then managed to fly completely unimpeded to Washington is madness.

Nevermind the fact that the terrorists also went out of their way to hit the newly renovated section.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

They run exercises all the time?

How you got any evidence to back up your amazing claim?
Do you honestly think an organization like NORAD wouldn't?

[liverpool]

Do you honestly think an organization like NORAD wouldn't?

So you have NO evidence whatsoever to back up the claim?

[Xanthro]

1. that Osama Bin Laden and Mohammed Atta were CIA assets, AKA on US government payroll?
2. that the Hijackers were trained how to fly here in the US?
3. that 7 of 19 hijackers are still alive and well?
and finally
4. that there were over 15 NORAD drills on the day of 9/11/01?

Thank you.

1. No, neither were ever CIA assets or on the US Government payroll.

2. Yes, they took commercial training here in the US, as do thousands of foreigners. Why, because English is the International Avaiation language, and all international pilots must learn English. The US is the World's largest trainer of pilots.

3. None are alive, people with similar names are alive. It's not to hard to find a John Smith in the US, doesn't mean than a particular John Smith is dead or alive.

4. There are NORAD drills everyday, so this is meaningless.

Like most CT people, you ignore context in your positions.

Example, the people who deny that Shakespeare wrote the works attributed to him like to point out that he didn't leave any books or manuscripts in his will. This sounds strange, because it lacks contexts. We'd expect a playwright of his statue to leave books in his will. The deniers use this to claim that he didn't have any books, and hence wasn't learned and thus couldn't write the works attributed to him.

The problem is nobody left books in wills back then, even if said books accounted for the majority value of the estate. Books simply were not left in wills.

Nothing strange when you have context.

If the hijackers were the only foreigners trained to fly in the US, that would be suspicious, but they were a small number of thousands. Context matters.

If NORAD only flew missions on 9/11 and never before, that would be suspicious, but they flew missions constantly. Context matters.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

So you have NO evidence whatsoever to back up the claim?
You're attempting to shift the burden of proof. It is up to you (well, Emmanuel, really, but you've taken up the torch) to prove that there's something anomylous about NORAD holding 15 exercises that day...

[Ronald Brak]

1. that Osama Bin Laden and Mohammed Atta were CIA assets, AKA on US government payroll?

Bin Ladin was funded mostly from Saudi Arabia when he was fighting the Soviets in Afganistan, not the United States. Other groups were funded by the United States. Funds went to those who fought Soviets, not those interested in democracy or human rights. After the Soviet retreat people not interested in deomcracy or human rights took over Afganistan and provided shelter for Bin Ladin. So the U.S. did not fund him, but contributed to others that supported him, which probably was not such a great idea.

[liverpool]

You're attempting to shift the burden of proof.

It's up to the person making the claim to back it up. You and others have claimed the do these exercises all the time, so you should have absolutely no trouble at all backing up that claim.


It is up to you (well, Emmanuel, really, but you've taken up the torch) to prove that there's something anomylous about NORAD holding 15 exercises that day...

The fact that they were holding all these exercises simultaneously is proof that somebody wanted to make sure the air defenses were unable to respond.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

It's up to the person making the claim to back it up. You and others have claimed the do these exercises all the time, so you should have absolutely no trouble at all backing up that claim.

The fact that they were holding all these exercises simultaneously is proof that somebody wanted to make sure the air defenses were unable to respond.
Good job. I guess you get to back up that claim.

[hello people]

climehard, are you still mad at me?

[Emmanuel]

climehard, are you still mad at me?

Oh thats how you read that name! My l33t h4x0r got all kindsa rusty.

[Emmanuel]

So far we have...drummrolllll

1. yes, no, no

well what is it? Maybe this can help:

Tim Osman anyone?

http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20011005.htm
http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:5L5sga_RME0J:www.americanfreepress. net/10_01_01/Bin_Laden_s__Freedom_Fighters_/bin_laden_s__freedom_fighters_.html+osama+cia+asse t&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&client=opera (google cache of american free press)
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/09_18_01_bushbin.html
2.

yes, yes, yes, yes, yes

All right so thats not a crazy claim...

3.no, no, no

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1558669.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,1300,555146,00.html

BBC, guardian disaagree with all of you. Man, those tin hat wearing BBC investigative journalists (i'm lookin at you Greg Palast! http://www.truthring.org/?p=1980) must be nuts....

4
maybe, maybe

maybe? this board is scientific, and you guys claim that maybe we had over 15 drills during 9/11? Try google...

No, drills do not happen all the time, they are seasonal. Did you know that we are in the middle of millitary exercizes season right now?

Also, if you are to sound plausable, please stop using 911myths site, if the crazy CTs are not allowed use their crazy sites (and there are many more CT sites than debunking sites), then you can not use the 911myths site.

Forgive my english....

[captain swoop]

The fact that they were holding all these exercises simultaneously is proof that somebody wanted to make sure the air defenses were unable to respond.


Howwould you expect the defence to respond?. Where were the fighters? what were their status that day? was it any different to the status on any other day?
What were their standing orders?

Were the exercises any different that day compared to the day before? the week before?

If you are expecting an Air Attack to come in from over the ocean why would you fly to Washington or New York and not to a position to intercept an anticipated attack?

If you want to make claims its your job to support them.

At least make sure you know what you are talking about, its your claim not hours. Surely you know what you are talking about?

Its not our job to do the work for you.

[bonkey]

3.no, no, no

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1558669.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,1300,555146,00.html

BBC, guardian disaagree with all of you. Man, those tin hat wearing BBC investigative journalists (i'm lookin at you Greg Palast!) must be nuts....

BBC and The Guardian most certainly do not disagree with anyone who has said no. They disagreed for a short period of time after the list was posted - as has already been pointed out - and the confusion that led to this disagreement has subsequently been resolved.

The fact that you're referencing articles from 2001 and suggesting they represent the stance of such people today, despite being having given links to well-established clarifications of this issue is....telling.


No, drills do not happen all the time, they are seasonal. Did you know that we are in the middle of millitary exercizes season right now?
You're saying is that military exercises are seasonal, and are currently in-season, thus happen in and around September? So what, exactly, is unusual about military exercises having happened in September in 2001? Can you show the seasonality was different then?



Also, if you are to sound plausable, please stop using 911myths site, if the crazy CTs are not allowed use their crazy sites (and there are many more CT sites than debunking sites), then you can not use the 911myths site.

People are most-typically asked to stop using CT sites because those sites continue to engage in exactly the same tactics that you've employed here - the presentation of years-old information as though it were still unchallenged, unasnwered and somehow sinister.

If a site cannot reflect the current state of play, it is either deliberately disingenuous or simply out-of-date. Either option makes it untrustworthy.

911myths, however, has not been clearly shown to suffer the same flaws. It is kept up to date, it doesn't rely on presenting ages-old already-debunked information as though it were incontrovertibly vaild. It cannot be shown to be deliberately and grossly misleading (not least because it at least has the honest to distinguish between where it can show something to be false, and where it can show something to be not as clear-cut as CTs have made out to be - it distinguishes between "this is questionable" and "this is odwnright wrong" - something I've yet to see a CT site do).

Your line of disqualification-reasoning could be generalised to say "no-one can use any sources, because you won't allow some sources". Its a logical non-sequitor. It makes no sense.

If you want people to stop using 911myths, show why its wrong, untrustworthy, or otherwise unacceptable. Show that its as crazy as the crazy sites that crazy CTs don't get taken seriously for using.

If you can't do that, then your questions - at the very least - should show that you're not ignoring information you can easily find and cannot already refute. The regularity with which you are referred to 911myths is an indication that you're simply not doing this. I won't speculate as to your reasons, but I will suggest that it is part of the reason so many Cters aren't taken seriously.

jc

[captain swoop]

3.no, no, no

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/1558669.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/1559151.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/s...555146,00.html

BBC, guardian disaagree with all of you. Man, those tin hat wearing BBC investigative journalists (i'm lookin at you Greg Palast!) must be nuts....



Hey I have film of Neville Chamberlain getting off a plane from germany and saying that Mr Hitler had no intentions of going to war and that there would be 'Peace in Our time'

So I guess by that logic WW2 never happened?

[Cylinder]

4. that there were over 15 NORAD drills on the day of 9/11/01?

False. There were either two or four exercises scheduled for Sept. 11, 2001 - according to how you want to count. GUARDIAN involved three command post exercises (CPX) testing coordination of US response to an overwhelming Russian bomber attack. There was also a DOJ exercise that was unrelated to GUARDIAN that most likely was testing coordination to drug interdiction requests from DOJ/DEA. GUARDIAN is rumored to have involved a conventional hijacking as an input, but I have yet to see confirmation for this claim.

Many claim NORTHERN VIGILANCE as another exercise which is incorrect. It was a real-world deployment of air superiority assets to Alaska to counter Russian deployments in anticipation of a Russian exercise. To their credit, when informed of the attacks against the United States, the Russian government canceled their exercise and grounded all aircraft in the vicinity of NORAD airspace to aid in NORAD deconfliction and free US air assets for other CONUS deployments.

A short explanation (http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/031505_mckinney_transcript.shtml) can be found in House testimony during a hearing considering the FY2006 DoD budget:


CMK: The question was, we had four wargames going on on September 11th, and the question that I tried to pose before the Secretary had to go to lunch 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. But they were two CPXs; there was one Department of Justice exercise that didn't have anything to do with the other three; and there was an actual operation ongoing because there was some Russian bomber activity up near Alaska.

CMK is Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) and RM is USAF Gen. Richard Myers, then-Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff.

[Dave J]

I spent most of my USAF career in, or supporting, NORAD. My last job was in training the CMC operations crews, and I was maintained qualification in the NORAD command post.
Now, tell me what you know about NORAD exercises that I haven't lived, repeatedly, as my occupation...Tell me about fighter alert statuses, armed aircraft/crew availability, aircraft and weapons capability, tanker asset availability and such. Lets talk about SOPs, MSOs and ROEs...

CTs watch, and believe, way too much TV and movies...

[nomuse]

Heh....I was just thinking...back when I was in the 82d, in the middle of an exercise would be the BEST time to call us out. As some of the old NCO's said, "One day you'll be all chuted up inside that Herky-bird and the first thing you'll know it isn't an exercise is when the jumpmaster comes down the aisle handing out live ammunition."

Not that that has much to do with Air Force readiness...

[Yodaluver28]

CTs watch, and believe, way too much TV and movies...

As simplistic as it sounds, I do think that this is the core of the problem. Entertainment and news/information have become so intertwined in the mainstream that some honestly cannot tell or understand the difference. I've actually discussed Oliver Stone's JFK and it's many factual inaccuracies with people who have responded, straightfaced, that if there was so much falsehood in it, it never would've been allowed to be released, as if it were some unimpeachable news source that had to pass editorial muster.

I have tried so hard to put what has gone on in regards to these theories into some historic perspective. It's difficult since the theories pertaining to the "Moon Hoax", supposed foreknowledge or intentional instigation of Pearl Harbor, the various Illuminati fables, and even some of the nuttier JFK assassination theories have mostly stayed on the fringe since their inception. The 9/11 theories seem to be gaining some significant measure of traction in the mainstream. And with so little, if any, evidence to support them. Why is this happening?

I think alot of it is happening because in the last fifteen years or so there has been a distinct blurring of information, news, and entertainment. They have become so intertwined that they are interchangable to some, even to journalists themselves. As a result some news stories, like 9/11, are taking on a life of their own and are getting interpreted through each person's ideological prism rather than by the facts involved. This seems to be occurring in much the same way as past generations might have studied and interpreted religion, literature, or philosophy to deal with their confusion and fear of the world they were living in. There are alot of people who seem willing to embrace certain theories not because they are plausible or prove, but because they make better stories than the reality of the situation.

[Architect]

As simplistic as it sounds, I do think that this is the core of the problem. Entertainment and news/information have become so intertwined in the mainstream that some honestly cannot tell or understand the difference. I've actually discussed Oliver Stone's JFK and it's many factual inaccuracies with people who have responded, straightfaced, that if there was so much falsehood in it, it never would've been allowed to be released, as if it were some unimpeachable news source that had to pass editorial muster.

It must be true! It's in the papers!!

[peter eldergill]

If it's in a reputable paper, it at least should be true!

Pete

[captain swoop]

What's a 'reputable' paper?

[Architect]

If it's in a reputable paper, it at least should be true!

Pete

Only for a given value of "true"

[Cylinder]

1. that Osama Bin Laden and Mohammed Atta were CIA assets, AKA on US government payroll?

This is also false. What is true is that the United States funded the muhajadeen insurgency against Soviet occupation forces in Afghanistan through the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence agency beginning in earnest when Reagan took office in 1980. US aid was added to that from other countries including Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, China, Egypt, and the UK. The US was never in the position to fund individual Arab, Afghani or Islamic resistance groups. It did not need to, since there was no shortage of Afghanis, Arabs and Muslims willing to fight the Soviet occupation.

In the mid 1980s, OBL moved to Afghanistan and founded the Maktab al-Khidimat, a volunteer Arab resistance group - who even had recruiting offices in the US. OBL used his vast family fortune and that from other wealthy Arab families to fund his Islamic resistance movement. Neither the US government nor the ISI funded MAK activities. After the end of Soviet occupation, the MAK set up a system of madrassas, from which the Taliban movement arose - eventually seizing control of the Afghan government. In the meantime, OBL returned to Saudi Arabia and the family construction business.

In 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait. OBL approached the house of Saud and the exiled emir to establish a resistance organization in Kuwait based on the MAK model. This was rejected, because the deal had been struck for action under the UN. This caused OBL to rebel against the Saud and the western forces streaming into the Gulf. OBL was exiled by King Fahd and disowned by the bin Laden family in 1991 and moved to the Sudan.

The United States has never recruited, funded or directly equipped Osama bin Laden or the MAK. The US did fund ISI operations in Afghanistan which, in turn, funded many groups that fought alongside the MAK. These same ISI-supported groups also fought against the Taliban government after the fall of the Soviet puppet regime in Afghanistan.

There is no evidence that supports the claim Atta was ever involved with anything other than anti-American activities. In late 1999, Atta had decided to answer the jihad in Chechnya but, because of his engineering degree and fervent anti-American sentiment, was chosen to travel to Afghanistan where he was groomed for the Sept. 11 plot.

[Larry Jacks]

They run exercises all the time?

How you got any evidence to back up your amazing claim?

I can look out my window and see Cheyenne Mountain where NORAD is located. While I've only been inside the mountain twice, I work with a lot of people who worked there for years. In my military experience, I worked at the other end of the line (a sensor site - the Cobra Dane). Yes, we had exercises almost every day. Most were for training purposes at our end but some were participating in much larger scenarios involving multiple sensor sites, NORAD, and other military organizations.

We're quite fortunate that real world events don't happen every day. That means that the military has to conduct training exercises to build and maintain proficiency so they can react quickly when bad things happen.

On 9/11, things happened that showed deficiencies in how NORAD was equipped and trained. For its entire existence up to that point, NORAD concentrated on looking outside of our borders. With the end of the Cold War, only a small number of fighters were on call to respond to an attack. That day, the attack came from within and the military wasn't able to respond in time. In the almost 5 years since 9/11, many changes have been made including better use of air traffic control radar data within NORAD, better communications, and a more prepared alert force.

Of course, one common problem that the military has always had is preparing to fight the last war. They train and equip themselves based on lessons learned from the last war and then have to adapt when the next one happens. I doubt the terrorists would be able to pull off the hijackings like they did on 9/11 because passengers aren't going to just sit back and let it happen. Already, several disruptive passengers have had the snot beat out of them by other passengers (I think at least one has been killed) who aren't going to sit still if they think their lives are in danger.

That won't prevent the terrorists from hitting us using some other technique.

[twinstead]

That won't prevent the terrorists from hitting us using some other technique.

Yup, and when they do, I predict another round of inane conspiracy theories.

[Architect]

I find it strange that there were no such theories whenever the IRA managed to blow up another bit of England (they never hit Scotland or Wales). Oh no, just a minute....they weren't a different ethnic group. It wouldn't sound the same, would it - "a bunch of irish living in houses"........

[twinstead]

I find it strange that there were no such theories whenever the IRA managed to blow up another bit of England (they never hit Scotland or Wales). Oh no, just a minute....they weren't a different ethnic group. It wouldn't sound the same, would it - "a bunch of irish living in houses"........

I suspect that had the internet been as ubiquitous as it is now when those attacks were at their peak, conspiracy theories would abound.