Steven Gaal Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 (edited) Neither are expert in finacial markets, people who are did and came to the opposite conclusion, this is very old news, it was raked over the coals about 10 years ago. Nope, for you see issue raked over coals yes but these men blew air onto the coals and made a reanalysis that the debunkers ignore. WEAK ! WEAK ! ============= JUST AS I PREDICTED IN POST #15 above in this thread COLBY PUNTED WITH inaccurate info. NO, CONTRARY TO WHAT COLBY STATES THE REANALYSIS WAS NEVER ,NEVER ,NEVER EVER REFUTED BY SKEPTICS-COLBY-DEBUNKERS. +++++++++++++ Contrary to what Colby may post 911 insider trading did occur. Schall and Zarembka looked a the 911 insider trading issue several times. They looked at the the COLBY DEBUNKER peoples analysis and some time later came out with their own paper which was never debunked. Yes initial analysis was debunked by COLBY DEBUNKERS,however, no matter how often Collby gives you bad info,the later analysis by Schall and Zarembka was never,repeat, never debunked. DONT LET COLBY DIS-Inform you. ================================ Lars Schall and Paul Zarembka Dissect the 9/11 Insider Trading =0= Posted by Joe on Thu, 10/16/2014 - 4:25pm =================================== http://www.corbettre...nsider-trading/ Interview 955 – Lars Schall and Paul Zarembka Dissect the 9/11 Insider Trading Corbett • 10/16/2014 === Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed ==== Today James talks to Lars Schall of LarsSchall.com and Dr. Paul Zarembka at SUNY Buffalo about Jim Rickards’ recent “revelations” regarding the 9/11 insider trading. We discuss the evidence that Rickards (who supports the official 9/11 narrative) leaves out of his analysis and where the economic analysis of 9/11 insider trading stands today. ==== SHOW NOTES: Corbett Report Interview 051 – Paul Zarembka Rickards calls CIA involvement in 9/11 trading “irrelevant” Unusual Option Market Activity and the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 by Allen M. Poteshman Detecting Informed Trading Activities in the Options Markets Was There Abnormal Trading in the S&P 500 Index Options Prior to the September 11 Attacks? SEC: Government Destroyed Documents Regarding Pre-9/11 Put Options Evidence of Insider Trading before September 11th Re-examined Insider trading 9/11 … the facts laid bare INSIGHT INTO THE 9/11 DEBATE: “Economists Are Scared” EINBLICK IN DIE 9/11-DEBATTE: “Die Ökonomen haben Angst” Terror Trading 9/11 (documentary) 9-11 Insider Trading and Germany’s Elusive Gold Reserves Re: Deutsche Bank Alex Brown and 9/11 Insider Trading 9/11 Insider Trading Revisited Edited November 27, 2014 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 Let's test your knowledge, Steven. How many drills and of what type did the ADF conduct during 2013? How many drills and of what type did the Royal Australian Navy conduct during 2013? How many drills and of what type were conducted at HMAS Albatross (an air base) during 2013? Based on your superior attitude, you should be able to make a reasonable estimate of what is considered to be "normal". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 Based on your superior attitude, you should be able to make a reasonable estimate of what is considered to be "normal".// Burton ================================== LESS THAN 6 in one day (common sense) ======================================= see pdf http://physics911.net/pdf/jacobs.pdf (posted in fair use) ============================== THE MILITARY DRILLS ON 9-11: ‘‘BIZARRE COINCIDENCE’’ OR SOMETHING ELSE? Short-term military simulations of scenarios or conditions that U.S. military personnel might meet are generally the largest, in terms of cost and personnel, of all operational training events. That at least six such exercises were scheduled for September 11, 2001 raises serious questions about whether or not the events of 9/11 were at least partially orchestrated by U.S. command. In light of the aforementioned military exercises and the fact that the 9/11 Commission’s Final Report barely mentions them, neither were they significantly discussed nor investigated during the hearings, this essay briefly explores four key questions that will hopefully stimulate further inquiries, investigations and perhaps subpoenas that will ultimately break the silence and force declassification of the information surrounding the Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 "Less than 6 in one day"? That's it? Which of the categories is that for? And are you sure? Don't want to change your mind? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted November 27, 2014 Share Posted November 27, 2014 TO SIMILAR TO SAY ITS NOT FOREKNOWLEDGE ================================= Two Days Before 9/11, Military Exercise Simulated Suicide Hijack Targeting New York Posted by Kevin Fenton on Sun, 06/14/2009 - 7:43am == The US military conducted a training exercise in the five days before the September 11 attacks that included simulated aircraft hijackings by terrorists, according to a 9/11 Commission document recently found in the US National Archives. 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. The undated document, entitled "NORAD EXERCISES Hijack Summary," was part of a series of 9/11 Commission records moved to the National Archives at the start of the year. It was found there and posted to the History Commons site at Scribd by History Commons contributor paxvector in the files of the commission's Team 8, which focused on the failed emergency response on the day of the attacks. The summary appears to have been drafted by one of the commission's staffers, possibly Miles Kara, based on documents submitted by NORAD. In the September 9 scenario, the fictitious terrorists' goal seems to have been to kill New Yorkers with the rain of debris following the plane's explosion. However, in the exercise, the military intercepted the plane and forced it away from the city. When the terrorists realized they were not near New York, they blew the plane up "over land near the divert location," leaving no survivors. The military unit most involved in this scenario was NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS), which also played a key role in the air defense response to the 9/11 attacks, two days later. Numerous Hijacks Listed Three days earlier, on September 6, 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 out of Seoul, South Korea. The hijackers were armed, their weapons having been smuggled onto the plane by ground crews before takeoff. They also had gas containers that could be detonated. Two of the plane’s passengers were killed, and the CIA and NSA warned that the group had the means to pull off an attack with chemical and biological weapons. In response, 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." Another scenario included in the Vigilant Guardian exercise 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. This scenario involved the participation of NORAD's Southeast Air Defense Sector (SEADS), and the plane eventually landed at Dobbins Air Force Base in Georgia. The document lists hijack exercises going back to 1998 several of which had involved internal flights, originating in the US. For example, 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. 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 were really quite imaginative and in several of the scenarios the hijackers had WMD actually on board the aircraft. For 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. 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 plane were lost following the hijacking, but the crew overpowered 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. 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." Perhaps the most imaginative scenario, part of a June 2001 exercise, had a Colombian drug cartel cartel making a deal with a Haitian AIDS victim to carry out a suicide attack with a private aircraft against a SEADS command and control node. Alerted by the FBI, the military had to "work to keep aircraft from impacting SEADS." The document ominously states that the "scenario fruition" was "up to Blue Forces," meaning the group playing the US defenders in the exercise. Hijacking Exercise on Day of 9/11 Although it is not listed in the document, there was also a simulated plane hijacking scheduled to take place in the Northeast US on the day of 9/11, and its timing overlapped with the real-world events. According to Vanity+Fair, "The day's exercise was designed to run a range of scenarios, including a 'traditional' simulated hijack in which politically motivated perpetrators commandeer an aircraft, land on a Cuba-like island, and seek asylum." When NEADS was informed of the first real-world hijacking, members of its staff initially assumed this was part of the exercise. For example, Master Sergeant Maureen Dooley, the leader of the ID section, told the other members of her team: "We have a hijack going on. Get your checklists. The exercise is on." Major Kevin Nasypany, the mission crew commander, actually said out loud, "The hijack's not supposed to be for another hour." Like the numerous hijacking scenarios described in the "NORAD EXERCISES" document, there was no mention of this simulated hijacking scheduled for the morning of September 11 in the 9/11 Commission Report. Clearly, further investigation is required to verify the extraordinary details revealed in the "NORAD EXERCISES" document, and in particular find out what else the September 2001 Vigilant Guardian exercise involved. The fact that this exercise included simulations of terrorists hijacking aircraft, and that New York City was central to some of its scenarios, should be a major concern. Originally posted here with excerpts from the document. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 Yeah, so you have no idea. On one day, we were conducting a base security exercise, I was running a command post exercise, there was a major naval exercise to the north, the Army were running two exercises (one on each coast of the county), and the air force was running an air defence exercise. That doesn't include the numerous local exercises that were being conducted that I didn't have visibility of. Steven, you make yourself look foolish when you pretend to know things outside your area of expertise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 (edited) Evan, you make yourself look foolish when you pretend to know things outside your area of expertise. Facts are contextual. The drills exist in the additional universe of the facts presented below. A reasonable estimate of what is considered to be "normal" and the drills must be consistant with these facts. // GAAL (IN TWO PARTS) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ PART 1 They Tried to Warn Us: Foreign Intelligence Warnings Before 9/11 By Paul Thompson ==================== The Congressional Joint Inquiry into 9-11 is now finished, but the findings that have been released fail to mention any warnings from foreign governments. The US mainstream media also has paid little attention to warnings from foreign governments. Yet there were so many warnings—from both our friends and enemies alike—often specifically suggesting the targets or method of attack. In at least one case, the warnings actually mentioned hijackers by name. This type of communication between intelligence agencies normally occurs in secret, so one can only wonder what additional warnings or details were provided to us that have never been made public. No US publication has ever put all the various foreign government warnings in one place; even Internet skeptics of Bush have paid scant attention to this issue. Here, for the first time, is such a list of warnings. First, General Warnings In late 2000, British investigators teamed up with their counterparts in the Cayman Islands and began a yearlong probe of three Afghan men who had entered the Cayman Islands illegally. [Miami Herald, 9/20/01, Los Angeles Times, 9/20/01] In June 2001, the Afghan men were overheard discussing hijacking attacks in New York City, and were promptly taken into custody. This information was forwarded to US intelligence [Fox News, 5/17/02]. In late August 2001, shortly before the attacks, an anonymous letter to a Cayman radio station alleged these same men were al-Qaeda agents “organizing a major terrorist act against the US via an airline or airlines.” [Miami Herald, 9/20/01, Los Angeles Times, 9/20/01, MSNBC, 9/23/01]In late July 2001, Afghanistan’s Foreign Minister Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil learned that Osama bin Laden was planning a “huge attack” on targets inside America. The attack was imminent, and would kill thousands, he learned from the leader of the rebel Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, which was closely allied with al-Qaeda at the time. Muttawakil sent an emissary to pass this information on to the US Consul General, and another US official, “possibly from the intelligence services.” Sources confirmed that this message was received, but supposedly not taken very seriously, because of “warning fatigue” arising from too many terror warnings. [Independent, 9/7/02, Reuters, 9/7/02] Also in late July 2001, the US was given a “concrete warning” from Argentina’s Jewish community. “An attack of major proportions” was planned against either the US, Argentina, or France. The information came from an unidentified intelligence agency. [Forward, 5/31/02] An undercover agent from Morocco successfully penetrated al-Qaeda. He learned that bin Laden was “very disappointed” that the 1993 bombing had not toppled the World Trade Center, and was planning “large scale operations in New York in the summer or fall of 2001.” He provided this information to the US in August 2001. [Agence France Presse, 11/22/01, International Herald Tribune, 5/21/02, London Times, 6/12/02] Hasni Mubarak, President of Egypt, maintains that in the beginning of September 2001 Egyptian intelligence warned American officials that al-Qaeda was in the advanced stages of executing a significant operation against an American target, probably within the US. [AP, 12/7/01, New York Times, 6/4/02] He learned this information from an agent working inside al-Qaeda. [ABC News, 6/4/02] Warnings the Attack Will Come from the Air Many warnings specifically mentioned a threat coming from the air. In 1999, British intelligence gave a secret report to the US embassy. The report stated that al-Qaeda had plans to use “commercial aircraft” in “unconventional ways,”“possibly as flying bombs.” [Sunday Times, 6/9/02] On July 16, 2001, British intelligence passed a message to the US that al-Qaeda was in “the final stages” of preparing a terrorist attack in Western countries. [London Times, 6/14/02] In early August, the British gave another warning, telling the US to expect multiple airline hijackings from al-Qaeda. This warning was included in Bush’s briefing on August 6, 2001. [Sunday Herald, 5/19/02] In June 2001, German intelligence warned the US, Britain, and Israel that Middle Eastern terrorists were planning to hijack commercial aircraft and use them as weapons to attack “American and Israeli symbols which stand out.” Within the American intelligence community, “the warnings were taken seriously and surveillance intensified” but “there was disagreement on how such terrorist attacks could be prevented.” This warning came from Echelon, a spy satellite network that is partly based in Germany. [Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 9/11/01, Washington Post, 9/14/01] In late July 2001, Egyptian intelligence received a report from an undercover agent in Afghanistan that “20 al-Qaeda members had slipped into the US and four of them had received flight training on Cessnas.” To the Egyptians, pilots of small planes didn’t sound terribly alarming, but they passed on the message to the CIA anyway, fully expecting Washington to request information. “The request never came.” [CBS, 10/9/02] Given that there were 19 hijackers and four pilots (who trained on Cessnas) in the 9/11 plot, one might think this would now be a big news item. But in fact, the information has only appeared as an aside in a CBS “60 Minutes” show about a different topic. In late summer 2001, Jordan intelligence intercepted a message stating that a major attack was being planned inside the US and that aircraft would be used. The code name of the operation was Big Wedding, which did in fact turn out to be the codename of the 9/11 plot. The message was passed to US intelligence through several channels. [International Herald Tribune, 5/21/02, Christian Science Monitor, 5/23/02] Russian President Vladimir Putin publicly stated that he ordered his intelligence agencies to alert the US in the summer of 2001 that suicide pilots were training for attacks on US targets. [Fox News, 5/17/02] The head of Russian intelligence also stated, “We had clearly warned them” on several occasions, but they “did not pay the necessary attention.” [Agence France-Presse, 9/16/01] The Russian newspaper Izvestia claimed that Russian intelligence agents knew the participants in the attacks, and: “More than that, Moscow warned Washington about preparation for these actions a couple of weeks before they happened.” [Izvestia, 9/12/02] Five days before 9/11, the priest Jean-Marie Benjamin was told by a Muslim at an Italian wedding of a plot to attack the US and Britain using hijacked airplanes as weapons. He wasn’t told time or place specifics. He immediately passed what he knew on to a judge and several politicians in Italy. Presumably this Muslim confided in him because Benjamin has done considerable charity work in Muslim countries and is considered “one of the West’s most knowledgeable experts on the Muslim world.” [Zenit, 9/16/01] Benjamin has not revealed who told him this information, but it could have come from a member of the al-Qaeda cell in Milan, Italy. This cell supplied forged documents for other al-Qaeda operations, and wiretaps show members of the cell were aware of the 9/11 plot. [Los Angeles Times, 5/29/02, Guardian, 5/30/02, Boston Globe, 8/4/02] For instance, in August 2000, one terrorist in Milan was recorded saying to another: “I’m studying airplanes. I hope, God willing, that I can bring you a window or a piece of an airplane the next time we see each other.” The comment was followed by laughter [Washington Post, 5/31/02]. In another case in January 2001, a terrorist asked if certain forged documents were for “the brothers going to the United States,” and was angrily rebuked by another who told him not to talk about that “very, very secret” plan. [Los Angeles Times, 5/29/02] In March 2001, the Italian government gave the US a warning based on these wiretaps. [Fox News, 5/17/02] What Did Israel Know? But the most remarkable warnings of all come from Israel. The issue of Israeli foreknowledge of 9/11 is highly controversial. The story is too complicated to go into detail here, but a number of respected publications (for instance, Fox News, 12/12/01, Forward, 3/15/02, ABC News, 6/21/02, Salon, 5/7/02, Ha’aretz, 5/14/02, Le Monde, 3/5/02, Reuters, 3/5/02, AP, 3/5/02, AP, 3/9/02, Cox News, 3/5/02, Guardian, 3/6/02, Independent, 3/6/02, New York Post, 3/6/02, Jane’s Intelligence Digest, 3/15/02) have written about an Israeli “art student” spy ring operating in the US for several years before 9/11. The name “art student” is used because most of these scores of spies were posing as college art students. There have been suggestions that some of these Israeli spies lived close to some of the 9/11 hijackers. For instance, a US Drug Enforcement Administration report from before 9/11 noted that Israeli spies were living in the retirement community of Hollywood, Florida at 4220 Sheridan Street, which turned out to be only a few hundred feet from lead hijacker Mohamed Atta’s residence at 3389 Sheridan Street (see the DEA report, 6/01). Israeli spies appear to have been close to at least ten of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers. [Salon, 5/7/02] In fact, Forward, the most widely circulated publication in the US targeting the Jewish audience, has admitted the spy ring existed, and that its purpose was to track Muslim terrorists operating in the US. [Forward, 3/15/02] Some have claimed that the existence of this spy ring shows that Israel was behind the 9/11 attacks, an argument that is beyond the scope of this essay. But if the mainstream media is to be believed, Israel gave the US several specific warnings of the 9/11 attacks. In the second week of August 2001, two high-ranking agents from the Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, came to Washington and warned the CIA and FBI that 50 to 200 al-Qaeda terrorists had slipped into the US and were planning an imminent “major assault on the US” aimed at a “large scale target” [Telegraph, 9/16/01, Los Angeles Times, 9/20/01, Ottawa Citizen, 9/17/01 Fox News, 5/17/02]. Near the end of August, France also gave a warning that was an “echo” of Israel’s. [Fox News, 5/17/02] In October 2002, the story broke in Europe and Israel that on August 23, 2001, the Mossad had given the CIA a list of 19 terrorists living in the US. The Mossad had said that the terrorists appeared to be planning to carry out an attack in the near future. It is unknown if these are the same 19 names as the actual hijackers, or if the number is a coincidence. However, the four names on the list that are known are names of the 9/11 hijackers: Nawaf Alhazmi, Khalid Almihdhar, Marwan Alshehhi, and Mohamed Atta. [Die Zeit, 10/1/02, Der Spiegel, 10/1/02, BBC, 10/2/02, Ha’aretz, 10/3/02] These are also probably the four most important of the hijackers (and two of the pilots). From them, there were many connections to the others. The CIA had already been monitoring three of them overseas the year before, and two, Alhazmi and Almihdhar, were put on a watch list the same day the Mossad gave this warning. [AFP, 9/22/01, Berliner Zeitung, 9/24/01, Observer, 9/30/01, New York Times, 9/21/02] Such detailed warnings of exact names fit in well with the reports that Israeli spies were tracking the hijackers for months before 9/11. Yet, as Jane’s Intelligence Digest put it, “It is rather strange that the US media seems to be ignoring what may well be the most explosive story since the 11 September attacks…” [Jane’s Intelligence Digest, 3/13/02] The spy ring story did get a little coverage in the US, but more recent stories claiming that Israel knew the exact names of at least some of the hijackers hasn’t been reported here at all. Perhaps the story is too controversial for the US media to touch? Conspicuous in Their Absence So many countries warned the US: Afghanistan, Argentina, Britain, Cayman Islands, Egypt, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Morocco, and Russia. Yet the two countries in the best position to know about the 9/11 plot—Saudi Arabia and Pakistan—apparently didn’t give any warning at all. The ties between wealthy Saudi figures and al-Qaeda are many, and too complicated to go into here. But it is interesting to notice that, while discussing the resignation of Prince Turki al-Faisal, the head of the Saudi intelligence agency, the Wall Street Journal has speculated that the Saudi Arabian government may have had foreknowledge of 9/11: “The timing of Turki’s removal—August 31—and his Taliban connection raise the question: Did the Saudi regime know that bin Laden was planning his attack against the US? The current view among Saudi-watchers is that this is doubtful, but that the House of Saud might have heard rumors that something was planned, though they did not know what or when.” An interesting and possibly significant detail is that Prince Sultan, the defense minister, was due to visit Japan in early September, but canceled his trip for no apparent reason two days before his planned departure. [Wall Street Journal, 10/22/01] In fact, that same Prince Sultan appears to have rejected a chance to warn the US. In August 2001, a military associate of a Middle Eastern prince passed information to former CIA agent Robert Baer about a “spectacular terrorist operation” to take place shortly. He also gave Baer a computer record of around 600 secret al-Qaeda operatives in Saudi Arabia and Yemen. But when Baer tried to give this information to Prince Sultan, he was rebuffed. Baer gave the information to the CIA as well, making this apparently yet another ignored warning. [Financial Times, 1/12/02, See No Evil: The True Story of a Ground Soldier in the CIA’s War on Terrorism,Robert Baer, 2/02, pp. 270-271, Breakdown: How America’s Intelligence Failures Led to September 11, Bill Gertz, pp. 55-58] The story of Pakistan’s direct involvement in 9/11 is another topic beyond the scope of this essay. One example will suffice. The Wall Street Journal reported in October 2001 that Lt. Gen. Mahmud Ahmed, head of the Pakistani intelligence agency Inter-Services Intelligence, ordered $100,000 be given to Mohamed Atta in the US. The Journal further noted that the FBI had confirmed this information. [Wall Street Journal, 10/10/01] So perhaps it’s not surprising that Pakistan wouldn’t warn the US what its intelligence chief was up to. But again, this information did reach the US through other means. On July 14, 1999, Randy Glass, a thief turned government informant, was wiretapping a meeting in New York City in which he was trying to sell military equipment to some Pakistanis as part of a sting operation. During the meeting, a Pakistani intelligence agent pointed to the World Trade Center and said to Glass, “Those towers are coming down.” Glass recorded this on tape, and passed this and other disturbing evidence to his local congressperson, senator, and others. Senator Bob Graham has admitted his office received such a warning from Glass before 9/11. [Palm Beach Post, 10/17/02] What Defenses? From this list, one can see there were many warnings specifying the type of attack, a general timeframe, and the location as either New York City or the World Trade Center. And this list only includes warnings from foreign governments, and excludes warnings from the US itself: its own communications intercepts, individuals with foreknowledge, suggestions from similar attacks, and the knowledge of American intelligence agents on the track of al-Qaeda. We know that US intelligence was suffering “warning fatigue” from so many notifications of an upcoming al-Qaeda attack. One would think that, based on these warnings, the US would have dramatically increased its security. One would be wrong. But in fact, while the US recently had over 100 fighters defending the US, the number was reduced in 1997 to save money. By 9/11 there were supposedly only 14 fighters protecting the entire US, and most of those were focused on drug interdiction. Of the 14, only four were in the greater vicinity of New York or Washington. Supposedly, on 9/11 there was not a single plane on alert within 100 miles of either city. With so many warnings suggesting an imminent attack would come from the air and/or target important, symbolic buildings, why weren’t New York, Washington and other probable target areas defended with fighters or antiaircraft batteries? There was an antiaircraft battery permanently stationed on top of the White House, but inexplicably it wasn’t used to shoot down Flight 77, which flew low over the White House before making a sharp turn and hitting the Pentagon. [Dallas Morning News, 9/16/01, Newsday, 9/23/01] The US government has not claimed it improved ground security before 9/11 at places like the Pentagon and World Trade Center either. In case there was a failure of imagination, Italy had just set an example two months before 9/11 on how to respond to a terrorist threat: After receiving a warning that a summit of world leaders in the city of Genoa would be targeted by al-Qaeda, they conspicuously defended the city with increased police, antiaircraft batteries, and constantly flying fighter jets. Apparently the press coverage of the defenses caused al-Qaeda to cancel the attack. President Bush could hardly have failed to notice, since he took the unusual step of sleeping on board a US aircraft carrier during the summit. [BBC, 7/18/01, CNN, 7/18/01, Los Angeles Times, 9/27/01] Conclusion One single warning should have been enough to take precautions, but with so many warnings coming in, how can inaction be explained as mere incompetence? Yes, it is often difficult to know which terrorist threats are real, and what information to trust. But if the US couldn’t take seriously warnings from close allies like Britain, France, Germany, Italy, and so on, then what were they waiting for? What would they have taken seriously? And where is the outrage, the investigation? As can be seen with the recent Congressional inquiry, the typical US government response has been to ignore these foreign government warnings altogether, or to say they were lies. On October 17, 2002, CIA Director Tenet claimed that the only warnings “where there was a geographic context, either explicit or implicit, appeared to point abroad, especially to the Middle East.” [Congressional Intelligence Committee, 10/17/02] On May 16, 2002, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice stated to the press: “I don’t think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile.” She added that “even in retrospect” there was “nothing” to suggest that. [White House, 5/16/02] On June 7, 2002, President Bush stated, “Based on everything I’ve seen, I do not believe anyone could have prevented the horror of September the 11th.” [Sydney Morning Herald, 6/8/02] Either the Bush Administration is lying, or most of America’s close allies are. So why hasn’t Congress investigated these foreign intelligence claims? Why hasn’t a single mainstream media article connected all these dots, or given these warnings the coverage they deserve? Either some people within the US government knew the 9/11 attack would happen and did nothing, or some people within the US government failed to heed advice from a dozen foreign governments and properly defend the US from attack. Perhaps both. These people should be removed from office on the grounds of gross incompetence, or face the legal consequences of aiding and abetting terrorism. It seems clear that there are people who fear an investigation, and that that is why these dots are left unconnected. Ultimately, we are all in grave danger if these same officials continue to be in charge of protecting us from terrorist attacks. ============== PART 2 ALSO SEE Did Bush Know? :: Warning Signs of 9-11 and Intelligence Failures ::by Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed This is an edited version of Chapter 4 from the explosive 400-page exposé, "The War on Freedom: How and Why America was Attacked, September 11, 2001", by the leading British political scientist and human rights activist Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, Director of the Institute for Policy Research & Development in Brighton, UK. This book was featured on Barry Zwicker’s MediaFile documentary series, ‘The Great Deception: The War on Terrorism – An Alternative View?’, Vision TV, Canada (February 4, 2002): "The most complete book I know of, at this time, summarizing the relevant background and foreground intersecting upon the events of September 11, 2001." *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* http://www.mediamonitors.net/mosaddeq36.html Edited November 29, 2014 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 "When proven wrong, paste walls of text to hide the fact" The gospel according to Steven. Steven, co-incidences happen. Here are another two examples: 1. On RAN ships during the 1980s and prior, the wakeup call that was piped throughout the ship at 0630 was called "wakey wakey"; it was also the "Call the Hands", requiring emergency teams to turn to. On an RAN DDG (I can't remember which, either Hobart, Brisbane or Perth), just about 0630, there was a fire in the galley. The emergency call was piped for the fire party, etc.... but no-one reacted immediately. Why? Perhaps you would say it was deliberate sabotage, perhaps it was meant to destroy the ship in a "false flag" operation. The truth however, was that the pipe was made just when people were expecting to hear wakey-wakey and so to them, it wasn't "emergency" it was "time to get up!". The emergency pipe was changed so as to avoid any confusion in future. 2. There was a major emergency exercise at a RAAF base, testing fire, medical, etc. The firies came out onto the runway, followed by the ambulance, the hospital was on standby to receive, crash teams were ready... and just at that time there was an emergency with an aircraft that had to make an unplanned, emergency landing at that base. The firies see this aircraft coming down, on fire, with calls over the radios of "Safeguard! Safeguard! This is NOT a drill!". The aircraft landed safely but everything was there if the worst had of happened. If that aircraft had been involved in some bigger event and required emergency services, I am sure you would have sneered and proclaimed how impossible it was for such a co-incidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 49. Daniele Ganser, 9/11 ringleader connected to secret Pentagon operation, Center for Research on Globalization, August 28, 2005. http://www.globalresearch. ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20050827&articleId=867. = On August 27, 2005 article, sub-titled, ‘‘9/11 Ringleader Connected to Secret Pentagon Operation,’’ by Dr. Daniele Ganser of the Zurich Polytechnic, published by the International Relations and Security Network (ISN), identifies the role of 9/11 ringleader Mohamed Atta and three other hijackers in a secret Pentagon operation. It largely refutes the official U.S. government narrative as presented by the 9/11 Commission. Recall that Atta is considered to be the ‘‘tactical leader of the 9/11 plot’’ and the suicide pilot who purportedly flew the first plane into the towers. The Australian Department of Defense’s highly sophisticated research system showed numerous meetings between Atta and Moussaoui. Ganser reveals that Atta was also connected to a top-secret operation of the Pentagon’s Special Operations Command (SOCOM) in the U.S. She says a top-secret Pentagon project code-named, ‘‘Able Danger,’’ had identified Atta as a member of an al-Qaeda cell more than a year before the attacks.49 === A different fictional treatment of the use of a "war game" to perpetrate covert objectives was described in "The Lone Gunmen," a television show aired on Fox TV in March 2001. In that show, a small cabal within the military-industrial complex used a wargame scenario as cover for remote control hijacking of a commercial flight and crashing it into the World Trade Center in order to boost military spending for the permanent war. This show was so close to the most likely scenario for 9/11 that it is plausible that this information was deliberately leaked in order to discredit the idea as merely part of a bad television drama, thereby inoculating people from contemplating the probability that 9/11 was a covert operation using remote controlled planes under the guise of a war game. = Lone Gunmen script excerptBYERS: We know it's a war game scenario. That it has to do with airline counter-terrorism. Why is it important enough to kill for.BYERS SNR: Because it's no longer a game.BYERS: But if some terrorist group wants to act out this scenario, then why target you for assassination?BYERS SNR: Depends on who your terrorists are.BYERS: The men who conceived of it the first place. You're saying our government is planning to commit a terrorist act against a domestic airline?BYERS SNR: There you go again. Blaming the entire government as usual. In fact, a small faction ...BYERS: For what possible gain?BYERS SNR: The Cold War's over, John. But with no clear enemy to stockpile against, the arms market's flat. But bring down a fully loaded 727 into the middle of New York City and you'll find a dozen tinpot dictators all over the world just clamouring to take responsibility, and begging to be smart-bombed.BYERS: I can't believe this. This is about increasing arms sales? ################ Mascal is interesting but not evidence for complicity since it's reasonable to expect a plane crash given the proximity to National Airport. Anyone who has spent time in the DC area - or flown into National Airport - understands that the flight path runs very close to the Pentagon and the office buildings of Rosslyn, Virginia. In fact, it would be irresponsible NOT to plan for responses to a plane crash. Mascal is probably a distraction from more solid evidence of complicity. Contingency planning Pentagon MASCAL exercise simulates scenarios in preparing for emergencieswww.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/linkscopy/ContPlanP.html archive of article by Military District of Washington on emergency response planning for a plane hitting the Pentagon = A plane crash is simulated inside the cardboard courtyard of a surprisingly realistic-looking model Pentagon. This "tabletop" exercise was designed to help emergency relief personnel better prepare for disasters when they occur. Washington area residents have known that a crash into the Pentagon (or other nearby buildings) was a strong possibility given the tight aviation corridor used by planes going into National Airport. It is likely that nearly everyone who has looked at the office buildings in Rosslyn and Crystal City has wondered about the probabilites of an off-course jet plowing into one of those buildings (several have beacons on their roofs to warn pilots). The Pentagon is not very far from the normal flight path and therefore an exercise of dealing with a crash is not evidence of preparation for 9/11, although it could be possible that it was used for that. It is certainly more open to interpretation than the National Reconnaisance Office "plane into building" exercise during 9/11. Pentagon Simulated a Scenario of an actual Terrorist Attack 10 months before 9/11by Michel ChossudovskyGlobal Outlook, No 8, Spring 2004www.globalresearch.ca 20 June 2004The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO406C.html == In October 2000, a military exercise was conducted which consisted in establishing the scenario of a simulated passenger plane crashing into the Pentagon.The exercise was coordinated by the Defense Protective Services Police and the Pentagon's Command Emergency Response Team.According to a detailed report by Dennis Ryan of Fort Myer Military Community's Pentagram, "the Pentagon Mass Casualty Exercise, as the crash was called, was just one of several scenarios that emergency response teams were exposed to on Oct. 24-26": "The fire and smoke from the downed passenger aircraft billows from the Pentagon courtyard. Defense Protective Services Police seal the crash sight. Army medics, nurses and doctors scramble to organize aid… Don Abbott, of Command Emergency Response Training, walks over to the Pentagon and extinguishes the flames. The Pentagon was a model and the "plane crash" was a simulated one.On Oct. 24, there was a mock terrorist incident at the Pentagon Metro stop and a construction accident to name just some of the scenarios that were practiced to better prepare local agencies for real incidents.To conduct the exercise, emergency personnel hold radios that are used to rush help to the proper places, while toy trucks representing rescue equipment are pushed around the exercise table.Cards are then passed out to the various players designating the number of casualties and where they should be sent in a given scenario.To conduct the exercise, a medic reports to Army nurse Maj. Lorie Brown a list of 28 casualties so far. Brown then contacts her superior on the radio, Col. James Geiling, a doctor in the command room across the hall.Geiling approves Brown's request for helicopters to evacuate the wounded. A policeman in the room recommends not moving bodies and Abbott, playing the role of referee, nods his head in agreement. …An Army medic found the practice realistic."You get to see the people that we'll be dealing with and to think about the scenarios and what you would do," Sgt. Kelly Brown said. "It's a real good scenario and one that could happen easily." …Abbott, in his after action critique, reminded the participants that the actual disaster is only one-fifth of the incident and that the whole emergency would run for seven to 20 days and might involve as many as 17 agencies."The emergency to a certain extent is the easiest part," Abbott said. He reminded the group of the personal side of a disaster. "Families wanting to come to the crash site for closure."In this particular crash there would have been 341 victims.1 The Bush Administration is lyingThis Pentagon exercise simulated a plane crashing into the Pentagon. The report serves to refute unequivocally claims by the Bush Administration that they could not have predicted that an airplane could be used in a terrorist attack.In the words of Condoleeza Rice at her 16 May 2002 Press Conference: == "I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile." Sec Donald Rumsfeld, whose office is on the third floor of the outer ring of the Pentagon, stated "I didn't know". "The Pentagon Mass Casualty Exercise" had been ordered by senior Pentagon officials and Rumsfeld says he did not know.Below is an excerpt of his testimony at the 9/11 Commission in March 2004 (in response to Commissioner Ben-Veniste): == BEN-VENISTE: ... So it seems to me when you make the statement, sir, that we didn't know that planes might be used as weapons in the summer of 2001, I just have to take issue with that.RUMSFELD: Well, I didn't say we didn't know. I said I didn't know. And if I just was handed a civil aviation circular that people did know. And they sent it out on June 22nd, 2001 (See complete transcript of testimony at http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/COM403A.html ) Simulated versus Actual Disaster =The objective of the exercise, in the words of its Pentagon organisers was "preparation for any potential disasters… "This is important so that we're better prepared," Brown said. "This is to work out the bugs. Hopefully it will never happen, but this way we're prepared."2 Were they prepared ten months later on September 11, 2001, when the actual disaster occurred?What was the purpose of conducting this exercise? Note1. Dennis Ryan, Contingency planning, Pentagon MASCAL exercise simulates scenarios in preparing for emergencies, MDW NEWS 3 Nov 2000. http://www.mdw.army.mil/2. Ibid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted November 30, 2014 Author Share Posted November 30, 2014 Not surprisingly Gaal chooses once again to change the subject. Worse he rehashes crap that we went over ad infinium years ago! I mean Able Danger and foreign intel warnings? Sorry 'been there done that'. Get back to us when you come up with something new Steve, and see if you can do so on threads about the topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 Rehearsing 9/11: How Training Exercises Foretold the Attacks of September 11 The idea of such an attack was well known [and] had been wargamed as a possibility in exercises before September 11. - Professor John Arquilla of the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, senior U.S. government and military officials repeatedly claimed that what happened that day was unexpected. In May 2002, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice said, "I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon; that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile." [1] Two years later, President Bush stated, "Nobody in our government, at least, and I don't think the prior government, could envision flying airplanes into buildings on such a massive scale." [2] General Ralph Eberhart, the commander of NORAD on September 11, said, "Regrettably, the tragic events of 9/11 were never anticipated or exercised." [3] Yet these claims were untrue. Not only had the U.S. military and other government agencies discussed the possibility of such attacks, they also conducted numerous training exercises in the year or two before September 11 based around scenarios remarkably similar to what occurred on 9/11. As John Arquilla, a professor of defense analysis at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, said, "No one knew specifically that 20 people would hijack four airliners and use them for suicide attacks against major buildings ... but the idea of such an attack was well known [and] had been wargamed as a possibility in exercises before September 11." [4] The existence of these training exercises proves that official claims that the events of September 11 were unimaginable have been false. However, future investigations of 9/11 will need to determine whether these exercises served a more nefarious purpose. For example, might they have been intended as a smokescreen for rogue individuals working within the military and other government agencies who were involved in planning the attacks? Thus, if colleagues overheard these individuals discussing matters such as planes hitting the World Trade Center or crashing into the Pentagon, they could have claimed they were simply talking about a forthcoming training exercise. The following summary outlines three specific categories of training exercises and preparations that took place before September 11. Firstly, those that dealt with terrorists deliberately crashing a plane into the World Trade Center. Secondly, those that considered an aircraft crashing into the Pentagon. And thirdly, those that resembled other aspects of the 9/11 attacks, such as the use of planes as weapons more generally. 1) PREPARING FOR AN ATTACK ON THE WORLD TRADE CENTER i) Military Personnel Briefed on Possible Attack on the WTC At some point before 9/11, members of staff at NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) in Rome, New York appear to have been briefed on the possibility of terrorists deliberately crashing a plane into the World Trade Center. In her book Touching History: The Untold Story of the Drama that Unfolded in the Skies Over America on 9/11, author Lynn Spencer described the actions of Trey Murphy, a former Marine who on September 11 was a weapons controller at NEADS. Murphy learned of the first plane hitting the WTC while still at home. According to Spencer: "The news brought to mind one of his briefings: What if a terrorist flies an airplane with a weapon of mass destruction into the World Trade Center? It had always been one of the military's big fears." She added, "The image on the [television] screen certainly reminded him of his briefing." [5] ii) NORAD Trains for Terrorists Crashing a Hijacked Plane into the WTC At unspecified times during the two years prior to September 11, the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD, the military organization responsible for defending U.S. airspace) conducted training exercises that simulated hijacked aircraft being deliberately crashed into targets so as to cause mass casualties. As USA Today later reported, "One of the imagined targets was the World Trade Center." NORAD stated that "Numerous types of civilian and military aircraft were used as mock hijacked aircraft" in these exercises. Among other things, the exercises tested "track detection and identification" (presumably on military radar screens); "scramble and interception" by fighter jet planes; and "hijack procedures." According to NORAD, the exercises were regional drills, not regularly scheduled continent-wide exercises, and unlike what happened on 9/11, the planes in the simulated scenarios were coming from a foreign country rather than from within the United States. [6] NORAD added that, before 9/11, "At the NORAD headquarters' level we normally conducted four major exercises a year, most of which included a hijack scenario." [7] Shortly after September 11, the New Yorker similarly reported, "During the last several years, the government regularly planned for and simulated terrorist attacks, including scenarios that involved multiple-plane hijackings." [8] In spite of these specific concerns and preparations, the 9/11 Commission Report claimed that NORAD was "unprepared for the type of attacks launched against the United States on September 11, 2001. [it] struggled, under difficult circumstances, to improvise a homeland defense against an unprecedented challenge [it] had never before encountered and had never trained to meet." [9] 2) PREPARING FOR A PLANE HITTING THE PENTAGON The number of training exercises based around a plane crashing into the Pentagon is particularly notable. In the 12 months prior to 9/11, we know of three such exercises that were conducted, and a fourth exercise that considered, but rejected, this scenario. i) The Pentagon Mass Casualty Exercise Between October 24 and October 26, 2000, emergency responders gathered at the Office of the Secretary of Defense conference room in the Pentagon for the Pentagon Mass Casualty Exercise. Responses to several scenarios were rehearsed, including the possibility of a passenger aircraft crashing into the Pentagon. A military news service described the exercise: "The fire and smoke from the downed passenger aircraft billows from the Pentagon courtyard. Defense Protective Services Police seal the crash sight. Army medics, nurses, and doctors scramble to organize aid. An Arlington Fire Department chief dispatches his equipment to the affected areas." It sounds almost like a description of what happened on September 11. But then "Don Abbott, of Command Emergency Response Training, walks over to the Pentagon and extinguishes the flames. The Pentagon was a model and the 'plane crash' was a simulated one." [10] ii) Medics Practice for a Plane Hitting the Pentagon Little over six months later, in May 2001, the U.S. Army's DiLorenzo Tricare Health Clinic and the Air Force Flight Medicine Clinic--which are both located within the Pentagon--along with Arlington County Emergency Medical Services, held a tabletop exercise. The scenario they practiced for was an airplane crashing into the Pentagon's west side--the same side as was hit on September 11. [11] There have been some contradictions between reports, regarding the exact details of this exercise. But according to U.S. Medicine newspaper, the plane in the scenario was a hijacked Boeing 757, the same kind of aircraft as allegedly hit the Pentagon on 9/11. [12] The Defense Department's book about the Pentagon attack, Pentagon 9/11, reported that the plane in the exercise scenario was a twin-engine aircraft (Boeing 757s are twin-engine aircraft), but that it crashed into the Pentagon by accident, rather than as a consequence of a hijacking. [13] The commanders of the two Pentagon clinics that participated later said this exercise "prepared them well to respond" to the attack on 9/11. [14] And Air Force Surgeon General Paul Carlton Jr. commented, "We learned a lot from that exercise and applied those lessons to September 11." [15] iii) Practice Evacuation Conducted in Response to Simulation of a Plane Hitting the Pentagon Just one month before September 11, a third plane-into-Pentagon training exercise was held. General Lance Lord, the assistant vice chief of staff of the Air Force, later recalled his experiences of 9/11, commenting, "Fortunately, we had practiced an evacuation of the building during a mass casualty exercise just a month earlier, so our assembly points were fresh in our minds." He added, "Purely a coincidence, the scenario for that exercise included a plane hitting the building." [16] iv) Military Considers, but Rejects, Exercise Scenario of a Hijacked Plane Being Crashed into the Pentagon For another exercise, military planners actually considered the possibility of a commercial aircraft being hijacked by terrorists and then crashed into the Pentagon. [17] From April 17-26, 2001, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff conducted the exercise Positive Force 01, which was designed "to test, evaluate, and train the national defense community in decision making and execution of mobilization and force deployment in response to multiple crises." [18] Positive Force was a "continuity of operations exercise," dealing with government contingency plans to keep working in the event of an attack on the U.S. [19] NORAD was one of the agencies invited to participate. [20] During the planning of this exercise, special operations officers had to think like terrorists and plot unexpected attacks that would test NORAD's air defenses. According to an officer who was temporarily assigned to NORAD in the spring of 2001, "the NORAD exercise developers wanted an event having a terrorist group hijack a commercial airline and fly it into the Pentagon." [21] The NORAD employee who suggested this had been asked for a scenario in which the Pentagon was rendered inoperable and part of its functions had to be moved to another location. [22] However, the U.S. Pacific Command didn't want the scenario, "because it would take attention away from their exercise objectives." Joint Staff action officers then rejected the scenario as being "too unrealistic." [23] 3) OTHER PREPARATIONS AND EXERCISES There were other training exercises and emergency preparations that are noteworthy. Few specific details have been disclosed of these. They have not been reported to have included scenarios of aircraft hitting the World Trade Center or Pentagon, but they relate to what happened on 9/11 in other ways. i) Department of Transportation Exercise Involves a Cell Phone Call from a Hijacked Plane Less than two weeks before September 11, on August 30, 2001, an exercise was held at the Department of Transportation in Washington, DC, as part of its preparations for the 2002 Winter Olympics. According to Ellen Engleman, the administrator of the DOT's Research and Special Programs Administration, this was a "full intermodal exercise" (although she did not explain what exactly that meant). Engleman has recalled: "During that exercise, part of the scenario, interestingly enough, involved a potentially hijacked plane and someone calling on a cell phone, among other aspects of the scenario that were very strange when 12 days later, as you know, we had the actual event [of 9/11]." [24] (As has been widely reported, numerous passengers on the hijacked planes allegedly were able to make calls using cell phones to people on the ground.) The Department of Transportation was subsequently much involved in the emergency response on September 11, with its Crisis Management Center being activated less than 30 minutes after the first attack on the WTC. [25] Although further details of this exercise are unknown, the fact that Engleman referred to "other aspects of the scenario that were very strange" indicates that it resembled the 9/11 attacks in other ways. ii) Threat of Planes as Weapons Considered During Preparations for 'Special Security Events' The possibility of attacks resembling those that occurred on 9/11 was considered during the preparations for what are called "National Special Security Events" (NSSEs). This is particularly notable, since preparations were underway in the two cities targeted in the attacks--New York and Washington--the morning of September 11, for National Special Security Events due to take plane later that month. Considering that only four or five events per year were being designated as NSSEs, it seems hard to dismiss this as just coincidence. Since 1998, the National Security Council has had the authority to designate any important upcoming public event as an NSSE. [26] Events such as the 2000 Republican and Democratic National Conventions and the 2000 presidential inauguration were designated as NSSEs. [27] Once an event has been designated as an NSSE, the Secret Service becomes the lead agency for designing and implementing its security plan, while the FBI and FEMA also have major security roles. [28] According to the Secret Service, there would be "a tremendous amount of advance planning and coordination" for NSSEs. A variety of training initiatives would be conducted, including "simulated attacks and medical emergencies, inter-agency tabletop exercises, and field exercises." [29] Most significantly, according to Louis Freeh, the director of the FBI from September 1993 to June 2001, in the years 2000 and 2001, the subject of "planes as weapons" was always one of the considerations in the planning of security for "a series of these, as we call them, special events." Freeh told the 9/11 Commission that "resources were actually designated to deal with that particular threat," and confirmed that "the use of airplanes, either packed with explosives or otherwise, in suicide missions" was "part of the planning" for NSSEs. [30] Although Freeh did not state it, it seems a quite likely possibility that the "simulated attacks ... inter-agency tabletop exercises, and field exercises" held during 2000 and 2001 in preparation for NSSEs would therefore have included the scenario of planes being used as weapons. Furthermore, the morning of September 11, Secret Service employees in New York were "about to attend meetings to prepare for the upcoming meeting of the United Nations General Assembly." [31] An additional 100 Secret Service employees were in New York to help prepare for the event. [32] The General Assembly's annual gathering of world leaders was scheduled for September 24 to October 5, with President Bush due to give his address on September 24. [33] Significantly, this event was designated as an NSSE. [34] Since the UN's previous 'Millennium Summit' in New York in September 2000 was an NSSE, it seems logical to assume that the 2001 gathering received NSSE status before 9/11, and not simply as a result of the attacks. [35] Preparations were also underway in Washington, DC on September 11 for the annual meetings of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, which were scheduled to take place on September 29-30. Many of the agencies that would be involved in the emergency response to the Pentagon attack later that morning were taking part in these preparations. [36] It was reported several weeks before 9/11 that these meetings had been designated as an NSSE. [37] The question therefore arises, might preparations for the threat of planes being used as weapons have been taking place around the time of the 9/11 attacks? Were "simulated attacks ... inter-agency tabletop exercises, and field exercises" based around planes used as weapons scheduled in New York and Washington around that period? Further research and investigation is required to answer these questions. OTHER EXERCISES? The above summary describes training exercises and preparations that have been reported or publicly discussed. But it seems reasonable to assume that there were other exercises held in the year or two before 9/11 that have not yet been reported and that also resembled the attacks that took place that day. If they occurred, we need to know about these other exercises and we must consider what role they might have played in the planning and execution of the September 11 attacks. NOTES [1] "National Security Advisor Holds Press Briefing." White House, May 16, 2002. [2] "President Addresses the Nation in Prime Time Press Conference." White House, April 13, 2004. [3] Steven Komarow and Tom Squitieri, "NORAD Had Drills of Jets as Weapons." USA Today, April 18, 2004. [4] Kevin Howe, "Expert Stresses Need for Intelligence." Monterey County Herald, July 18, 2002. [5] Lynn Spencer, Touching History: The Untold Story of the Drama That Unfolded in the Skies Over America on 9/11. New York: Free Press, 2008, p. 179. [6] Steven Komarow and Tom Squitieri, "NORAD Had Drills of Jets as Weapons." [7] Barbara Starr, "NORAD Exercise Had Jet Crashing into Building." CNN, April 19, 2004. [8] "September 11, 2001." New Yorker, September 24, 2001. [9] 9/11 Commission, The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (Authorized Edition). New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2004, p. 45. [10] Dennis Ryan, "Pentagon MASCAL Exercise Simulates Scenarios in Preparing for Emergencies." MDW News Service, November 3, 2000. [11] Arlington County, Virginia, report, Titan Systems Corp., Arlington County: After-Action Report on the Response to the September 11 Terrorist Attack on the Pentagon. 2002, p. B17; Alfred Goldberg et al., Pentagon 9/11. Washington, DC: Defense Department, Office of the Secretary, Historical Office, 2007, pp. 23 and 107. [12] "Crisis Response Puts Agencies on Path to Better Coordination." U.S. Medicine, January 2002. [13] Alfred Goldberg et al., Pentagon 9/11, p. 107. [14] Matt Mientka, "Pentagon Medics Trained for Strike." U.S. Medicine, October 2001. [15] Dean E. Murphy, September 11: An Oral History. New York: Doubleday, 2002, p. 222. [16] Lance Lord, "A Year ago, a Lifetime ago." Air Force Print News, September 10, 2002. [17] Danielle Brian, "POGO Letter to Hon. Thomas K. Kean, Chairman, National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States." Project On Government Oversight, April 13, 2004. [18] "Positive Force." GlobalSecurity.org, June 9, 2002. [19] Julian Borger, "Hijackers Fly into Pentagon? No Chance, Said Top Brass." The Guardian, April 15, 2004. [20] Nicole Gaudiano, "Military Considered Hijacked Plane Exercise, and Rejected it." Air Force Times, April 13, 2004. [21] Terry Ropes, "Exercise Scenario." September 18, 2001, internal e-mail; Julian Borger, "Hijackers Fly into Pentagon? No Chance, Said Top Brass." [22] Nicole Gaudiano, "Military Considered Hijacked Plane Exercise, and Rejected it." [23] Terry Ropes, "Exercise Scenario"; Julian Borger, "Hijackers Fly into Pentagon? No Chance, Said Top Brass." [24] Mineta Transportation Institute, National Transportation Security Summit, Washington, DC. San Jose, CA: Mineta Transportation Institute, October 30, 2001, p. 108. [25] Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Federal Aviation Security Standards. 107th Cong., 1st sess., September 20, 2001; Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Statement of Ellen G. Engleman, Administrator, Research and Special Programs Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. 107th Cong., 1st sess., October 10, 2001. [26] Bruce M. Lawlor, "Military Support of Civil Authorities: A New Focus for a New Millennium." Journal of Homeland Defense, October 2000; "National Special Security Events." United States Secret Service, 2002. [27] "National Special Security Events Fact Sheet." U.S. Department of Homeland Security, July 9, 2003; "Fact Sheet: 2005 Presidential Inauguration: National Special Security Event." U.S. Department of Homeland Security, November 8, 2004. [28] "National Special Security Events Fact Sheet"; Sarah D. Scalet, "In Depth: Democratic Party Convention Security." CSO, September 2004. [29] "National Special Security Events." [30] National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States: Tenth Public Hearing. 9/11 Commission, April 13, 2004. [31] United States Congress, Honoring United States Secret Service New York Field Office for Extraordinary Performance During and Immediately Following September 11, 2001. 107th Cong., 2nd sess., April 23, 2002. [32] "Spotlight on: Barbara Riggs." PCCW Newsletter, Spring 2006. [33] "UN General Security Council Condemns Attacks." Reuters, September 12, 2001; "Bush to Attend UN General Assembly." Associated Press, October 29, 2001. [34] Al Baker, "Security Tight for Start of United Nations Meeting in New York." New York Times, November 10, 2001; House Committee on the Judiciary, Proposal to Create a Department of Homeland Security. 107th Cong., 2nd sess., July 9, 2002; "National Special Security Events Fact Sheet." [35] U.S. Department of the Treasury, Program Performance Report Fiscal Year 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Treasury, 2000, p. 177; United States Congress, Making Appropriations for Military Construction, Family Housing, and Base Realignment and Closure for the Department of Defense for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2001, and for Other Purposes. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, June 29, 2000; "Preparing for the World: Homeland Security and Winter Olympics." White House, January 10, 2002. [36] Arlington County, After-Action Report on the Response to the September 11 Terrorist Attack on the Pentagon, p. A4; 9/11 Commission, The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 314. [37] "Washington is Seeking Support to Handle Protests at 2 Meetings." New York Times, August 18, 2001. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted December 1, 2014 Author Share Posted December 1, 2014 (edited) Sorry Charlie nothing new. 1) Yes contrary to denials the gov't had contemplated and on occasion trained for hijacked planes being crashed into various targets including the Pentagon and WTC but AFAIK the scenarios all included planes hijacked overseas. This difference was critical because NORAD would have a lot more lead time to get planes in the air. 2) Despite all their huffing and puffing "truthers" have yet to spell out how the various exercises they point to adversely affected interception or otherwise furthered their imagined plot. Post Cold War the US had cut air defenses to 7 pairs of planes ringing the "lower 48" on 15 minute scramble warning, this a) didn't leave much time to intercept domestic flights and was NOT affected by any of the exercises Edited December 1, 2014 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 (edited) Sorry Charlie nothing new. 1) Yes contrary to denials the gov't had contemplated and on occasion trained for hijacked planes being crashed into various targets including the Pentagon and WTC but AFAIK the scenarios all included planes hijacked overseas. This difference was critical because NORAD would have a lot more lead time to get planes in the air. 2) Despite all their huffing and puffing "truthers" have yet to spell out how the various exercises they point to adversely affected interception or otherwise furthered their imagined plot. Post Cold War the US had cut air defenses to 7 pairs of planes ringing the "lower 48" on 15 minute scramble warning, this a) didn't leave much time to intercept domestic flights and was NOT affected by any of the exercises Miles Kara the expert that truthers use on the drill issue has a credibility problem. In his CV = see link below = http://www.scribd.com/doc/15740898/FO-B1-Commission-Meeting-4-10-03-Fdr-Tab-7-Kara-Resume-Miles-L-Kara-Sr-563 = HE WROTE REPORT(listed in Kara's CV) NO COVER UP AT Khamisiyah.....but there was coverup.....so I guess Mr. Colby/KARA are discedited ........... if we cant believe KARA on WMD then how can we believe him on 911 drills ???????? +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Cia Admits It Knew About Chemicals In Iraqi Bunker April 10, 1997|By THOMAS D. WILLIAMS; Courant Staff Writer The Central Intelligence Agency admitted Wednesday that itknew in advance that chemical weapons possibly were present in an Iraqi munitions bunker that was blown up by unprotected U.S. troops in March 1991, just after the Persian Gulf War ended. In a series of documents released Wednesday, CIA officials also acknowledged that they and other government agencies did not focus on the potential hazards from the chemical exposures for years -- until well after thousands of veterans complained of health problems. More than 100,000 gulf veterans have reported suffering persistent illnesses since the war, and the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs says about 4,300 have died. Troops who were stationed near the munitions bunker at Khamisiyah and soldiers who participated in its demolition were not protected with gas masks or chemical suits, according to soldiers who served in the war. Documents show tons of chemicals were present at the Iraqi bunker and pit, which were demolished March 4, 10 and 12, 1991. The site in southern Iraq is about 62 miles north of Kuwait. Longtime critics of the government's inquiry were not impressed by the CIA's disclosures Wednesday. ``This is either evidence of an unraveling coverup or an unprecedented intelligence failure,'' said James J. Tuite, a former congressional aide who interviewed scores of sick veterans for a 1994 Senate investigation and now heads a foundation studying gulf war illnesses. ``They are saying today, `Oh look what we found!' And, yet I told them and other people told them [about the chemical weapons bunker and pit] years ago,'' he said. ``These assessments have to be made within hours in order to provide proper protection for the troops.'' In a statement released Wednesday, acting CIA Director George J. Tenet conceded that the inquiry illustrates intelligence support for the war ``should have been better.'' He said the information was disguised by multiple computer databases, limited sharing of ``sensitive'' but vital information and incomplete searches of intelligence files in preparing lists of known or suspected chemical weapons facilities. ``[A CIA] task force is preparing recommendations to address these problems and will continue to assess how we can improve,'' he said. For 11 months the CIA and a special investigative unit for the Defense Department have been focusing on possible exposures of U.S. troops as a result of the explosions at Khamisiyah. Last June, almost 5 1/2 years after the war, the Defense Department admitted troops may have been exposed to low levels of sarin, a nerve agent, from the explosions. Prior to that time, they insisted in the face of contradictory information from the Senate investigation that no U.S. troops were exposed to chemical weapons except for an episode involving one soldier. Late last year, the Defense Department also acknowledged that about 21,000 troops were within 51 kilometers -- or about 32 miles -- of the explosions. ``[CIA officials] said all along they didn't have anything on Khamisiyah,'' said Patrick G. Eddington, a former CIA analyst now writing a book that he says documents a coverup by the CIA and the Defense Department. ``Where has this data been?'' ``I think it shows how completely out of touch the CIA is with the American public,'' said Eddington, who is suing to gain access to gulf war-related documents. Michael Donnelly, a South Windsor resident who was an Air Force pilot during the war, said Wednesday he flew over Khamisiyah, near the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, four or five times in March 1991, but not on the days when the bunkers were blown up. ``They stood out in the desert as this huge bunker complex. It was a couple of square miles of storage bunkers laid out in a square grid. Most all of them were blown up either by the bombing or the EOD [Explosive Ordnance Demolition] guys.'' Donnelly, 37, believes he contracted Lou Gehrig's disease, a disabling neurological disorder that has confined him to a wheelchair, from his own exposures during the war. ``This never should have happened,'' he said. ``If they knew about this, they should have come forward right away, and they should have started treating people right away. It's costing the lives of people.'' U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs officials have said most of more than 1,100 troops closest to the site have reported various persistent illnesses. The majority of those not in the immediate range of the demolition clouds did not report being sick, the VA said. VA data show demolition soldiers and others closest to the site were more likely than other gulf war troops to have infectious diseases, cancer, disorders of the genitals, skin diseases and especially muscular and connective tissue disorders. Thousands of gulf war veterans reportedly have cancer, and heart and neurological diseases. A total of 690,000 military personnel served during the height of the war. Edited December 2, 2014 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted December 2, 2014 Author Share Posted December 2, 2014 (edited) What are you ranting about Gaal? 1) I did not cite Kara 2) Do we know if he had access to the documents released after his report? Edited December 2, 2014 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted December 2, 2014 Share Posted December 2, 2014 (edited) What are you ranting about Gaal? 1) I did not cite Kara 2) Do we know if he had access to the documents released after his report? Previous threads you cited him. = He has top security clearances via info of CV ........Karl Rove in other articles did cover up...so Rove had acess and Kara didnt ?? ########### KARA Len Colby search = returns Air Defense 911 Anomalies in 11 September 2001 attacks Started by Steven Gaal, 12 Nov 2012 1 2 Last Post by Steven Gaal, 05 Dec 2012 18 replies 1,619 views Steven Gaal Posted 16 Nov 2012 Edited December 2, 2014 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now