No it's not "unsubstantiated speculation." It is a matter of fact.
The [corrupt] Cabal (shadow government) wants free flowing information between all departments like the CIA and the FBI. This would be a breach of national security because the CIA is not part of our government. It does not answer to our government.

I'm asking you a simple question. Why are being so evasive and obnoxious?

I'll try this again:

What do you think the NORAD tapes are evidence of? What do they mean to you?

There's no need for childishness and asinine insults, it's a simple question. Why can't you ever answer a direct question? Debating is not just everybody listening to your rants and following your unproven opinion without question. What a stupid expectation.

So, a simple fact is any illogical crap you prate on about without providing any evidence to support your claim (unsubstantiated)? I get it.

I never said I thought the Norad tapes were evidence of anything so your question is irrelevant.

But if you want to talk about the Norad tapes okay.


The tapes had been used by the 9-11 commission in 2004 to give a new account of the military's response to the hijackings. The account that had been given in NORAD'S timeline of September 18, 2001, which was used as the basis for the military's testimony to the Commission in 2003, had left the military open to the charge that its failure to intercept the airliners resulted from a standdown order.

That account also led to the charge that the military had shot down United Flight 93. The Commission, on the basis of these tapes, constructed a new account, which put all the blame on the FAA.

Constructing this new story required accusing the military of having told a false story. Some members of the Commission even suggested that the military told this false story knowingly.

But this new story protects the military from the more serious charge of orchestrating or at least complicity in the attacks.

Michael Bronner was the journalist to write this story because he was the first one to be given access to these tapes. Why? This may have something to do with the fact that he was an associate producer of the movie "United 93" which faithfully portrayed the Commission's new account to which the military could not possibly have shot this flight down.

I remember, and there is still a video on youtube of the announcement by I think, Rumsfield, that flight 93 had been intercepted and shot down. This story was later changed. "oops... no we didn't shoot flight 93 down.. that was a mistake..."

But my whole point of bringing any of this up is this: THE OFFICIAL STORY CHANGED to absolve the military of being complicit in or orchestrating the attacks.

Now, with the introduction of the mysterious NORAD TAPES, the story is that the military did not know about the hijackings until after the flights had crashed, so fighters could not have intercepted them and could not have shot down United 93.

According to Bronner, The NORAD tapes, by finally revealing the real truth about what happened, shot down the conspiracy theorists.

Now in all seriousness, would you like me to go into more detail about what the NORAD tapes indicate?

Thank you for answering the question. Despite your obduracy, my question is relevant because you said the NORAD tapes proved the following:

I have brought up the Norad tapes many times and my point was that for two years they (the government) sold one story to the media, and everyone accepted it on blind faith, then they found out it was wrong after the Norad tapes were listened to.

So then, they changed their story and two very important officials who had told one story, were now made into liars because their testimonies were proven wrong by the Norad tapes. Naturally I have to wonder why those officials lied, (if they did) then why were they not prosecuted or questioned more and why did we not here the explanation from them about why they lied.

So, either they both lied, or the Norad tapes are fake.

Now, before I go on, have you read the actual transcripts?

"So, either they both lied, or the tapes are fake."

How does one logically arrive at two absolutes based on the evidence?

If you read the transcripts, direct me to the sections that support these absolutes, for I've never seen anything but utter confusion within the transcripts. Furthermore, the transcripts and the statements evince the very confusion caused by a lack of communication between various departments. This possibility cannot be discounted, but it is no way considered by the 'twoofer' authors. So, how is that possibility discounted and what logic is used to eliminate this?


Ok, so how do you arrive at this conclusion:

But my whole point of bringing any of this up is this: THE OFFICIAL STORY CHANGED to absolve the military of being complicit in or orchestrating the attacks.

If the above is true, to what degree and how exactly were the military complicit in the attacks, and in what manner did they orchestrate said attacks? What evidence is available to support this notion, or is Rumsfield's befuddled statement merely enough to arrive at such an unrealistic conclusion?

http://youtu.be/x6Xoxaf1Al0

Basically, you and others like you, see a story of a grand conspiracy and yet, to most, it is merely a tale of incompetence that is inherent within any large bureaucracy.

A common claim among conspiracy theorists is that the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) issued a stand down order or deliberately scrambled fighters late to allow the hijacked airplanes to reach their targets without interference. According to this theory, NORAD had the capability of locating and intercepting planes on 9/11, and its failure to do so indicates a government conspiracy to allow the attacks to occur. The Web site emperors-clothes.com argues that the U.S. military failed to do their job. StandDown.net's Mark R. Elsis says, "There is only one explanation for this .... Our Air Force was ordered to Stand Down on 9/11."

In September 2001, NORAD generals said they learned of the hijackings in time to scramble fighter jets. Later, the U.S. government released tapes claiming to show the Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) did not tell the military about the hijackings until three of the four planes had crashed, a fact that would indicate that the FAA repeatedly lied to other U.S. government agencies.

Phil Molé of Skeptic magazine has explained that it is neither quick nor easy to locate and intercept a plane behaving erratically, and that the hijackers turned off or disabled the onboard radar transponders. Without these transponder signals to identify the airplanes, the hijacked airplanes would have been only blips among 4,500 other blips on NORAD’S radar screens, making them very difficult to track.

According to Popular Mechanics, only 14 fighter jets were on alert in the contiguous 48 states on 9/11. There was no automated method for the civilian air traffic controllers to alert NORAD. A passenger airline had not been hijacked in the U.S. since 1979. "They had to pick up the phone and literally dial us," says Maj. Douglas Martin, public affairs officer for NORAD. According to Popular Mechanics, only one civilian plane was intercepted in the decade prior to 9/11, which took one hour and 22 minutes.

Rules in effect at that time, and on 9/11, barred supersonic flight on intercepts. Before 9/11, all other NORAD interceptions were limited to offshore Air Defense Identification Zones (ADIZ). "Until 9/11 there was no domestic ADIZ," says FAA spokesman Bill Schumann. After 9/11, the FAA and NORAD increased cooperation. They set up hotlines between command centers while NORAD increased its fighter coverage and installed radar to watch airspace over the continent.

According to The Eleventh Day: The Full Story of 9/11 and Osama bin Laden, a book about the attacks published in 2011, the longest warning NORAD received of the hijackings was some eight minutes for American Airlines Flight 11, the first flight hijacked. The FAA alerted NORAD to the hijacked Flight 175 at just about the same time it was crashing into the World Trade Center's South Tower. The FAA notified NORAD of the missing – not hijacked – Flight 77 three minutes before it struck the Pentagon. NORAD received no warning of the hijack of United Flight 93 until three minutes after it had crashed in Pennsylvania.

Hmm....

I don't believe the excuse of "incompetance." That is unacceptable, and an excuse that Israel used after they attacked the U.S.S Liberty. ("It was a tragic Mistake.")

The blunders on 9-11 were catostrophic if you are going to claim "incompentance" then someone (who?) should have been fired.

Your questions above are confusing and there are too many to address tonight. Please pick the most important one. I will try to answer them one at a time if you will remain civil and refrain from being rude and insulting.

It happens. Every nation has them in their history. I could give you a list of military blunders attributed to the US.



I agree, but I don't have the influence or power to determine who, (if only one, or a few can be made accountable), screwed up, or the power to address the negligence. That is where the Truther movement could have made a difference, but the theories just became sillier and sillier.



I ask you do the same. Simply, how do the discrepancies between the tapes and the earlier statements prove a conspiracy? They could also prove a lack of communication between departments (NORAD & the FAA)? Yet, this scenario is discounted or not even mentioned when it is clearly a logical possibility.

They don't prove a "conspiracy." But they beg this question:

The earlier claims and testimony before the 9-11 commission by Major General Larry Arnold, the commanding general of NORAD'S Continental Region, and Colonel Alan Scott, who had worked closely with Arnold, are the basis of the so-called "conspiracy theories" of the order to stand-down and allow the attacks to occure, and the shooting down of UA flight 93.

The NORAD TAPES (if they reflect the true time line) disproves those conspiracy theories.

So what was their motivation to lie if the Norad tapes are the true timeline? It has been explained that the motivation to lie was to cover up confusion and incompetence.

However even though this explanation has been widely accepted, it is not really believable. If our military had been guilty only of confusion and incompetence on 9-11, it would have been strange for its officials, by saying that they had been notified by the FAA earlier than they really had, to open themselves to the charge that they had deliberately not intercepted the hijacked airliners. We are being asked to believe, in other words, that Scott, Arnold, and the others, in telling the earlier story, acted in a completely irrational manner -- that they, while being guilty only of confusion and perhaps a little incompetence, told a lie that could have led to charges of murder and treason.

Nevertheless, we have to conclude that they acted in this irrational way-- as long as we accept Bronner's presupposition that the tapes contain "the authentic military history of 9-11."

That presupposition has been accepted by stories in the mainstream press, such as the New York Times story that refers to what "the tapes demonstrate."
IF this is false, then the tapes do not demonstrate anything except that the military, perhaps in collusion with members of the 9-11 Commission, went to extraordinary lengths to fabricate audiotapes that would seem to rule out the possibility that the military and members of the Bush-Cheney administration were complicit in the 9-11 attacks.

But is there any reason to suspect the truth of this alternative hypothesis? Is there any reason to believe that the 9-11 Commission, as well as the military, would have engaged in such deceit? Are there reasons to beleive that this new story, reflected by the tapes is false? Could these tapes have been altered?

The answer to all of these questions is Yes.

So for now I am going to bed.

I will address the reasoning for "yes" tomorrow.

(As far as your question of "lack of communication..." (incompetence and confusion).. that is basically the gist of the new story reflected by the tapes that clears the military of standing down, but that simplistic answer still leaves many questions not answered. More tomorrow.)

CTs grasping at Straws about scientific and technological Stuff they haven't got an inkling of!
Seen in every Conspiracy-Theory!

The current conversation is about the Norad tapes if you are interested in contributing anything besides insults and laughing heads. But if that's what you want to do we can move the Norad tape conversation to another thread.

I'm just not going to engage anyone who resorts to being rude anymore.

It it my opinion that Major General Larry Arnold and Colonel Alan Scott, did not lie to the 9-11 Commission in the reporting of the first official account of the response to 9-11.

It is my opinion that the NORAD TAPES were altered and fabricated to rewrite the official account and absolve the Military of being complicit and treasonous and to absolve someone of shooting down flight 93 and standing down on the Pentagon attack.

The reason is, that the first official account of 9-11 was far more obviously damaging and was the fuel to the flames of numerous conspiracy theories and there were too many questions that could not be answered.

So the NORAD tapes were concocted so that history of 9-11 could be rewritten whereby all the incompetence and blame was laid upon the FAA. And yet no one in the FAA was fired.

I think the events that led to the shooting down of flight 93 are where the story gets really interesting.

The CTs have already screwed that up too!
See your Post below!
But those Planes were Holograms anyway! Besides,OP is still on about 600 Tons of Explosives that somehow got set in the Towers without anyone becoming aware of it!
And he hasn't explained or shown when and how those Charges were laid without anyone getting wind of it!

Here's a terrific NY Times article as found in the IHT. The writer does a great job of debunking controlled demolition:


"The demolition theory has managed to endure what would seem to be enormous obstacles to its practicality. Controlled demolition is done from the bottom of buildings, not the top, to take advantage of gravity, and there is little dispute that the collapse of the two towers began high in the towers, in the areas where the airplanes struck.

Moreover, a demolition project would have required the walls of the towers to be opened on dozens of floors, followed by the insertion of thousands of pounds of explosives, fuses and ignition mechanisms, all sneaked past the security stations, inside hundreds of feet of walls on all four faces of both buildings. Then the walls presumably would have been closed up.

All this would have had to take place without attracting the notice of any of the thousands of tenants and workers in either building; no witness has ever reported such activity. Then on the morning of Sept. 11, the demolition explosives would have had to withstand the impacts of the airplanes, since the collapse did not begin for 57 minutes in one tower, and 102 minutes in the other."

Reposted from JREF

Can't wait to see if there is any counterargument for this.

All of the above is true but there is also additional scientific evidence that is even better proof that explosives were not used. There were many cameras and recording devices on the buildings by the time the second plane hit. The explosives would have made characteristic sounds and flashes in a sequence before the movement of the building ... which did not occur. Soundless, lightless explosives do not exist.

What the ignorant C/Ters try to prove is that the glass windows being blown out from the air pressure of the floors above falling and pushing the air out of each floor like a bellows, are caused by explosives. The sequence is wrong and even a casual review by anyone who understands the process proves there were no explosives.

ANYTIME, you read where a supposed expert mentions, IN ANY WAY, that there was a possibility that explosives were used, he/she is either lying or really doesn't have a clue.

Right!

All of the above is true and yet a demolition is still entirely possible. There were explosives and explosions heard at the bottom of the buildings according to many witnesses. There were even casualties from these explosions...before the plane even hit the tower. Also, puffs of explosives and lights were seen and recorded in video tapes of the collapse.

The "security" company was a Bush controlled company. There was also an entire floor that was off limits to everyone. That floor gave access to all the elevators and it made it possible to use them to bring explosives to any floor of the building. There were witnesses who saw men coming and going from that floor dressed in cover-alls.

There was no security in the basement and anyone could have driven a truck load of explosives into that building and loaded them into freight elevators and brought them up to the floor that was off limits.



Aside from the fact that you and the media ignore witness testimonies of hearing explosives, there are a lot of different kinds (and sizes) of explosives and not all of them are large and noisy. Armature video camera do not capture sounds much further than a block so those sounds would not have been captured. I recently had to purchase a long corded microphone to record a video that was fifteen feet away.

People keep trying to prove explosives were not used because that is what they want to believe and that is what the story their lying government wants them to believe. This is not logical. That building was designed to withstand a plane that size. It would not have fallen that way from a plane hitting it. It would not have exploded into dust. If it had been a "pancake" collapse there would have been a huge pile of debris at the foot print of that building. Instead, the city was covered with fine dust inches deep everywhere.

There are also videos of the explosions going off below the collapse and of course non-believers explain them away as "pressure" but they are all lined up very neatly, so um.... I don't buy that explanation.

You people are in denial.

You claim to be a "scientist?" I find it really hard to believe that you can't see the obvious.

yep,all 680 Tons of it,let alone placing them in specific Locations and Sequence!
You're dreaming!And there are no VIDS of Explosives going off!
Especially since other People saw Gravity-Weapons etc!

And since the defenders of the official account of 9/11 want to be obnoxious and make fun of the truth movement, I am taking the discussion about the NORAD tapes to another thread if anyone is interested in discussing that subject in a civil manner.

http://mingle2.com/topic/show/336331