Lack of fighter jets on 9/11

[rfranklin]

"Lack of fighter jets on 9/11 explained??"


Mike Ruppert, for my money has been the single most doggedly determined investigator of what happened on that day. It looks like he has uncovered something really big.
This seems to me the most important question still unanswered about 9/11. Why is there no one in the mainstream media willing to take this up. Can Bush-cheney stonewall this forever?

From artcop.com forum:
""The wargames will tie Bush and/or Cheney and Rumsfeld directly into a complete paralysis of fighter response on 9/11. I have gone directly to many NORAD, DoD, NRO, and other sources and questioned them. I have knocked on many doors and I have even obtained some documents. I have obtained an on-the-record statement from someone in NORAD, which confirmed that on the day of 9/11 The Joint Chiefs (Myers) and NORAD were conducting a joint, live-fly, hijack Field Training Exercise (FTX) which involved at least one (and almost certainly many more) aircraft under US control that was posing as a hijacked airliner. That is just the tip of what I have uncovered.""


More here....

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/060704_tripod_fema.html

[cthrumatrix]

1. pass this on to your friends....a bump for truth!

[Minstrel Boy]

2. I hope people read this, it's a huge story.

I heard Ruppert deliver some of this material in Toronto a couple of weeks ago, and created this now-archived thread "New bombshell: on 9/11 Pentagon conducted live-fly hijacking wargame":

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1694495

It's another severe test of faith for hardline coincidentalists.

[gandalf]

12. Luckily, most of the coincidentalists

restrain themselves to the 9/11 forum.

[DenverDem]

3. Oh, but it was just 19 arabs that pulled the 9/11 job.

If there was a conspiracy someone would have talked etc.

How much does the gun have to smoke before the sheeple wake their lazy asses up????

[jay-3d]

4. i don't understand

[Az]

5. To sumarise this theory

Bush et al knew the attack was coming on 9/11 and enabled it by calling for the emergency response team to be effectively tied up performing a live exercise at the time. Thus no stand down order was needed because the system was contravened already.

Currently we only have circumstantial evidence to suggest that this was a deliberate act. The evidence still allows for coincidence. We need to tie the actual impetus to this exercise to the Bushies and show that they fixed the date. Finding evidence of malicious intent will be extremely difficult but if we can pin down the directives we may be able to bypass that.

[Beetwasher]

7. 3 Options the Way I See It

1. Total lucky coincidence for the hijackers (another in a string of many!)
2. The hijackers knew about the exercise somehow and planned accordingly to coincide w/ the exercise.
3. (related to 2) There was coordination between the hijackers and US Gov't insiders.

Of course, all this hinges on the accuracy and veracity of the linked story.

[Az]

9. Forth option

Bush inc had information about the timing of the attack and pushed the Airforce into the exercise without coordinating with the terrorists. It is doubtful terrorists would actively cooperate with Bush inc. This admin has shown itself to both be duped and play others for dupes.

[Beetwasher]

10. They'd Use Middlemen

I guess I'd argue that it could have been coordinated without direct contact, but OK, I'd make that 3.a. ;-)

[sundancekid]

11. thanks to Az and Beetwasher for the clarifications you provide here

[2Design]

19. sure would be nice if we could prove this but like JFK death

they seem to do CYA very well.....

[havocmom]

6. sounds like more evidence for MIHOP

The 3000 dead (which many feel is such horror that it argues there was no MIHOP) those, 3000 dead, as horrible as it is, is just a drop in the bucket compared to the dead and injured in the ensuing invasion of Iraq. Since that invasion was the game plan all along, those 3000+ dead due to 9-11 was just more collateral damage in the junta's views. It was collateral damage which helped enrage a huge part of the US population to move beyond rational thought and response to a level of blood thirsty, blind hatred.

When people insist 3000 dead is something the junta just wouldn't do, they are just not able of fathoming the evil many people are capable,e of. Many tend to assume others work by the same moral compasses they themselves do. No such limits exist for the junta. There is no moral compass, only $$, power and mental illness.

[Az]

8. Still lihop

This still allows for Bush et al to be ignorant of the actual target but knowledgable that something was coming. They simply cleared the way for it to happen.

Now we have to connect the dots with evidence not conjecture.

[gandalf]

13. For Bush personally it was certainly LIHOP

He would certainly not be involved in the actual planning. There would be no reason for that. From his standpoint it is LIHOP.

But regarding other forces in the US...

[Az]

16. The difference

The idea behind Lihop is the Bushies knew something was up and they cleared the path for it. Perhaps even to the extent of pointing out the opening to the terrorists.

Mihop on the other hand suggests that from square one this was all Bushies doing. That the supposed terrorists never even had anything to do with it. Think remote guided planes. Explosives planted in the buildings. A bomb taking out the Pentagon instead of a plane. etc.

For my take on this there is currently insufficient evidence to convince me of Mihop. There is strong evidence (though still circumstantial) to suggest Lihop.

Remember, George Bush could be utterly destroyed by Ossama simply releasing a tape stating that Al Qaeda had nothing to do with the attack. Mihop creates too unstable a circumstance for the conspirators. It hands too much power to those that are in a position to know about the attack. Lihop allows the terrorists to believe that they won a victory over the US all the while being manipulated by the Bushies. This is far more in line with what we are coming to know as SOP for the Bush regeime.

[gandalf]

21. Are your assumptions consensus here?

"Mihop on the other hand suggests that from square one this was all Bushies doing."

I suggest a definition of MIHOP where not necessarily the Bushies are responsible, but "some" groups within the US. Why tie the "make" in the term MIHOP only to the Bushies? In my eyes that is too narrow a definition. The Bushies are not the only group who profited by the attacks.

As far as I remember, there was a tape of OBL claiming that Al Qaeda was not responsible. Only later he claimed responsibility.

What OBL says can never destroy Bush, as long as not further conditions are fulfilled. The effect of his statements depends on how the media plays it to the public.

[havocmom]

14. Sorry, just can't buy the passports of the hijackers being found

at ground zero when so much other evidence was vaproized in the fire from the jet fuel.

MIHOP getting clearer all the time.

[Az]

17. We are allowed to disagree

But as I said I still side with Lihop. Mihop simply creates too many problems for the conspirators. Not the least of which is the power it hands to Ossama. All he has to do to totally discredit Bush and Co is release a video denying his involvement. Yet he has not done so. Think of the devestation he could visit upon the Bush admin by doing this. Yet instead he embraced it and took credit for it.

Now as to the passports and such Bush Co may well have them pegged before they attacked. This still fits in with Lihop. They simply let the get on the planes and do their thing. Then when they went to the investigation they get to be the big heroes by quickly determining who did it. Much more in line with what their goals would be.

[gatorboy]

18. Ever heard of Operation Northwoods?

Interesting how similar this is to 9/11, Escpecially wen you consider the report came out months before.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/jointchiefs_010501.html

[Az]

20. Its not a question of whether they would do it

Lihop presumes the same things. That a US president would seek to allow foreign nationals to kill US citizens in order to advance his agenda. The only difference is in who is doing the killing.

Mihop is unnecissary in this case. There are active elements that do wish to cause the US harm. All they needed was opportunity. Lihop has Bush Co handing them just that.

In the case of Cuba it was the US that was actively hostile. They were seeking a way to justify an attack on Cuba. Cuba had no interest in attacking the US as it knew what the result would be.

In the case of Al Qaeda they do not care if the US attacks back. They are not a centralised sovereign nation. They do not have a direct target to hit. They are in essence an idea. Thus it is a matter of simply lowering our defenses enough and making sure they are ready to take advantage of it.

[mediaman007]

15. I've always believed that the mis-administration thought a highjacking...

would be one plane by 5 or 6 terrorists. I don't think that Bush* can think beyond "Delta Force." He could then justify all of the actions that came about.

They got snookered by their own limitations.

It has to be "LIHOP."

[Minstrel Boy]

22. Do you know that as well as a life-fly wargame of hijackings on 9/11,

the CIA was conducting a simulation of planes crashing into buildings?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x1298401

Just another "bizarre coincidence."

Traditional hijackings are not "catalyzing events," and do not beget wars that "will not end in our lifetime."

[donhakman]

23. Bush DID NOT request a fighter escort for Air Force 1 out of FL.

[Gloria]

24. KICK!!!!!!!

eom