|
 |
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
[You can read Jared Israel's seminal work on how the U.S. Airforce must have been stood down on 9/11 demonstrating governmental
complicity in the 9/11 attacks at:
Guilty for 9-11, Part 1: What Happened to the Air Force on September 11th?" http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/911page.htm#a and you can read below my posts on how various self-proclaimed 911 truth movement leaders, including Mike Ruppert, Kyle Hence, Nick Levis, Mark Robinowitz, etc., are instead providing for public consumption a logical rationale for why the Air Force didn't respond, with their talk of war games or war exercises they say were conducted on 9/11 which they say confused the Airforce's ability to respond.] June 07, 2004 Subject: No Standown? That's What Mike Ruppert Says He'll Prove In His Forthcoming Book No Standown? That's What Mike Ruppert Says his not-to-be-released until-August evidence will show. Excerpts from Mike Ruppert's 6/5/04 email to the 911 Truth Alliance list, also on his website at: http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/060704_tripod_fema.html "I can use the wargmes to tie Bush and/or Cheney directly into multiple war game exercises which I have now established were used to paralyze fighter response on 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." "There never was a stand down order issued." "I am still conducting this investigation and I will disclose everything in my book "The Truth and Lies of 9/11"; which we are now certain will be out in August (finally). I cannot say more while the investigation is in progress. Anyone who saw my recent presentation in Toronto, however, can verify that I have this nailed and that it's extremely important." Someone recorded part of the live audio stream of the Toronto Inquiry and has posted audio of it's final Question & Answer session to the web. The link is here: http://www.radio4all.net/index.php?op=program-info&program_id =9369&nav=&session=f10b3bc8950d5dcc444744b1631acb3c or here: http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/06/290188.shtml (And I, of course, share in the poster's hope that the conference organizers will make complete audio of the conference available on the web, not just "clips" from same.) In that Question & Answer period, Mike Ruppert responds to two questions re: his no-standown theory. Essentially, he said he believes that on 911, notification to NORAD and all phonecalls were properly made, and that NORAD et al. wanted to scramble etc. to protect us, but they couldn't figure out which were the real hijacked planes and which weren't (because there were fake hijacked plane(s) as part of war games) and thus couldn't appropriately respond & also that plane(s) which might have responded were too far up north due to wargames to timely respond. He's later asked in this Q&A session whether his investigation reveals whether these war games also interfered with Andrews airforce base's ability to respond on 9/11, and indicates that he does not know, that he has absolutely NO information on Andrews airforce base in this regard. Also, Mike Ruppert has now posted to his website under a title heading: "Lack of NORAD Response on 9/11 Explained" that he is seeking info on: -------- "1) what office or person at the Department of Defense was charged with coordinating all of them [the war games] so that they did not overlap or interfere with each other, or occupy enough military assets at one time to jeopardize operational readiness? 2) what part of the government or official was responsible for and had the authority to coordinate and act as liaison between the military, federal agencies and state and local agencies and private corporations so that they [the wargames] did not overlap or interfere with each other, or occupy enough essential assets at one time to jeopardize operational readiness or impair the national security of the United States? Was it the White House? Was it the Office of National Preparedness? Was it the National Security Advisor? Was it the CIA?" -------- How could any of this lead to anything but a negligence or gross negligence theory, this alleged mis-coordination to ensure that wargames didn't overlap or interfere with each other or jeopardize operational readiness? Why is work being done attempting to "explain" or create an alibi for the gov't that they thus far haven't put forward themselves? Why should such an alibi be coming from the 911 truth movement? (You know, those terrorists somehow found out about our planned war games in advance and timed their attacks to take advantage of it and we didn't sufficiently oversee the games to insure they didn't jeopardize our operational readiness, which they unfortunately did, kind of thing.) Angie June 8, 2004 [In response to the above post, I received insulting flames which actually referred to the above post as a flame] RE: No Standown? That's What Mike Ruppert Says He'll Prove In His Forthcoming Book Here's what my post did, which cannot be characterized honestly as a flame: I drew the attention to the list of a prominent 911 researcher who is discrediting a mainstay theory of the 911 truth movement (the standdown) when such was only previously contained in list posts with obsure subject headings, and pointed to additional material indicating same. I also indicated my belief that such a theory would serve as an alibi for the gov't and questioned whether it should be worked on & put forward by the 911 truth movement, something I thought worth discussing with others on the list. I saw no purpose to contacting Mike directly since a) no details 'till August and b) obviously he is of a contrary opinion. I already knew Mike's view. I posted it to the list to learn of others' views about this new theory, suggested at the recent 911 Truth Inquiry and only hinted about recently on the list. Mike, do you realize that you are here claiming that you can prove INTENT? INTENT on the behalf of, perhaps among others, Bush and Cheney and/or Rumsfeld - that these wargames were planned to - as you write - "DELIBERATELY" paralyze the airforce from preventing an attack they knew was coming? If you are able to prove wargame confusion, Mike, that equals negligence. Anyone disagree with that? Mike? Confusion, with nothing else, does not demonstrate intention. In fact, confusion is the opposite of intention. I look forward to reading your book in August, Mike, to see what evidence of inter alia, "intention", you have found. I also look forward to the people from Toronto coming forward to the list who can (so far nobody has), as Mike suggested in one of his emails "confirm" and "guarantee" this, or who, as Mike notes on his webpage: "anyone who saw my recent presentation at the Phase II Citizen's Inquiry in Toronto can verify quickly that I have nailed the fighter response question." By all means, lucky Toronto attendees, please quickly (but persuasively) (and by using some of the things that Mark Robinowitz is fond of periodically) verify that Mike Ruppert has this nailed. Articles of faith are not sought. When I say "this", I mean, of course, both 'confusion' and 'intent to confuse so attack proceeds', otherwise it's still rock and roll to me. Angie July 19, 2004 Mark Robinowitz (of the oilempire website) repeatedly indicates that these these wargames actually "paralyzed the military response", that it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Bullshit. In this, Mark's going farther than the gov't has even gone thus far. In fact those in the 911truth.org organization are actually egging on such a theory, hoping it becomes mainstream (witness 911truth.org regional director Nick Levis yelling out at televised 911 Commission hearings to "tell us about the war games"). Of course, this wargame stuff can easily be interpreted as explaining, providing an alibi for the airforce standown. Like the forewarnings, it points away from the goal. And Mark's soures for such a claim? Well, he has absolutely none for his conclusion that such games paralyzed the airforce response. However, the evidence he cites for the existence of the war games themselves, and not his conclusion about them, oh, they're things like a one year post 9-11 brochure put out by, oh yeah, a CIA officer, and statements made by that paragon of virtue, Richard Clarke, the then "counter-terrorism" chief in the White House! Hilarious isn't it - if it wasn't so sad. And this from someone who expends great efforts at assailing other 911truth sites & activists for putting forth items without solid evidence that could damage the credibility of the movement. Sometimes the hypocricy is so thick, you need a knife to cut through it. July 18, 2004 [If anyone is still with me, you may recall that Mike Ruppert said at the Toronto 911 Inquiry Conference that he had no information on whether any war games at Andrews Air Force base interfered with the Airforce base's ability to respond on 9/11. Not so for Kyle Hence, co-founders of both 911 Citizens Watch and 911truth.org.] As far as the air force stand down on 9/11, Kyle presented to a national televsion audience what he admitted he wouldn't feel comfortable presenting in a written article since it isn't backed by on the record evidence - and without any disclaimers!! Here I am speaking of the claim he made on national television during that press conference that a war exercise was in progress at Andrews Airforce Base on 9/11 that took its planes too far away to aid in 911 protection - an alibi for the gov't, a negation of the stand down. This is the disclaimer that Kyle presented to the 911 Truth Alliance list after I asked him what his sources were for such a claim. Of course, the television audience deserved the same: "I am not presenting anything here as 'documentation' nor trying to make a case in an article or elsewhere about what this means. I presented it as it was...off the record from a source I hope to go back to." What is meant by that? The case had, in fact, already been made elsewhere. On national television, in fact! And when it was so made, it was not presented as being "off the record from a source". It was presented on national television as if it were a proven fact: ""We've learned, in part from the first FAA-Norad hearing, that . . . and we've also learned that an independent exercise being conducted out of Andrews Air force base, that three -(inaudible) planes were taken over North Carolina approximately 200 miles away on that very day as well, leaving the Pentagon and P52 air space over the nation's capital undefended". [I asked Jared Israel, who did the original Airforce Standown research, see link at the top of this article, about his opinion of Kyle's evidence. He replied: We have Kyle's WORD that someone nameless gave him his WORD that this happened. We have to trust Kyle and an unnamed source on the level of truthfulness and we also have to trust an unnamed source on the level of knowledge. (That is, if Kyle is telling the truth, and if the unnamed source thought he/she was telling the truth, the unnamed source could still be misinformed. How could we possibly know he wasn't? But of course, we have zero reason to trust this unnamed source, or to believe this exchange actually happened!] July 25, 2004 Kyle made the above claim at his 911 Citizens Watch press conference that was held after the last public hearing of the 911 Commission. At his most recent CSPAN press conference, following the release of the 911 Commission's report, Kyle also, again on national television, offered as fact ("we understand") his crap about a wargame at Andrews Air Force Base, which took their planes too far away to scramble to protect us on 911. He mentioned this in response to a question of what are the 3 things missing from the Commission's report, complaining that they failed to adequately explain airforce response - and then offering the wargames explanation! I tell you, with 911 truth movement friends like this, we don't need enemies. Angie August 9, 2004 There are more people too, unfortunately, in the 911 Truth Movement, other than those indicated above, who are pushing the war games stuff like nothing else. See for example, the written opinion of Michael Kane, the "chairperson of NY 9/11 Truth" on the 911 Commission's report in which he indicates that "The first blaring fraud of this report is what it doesn't say." Yep, he's talking about the wargames and he's furious that the Commission failed to provide the evidence for all the various wargames he says took place on 9/11. And now, sad to say, New York 9/11 Truth is hard at work on a "campaign to garnish public support for the below call for Congressional Hearings focusing on the concerns stated below, and you can help jumpstart it with us" to: "Declassify as much information as possible about the multiple (up to 5 different) war games NORAD & other military agencies were running on the morning of 9/11 itself. This issue must be brought to light in front of the American public to ensure national security." "Hold in depth public hearings focusing solely on NORAD, FAA, NMCC (National Military Command Center, which as you know is headed by George W. Bush, Dick Cheney & Donald Rumsfeld) & the 9/11 War Games." In fact, although there are those in the 911 truth movement who desperately want to be able to provide this war game confusion alibi to the American people, the powers that be - at this point in time anyway - don't feel the need for this fall back excuse just yet, as can be seen in the 911 Commission report, footnote 116: "We investigated whether military preparations for the large-scale exercise compromised the military's response to the real-world terrorist attack on 9/11. According to General Eberhart, "it took about 30 seconds" to make the adjustment to the real-world-sitatuation. We found that the response was, if anything, expedited by the increased number of staff at the sectors and at NORAD because of the scheduled exercise." Angie You can contact me at AngieSept11@yahoo.com
|
