Military Drills

[Alanador]

Ok, here's one of the first series of facts that really made me begin to start watching world leaders with a very critical viewpoint. I'll give you my rant then some links to verify, and I will try not to raise issues related or otherwise so we can stay focused.

 

On 9/11 our military held drills over the eastern seaboard. These drills mimicked the events that transpired and happened simultaneously. This is the reason that NORAD was told to stand down by the Vice President (who was operating in command of NORAD). It is also the reason that many of the traffic controllers were held from reacting, it was almost impossible to make a distinction and controllers could not get the clear answers they needed to save lives as fast as they needed to, due to this. The details of the op. (operation) differ depending on where you find your information. The facts they agree on is that it involved at least one plane crashing into one building. I've read a jet liner, I've read multiple planes...be we can do without conjecture for the sake of the arguement. ALL parties now agree publicly that some kind of arial assualt simulation run by our military coincided perfectly in time with the attacks...

 

What are the odds of that? Coincidence? But wait, there's more...

 

On 7/7 the British military was holding drills as well. Drills of the exact nature that transpired, at the precise terminals effected. There is footage I will post of a British senior official acknowledging this fact, which I will post with the links. The exact scenario...again. Right down to the terminals exact location.

 

What are the odds of that happening twice? Any mathematicians in the field here? I have read an analogy that explains the odds of this, occuring not once but twice. It could be likened to this...I randomly walk somewhere in the world, and pick up a grain of sand and then put it down and leave. You then walk to some random place in the world...only to land where I did and pick up the same grain of sand. Harrowing.

 

Here's the Links, I am trying to provide links only to sites that are not of any particular persuasion (i.e. democrat or republican, etc.), or only to sites that contain views of many parties. I will not send anyone to a one sided view, unless the material is so important to see that it must be taken that way. Fortunatley most of it is easy to search for yourself even, from google, and go to sources you already trust.

 

Drills on 9/11

 

USA Today

IndieMedia

Canada Free Press

 

Video of Drills on 7/7

British News

 

Ok now before anyone screams conspiracies, I haven't said what this implicates. Let's not talk about that to start with, let's just go over some facts. What do you think?

[ThetaOrionis01]

What are the credentials of the sites you are linking to? Unless you can convince me that your sources are trustworthy I'm afraid I'm more inclined to consider your post as yet another conspiracy theory.

 

What precisely are the 'facts' rather than the 'conspiracy theories' you want to go over? And what precisely is the point you are trying to make? You post two scenarios which may or may not have occurred (pending credible sources) and vaguely hint at a connection. That, I'm afraid, is precisely how rumours and conspiracy theories are started and propagated - in the absence of fact speculation takes over, and the reader's own fears/suspicions/prejudices/whatever 'fill in'.

 

 

Just about the only source I would trust is the BBC, and a search on their news site didn't bring up anything - of course, I may have entered the wrong search terms, so if you could link me to BBC news articles supporting your post I'd appreciate it :)

[Alanador]

What I mentioned can be found everywhere, from USA Today to Associated press. Whichever news source you personally trust has at least touched on it. As far as conspiracy theories...close minded folks that instantly assume I am tryin to fill their head with lies and turning me off doesn't help progress this discussion. This could implicate a leak at the highest levels...espionage, among a myriad of other possiblities. I specifically asked the facts to be addressed and not the circumstances they may have occured under. The links provided are painfully chosen to be non partisan...so folks could not come and slam them, for the links they are. I am only dragging things into the light for you to look at. Look away if you want to.

 

But here's a BBC report for the sake of what its worth, but really, isn't ALL news influenced now by corporations. In this clip you can hear the traffic controller ask if it is real world or excercise.

 

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2...tcontroller.htm

 

I am currently looking for more BBC reports, I'll try to find things you can relate to Theta. As for me implying they are connected, that is your own supposition. I make no inference in my commentary on my own opinion of the subject. But I suppose the post itself in some way is a "loaded" post to anyone who feels strongly about the subject, and I do expect to be challenged. Sorry if my first response (pre edit) didn't come across as if that was the case.

 

Here's another BBC report

 

The fictional scenario was based on simultaneous bombs going off at exactly the same time at the underground stations where the real attacks were occurring:

 

POWER: At half past nine this morning we were actually running an exercise for a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning, so I still have the hairs on the back of my neck standing up right now.

 

 

HOST: To get this quite straight, you were running an exercise to see how you would cope with this and it happened while you were running the exercise?

 

POWER: Precisely, and it was about half past nine this morning, we planned this for a company and for obvious reasons I don't want to reveal their name but they're listening and they'll know it. And we had a room full of crisis managers for the first time they'd met and so within five minutes we made a pretty rapid decision that this is the real one and so we went through the correct drills of activating crisis management procedures to jump from slow time to quick time thinking and so on.

 

 

(BBC Radio Interview, 7 July 2005)

[loveme4whoiam]

I rely on the BBC as much as the next person for news, but they are far from being an independent news media. Quick example - the trial of the RAF doctor who refused orders to go back to Iraq (after having previously completed two tours of duty and being awarded for bravery) and who was sentenced to 8 months in prison was not reported in the slightest, as far as I am aware. Or the SAS veteran who resigned from the Regiment, because he refused to fight alongside US soldiers who he said "repeated and daily violated human rights" (quote form the Daily Mail quoting him). The BBC are no means non-biased.

 

As for the conspiracy theories that surround 9/11 and 7/7, I reserve judgement. I naturally lean towards the anti-Bush and Blairists, but as for what real evidence there is for them remains to be seen. I don't think the whole story will ever get out, since whatever official records there are (or are not, depending on what you believe) are subject to governmental whim. The things that have been overlooked by the media, yet are perfectly provable, are of much more interest to me. Not to suggest that I think this is a trivial matter, far from it, but I think more energy should be focused on bringing to the public attention facts which can be proven.

[ThetaOrionis01]

loveme4whoIam - if you search the BBC news website you'll find several articles about the RAF doctor's court martial. If the BBC has a bias, then IMO it's an anti-government one. Ar least the BBC, unlike your average conspiracy theory website, is accountable for what it reports.

 

Alanador - if you confuse a request for accuracy and verification of your 'facts' with 'close-mindedness' then I'm afraid you lose credibility and veer towards the 'paranoid conspiracy theorist' camp. By denying my requests for credible links and clarification of your point you do yourself no favours at all.

 

Surely I don't have to tell you that just because something has been posted on the internet and shows up in a Google search doesn't necessarily mean it's true or accurate? I asked for credible sites - you have yet again provided a link to a site which does not fall into this category. If there is a BBC news report, why not link directly to it?

 

 

Furthermore, you still have not answered my question as to what precisely your point is. You've hinted at espionage. If you suspect espionage, then say so, explain your reasoning and support it with facts - what you have done was to post 'facts', then make some comments which attempt to steer the reader into coming to a certain conclusion.

 

What are the odds of that? Coincidence? But wait, there's more...

 

Neat little rhetorical device. Why don't you tell us what the odds are rather than using rhetoric? What statistical process have you used to calculate those odds?

 

 

If you really want to have a debate then provide accurate facts and state your points clearly. Conjecture and speculation, served with a dollop of rhetoric, don't amount to a debate.

[Alanador]

It's frankly not up to me to tell you what happened. I was not in charge that day. I can make suppositions like you can all day to challenge any given stance, since the information available is VERY hard to find. I did provide you with two BBC links, one is a video interview from TV, the other is a transcription of a BBC radio interview with the date availble for your verification. But I think if we all gather what we do know as fact as agreed on by all parties then maybe we can all make a more informed desicions, and more important-more informed voting decisions. :) As for the odds I have not calculated them, that is why I asked if there was a mathematician on the forum at all, a statistician that can figure that out. The mere fact that we need a specialist to tell us the odds are astronomical is rigmarole, and is to stare at the finger that points to the moon, missing the whole point. The odds surely are in fact astronomical when quantified, but if you cannot get beyond that it's cool, but it surely seems obvious to me that the figure would be more than most of us could comprehend or even say aloud as an integer for that matter. Furthermore, I did not state a point. Also, what makes your preferred network the only viable source? As shown, I can provide you with reports from your preferred sources, but if that were absent, in the face of overwhelming coverage by worldwide press, would the facts have no validity for you? Then yes, THAT is close minded.

[Peregrine]

Yay, another 911 conspiracy moron to tear apart...

 

For you to have even the slightest point, you have to do three things:

1) Prove that your facts are correct, and that the exercises did take place exactly as described. Who exactly has provided this information? What are their qualifications and knowledge that make them a credible source on these specific exercises? Are they people directly involved, or are they outsiders drawing conclusions from limited information. Even if drills were taking place (and drills are pretty common), are your sources reliable enough to be sure that they involved the specific situation?

2) Provide some credible explanation for why they would be doing it, and why it isn't a coincidence. You're implying that the coincidence (if there is one) was intentional, and therefore the government was involved in planning the attacks. There is a huge burden of proof on you to give support for this absurd claim. Keep in mind you're accusing the government of mudering thousands of its own citizens and causing severe economic damage. Things like that don't happen for no reason, to have a conspiracy you need a motive for a conspiracy.

 

3) Provide a credible explanation for how the government could hide their involvement so easily. Please consider the following facts:

 

* This is the same government that couldn't even cover up Clinton's sex life, something vastly less important and damaging.

 

* The coverup would have to involve large numbers of people, at many levels of the government. And it would have to be done flawlessly, one leak and the whole thing falls apart.

 

* Again, they are hiding an attack condemned by virtually every civilized country, and involving (if your conspiracy theory is right), the murder of thousands of American citizens by their own government. These large numbers of people would all have to have near-zero morals, and be willing to accept such a horrible act. The odds of this actually happening are essentially zero, someone would break the silence.

 

* The US media, always desperate for a new scandal, has completely ignored this "coincidence". Surely if there was even the slightest bit of legitimate support for it, they would cover it?

 

=======================================

 

Now then...

 

READ THIS ARTICLE

 

Now, that's a pretty different story... not so much of a coincidence after all. The drill we're talking about involved an accident, a crash of a small plane due to mechanical failure. NOT multiple large aircraft in suicide attacks. NORAD had nothing to do with it, this was one agency at one location, and the drill was focused on testing their building evacuation procedure. Air traffic controllers had nothing to do with it, especially since no real planes were involved.

[karkarinus]

I would like interject on this subject, having also suffered (not directly) the effects of what you probably call 3-11 (the attack on Madrid which we call 11-M, of 11th March 2004.)

 

Firstly though, I would like to ask Theta: What do you call a credible source? Any and all of the sources cited by Alanador could be credible, biassed, lying, making it up, sensationalising etc. The respective government bodies, too, could be taking any of these stances. What would convince you? A friend who was involved in the simulation?

 

Having said that, though, my own personal paranoia suggests to me that the governments want people to think that they were actually preparing for such attacks, and were taken unawares by what NATO have alledgedly described as "a terrible coincidence." the following article http://www.belt.es/noticias/2004/marzo/18/otan.htm (in Spanish) states that NATO were running a Crisis Management plan up until 10th March 2004, simulating an attack on a chemical plant in Holland, with an estimated death toll of 200. I quote: "The similarity between the exercise designed by NATO and what happened in Madrid is spine-chilling, and has shocked the diplomats, soldiers and intelligence services that participated in the simulation only hours before."

 

The exercise was apparently codenamed CMX 2004, and involved all 19 allied countries, and for the first time, the 7 Eastern European candidates for inclusion in NATO.

 

What are the odds of a third person picking up the same grain of sand from where the second left it?

 

Or perhaps we should ask: "what are the odds of three governments coming up with the same story after being *!&*ed by Bin Laden and trying to convince Joe Public that they hadn't been off playing golf while there was a tangible threat to public security looming?" Somewhat less astronomical, methinks.

[Alanador]

Jeez, for some well educated people you dont retain what you read long. I didn't say anything about what these facts imply. Where is your research to debunk these facts...as reported by the mainstream media I linked to? Whats wrong with Canadian free press, or USA today...nothing that isn't wrong with ANY news source. Your reactions are in fact close minded...I did not state any conspiracy theory, you are so conditioned for some reason YOU make the jump right to that without DEBUNKING what I say. Find me a report from BBC that says these drills didnt happen. I provided two instances where they acknowledge them, did you even check the links? If you choose to excersise futility then obviously you do not need to enter the conversation, NO supposition could be made on just these facts alone, for any case. But let's start here. Your pot shots at someone else's theories don't interest me. I merely asked if they were coincidence. What you infer from that is your own supposition. My suggestion if you are so interested in this subject is to stop waiting for someone to spoonfeed you the facts like i just did. If a google search brings you to BBC, does that taint the information? Check the links, you will not end up at any conspiracy theorists sites. If you are insinuating that the video is tampered with or somehow edited then say it. Futhermore...

 

1. I presented the facts for this thread. If the journalists at the USA Today paper have the right to non disclosure of sources to protect a possible whistle blower than it cannot go further unless we look to see who has been sued for slander or some such violation. Neither the British nor American Governments have publicly denounced these concessions made by far more than 'crackpot' paranoids. And sure, these stories hit conspiracy theorists sites...but they also hit Yahoo news, Canadian News, Associated Press, BBC, APFN, Global Free press and so many more my point would only be lost in the list. It is not within the scope of this thre

[Alanador]

(cont) It is not within the scope of this thread to put EVERY link that is avilable...I choose only non-partisian links. If I were to list them all believe me that these two facts alone would be confirmed time and time again, by press organization after press org.

 

2.Why? Who knows. I didn't even say it was any one thing and even offered the olive branch that it could indicate espionage and be no fault of the governments involved, to avoid this rhetoric. That seems digestable, but I personally have no idea, and since I have no way of accessing Top Secret Documents I can't give you what you appear to be after. Thank goodness you weren't in any position of authority during Watergate, there would never have been an investigation.

 

3.I have no idea the total network of influence that a goverment has, or all the tools available at their disposal, nor do I know if any government is even 'behind' anything. In short you seem to be critical of 'theorists' but are in fact the exact polar opposite and just as hard to reach. Your insatiable appetite to rip a 'conspiracy moron' to shreads is very apparent, but rest assured your dinner lies elsewhere Peregrine. I do not agree with folks you seem to categorize me with, which is also close minded. The truth within this arguement is that these 2 facts are irrefutable, and can be verified by doing some of your own research. I stated pretty clearly that the thread was supposed to be absent of this conjecture...I asked if it was coincidence, if you are insulted or frightened by my curiosity then you are too easily offeneded.