• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

911: Planes Hijacked? Crashed into buildings? So where is the evidence?

Fledermaus said:
Only a fool would suggest NORAD "war games" had any effect of the completely separate CIVILIAN Air Traffic Controller radars.

But you already knew that.
Click to expand...

I didnt say norad had an umbilical cord connection to the faa now did I?
 
The ultimate effect of Vigilant Guardian was the foundation of the events of the day.
 
Henry David said:
The ultimate effect of Vigilant Guardian was the foundation of the events of the day.
Click to expand...

How?

Please be clear and concise.

How did an exercise which had NOTHING to do with live radar end up being the "foundation of the events of the day"

Methinks you are ignorant about NORAD, ATCs and radar.
 
Fledermaus said:
How?

Please be clear and concise.

How did an exercise which had NOTHING to do with live radar end up being the "foundation of the events of the day"

Methinks you are ignorant about NORAD, ATCs and radar.
Click to expand...

You know why Mark. We've discussed this many times here, and we both know it.
 
Henry David said:
You know why Mark. We've discussed this many times here, and we both know it.
Click to expand...

Except the folks at NEADS not only say you are wrong, they say the exercise actually improved their response. Not of course that it matters since you have never established why any of this is important.
 
Henry David said:
You know why Mark. We've discussed this many times here, and we both know it.
Click to expand...

Yes we have multiple times, IN FACT YOU REPEAT THE SAME SCENARIO OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

1. HD makes a false claim that he found on some truther site
2. HD refuses to back up his false claim
3. HD is proven to be wrong by others.
4. HD resorts to insults.
5. HD waits a few weeks then makes another false claim he found on a truther site.

Rinse and repeat ad nauseum.
With a limited number of false claims to choose from HD ends up repeating the same ones over and over again.
 
Quag said:
Yes we have multiple times, IN FACT YOU REPEAT THE SAME SCENARIO OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

1. HD makes a false claim that he found on some truther site
2. HD refuses to back up his false claim
3. HD is proven to be wrong by others.
4. HD resorts to insults.
5. HD waits a few weeks then makes another false claim he found on a truther site.

Rinse and repeat ad nauseum.
With a limited number of false claims to choose from HD ends up repeating the same ones over and over again.
Click to expand...

You could apply that to any truther.
 
NWO_Spook said:
You could apply that to any truther.
Click to expand...

No some of them invent their own claims. Some of them try to use false arguments to back them up
but yeah 3-5 is pretty standard.
 
Fledermaus said:
And you HAVEN'T shown how NORAD exercise impacted CIVILIAN RADAR.
Click to expand...

I have shown it Maus, and we both know it. The initial conversation between NEADS and ATC was printed in the mainstream media.

"Is this exercise or real life?"
 
Henry David said:
I have shown it Maus, and we both know it. The initial conversation between NEADS and ATC was printed in the mainstream media.

"Is this exercise or real life?"
Click to expand...

Is that your best shot HD?
Seriously how did that impact 911?
Hint it impacted it as much as ground effect.
 
Henry David said:
I have shown it Maus, and we both know it. The initial conversation between NEADS and ATC was printed in the mainstream media.

"Is this exercise or real life?"
Click to expand...

And that took HOW MANY SECONDS?

You HAVE NOT SHOWN how the exercise affected ANY radar.

So, another HD FAIL.

One of many... Collect them all.
 
Henry David said:
I have shown it Maus, and we both know it. The initial conversation between NEADS and ATC was printed in the mainstream media.

"Is this exercise or real life?"
Click to expand...

thats far too complicated for debunkers because it requires the connection of dots and their brains only function as message carriers.
 
Henry David said:
I have shown it Maus, and we both know it. The initial conversation between NEADS and ATC was printed in the mainstream media.

"Is this exercise or real life?"
Click to expand...

What was the answer to that question?
 
Mark F said:
What was the answer to that question?
Click to expand...

Finally, an intelligent question.

The answer was "real life".

But the more important point is that by having to ask the question, the NEADS man showed that there was some confusion--it could be either.

Though the answer was "real life", that was an incorrect answer, but the FAA guy didn't know it. He THOUGHT it was real life, but it was actually part of the exercise, and was somehow or other a false target. Maybe an inject, maybe a real airplane, but the aircraft that subsequently struck the North tower was NOT AA11.
 
Henry David said:
Finally, an intelligent question.

The answer was "real life".

But the more important point is that by having to ask the question, the NEADS man showed that there was some confusion--it could be either.

Though the answer was "real life", that was an incorrect answer, but the FAA guy didn't know it. He THOUGHT it was real life, but it was actually part of the exercise, and was somehow or other a false target. Maybe an inject, maybe a real airplane, but the aircraft that subsequently struck the North tower was NOT AA11.
Click to expand...

Too bad we couldn't get an intelligent answer.

It was a standard question and in a fraction of a second any confusion was over and people did their jobs.

You are dead wrong - as usual.
 
Mark F said:
Too bad we couldn't get an intelligent answer.

It was a standard question and in a fraction of a second any confusion was over and people did their jobs.

You are dead wrong - as usual.
Click to expand...

It wasn't a standard question, because it is not a standard situation that training exercises such as Vigilant Guardian are being conducted. Such exercises are NOT daily events, they are NOT standard events.

That you must claim they are is par for the course.
 
Henry David said:
It wasn't a standard question, because it is not a standard situation that training exercises such as Vigilant Guardian are being conducted. Such exercises are NOT daily events, they are NOT standard events.

That you must claim they are is par for the course.
Click to expand...

Nonsense.
 
Henry David said:
Finally, an intelligent question.

The answer was "real life".

But the more important point is that by having to ask the question, the NEADS man showed that there was some confusion--it could be either.

Though the answer was "real life", that was an incorrect answer, but the FAA guy didn't know it. He THOUGHT it was real life, but it was actually part of the exercise, and was somehow or other a false target. Maybe an inject, maybe a real airplane, but the aircraft that subsequently struck the North tower was NOT AA11.
Click to expand...

Wrong on so many levels....

How much confusion did the exercises cause? A few seconds? Please share how THAT could have affected the outcome of 9/11.

Especially since NEADS/NORAD WAS NOT informed of the initial hijackings until it was far too late to do anything.
 
Henry David said:
It wasn't a standard question, because it is not a standard situation that training exercises such as Vigilant Guardian are being conducted. Such exercises are NOT daily events, they are NOT standard events.

That you must claim they are is par for the course.
Click to expand...

Garbage....

There are exercises being run practically every day at some level of the government/military.

Par for the course... Ignorance of training and operations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom