TimeTraveler

On the morning of September 11th 2001, there were multiple war games taking place by the U.S. Airforce and NORAD. The point of this thread is to try and figure out how those war games may have affected the response by NORAD and the FAA and also to find out who was in charge of those war games. Vigilant Guardian Vigilant Warrior Northern Vigilance Northern Guardian Tripod II On May 8, 2001, President Bush made Dick Cheney to coordinate development of US government initiatives to combat terrorist attacks on the United States. (Source: Crossing the Rubicon, Michael C. Ruppert - Cited from White House Press release, may 8, 2001) Would that have put Dick Cheney in charge of overseeing all wargames on Sept 11? Perhaps Gen. Ralph E. Eberhart was? Or maybe both? Did the wargames distract from efforts to react to the terrorists attacks on 9/11? In his book, Crossing the Rubicon, Michael C. Ruppert accuses Dick Cheney intentionally confusing the system, a system that has never failed prior out of 60+ engagements, to allow the attacks to happen. Link: http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/011805_simplify_case.shtml

I meant complexity. Although both are considered. Refusing to return insults with response is different than refusing to be party to an arguement. Thats your spin. Both of those statements do not represent what I said. In your opinion, which is inaccurate and I disagree with. Does it matter to you that the 9/11 commission did not even look into 90% of what I am talking about? I have done no such thing' date=' but I have said I believe it is possible. Change and to or. Remember I made that statement after you asked me to make a "guess". There is a few other suspects, some deranged scientist perhaps. Thing is the ames strain,which is what was sent to congress, is a product of a CIA weapons research program. It is apparent that it originated from within the US. Who sent it will probably never be known, unless further investigation takes place. It is a realistically possible government complicity was involved in the sending of the anthrax. But this is a whole seperate issue. And predetermining that the US is capable of no wrong doing without even taking a look at the evidence is insulting to not only Americans but to the entire global community.

Yeah but look what he is trying to work with? He deserves credit for the progress he has made, at least he is really putting forth an honest effort regardless of it's been successful or not. imo.

I agree. No it doesn't mean anything is correct. But, I think I know you well enough Ophiolite to say that if you read the book I think you would agree that further investigation is 100% necessary, and that complexity is a very realistic possibility. And it goes alot further than just this guy and his investigations. It's just that he has done some serious work and investigation, his work and evidence is very organized and covers the whole spectrum. But, there is a huge 9/11 truth movement that is growing everyday trying to get answers and find out the truth. The problem is no one is really approaching the problem in the right way. Stanley Hilton:

I don't see how suggesting that the 9/11 commission was not a reasonable investigation for the biggest homicide case in American history is 'off the deep end'. Pangloss, you should just take the last word I don't want it. As long as it doesn't come in with the intention of antagonizing and provoking the continuation of this one-sided flame war.

Yeah gradual change might not be effective enough, and it seems we are gradually changing in the wrong direction. A u-turn, or major shake up seems necessary. Maybe a civilian owned and operated watch dog organization to keep our government honest, however our government could probably take control of that gradually by buying it off and using it to their benefit. Seems our goverment is becoming a corporation where money is king and the perception of law and order can be purchased. America Inc.

Isn't that an Einstein quote?

Do you honestly believe that the 9/11 commission was even trying to denounce any traces of government complexity? It would seem that their main purpose was to establish a basis of what went wrong and how to increase our ability to prevent something like this happening again. I do not understand how you get the impression that this panel was more qualified than an investigator who has blown the door wide open on the CIA's complexity in drug trafficking, or who has spent the last 30 or so years investigating behind the scenes in our government. The panel consisted of politicians and business men, the only experience they have investigating anything is investigating how to get elected or how to make more money. I mean c'mon. They didn't even prove that the list of the 19 hijackers was accurate, all they did was report what was reported to them. There is much evidence to suggest that as many as 9 (maybe even more) of the list of 19 are still alive. How much investigating went into finding out how accurate our intelligence was on exactly who those hijackers actually were? They basically took the list and accepted it. They didn't investigate the accuracy. They did very little in investigating the war games that took place that morning, they didn't investigate who was commanding and in charge of those war games. (which was likely Dick Cheney) They didn't investigate the real impact of those war games, they basically stated what they were reported that those war games actually helped because the FAA and Norad were more prepared, which can pretty much be proven false, the war games caused some severe interference and massive confusion, but they didn't really investigate into that too much. They didn't investigate the manuever that was performed over the pentagon, by an alleged hijacker pilot who had barely recieved enough training to fly small aircraft. But somehow he was able to pull off a loop manuever and very tricky and accurate shot into the pentagon that probably less than 10% of our most experienced pilots could perform. I could go on and on about what was not investigated, and how unreal this investigation was. But thats okay, you continue to believe they did a perfect job and that politicians and business men are best suited for the biggest investigation in our history.

Thanks Pangloss for the background information. I appreciate you taking the time to share your knowledge. I know I could have looked it up and researched it myself, but it's easier to just ask someone who knows who can summarize it in a few minutes rather than me spending a number of hours trying to learn it. So again I appreciate the help!

I'm going to stray off-topic for a second Pangloss, I hope you don't mind. I won't let it become a thread hijacking though! Phi, You seem to think political reform is necessary but unrealistic right now on a major level. What do you think would make it a realistic possibility and how might that be achieved? Just curious to learn more of your views on things, we seem to share alot of the same types of opinions.

Hopefully we learn from history and WW3 never happens. It doesn't need to, the remaining resources can be shared, dependancy of resources by all can be minimized. We need to ween ourselves from our addiction of mass consumption. Peace throughout the world, at least relative peace without major conflict, is not unreasonable or utopian ideal, it is necessary and possible. ww3 is the war that will end all war, and quite possibly human existance. Hopefully the world gets its act together before it takes place. Although the Bush administration has laid the foundation for which it may take place. my 2 cents.

Well according to this article by the AP they were able to get their hands on the Volckner report and it says their is no evidence to suggest Annan had any complexity in the corruption of the oil-for-food program. http://www.adelphia.net/news/read.php?ps=1010&id=11809447 Like I said earlier, I think Annan is a great man with great ideals, he is courageous and he wants to make these changes in the UN to fix it up. The UN is not going to go away, no matter how much we may not like it, so the best option is to make changes to make it more effective and I think thats exactly what Annan's proposed plan will do. It's a step in the right direction, it needs to be followed by further steps however. My 2 cents. This question could take someone a few days of typing to answer so I will just start it off on one point that I think is very important. Define genocide & set strict standards and necessary responses to end it. What I mean is, it seems to me that when genocide is taking place everyone argues over if it is genocide or is it civil war or should the UN get involved, or blah blah blah, and by the time anyone recognizes it as genocide its too late, massive damage has already been done, and there are many examples of this. When a case becomes considered genocide most always a large amount of the public demands action so often it is debated if a case is genocide or not. I think they needs to structure a serious guideline that will save lives and prevent the butchering and slaughtering of people like what happened in Rwanda, and is happening right now all over the place. Also, lets define terrorism.

I agree, a third party could win, but I don't think it has anything to do with being taken seriously. I think, and this might sound off the wall, that it depends on how much money the candidate spends on his campaign (in most cases). Well, why is that the case? Well as Pangloss illustrated we have tried to make it more important for people who usually do not vote to get invloved and vote. I don't think a majority of people pay attention fully to everything that is going on. People don't research the candidates or the issues. Alot of people who just are not interested, or do not have the time to pay close attention decide their vote based on what they see from the huge smear campaigns and massive advertising campaigns. Pepsi spends some rediculously high amount of money on advertising, yet most people will say "I don't buy pepsi because of the advertising." Well, they would not spend that kind of money if it wasn't proven to work, and thats the same thing that is happening in our elections. Money doesn't gaurantee an election, but it is a huge factor. I think maybe we need some kind of test/quiz that determines someones knowledge about issues and politics before they are allowed to vote, and if people passed the test and voted they could be eligible for some kind of tax right off as motivation to pay attention and to vote. Also I don't think limiting how much a candidate can spend on a campaign is a bad idea. I think I remember someone saying that in the UK a candidate cannot spend more than $1 million (correct me if I am wrong). I think that is a good idea, between Bush and Kerry last election I think over $500 million was spent, and I don't remember seeing huge campaigns discussing important issues and what the candidates stances on those issues were, I remember flashy advertising commercials just trying to smear the other guy. In my memory, Making it a national holiday so people can have the day off to vote is an awesome idea in my opinion.

I agree completely. For me, I usually side Republican, it seems thats where most of my views align, however not on everything. So I consider myself open, I think I share certain veiws with all parties and determine my stance on each issue seperatly regardless of which side believes what. Democrats have become gutless in important issues of foreign policy, the republicans are alot more agressive and usually stand up and do the necessary things to keep world peace without getting walked on for being to politically correct, and the neo-cons slipped in under the guise of being republicans (and possibly hijacked elections), and the voting for third parties is so minimal it is a huge waste to vote this way even if some of these parties might be what this country needs. I dunno, I am frustrated with the political system of the US, it doesn't seem to work very well from what I have witnessed in my short time on the Earth.

Well said!

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=6780&highlight=grand+theft+auto

Lol, its not. And if you had seen the reaction I caused by even suggesting that in the Grand Theft Auto thread.... some people went off, it was interesting to watch people get so upset over a video game.

It's the advertising and the excitement they illustrate that irritates me. "For only 3 easy payments of $19.95 you can watch, on live TV, the United States military completely destroy the country of Iraq! And with this special offer we will throw in the destruction of Afghanastan absolutly FREE!!! You won't see a deal like this again, call today and sign up!" Prices and participations may vary. This offer is not available everywhere. Shipping and handling is $4.95. Virginia residents send in $1.90 for tax. This program is rated E for Everbody.

It's a good thing they are tackling the real important issues! *sigh*

No not at all, and you trying to argue this point clearly illustrates how little you understand the difference between seeing a psyciatrist and being committed to a mental institution. I don't know what your thought process is behind this whole baseless arguement, but it appears you are just in it to win it and get the last word (like usual). You win, I'm done. Go pat yourself on the back knowing that you won a debate because your arguement was so ignorant and arrogant for anyone to continue. And the "I'm older than you so that means your stupid and wrong" arguement is priceless! Later.

I've posted links to about everything you would ever want to know about this guy. Did you read any of them? Did you look over his bio, his LAPD records, or any of the other 20 or so links of all this guys records and documents about his history that I posted? Are you joking? Do you just make this stuff up as you go? He went to a psychiatrist on his own accord and was diagnosed in perfect mental health and you interpret that as being committed to a mental institution? Millions of people see Psyciatrists especially people in these very stressful professions. This completely fabricated and manipulated arguement holds no water what-so-ever. Do you even know who he has interviewed? Do you even know his standing in the press or are you just making more stuff up? His work is independant, he has a staff of about 10 editors and writers. His news letters are in the form of essays instead of dumbed down mainstream media reports, his level of writing is higher than most anyone in the media, his work is alot more known than you give credit for and yes people do pay attention. If your waiting for the mainstream media to catch on to what he is saying and actually report about it you might be waiting along time. It's not in their best interests to even think about reporting this stuff, they have too much to lose. Weak. You don't even have any idea who he has got the attention of. People who understand what really goes on in our government agencies pay attention to this guy. That is just subscribers, and you don't really get anything extra for subscribing except newsletters that usually become free about a month after the newsletter is released. People subscribe to get those stories early, and to help support the site and keep his work going. The rest of your arguement is not worth the time to respond. Its just more fabricated and manipulated made up conclusions that show how little you know about what you are trying to argue about.

I seen a commercial for a new military channel that will be showing the war. I agree I don't like how they turn it into entertainment. I find it strange that they would be starting a military channel for the war if they were not expecting that this war will continue on past Iraq. I think they are probably planning an Iran war no matter what the resolution comes of them seeking nuclear technology.

Thats got to be the weakest arguement in recorded history. At least its better than the usual insults though.

And you came to this conclusion after reading his book? Or you came to this conclusion because its convenient for your arguement?