Striking similarities with the NRO plane crash exercise and the Pentagon attack

http://hcgroups.wordpress.com/2009/09/07/911-training-exercise-planned-for-simulated-plane-crash-five-minutes-before-pentagon-attack-took-place/

9/11 Training Exercise Planned for Simulated Plane Crash Five Minutes before Pentagon Attack Took

Five minutes before the Pentagon was hit on September 11, 2001, a training exercise being run by a US intelligence agency just over 20 miles from the Pentagon was set to include the scenario of a small private jet plane crashing into a building. It is unclear whether the scenario was played out, or if the exercise had been called off by that time.

Important details of the exercise, which was being conducted by the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) at its headquarters in Chantilly, Virginia, are revealed in a document obtained by the 9/11 Commission. The document, titled “Early Morning Flight Activity September 11, 2001,” was part of a series of 9/11 Commission records moved to the US National Archives at the start of this year. It was found there, and posted online, by History Commons contributor paxvector.

Exercise Observers Meet at 9:00 a.m.

The NRO exercise, which had been planned for several months, was set to commence at 9:00 a.m. on September 11, when its observers would meet to be briefed. The observers and exercise role players were to move to their positions for the exercise 10 or 15 minutes later. In the exercise scenario, a Learjet 35A with two pilots and four passengers on board would take off at 9:30 a.m. from Washington Dulles International Airport. This airport, which is located four miles from the NRO headquarters, is where American Airlines Flight 77–the plane that reportedly hit the Pentagon–took off from earlier that morning.

About a minute after the Learjet took off, an explosion would be heard, and the pilot would complain that one of the engines was on fire and he was losing altitude. Around 9:32 a.m., the plane would crash into tower 4 at the NRO headquarters. Since the Pentagon was hit at 9:37 a.m., this means the crash in the scenario was scheduled to occur just five minutes before the actual attack occurred at the Pentagon, which is 24 miles away from the NRO headquarters.

Several People Killed and Injured in Scenario

The Associated Press has revealed that no real plane was going to be used in the exercise, and the crash was to be the result of mechanical failure, not terrorism. But the consequences of the simulated crash would be similar to those of the actual 9/11 attacks, albeit on a smaller scale. The newly released document describes the scene: “Various parts of the aircraft struck the outside portions of the building, spraying jet fuel. The final portions of the wreckage were scattered around the entryway between tower 1 and 2. Jet fuel was burning uncontrollably in the vicinity of the flagpoles. There are a number of injured and dead NRO employees.” Some stairwells and exits at the NRO headquarters were going to be closed off in order to simulate the damage from the crash, thereby forcing employees to find other ways to evacuate their building.

Exercise ‘Inputs’

The document reveals that the exercise was set to include numerous “inputs,” which appear to have been communications and other actions intended to make it appear more realistic to its participants.

Planned inputs included, at 9:30 a.m. a smoke generator was going to be started, to simulate the fire resulting from the crash. At 9:32, numerous phone calls would begin flooding in, from people reporting fires in various locations in the building. At 9:34, after someone reported that a small civilian jet had crashed, NRO personnel were to be instructed to evacuate their building.

At 9:37, the first engine from Fairfax County Fire Department was scheduled to arrive on the scene. (It is unclear whether real fire department personnel were going to participate in the exercise. The document states that “inputs from simulated Fairfax responders” were to be used “if Fairfax does not play.”) At 10:03, four more fire department trucks and emergency medical technician vehicles would respond to the crash. By 10:30 all the simulated fires would have been put out, but it would be confirmed that at least four NRO employees died in the crash. The exercise was set to end at 11:45 a.m.

Exercise Canceled

The exercise was reportedly called off in response to the morning’s real world attacks. However, the specific time when it was canceled is unclear. NRO spokesman Art Haubold has said only that “as soon as the real world events began, we canceled the exercise.” It is therefore unknown whether the simulated plane crash was played out, or whether the exercise had been brought to an end before it took place. After the exercise was canceled, all but the NRO’s most essential employees were sent home.

The Highly Secretive National Reconnaissance Office

The National Reconnaissance Office is a highly secretive organization. The New York Times called it “probably the most secretive of the intelligence agencies.” Until 1992, its existence had not even been officially disclosed. It is an agency of the US Department of Defense, and is responsible for ensuring “that the US has the technology and spaceborne and airborne assets needed to acquire intelligence worldwide.” According to the New York Times, the NRO “designs, builds, and operates spy satellites that photograph and overhear what other countries are up to.” It employs some 3,000 people, who are drawn from the CIA and the military.

Jesus.

What WOULD Jesus say about 9/11, anyway?

I bet he'd be pretty shocked at what happened, and how you constantly carry water for the powers that be.

How could I have possibly thought there are two sides to this matter. Of course I'm a traitor to my country.

Another one of your stupid "psychic foreclosure" attempts. I will ask you politely one time to quit accusing me of being a water carrier for the PTB or I will start calling you a bin Laden apologist. Deal?

When you support the OCT and dismiss all evidence of 9/11 being an inside job, and basically all evidence of all deep conspiracies, you are supporting the status quo, which helps the powers that be.

As far as me being an apologist for bin Laden, bin Laden officially takes credit for 9/11. He WANTS to take credit for it. I say he didn't do 9/11. How is that supporting bin Laden? In fact, by supporting the OCT, you are being more of a bin Laden apologist than I am.

otherwise, it's just your one-size-fits-all rhetorical device you use to try to marginalize opponents of your various goofy claims and theories and make it seem like they are Bush supporters.

BeFree has defined part of the "OCT" to be Bush's claim that he had no warning of 9/11, a view that I believe everyone here categorically rejects. I don't hink we'll hear BeFree yammering, "you support the OCT" again anytime soon.

And no one is "dismissing all the evidence of 9/11 being an inside job", precisely because there really isn't any, unless you count stringing wild speculation together in a confused, disjointed pile. That's why when you're challenged on your so-called "evidence", you lash out by accusing anyone who dares to disagree on the facts of "carrying water for the PTB".

Simple question, Spooked. Since you seem incapable of admitting that there is a valid opposing view of 9/11, why do you scream bloody murder when people reject your goofy bullshit for lack of evidence? Despite what you think, 1 + 2 does NOT equal 4.

I am noting the fact that you now concede that bin Laden has claimed responsibility for 9/11. Perhaps you can explain to us what's in it for him to claim responsibility if he didn't do it.

Was there US complicity or not?

As far as bin Laden, he's either:
1) a deluded patsy
2) completely fake and the CIA has dopplegangers/actors portraying him

Since he's likely dead, I would guess the second.

and you needed a scenario for a major emergency drill, what would you choose?

The point is the timing and the elements they used for the drill.

so what? This is why you're regarded by many here as an inside joke, dude.

You seem to have forgotten to include that. "The point is the timing and the elements they used for the drill." Where's the "point," please?

I forgot who I was dealing with.

OF COURSE, you can't see the point. You never see ANYTHING suspicious at all about 9/11.

Not sure why I bother with this, really.

Sometimes people say they're "making a point" when they're just stating a fact, but it doesn't really "make a point" unless the fact applies to at least an implicit argument. Sorry, but the only implicit argument I can see here seems to be fallacious, so I'm asking you to state your argument explicitly, if you have one, so I'm not misunderstanding you. Or is it just some vague suspicion about, um, something or other?

something something

:P

If I were planning a massive psy-ops where I would trick the world into believing four planes had been hi-jacked... but they really had not been... then blew up the twin towers with miracle mini-nukes that leave no radiation but fooled everyone, including witnesses, by mind controlling them with the TV... then set off bombs in a field in PA and at the pentagon and quickly planted plane parts (in a very stealthy manner so no one saw me) at both locations, as well as in NYC (ohhhh, I'm so very stealthy, not a single witness... HA!). The key part of this whole plan would be to have an only vaguely similar dry run through that involved none of the participants to be held on the same day and then cancelled... bwahahahaha, yes, yes, the plan comes together. :eyes:

it doesn't get more coincidental than that.

good find spooked!

I mean, I get that it's quite a coincidence, but so what? Is Spooky suggesting that the drill planners must have known about the attack, so they planned the drill in order to... uh, because... um... and that's as far as I can get. Seems like I'm not the only one, so can you help us out here?

what don't you understand?

... at least attempt to state what you're getting at in the form of a logical inference, you would see for yourself what I don't understand, which is simply: what logical inference? At least that was the objective, but it's fascinating that you don't seem to understand what I'm asking for. Or is the problem that you do understand what I'm asking for, but you now realize that there isn't any logical inference here?

So let's try it like this: Can you state what you're getting at in the form of a scenario? What are you suggesting happened?

the occurrence of events that happen at the same time by accident but seem to have some connection

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coincidence

If you have some concrete evidence it was anything more than a coincidence, by all means,, please provide it.

Using that definition (or any other conventional understanding of the word), calling the drill a "coincidence" means there is not really any connection between the drill and the attack, other than occurring near the same time. As near as I can tell, the conspiracists on this thread seem to think the drill wasn't a coincidence. How does the definition of the word help your case?

But using that definition, maybe I can phrase my question in terms that you can understand: If you can't state any logical inference that you're making, and you don't even have a plausible scenario that relates the two events, then why would you think that two events that "seem to have some connection" really do have some connection?

you even admitted the two events were "quite a coincidence." obviously you think the two events looked connected in some way.

did you even read the definition of coincidence you provided?

but feel free to believe in all the "bizarre coincidences" you want.

do you have any proof at all that they were connected? Hint: No.

sorry.

no, really?

:bounce:

at Langley.

Duh.

Who knew?

... then it wasn't a coincidence? I get it now. :silly: :crazy:

they involve super secretive agencies, like the NRO, and having so many parallels to the actual event (Pentagon attack) like the same scenario (plane crashing into government building), same day, practically same time, same vicinity, same airport, burn victims, evacuations, and a smoking generator of all things.

how in the world would that have helped/facilitated the actual attack?

did yours suddenly disappear?

why am I not surprised?

Anyone catch the opening ceremony of the Winter Olympics last night?

1½ years on from Beijing, 8½ years on from 9/11 - and in the real world, they still haven't managed to make CGI effects on live pictures convincing :eyes:

What are the odds? The rabbit hole widens.

... there's a deep clue here somewhere about how conspiracists reason, but I can't quite put my finger on it...

(ETA: :sarcasm:)

... and that was my point. :eyes:

evidence?

that doesn't sound like he thinks it's a low standard of evidence. if he did, he would have said the exercise was barely a coincidence, if one at all.

how big of a coincidence do you think it is, SDuderstadt?

the government thought it was a "http://www.boston.com/news/packages/sept11/anniversary/wire_stories/0903_plane_exercise.htm">bizarre coincidence." they seem to think it wasn't a low standard of evidence either.

you really need to read "Fooled by Randomness".

do you think "quite a coincidence" is imcriminating or something?

some are more remarkable than others. Maybe you should study "post hoc, ergo propter hoc".

i think so.
William thinks so.
even the US government thinks so.

you seem to think you've found some sort of smoking gun. You haven't.

"Coincidence" generally means an accidental or happenstance conjunction of events.

If you think that the NRO exercise has some importance for understanding the 9/11 attacks, then you don't think it's* coincidental.

Are we done?

*ETA: i.e., the temporal proximity of the planned exercise and the attacks. I wouldn't characterize the exercise itself as "coincidental," whatever that would mean.

do you characterize it like me, that "bizarre coincidence" was no coincidence, but an obvious connection to the real attack?

provide whatever evidence you have it was other than a coincidence.

And so far, I have no reason to think that you see a connection, either. Maybe the word "connection" is causing as much trouble as "coincidence" did. Do you, for instance, think that the NRO exercise somehow helped the attacks to succeed?

like, wow man. the government admitted it was a bizarre coincidence, William agreed it was quite a coincidence, and you don't think it's a coincidence at all? and you guys call us deniers.

yes, i believe the NRO exercise helped the Pentagon attack succeed. why else would the two have so many similarities.

Critical thinking classes. Your local community college will have them.

there are all the same i think for you and your debunker friends.

dude. You have none, which is evident from your silly claims.

so you can even understand what smearing is and isn't, dude.

"I'll put my critical thinking shills up against yours anyday...." shills? yes, I bet you would

"Connection" isn't the same thing as "coincidence." In this context, they are almost antonyms.

How do you think the NRO exercise helped the Pentagon attack succeed?


Coincidence?

I mean, if you enumerate all the similarities, and all the differences, there are more -- and more important -- differences than similarities. But even if that weren't the case, I would still appreciate a straight answer to my question above. At this point, I am not holding my breath.

JFK. The simple truth is you can construct a list like that for any two individuals if you dig deep enough. It means nothing and is an example of "found significance". But it will, of course, cause people like Travis to "ooh and ahhh" and think he's really onto something.

wouldn't you agree the government would have one of its agency help it succeed? and of the agencies chosen, wouldn't you think they would choose a super secretive agency to do the deed?

aided/facilitated the 9/11 attacks. If, as you claim, it's "obvious", why can't you explain this???

was connected?

Failing that, why don't you explain how the NRO exercise aided/facilitated the 9/11 attacks rather than just keep yammering about "similarities"?

Your "argument" reminds me of the old joke:

24 beers in a case
24 hours in a day
Coincidence?

I'm not interested in chasing your goalposts. Sorry. IF you've got nothing, man up and admit it.

I'm asking basically the same question that William Seger asked five hours ago. (It was probably asked before that, but I don't feel like rereading all those posts.)

If you can't come up with an iota of a semblance of a possible connection between the two events, then pretty much by definition, piling coincidence on top of coincidence can only make things more coincidental.

(And since you can't go back and make the NRO exercise involve a hijacked passenger plane, your question seems all the more irrelevant.)

what ... kind ... of ... explanation ... would ... be ... good ... enough ... to ... convince ... you ... the ... exercise ... was ... connected?

CONCRETE EVIDENCE, not your supposition. You can't even explain the connection yourself.

I would settle for a wild-ass guess, and apparently he can't even give me that.

to convince you that the NRO excercise was connected to the Pentagon attack?

concrete proof.

you don't even know what would constitute co0ncrete proof, so you keep parading a set of "striking similarities" and castigating us for not "getting it".

No you know why the "no-planes" branch of the "truth movement" is shunned by the rest of the movement. You think "striking similarities" establish something. This is stupid and pointless.

It's weird. It's as if you aren't interested in your own ideas. --Oh. Maybe you aren't.

would change your minds because i could speculate all day long and i don't want to waste my time giving you speculations that won't change your minds, so let's cut out all the time wasting and you guys simple give me examples of speculation i can give you that would change your minds.

"speculation"....why the fuck would we want speculation?

Do you have any evidence of your claim or not?? Yes or no?

If I could think of a plausible argument that the NRO exercise had any effect on the 9/11 attacks, by all means I would do so and spare you the trouble.

And I have to suspect that if you had one, you wouldn't have gone all these rounds refusing to post it.

Your move, still.

that tells me that no matter what kind of speculative answers i give you, it won't be enough to change your mind.

i'm not going to bother if your minds won't change.

you're trying to shift the burden of proof here. You're essentially asking your opponent to prove YOUR claim.

Critical thinking classes. Your local community college will have them.

on the premise that, oh, Bill Clinton engineered the D.C. blizzard to get back at Al Gore.

You really can't pin it on me. DU provides this place for you to step up, and you. Just. Won't.

i gave you guys example for my question to you. you're a little silent on that too.

very well.

I'll fret over it while I'm on vacation in europe for a month :)

dude.

and the Pentagon attack before the coincidences become too much for you to accept and would think the exercise was part of a conspiracy with the Pentagon attack? please give some examples that would put it over the top for you.

Have you ever noticed all the "striking similarities" between dogs and cats?

They are both warmblooded
They both have four legs
They both have been domesticated
They both walk on all four legs rather than walk upright
Neither can speak
They both have two eyes, two ears, a mouth and a nose
They both require licensing by local authorities

Therefore, dogs are cats.

If you don't believe that, how many more "striking similarities" would it take to convince you?

your "argument", dude.

Do you understand you can stack up all the "similarities" you want and that does not demonstrate causality???

Critical thinking classes. Your local community college will have them.

(...although I notice that you tend to ignore the obvious differences.) What you need in the first place is some logical, rational reason to think they're connected in some way. You've ignored repeated requests for that, and you've even declined to offer any speculation about what the purpose of planning the drill at the same time as the attack might have been, if it somehow was to support your speculated conspiracy. If you could do that, you would then need some convincing evidence, but you're not even at that step if you don't even have a rational hypothesis to start with. You're simply claiming that the two events must be "connected" in some mysterious way because "bizarre coincidences" don't happen -- a factually false premise.

No offense, of course :eyes:, but what I'm seeing is that rational thought doesn't really play any role in your conspiracy speculations. You start by assuming there was a conspiracy, then search backwards looking for anything that you think might support that assumption, whether or not it's rational. It's not wonder, then, that you don't appreciate why others find your arguments weak and irrational: You don't even know what they mean by that.

would there have to be, in terms of similarities, before you would believe that they aren't coincidences anymore, but that the NRO exercise was connected to the Pentagon attack.

please stop trying to divert my question.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

It's the irrationality of assuming there is any connection at all when you can't even put together a narrative of what you're suggesting happened. Obviously, you're trying to somehow imply that the drill planners must have known about the attack, but then you can't come up with even a murky semblance of a rational reason why they would then plan a drill that was similar to the attack. On the other hand, since they were in an office near Dullas (not National, BTW), then there is a fairly obvious reason why they might consider a drill where a small private jet (not a 757, BTW) hit there their building after engine failure on takeoff (not a terrorist attack, BTW).

How many similarities would it take to have this entire thread make a freakin' lick of sense? I think it's an imaginary number.

and you still won't believe they are connected?

in order to try to reason with you, you first need to understamd the concept of reason.

If I give you this imaginary number, will you finally reveal your imaginary reasoning?

i'm asking what more similarities do you need to make you think the exercise was connected.

such as if their exercise was about terrorism and not an accident, if the plane was a hijack, if their plane was a 757 instead, the maker was AA.

what would it take to push you over top to change your mind?


notice i gave you examples, just like i've been asking for you guys to do for me about your question.

 

 

there was a proposal at one time to use an attack on the Pentagon for an exercise --

and basically they decided that "no one would believe it!" --

And, of course, no one would believe it --

How about if we said the Russians had done this -- Americans would be ROFL --


Also, the transcripts of the military tapes shows that one of the guys at the computer

doesn't believe an attack on the Pentagon either -- and he's basically saying ...

are we supposed to believe this coincidence?



I think there is every reason for you to be here doing this work --

It's a very serious issue -- as serious, perhaps, as the coup on JFK -- no one gave up

on that, either. And, certainly, those who protect the cover ups never give up. They can't!

The coup on JFK took a president -- but it also took our people's government --

and it took the Democratic Party, as well.


Nothing was to be left to fight back --

1) Assume the gov did it.
2) Why would they knowingly schedule an exercise that almost mimics what happened.

Wouldn't it make sense to have, military exercise wise, a normal day? I just don't understand why they would schedule an exercise knowing what as going to happen.
For the record I'm neither mihop or lihop. I'm more inclined to believe the Bush regime was simply incompetent.

Could be because only a few knew about the date?

This idea that the whole government was involved is ridiculous.
The government didn't 'DO IT'.
It is still unclear just who did it.

The incompetence theory is, well, incompetent.
Bushco was very successful in getting their way with many things even against great opposition. They knew what they were doing the whole time. Nearly everything they did was well planned.