Was there a NORAD stand down on 9-11?

The political perspective of many authors on the subject of 9-11 conspiracies is that 9-11 was a 'domestic operation' ... rather than al Queda it was executed by the American, British, and Israeli governments ... these two diametrically opposed political perspectives lead to two entirely different analyses of the meaning and the significance of 9-11.

It is typical of many authors on the subject of 9-11 to use hyperbolic expressions a great deal (where you read an innuendo followed by a hyperbolic assertion of irrefutable guilt, and then another and another and so on...this form of debate is usually evidence for a weak argument in that the hyperbolic assertion is intended to strengthen the innuendo, but in most cases I find this constant resort to hyperbole to be very unconvincing and it has the opposite effect to what was intended).

Now in the case of many of the classic 'truisms' regarding 9-11 there are alternative explanations available for most of the points raised by the authors, and these do not constitute the type of irrefutable proof they are then trying to suggest can be inferred from such things.

A good example of this is the 'truism' which states that there was a NORAD stand down ordered on 9-11, and of all the arguments in favor of a massive conspiracy, this one is the most often repeated, and probably considered the most compelling by a lot of people...

However the possibility exists that this was false all along, and something else turned out to be the true explanation...This needs to be checked out thoroughly ...Inside Job - Unmasking the 9/11 Conspiracies by Jim Marrs ... According to this book there was no 'stand down' ordered for Norad on 9-11 but rather what was actually happening is that on that very morning Norad was conducting a hijacking simulation scenario into which the actual hijackings were confusingly mixed and thus the bad response to the situation...

"There is also the fact that NORAD-Northeast was conducting war game exercises that morning, a fact that has been very little talked about and certainly not reported to the general public. What's also not been reported, according to the information that I have, at least one of the scenarios they were considering in their war game exercises concerned hijacked aircraft being crashed into buildings. Now, this could explain the lack of response when the air traffic controllers began to report that four planes were off course..." - Jim Marrs, Author, Inside Job

The author suggests that if the 9-11 hijackers were able to perfectly coordinate their actions with the timing of this war game exercise this is evidence for an 'inside job' in that they would have been privy to priveleged information that allowed them to time the job perfectly and this gave them the advantage that they needed to get those crucial minutes required without a true Norad response which then leads to that theory about how Dick Cheney or somebody else ordered what is called a 'stand down' of Norad on 9-11. If the above information is true it explains all the confusion on those audio tapes in that at first the hijackings were considered a war game exercise and then only when it was to late to intercept the planes was it realized that this was not part of the war games and terrorism simulations being conducted on the morning of 9-11. Which would make the 9-11 terror attacks one of the most cleverly planned and well coordinated al Queda operations, and would be indication of just what kind of sophistication they are capable of when planning their strategy.

This is just one example of many others where it turns out that there can be alternative explantions to what is quickly become 'orthodox' when it comes to explaining 9-11. For example, the second most powerful argument used to explain government planning and execution of the 9-11 attacks is the unmistable coverup following 9-11, with the Bush administration engaging in unseemly conduct in trying to block the investigation every single step of the way...

Now as for Ashcroft cancelling his flights during the summer, this would certainly explain a coverup after the fact...and then there is that Bush memo about how 'Bin Laden was determined to strike the United States' which was dated August of 2001...now of course the government is going to want to cover up these and other such things which they certainly did everything possible to accomplish, but it is hyperbolic to then make the definitive assertion that this is evidence for the government actually executing the 9-11 attacks...this could also be explained as the government sacrificing public safety for corporate welfare by protecting consumer confidence in flying and keeping their mouths shut for that very reason...the Pentagon was conducting war games during the clinton administration whereby they rehearsed a scenario that had a hijacked passenger aircraft crashing into the Pentagon, and the Clinton administration first received intelligence about aircraft being used as flying bombs back in 1995...through all this airport security was not strengthed to the levels of Israel's El Al, and the public was kept in the dark, and since corporate profits provides us with a bipartisan explanation (which is what we need here) this accounts for that particular weird behavior...as for the cover up after wards you would expect that...not a surprise...so then the assertion that there was a cover up and this then is the most damning evidence that 'Bush did 9-11' well that claim cannot stand alone, as there are other ways to interpret the same events, some of which provide a more satisfactory explanation, and thus, if this was a court case, such a form of argumentation would be insufficient.

When conducting an investigation you often look for fingerprints and other such things, and in the case of 9-11 the fingerprints on the operation do not match those of the Bush Republicans ... terrorism, in particular attacks on Wall Street and the Stock Market, are not good for the economy, and as you will notice the economy and Wall Street are both still in recovery and sucking on the tit right to this very day...9-11 was also real bad for the airline corporations, who, you might recall, needed to suck on the tit to the tune of tens of billions of dollars and if it is the case, as the evidence suggests, that both the Clinton and the Bush administration went out of their way to protect the profits of the airline industry before 9-11, even going so far as to place public safety in jeopardy for the sake of corporate profits, it seems inconsistent to suggest that they would then send not only the airline industry, but the entire Wall Street stock market and the economy into a tail spin at the end of the processs...one might also recall the shocked look on the face of George Bush, sitting in that classroom in Florida, when he was informed of the second plane strike on the WTC...

There are many pieces of evidence and innuendo which are construed, using hyperblic argumentative techniques, to be irrefutable proof that 'Bush did 9-11', but on examination they can either be more satisfactorily and completely understood by using a different explantion, or they turn out to be factually incorrect (for example there was no explosives planted at the top of the towers as a viewing of the video evidence demonstrates, while some far out conspiracy theorists attempt to explain that the cloud of dust and debris that shot out of the hole was 'an explosion', which would place the bomb right where the impact and resulting inferno from the plane crash took place...as well the buildings are clearly seen to tilt over sideways and then begin caving in right where the hole was from the impact from the planes).

Now this type of completely bogus and far fetched 'evidence' (a false interpretation of the collapse video as just one example among others) has made me deeply suspicious of every other damned thing I hear...for example you hear the one about the '16 foot hole in the Pentagon'...given the distorted evidence and even fabrications I have been exposed to over time, I am remaining unconvinced at this time (did 3000 Israelis evacuate the building the day before 9-11, as ordered by Mossad? No. that didn't happen. Did a bomb blast at the top of the towers take down the buildings? No, that didn't happen. Was there a 'stand down of Norad' on the morning of 9-11...apparently that didn't happen either but rather the correct explantion is something altogether different...were missiles video taped rocketing toward the twin towers just before they fell down...didn't happen, oh, and by the way, with the whole damned city of New York watching the event, it would be pretty hard to concoct a conspiracy cover up of those last minute missile blasts, a cogent fact that has not stopped some people from spreading that story around the internet - or, perhaps this spreading of such nonsense around is part of some psyop by some intelligence agency in the government the purpose of which is to create people just like me who are reacting with growing disgust and deep mistrust and suspicion to each and every new 9-11 conspiracy type story that comes out, having been burned so many times before, and thus this psyop can work to undermine any 9-11 investigation and protect not only the airplane multinationals, but all the other corporations of the world, who also get shown the same favoritism by the government, even if it means sacrificing public safety for corporate profits so as to prop up 'consumer confidence'...however, while that could be true that these conspiracy stories are part of a psyop to discredit the investigation of 9-11, there are a lot of people working on their own as well, who pick up the merest shreds of evidence and then attempt to make a case using hyperbolic assertions which are intended to strengthen an otherwise weak argument...)

9-11 In Plane Sight

A good example of how some of these 9-11 conspiracies work can be found here9-11 in Plane Sight

The story above (about the plume of smoke rising over WTC 6) also includes a story about a photo of the seemingly obligatory missile streaking towards WTC 6, and I would like to put out a call to eye witnesses in New York city, a city after all of around ten million people, many of whom were watching the event in real life, to report about any missiles...let's just say that this is 9-11 conspiracy territory we are in here, and so it just naturally follows that I am concerned about more of that same bullshit that turned me off so much in the past, and I am not surprised to be reading about the obligatory missile...This event took place at the very same time that the plane hit the South Tower..."The unexplained blast occurred between the burning North Tower and the 47-story Salomon Brothers Building, known as WTC 7, immediately after United Airlines Flight 175 smashed into the South Tower, at about 9:03 a.m." Just seconds later this giant plume rises from WTC 6, and some guy is quoted to tell us that 'debris hit WTC 5 not WTC 6'. And that settles it, right. It is only logical to assume that when the plane hit the south tower and then seconds later a big plume rises up from WTC 6 below, that the two events are related, and that debris must have hit the WTC 6 building. This is just common sense, but hey, this is 9-11 conspiracy territory here, and who said common sense had any place...Now given that we are in 9-11 conspiracy territory here, naturally we will need to include the ubiquitous missile streak, an 'expert' to pronounce that debris only hit tower 5, and of course when contacted someone at CNN should say 'we don't know what it is' when asked about the cloud rising in the footage, and while the cloud looks a lot like the debris cloud from the collapse of the towers, we should be told that it was actually an explosion cloud, not a debris cloud, but rather much more like a missile explosion cloud...and then, to get really conspiratorial, we should be told that a thorough investigation was never done of WTC 6, which is powerful evidence for a conspiracy...this is the scenario being promoted by '9-11 in plane sight', which I am starting to believe is actually a CIA sponsored psyop, you know, designed to help with the cover up of corporate and government collusion by spreading around something so transparently dumb, or it could just be the 9-11 conspiracy theorists at it again, in typical form I might add...

But as I said all this is making me really cynical, and I know I am going to piss a lot of people off by writing this kind of stuff but I feel it has to be done...

Speaking of corporate and government collusion, and the sacrifice of public safety for corporate profits (in the form of consumer confidence in flying in this case) that would explain all that stuff about Ashcroft swearing off planes, while not warning John Q. Public, and that would explain the August Bush memo about bin Laden and hijacked airplanes, and the Bush silence, and it also explains the silence of the Clinton Administration, and for this reason and this reason alone we need a great big cover up, and fierce resistance from the Bush administration to a 9-11 investigation, because truly they do have something there that they want to coverup, it goes far far far beyond 9-11 and into the entire structure of the society and governance of the United States...

Unfortunately it is that same cover up mode that then feeds the conspiracy theories, since it is taken as evidence of guilt, and while that may be true, it does not logically follow that it is evidence for guilt in perpetrating 9-11...that is a logical fallacy, and if court room standards were used perhaps better arguments would be made...and that is why I am taking on the job of the courtroom lawyer here and picking away at all these things...

At the moment I am intrigued by the 9-11 Norad war games on the morning of 9-11, and I find interesting the author's theory that the ability of hijackers to time their actions so as to disappear into the confusion of a war game can be taken as evidence for 'an inside job'...you know someone would have had to pass that information along...if this is true that other thing about 'Cheney ordering a stand down on 9-11' is false...put it to rest, and also, while we are at it, we should learn a lesson here about how things can be taken as fact and repeated endlessly as fact (the 'stand down on 9-11' having become a 'fact') when actually the truth turns out to be something else again...as well if we are to argue logically and not promote fallacies and use hyperbolic assertions we have to consider that this 'inside knowledge' could have come from even one sympathizer well placed somewhere in the government, and it didn't have to be George Bush or Dick Cheney who told those hijackers...so once again I find some more of that hyperbole in the way this new argument is being presented (it must have been a massive government conspiracy-let's see if we can can stop this bit of hyperbole before it spreads and become the hyperbolic gospel truth)...and while we are at it, if this new information turns out to be true, let us not start more McCarthy hearings (you know the one about how there are Muslims in the State Department, not to mention in NORAD, who need to be rooted out and interogated by congress and so on)...


Previously I suggested that the 9-11 conspiracy theories could be a CIA psyop to discredit the 9-11 investigation...

Or it could just the conspiracy theorists working in classic style...

But a third possibility just came to mind...

That '9-11 in plane site' is so utterly absurb, and such a worthless conspiracy theory that perhaps it is actually supposed to be a parody of all the 9-11 conspiracies to date...

And if that is true I want to salute the creators of the 'in plane site' website for creating what would have to be the cleverest parody site on the internet this year, in that it really is a classic emulation of everything that is wrong with 9-11 conspiracies on the internet...

Either that or it is just a real classic example of a really really stupid conspiracy theory, in that case, making it an unintentional self parody...

As for my self, if this is a psyop, its working great, because, I, like so many other people am developing a firm resistance to so called 'evidence from 9-11' and the second I hear such things I immediately kick into resistance modeand I am not the only one...

And then people say you are a 'government stooge' or they bewail the fact that the public 'resists the truth'...

As for me well was that a global hawk engine? I think I'll just pass on that 'evidence' and maybe wait a year or two or three...

If anyone is wondering what creates people like me well just consider a classic example of the type of crap going around all the time, '9-11 in plane site', either the cleverest parody or the best example of those 9-11 conspiracy theories warts and all, or part of a very successful psyop designed to permanently shut down the 9-11 investigation...