Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Flight 77 and Vilgilant Guardian

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-05-04 09:12 AM
Original message
Flight 77 and Vilgilant Guardian
I came across these sites :

http://www.911teachin.net/L5A.html

http://www.911teachin.net/L5B.html


And my question is : Have the authors got their facts straight?
Because if they do...

Their theory is that the four planes that crashed on 911 were all part of the Vigilant Guardian exercise. And that they were supposed to be "hijacked" on 911.
But that "hijack" was supposed to be a loss of radio contact and transponder signal for ten to fifteen minutes, with the plane going off course, ( as described below ), then returning back to normal.

Heres an excerpt, concerning Flight 77, and how things that happened just before the hijacking seem to confirm this scenario.
( If these guys have got their facts straight ) :

" Flight 77's Vigilant Guardian planned routine appeared to have begun by the pilot at about 8:45 AM, as Flight 77's transponder and radio went silent and the plane flew off course by several miles. (To the north, like Flight 11.) However, no more than 5 minutes later, Flight 77 was back on course, resuming its course in the direction of its destination. During that 5-minute period, when Flight 77 was in the role of a hijacked plane, Dulles control tower relayed news of the irregularities of Flight 77--and probably did so by 8:50. NORAD would not have taken special notice of the information except to log it with other Vigilant Guardian results. NORAD was busy. And at that time, just minutes after Flight 11 crashed, the idea that all simulated hijackings were possibly also real hijackings might well have not crossed anyone's mind.

That is, notice that Flight 77 began its Vigilant Guardian routine even BEFORE 8:46--thr time of Flight 11 striking Tower One. The Flight 77 pilot would have had no idea that another Vigilant Guardian psuedo-hijack plane had turned into the real thing. He probably never heard about the terrible events in New England before he, himself, was a victim of the real hijackers of his own plane, which happened a couple of minutes after Flight 11 crashed.

That is, only minutes after Flight 77 had displayed its "hijack characteristics" for the Vigilant Guardian game, it returned to its correct flight course; and--this is critical--the Flight 77 pilot had then responded normally to Indianapolis tower control, and the control tower approved Flight 77 flying at a higher altitude and a course correction--common plane-ground communications. That is, Flight 77 was behaving quite normally by 8:55 and thus probably no longer would have been on any hijack list. (Although we don't actually know how such a classification or procedure was in effect on 9/11--but it was probably controlled by FAA's National Hijack Coordinator, in conjunction with his counterpart in NORAD.)"

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-05-04 09:44 AM
Response to Original message
1. It always made sense to me

that the result was in effect a tandem hijacking; somebody seized the opportunity to hijack a dress rehearsal hijacking exercise, possibly with an electronic 'home run' remote control system involved.

I'll buy that as conspiracy theory because I've seen nothing yet to absolutely rule it out, and the scenario is feasible without having to criminally implicate many thousands of ordinary government employees in various agencies. A small number, possibly no more than one person would need to be implicated.

The best judge of the likelihood would presumably be somebody who knows the inner workings of ATC, for if it is the case there would have had to be some kind of cover up, or at least a very big distraction within their ranks and their records.

The families of some of the dead should also have a pretty good idea. How much in America is ever absolutely secret?





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Doe II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-05-04 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. War games
Does anybody know around here how the procedures are during a War game simulation like Vigilant Guardian? In how far is the FAA involved, do controllers know about the excerise, is there some kind of security in order to avoid a mix up of fake and real etc? This would be substantial in order to better analyse the above mentioned possibility.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-05-04 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. If a plane pretended to be lost

it would be extremely reckless not to have somebody in the background to keep track of where it really is, even if an exercise was performed as a blind test. Apart from whatever actually happened ordinary technical failures are possible.

Even if you're not going to be told "how" it would be interesting to think about "who" cooked up the game and with what in mind.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Doe II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-11-04 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #4
14. War games
Does anybody know if the FAA would be informed of such a war game?
On the one hand this seems to make sense to me as the work of FAA would be needed in this game (how to handle a hijacked plane etc). On the other hand how can one gurantee that the normal air traffic functions savely without being put in disorder by the war games. In other words does anybody know if a normal FAA controller would see the blimp of a hijacked plane that is part of a war game.
Anybody has an idea or experience? MercutioATC?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
medienanalyse Donating Member (727 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-11-04 03:00 AM
Response to Reply #2
25. A good question to kill the "Vigilant Guardian" crap
Games are games and real life is real.
"the idea that all simulated hijackings were possibly also real hijackings might well have not crossed anyone's mind." such a sentence has nothing to do with real life.

We are talking about the most crowded airspace of the world.
And for sure here as always military is able to differ between exercise and real world.
And for sure the ATCs are able to do so too. Exercises are pre-planned and have a scenario which is to be followed. Same with the routes of planes - you cannot just leave your route without allowance.
So all the last "exercise theories" (sorry, Mike Ruppert! ) are not helpfull, not for a minute.

Keep in mind the CIMIC:
- In Herndon: they have military between the ATCs.
- In the "War room" of the Pentagon: there is ALWAYS one official of the FAA.
- On Andrews AFB we have 30 (thirty !) civil FAA ATCs sitting among the military to clear problems between military and civil air traffic.

THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY OF MISUNDERSTANDINGS.
CIMIC is the key word.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Doe II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-11-04 11:07 AM
Response to Reply #25
28. Very interesting!
"Keep in mind the CIMIC:
- In Herndon: they have military between the ATCs.
- In the "War room" of the Pentagon: there is ALWAYS one official of the FAA.
- On Andrews AFB we have 30 (thirty !) civil FAA ATCs sitting among the military to clear problems between military and civil air traffic"

Can you please provide me with a reference I very much would like to dig deeper into this.
Thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-11-04 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #25
29. The disingenuity of that

is astounding.

Practice drills are of course conducted not to demonstrate perfection but in order to eliminate unforeseen problems perchance the real thing does eventually turn up, by finding out what does go wrong.

That is a simple matter of common sense.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-05-04 11:31 AM
Response to Original message
3. Hm
If this theory is correct, could it explain some of the oddities about the flight paths?

It could explain why planes from Boston were chosen ; that was were the ( two first ) exercise planes took off from...

Like : Why did flight 77 go so far to the west? They had to wait for the exercise to begin?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-05-04 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. That's a LIHOP approach to the wargames

as I understand it. Osama and Sheikh Mohammed found out about the wargames and realised they could install their suicide hijacker crews in the planes when the games were going on.
The evil geniusses!

Very interesting, but not deep enough.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-05-04 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. But it could
also be put into a scenario with other perps.( Remote ones )

( I dont know the right wording for this in english :
Do not flush down the child with the bathwater :) )



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-05-04 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. "Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater"
Edited on Tue Oct-05-04 03:00 PM by MercutioATC
Baths consisted of a big tub filled with hot water. The man of the house had the privilege of the nice clean water, then all the other sons and men, then the women and finally the children Last of all the babies. By then the water was so dirty you could actually lose someone in it. Hence the saying, "Don't throw the baby out with the bath water."

That's the urban legend version.

Actually it's just a metaphor admonishing people not to throw away the good with the bad.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-05-04 04:10 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Thanks
I had the meaning of it right anyway. :)

For instance ( Good things with this theory ) :

The question ; why planes from Boston? I have heard the answer ; because the Boston FBI is especially corrupted.

But there was also a plane from Newark, and a plane from Dulles. So if the perps had free choice, and they wanted planes that would give a flightpath that would make sense, then I guess if they could have one from Newark then they could also have two, and the same for Dulles.

So I find that it is making much more sense if the reason that two planes from Boston were chosen is because thats where the two first excercise planes took off from.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-05-04 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. I don't know why.
There are plenty of planes in the country they could have used. Who knows why they picked the exact flights they did? If the main requirement was a heavy fuel load and low passenger load, there would be plenty to choose from.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-11-04 10:49 AM
Response to Original message
10. The Flight 77 "bump"
The Flight 77 "bump" is a bump on the flight path.
As seen in this image :



So : Is this where Flight 77 "displayed its "hijack characteristics""?

"...at about 8:45 AM, as Flight 77's transponder and radio went silent and the plane flew off course by several miles."

The real hijack came later on.( Not? ) Just before it turned around and came back east.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-11-04 11:11 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. I've never seen a better explanation.

Perhaps somebody with experience of air traffic will tell us how unusual or not this is.

There is also a distinct kink in the Flight 93 path.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tngledwebb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-11-04 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. Notice, k-robjoe, if you haven't before,
this highly erratic bump's closeness to location of Flight 93 'crash'. USA TOADY also probably re-drew the paths with much input from US Officials.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-11-04 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Before reckless accusing

others of fabricating information ....

Flight Explorer is an Internet-based, real-time global flight tracking stsytem, available for anybody to access.

There is therefore absolutely no question of any misrepresentation of its record, except by or to the willfully ignorant. The authentic version was there for anybody to see.

http://www.flightexplorer.com /

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-22-04 11:01 AM
Response to Original message
15. Do we have something similar with Flight 93
How does the pattern of - first a hijack exercise, and then the real hijacking - fit with flight 93?

Well, (if this information is correct)we have this happening at 9:16
___________________________________________________________________
--9:16 a.m.: FAA informs NORAD that United Airlines flight 93 may have been hijacked. http://www.flight93crash.com/flight93_timeline.html / http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.hijack.warnin... /

( "Remember, Flight 93 was reported "lost" from FAA to NORAD at 9:16 (Commission Hearing May 04, not in the report)". )
_____________________________________________________________________

The real hijacking came about later on :

"... warning from United flight dispatcher Ed Ballinger at 9:24 a.m.: "Beware any cockpit intrusion (...) Two minutes later, at 9:26 a.m., pilot Jason Dahl appeared to be puzzled by the message and responded, "Ed, confirm latest mssg plz -- Jason." "The hijackers attacked at 9:28," the report says." http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/07/22/911.flight.93/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Doe II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-22-04 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. This is simply
a very good question!
Does the Commission provide any answer? No.
They only begin their examination of Flight 93 at 9:27. (p. 28)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seatnineb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-22-04 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. Briliant....


Brilliant spot K-Robjoe......

Another nail in the coffin for the Flight 93 timeline.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Doe II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-22-04 04:15 PM
Response to Original message
18. Where have all the hijacked planes gone?
During the Hearing on May 23, 2003:

General McKinley:
9:27, Boston FAA reports a
fifth aircraft missing, Delta Flight 89 -- and many people have
never heard of Delta Flight 89. We call that the first red
herring of the day, because there were a number of reported
possible hijackings that unfolded over the hours immediately
following the actual attacks.


It's known that there have been several suspected hijacks.
As there are certain signs (no communication, transponder etc etc) that have to be there it's not that easy to assume that a plane is hijacked. But on 911 it's like a desease.
May I ask if this is due to Vigilant Guardian?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Doe II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-30-04 03:36 PM
Response to Original message
19. 911 = Training Day!
Here is what Col. Alan Scott said before the Commission on May 23, 2003:

"At 10:07 FAA reports there may be a bomb on board 93 --
that's four minutes after the impact. At 10:15 they report that
it's crashed. And you can see now that fog and friction lag
time has increased from seven minutes to nine minutes to 15
minutes, because of the level of activities that are going on.
And there are notations here about other airplanes as we begin
to divert other airplanes that are just out were intended for
training that day."

http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing2/9-11Comm...

Well, excuse me, what kind of training is going on there?

(Thanks Christian Walter for this finding!
:hi: )
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Doe II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-01-04 09:30 AM
Response to Original message
20. What's goinig on in the US airspace on 911?
"One, a TWA flight, refuses to land in Pittsburgh and wants to fly on toward Washington. Another, a Midwest Express flight, disappears from radar over West Virginia. And three jets over the Atlantic Ocean are sending out distress signals, the Coast Guard reports.
A bomb is reported aboard a United Airlines jet that just landed in Rockford, Ill. Another jet disappears from radar and might have crashed in Kentucky.
The reports are so serious that Garvey notifies the White House that there has been another crash. Only later does she learn the reports are erroneous."

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2002/2002-08-13-cle...


What's going on in the US airspace?
And does anybody have found an explanation to all theses strange incidents that somehow happened on the morning of 911?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tngledwebb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Nov-02-04 08:21 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. Just a hunch ...
but mightn't it all have something to do with the strange events of 11/00?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Doe II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-10-04 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. 11/00
Which strange events took place in 11/00?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Doe II Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-10-04 05:42 PM
Response to Original message
23. Confusion
I quote Paul Thompson's timeline:

9:00
"Northern Vigilance is called off. As the Toronto Star reports, "Any simulated information, what's known as an 'inject', is purged from th (radar) screens." (NORAD, 9/9/01; Toronto Star, 9/12/01) Therefore, many minutes into the real 9/11 attack, there may have been false radar blips causing confusion. Additional details, such as whose radar screens had false blips, or from when to when, are unknown.

Of course the Commission didn't raise this subject. Didn't wonder about the connection between the this and the eleven suspected hijackings or this:


"One, a TWA flight, refuses to land in Pittsburgh and wants to fly on toward Washington. Another, a Midwest Express flight, disappears from radar over West Virginia. And three jets over the Atlantic Ocean are sending out distress signals, the Coast Guard reports.
A bomb is reported aboard a United Airlines jet that just landed in Rockford, Ill. Another jet disappears from radar and might have crashed in Kentucky.
The reports are so serious that Garvey notifies the White House that there has been another crash. Only later does she learn the reports are erroneous."

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2002/2002-08-13-cle...

Why is this not investigated?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FannySS Donating Member (110 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-10-04 06:29 PM
Response to Original message
24. OK, but: Vigilant Guardian used by terrorists?
quote:
I came across these sites :
http://www.911teachin.net/L5A.html
http://www.911teachin.net/L5B.html
______________

These sites are not availible. (Perhaps Google-Cache?)
Who made these web sites?

But anyway, I have a question (and please excuse me, if I didnt understand everything correctly!)

I understand, that IF it was LIHOP/MIHOP, than Vigilant Guardian could have been the best way to keep the Air Defense down.

BUT: It is known since 2 years, that "Vigilant Guardian" took place on and arround 9/11. Moreover, Vigilant Guardian is semiannual. See http://www.aviationnow.com/content/publication/awst/200...

So why shouldnt real terrorists know about this exercise and use it ....?

Confused: Fanny



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
k-robjoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-11-04 05:27 AM
Response to Reply #24
26. Mirrored
Edited on Thu Nov-11-04 05:44 AM by k-robjoe
FannySS wrote :

> "These sites are not availible. (Perhaps Google-Cache?)
Who made these web sites?"

Yes, I know. They went dead just a couple of days after I posted the original post.

But Jean-Pierre Desmoulins did move quick enough to download them, and has mirrored them on his site :

http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/pages-en/cen-an... ( Scroll down to red typing, 1/2 way down )

The two articles are by the same guy (guys?) who wrote the play "J`accuse Cheney", but that playscript and all the articles related to it all went dead.

I have tried to ask around how to get in contact with this man. A fellow DUer gave me the name Dick Murray, but the e-mail adress he had didnt work. If anyone knows anything about this, please let me know.

> "So why shouldnt real terrorists know about this exercise and use it ....?"

They would need to know which flights that were going to be hijack excercises.
Read the articles and see what you think.
Medienanalyse gave some counter arguments in post # 25.

> "THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY OF MISUNDERSTANDINGS.
CIMIC is the key word."

I sure see his point, but am not at all convinced that hijack exercices didnt play a big part in what happened.

On edit : There are misunderstandings, and there are "misunderstandings", and cover for "misunderstandings". ( Dont find the right words right now.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
medienanalyse Donating Member (727 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Nov-11-04 09:23 AM
Response to Reply #26
27. I do understand misunderstandings
"On edit : There are misunderstandings, and there are "misunderstandings", and cover for "misunderstandings"."

Yes. I can agree to that. There is a cover-up when

- presidents stay in schools and
- ministers drink coffee instead of entering the war-room
- and secret services cannot connect the dots
- and military commanders did misunderstand a situation as an "exercise"

You need to give the lame excuses a shadow of a hint of a glimpse of a tiny bit of plausibility.

But we should save our time and not discuss irrelevant fake causes just only because they contain parts of reality. For sure the exercises were used to interfere in 911. When I plan a major situation I always plan a second line of defense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Old and In the Way Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Nov-12-04 02:49 PM
Response to Original message
30. Fascinating thread.
I've learned more about this operation here than I've heard from the 9/11 commission hearings or from the MSM. So here are some questions that jump out at me:

(1) Why is Gen. Meyers holed up in Max CLeland's office if this simulation is underway? I think he was the acting JCS that day...

(2) IIRC, the JCS was enroute to Europe on 9/11. Would that be SOP for the guy in charge of the military when such a big exercise is underway?

(3) Why would Condi say they they never thought that terrorists would use hijacked planes as weapons, when the US military was conducting a simulation of this very scenario that day? Wasn't Condi, as head of NSC involved with this?

(4) Why wouldn't the military have come right out on 9/11 and explained the confusion of running this exercise as the reason why the attack was successful.....particularly AA77?

(5) How would Atta know about the plan? Moles in the US military?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Sep 24th 2017, 02:46 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC