posted 10-30-2003 07:19 PM            

by Gerard Holmgren

Astute observers of history are aware that for every notable event there
will usually be at least one ,often several wild conspiracy theories which
spring up around it. "The CIA killed Hendrix"; "the Pope had John Lennon
murdered"; "Hitler was half Werewolf"; "Space aliens replaced Nixon with a
clone," etc, etc. The bigger the event, the more ridiculous and more
numerous are the fanciful rantings which circulate in relation to it.

So its hardly surprising that the events of Sept. 11, 2001, have spawned
their fair share of these ludicrous fairy tales. And as always, there is --
sadly -- a small but gullible percentage of the population eager to lap up
these tall tales, regardless of facts or rational analysis.

One of the wilder stories circulating about Sept 11 (and one that has
attracted something of a cult following amongst conspiracy buffs) is that it
was carried out by 19 fanatical Arab hijackers, masterminded by an evil
genius named Osama bin Laden, with no apparent motivation other than that
they "hate our freedoms."

Never a group of people to be bothered by facts, the perpetrators of this
cartoon fantasy have constructed an elaborately woven web of delusions and
unsubstantiated hearsay in order to promote this garbage across the Internet
and the media to the extent that a number of otherwise rational people have
actually fallen under its spell.

Normally I don't even bother debunking this kind of junk, but the effect
that this paranoid myth is beginning to have requires a little rational
analysis, in order to consign it to the same rubbish bin as all such silly
conspiracy theories.

These crackpots even contend that the extremist Bush regime was caught
unawares by the attacks, had no hand in organizing them and actually would
have stopped them if it had been able. Blindly ignoring the stand down of
the U.S. Air Force, the insider trading on airline stocks (linked to the
CIA), the complicit behavior of Bush on the morning of the attacks, the
controlled demolition of the WTC, the firing of a missile into the Pentagon
and a host of other documented proofs that the Bush regime was behind the
attacks, the conspiracy theorists stick doggedly to a silly story about 19
Arab hijackers somehow managing to commandeer four planes simultaneously and
fly them around U.S. airspace for nearly two hours, crashing them into
important buildings, without the U.S. intelligence services having any idea
that it was coming, and without the Air Force knowing what to do.

The daunting task of analysis

The huge difficulties with such a stupid story force them to invent even
more preposterous stories to distract from its core silliness, and thus the
tale has escalated into a mythic fantasy of truly gargantuan proportions.

It's difficult to apply rational analysis to such unmitigated stupidity, but
that is the task which I take on in this article. However, it should be
noted that one of the curious characteristics of conspiracy theorists is
that they effortlessly change their so called evidence in response to each
aspect which is debunked. As soon as one delusion is unmasked, they simply
invent another to replace it and deny that the first ever existed.
Eventually, when they have turned full circle through this endlessly
changing fantasy fog , they then reinvent the original delusion and deny
that you ever debunked it, thus beginning the circle once more. This
technique is known as "the fruit loop" and saves the conspiracy theorist
from ever having to see any of their ideas through to their (ill)logical
conclusions.

The fruit loop

According to the practitioners of the fruit loop, 19 Arabs took over the
four planes by subduing the passengers and crew through the use of guns,
knives, box cutters and gas, and then used electronic guidance systems which
they had smuggled on board to fly the planes to their targets.

The suspension of disbelief required for this outrageous concoction is only
for the hard core conspiracy theorist. For a start, they conveniently skip
over the awkward fact that there weren't any Arabs on the planes.

If there were, one must speculate that they somehow got on board without
being filmed by any of the security cameras and without being registered on
the passenger lists. But the curly question of how they are supposed to have
got on board is all too mundane for the exciting world of the conspiracy
theorist.

Who's on first?

With vague mumblings that they must have been using false ID (but never
specifying which IDs they are alleged to have used, or how these were traced
to their real identities), they quickly bypass this problem, to relate
exciting and sinister tales about how some of the fictitious fiends were
actually searched before boarding because they looked suspicious.

However, as inevitably happens with any web of lies, this simply paints them
into an even more difficult corner. How are they supposed to have gotten on
board with all that stuff if they were searched? And if they used gas in a
confined space, they would have been affected themselves unless they also
had masks in their luggage.

"Excuse me sir, why do you have a boxcutter, a gun, a container of gas, a
gas mask and an electronic guidance unit in your luggage?"

"A present for your grandmother? Very well sir, on you get."

"Very strange," thinks the security officer. "That's the fourth Arabic man
without an Arabic name who just got on board with a knife, gun or boxcutter
and gas mask. And why does that security camera keep flicking off every time
one these characters shows up? Must be one of those days I guess..."

Asking any of these basic questions to a conspiracy theorist is likely to
cause a sudden leap to the claim that we know that they were on board
because they left a credit card trail for the tickets they had purchased and
cars they had rented. So, if they used credit cards that identified them,
how does that reconcile with the claim that they used false IDs to get on to
the plane?

But by this time, the fruit loop is in full swing, as the conspiracy
theorist tries to stay one jump ahead of this annoying and awkward rational
analysis. They will allege that the hijackers' passports were found at the
crash scenes. "So there!" they exalt triumphantly, their fanatical faces
lighting up with that deranged look of one who has just experienced a
revelation of questionable sanity.

Hmm? So they got on board with false IDs but took their real passports with
them? However, by this time the fruit loop has been completely
circumnavigated, and the conspiracy theorist exclaims impatiently, "Who said
anything about false IDs? We know what seats they were sitting in! Their
presence is well documented!"

And so the whole loop starts again. "Well, why aren't they on the passenger
lists?"

"You numbskull! They assumed the identities of other passengers!" And so
on...

Finally, out of sheer fascination with this circular method of creative
delusion, the rational sceptic will allow them to get away with this loop,
in order to move on to the next question, and see what further delights
await us in the unraveling of this marvelously stupid story.

"Uh, how come their passports survived fiery crashes that completely
incinerated the planes and all the passengers?"

The answer of course is that its just one of those strange coincidences,
those little quirks of fate that do happen from time to time. You know, like
the same person winning the lottery four weeks in a row. The odds are
astronomical, but these things do happen...

This is another favourite deductive method of the conspiracy theorist. The
"improbability drive," in which they decide upon a conclusion without any
evidence whatsoever to support it, and then continually speculate a series
of wildly improbable events and unbelievable coincidences to support it,
shrugging off the implausibility of each event with the vague assertion that
sometimes the impossible happens (just about all the time in their world).

There is a principle called "Occam's razor" which suggests that in the
absence of evidence to the contrary, the simplest explanation is most likely
to be correct. Conspiracy theorists hate Occam's razor.

Hijacking 101

Having for the sake of amusement, allowed them to get away with the silly
story of the 19 invisible Arabs, we move on to the question of how they are
supposed to have taken over the planes.

Hijacking a plane is not an easy thing to do. Hijacking it without the pilot
being able to alert ground control is nearly impossible. The pilot has only
to punch in a four digit code to alert ground control to a hijacking.
Unconcerned with the awkward question of plausibility, the conspiracy buffs
maintain that on that Sept 11, the invisible hijackers took over the plane
by the rather crude method of threatening people with boxcutters and knives,
and spraying gas (after they had attached their masks, obviously), but
somehow took control of the plane without the crew first getting a chance to
punch in the hijacking code. Not just on one plane, but on all four. At this
point in the tale, the conspiracy theorist is again forced to call upon the
services of the improbability drive.

So now that our incredibly lucky hijackers have taken control of the planes,
all four pilots fly them with breathtaking skill and certainty to their
fiery end -- all four unflinching in their steely resolve for a swift
meeting with Allah.

Apart from their psychotic hatred of "our freedoms," it was their fanatical
devotion to Islam which enabled them to summon up the iron will to do this.
Which is strange, because according to another piece of hearsay peddled by
the conspiracy buffs, these guys actually went out drinking and womanizing
the night before their great martyrdom, even leaving their Korans in the
bar -- really impeccable Islamic behavior -- and then got up at 5 a.m. the
next morning to pull off the greatest covert operation in history.

This also requires us to believe that they were even clear headed enough to
learn how to fly the huge planes by reading flight manuals in Arabic in the
car on the way to the airport. We know this because they supposedly left the
flight manuals there for us to find.

It gets better. Their practical training had allegedly been limited to
Cessnas and flight simulators, but this was no barrier to the unflinching
certainty with which they took over the planes and skillfully guided them to
their doom.

If they are supposed to have done their flight training with these tools,
which would be available just about anywhere in the world, its not clear why
they would have decided to risk blowing their cover to U.S. intelligence
services by doing the training in Florida, rather than somewhere in the
Middle East, but such reasoning is foreign to the foggy world of the
conspiracy theorist, too trapped in the constant rotation of the mental
fruit loop to make their unsubstantiated fabrications seem even
semi-believable.

A Ryder truck with wings?

Having triumphantly established a circular delusion in support of the
mythical Arabs, the conspiracy theorist now confronts the difficult question
of why there's nothing left of the planes. Anybody who has seen the
endlessly replayed footage of the second plane going into the WTC will
realize that the plane was packed with explosives. Planes do not and cannot
blow up into nothing in that manner when they crash.

Did the mythical Arabs also haul a huge heap of explosives on board, and
manage to deploy them in such a manner that they went off in the exact
instant of the crash, completely vapourizing the plane?

This is a little difficult even for the conspiracy theorist, who at this
point decides that its easier to invent new laws of physics in order to keep
the delusion rolling along.

There weren't any explosives. It wasn't an inside job. The plane blew up
into nothing from its exploding fuel load! Remarkable!

Sluggishly combustible jet fuel, which is basically kerosene and which burns
at a maximum temperature of around 800 C, has suddenly taken on the
qualities of a ferociously explosive demolition agent, vapourizing 65 tons
of aircraft into a puff of smoke. Never mind that a plane of that size
contains around 15 tons of steel and titanium, of which even the melting
points are about double that of the maximum combustion temperature of
kerosene -- let alone the boiling point -- which is what would be required
to vapourize a plane. And then there's about 50 tons of aluminium to be
accounted for.

In excess of 15 pounds of metal was vapourized for each gallon of kerosene.

For the conspiracy theorist, such inconvenient facts are vaguely dismissed
as "mumbo jumbo."

This convenient little phrase is their answer to just about anything factual
or logical. Like a conjurer pulling a rabbit out of a hat, they suddenly
become fanatically insistent about the devastating explosive qualities of
kerosene, something hitherto completely unknown to science, but just
discovered by them, at that very moment. Blissfully ignoring the fact that
never before or since in aviation history has a plane vapourized into
nothing from an exploding fuel load, the conspiracy theorist relies upon
Hollywood images, where the effects are always larger than life, and
certainly larger than the intellects of these cretins.

"Its a well known fact that planes blow up into nothing on impact," they
state with pompous certainty. "Watch any Bruce Willis movie."

"Care to provide any documented examples? If it's a well known fact, then
presumably this well known fact springs from some kind of documentation --
other than Bruce Willis movies?"

At this point the mad but cunning eyes of the conspiracy theorist will
narrow as they sense the corner that they have backed themselves into, and
plan their escape by means of another stunning backflip.

"Ah, but planes have never crashed into buildings before, so there's no way
of telling," they counter with a sly grin.

Well, actually planes have crashed into buildings before (and since). None
of them vapourized into almost nothing.

"But not big planes, with that much fuel," they shriek in hysterical denial.

Or that much metal to vapourize.

"Yes but not hijacked planes!"

"Are you suggesting that whether the crash is deliberate or accidental
affects the combustion qualities of the fuel?"

"Now you're just being silly."

Although collisions with buildings are rare, planes frequently crash into
mountains, streets, other aircraft, nosedive into the ground, or have bombs
planted aboard them, and don't vapourize into nothing. What's so special
about a tower that's mostly glass? But by now, the conspiracy theorist has
once again sailed happily around the fruit loop. "Its a well documented fact
that planes explode into nothing on impact."

Effortlessly weaving back and forth between the position that its a "well
known fact" and that "its never happened before, so we have nothing to
compare it to," the conspiracy theorist has now convinced themselves (if not
too many other people) that the WTC plane was not loaded with explosives,
and that the instant vapourization of the plane in a massive fireball was
the same as any other plane crash you might care to mention. Round and round
the fruit loop...

The "new math"

But the hurdles which confront the conspiracy theorist are many, and they
are now forced to implement even more creative uses for the newly discovered
shockingly destructive qualities of kerosene. They have to explain how the
Arabs also engineered the elegant vertical collapse of both the WTC towers,
and for this awkward fact the easiest counter is to simply deny that it was
a controlled demolition, and claim that the buildings collapsed from fire
caused by the burning kerosene.

For this, its necessary to sweep aside the second law of thermodynamics and
propose kerosene, which is not only impossibly destructive, but also
recycles itself for a second burning in violation of the law of degradation
of energy.

You see, it not only consumed itself in a sudden catastrophic fireball,
vapourizing a 65-ton plane into nothing, but then came back for a second go,
burning at 2000 degrees C for another hour at the impact point, melting the
skyscraper's steel like butter. And, while it was doing all this, it also
poured down the elevator shafts, starting fires all through the building.

When I was at school there was a little thing called the entropy law which
suggests that a given portion of fuel can only burn once, something which is
readily observable in the real world, even for those who didn't make it to
junior high school science. But this is no problem for the conspiracy
theorist. Gleefully, they claim that a few thousand gallons of kerosene is
enough to:

1. completely vapourize a 65 ton aircraft;

2. have enough left over to burn ferociously enough for over an hour at the
impact point to melt steel ( melting point about double the maximum
combustion temperature of the fuel );

3. still have enough left over to pour down the elevator shafts and start
similarly destructive fires all throughout the building.

This kerosene really is remarkable stuff! How chilling to realize that those
kerosene heaters we had in the house when I was a kid were deadly bombs,
just waiting to go off. One false move and the entire street might have been
vapourized. And never again will I take kerosene lamps out camping. One
moment you're there innocently holding the lamp, the next moment -- kapow!
Vapourized into nothing along with the rest of the camp site, and still
leaving enough of the deadly stuff to start a massive forest fire.

These whackos are actually claiming that the raging inferno allegedly
created by the miraculously recycling, and impossibly hot burning kerosene
melted or at least softened the steel supports of the skyscraper. Oblivious
to the fact that the smoke coming from the WTC was black, which indicates an
oxygen starved fire and, therefore, not particularly hot, they trumpet an
alleged temperature in the building of 2000 C , without a shred of evidence
to support this curious suspension of the laws of physics.

Not content with this ludicrous garbage, they then contend that as the steel
frames softened, they came straight down instead of buckling and twisting
and falling sideways.

Laws be damned

Since they've already re-engineered the combustion qualities of jet fuel,
violated the second law of thermodynamics, and redefined the structural
properties of steel, why let a little thing like the laws of gravity get in
the way?

The tower fell in a time almost identical to that of a free-falling object,
dropped from that height, meaning that it's physically impossible for it to
have collapsed by the method of the top floors smashing through the lower
floors.

But, according to the conspiracy theorists, the laws of gravity were
temporarily suspended on the morning of Sept 11. It appears that the evil
psychic power of those dreadful Arabs knew no bounds. Even after they were
dead, they were able, by the power of their evil spirits, to force down the
tower at a speed physically impossible under the laws of gravity, had it
been meeting any resistance from fireproofed steel structures originally
designed to resist many tons of hurricane force wind -- as well as the
impact of a Boeing passenger jet straying off course.

Clearly, these conspiracy nuts never did their science homework at school,
but did become extremely adept at inventing tall tales for why they couldn't
complete their assignments.

"Muslim terrorists stole my notes, sir"

"No miss, the kerosene heater blew up and vapourized everything in the
street, except for my passport."

"You see sir, the school bus was hijacked by Arabs who destroyed my homework
because they hate our freedoms."

Or perhaps they misunderstood the term "creative science" and mistakenly
thought that coming up with such rubbish was in fact, their science
homework.

The ferocious heat generated by this ghastly kerosene was, according to the
conspiracy theorists, the reason why so many of the WTC victims can't be
identified. DNA is destroyed by heat. (Although 2000 C isn't really
required, 100 degrees C will generally do the job).

This is quite remarkable, because according to the conspiracy theorist, the
nature of DNA suddenly changes if you go to a different city.

Not all DNA created equal

That's right! If you are killed by an Arab terrorist in NY, your DNA will be
destroyed by such temperatures. But if you are killed by an Arab terrorist
in Washington DC, your DNA will be so robust that it can survive
temperatures which completely vapourize a 65-ton aircraft.

You see, these loonies have somehow concocted the idea that the missile
which hit the pentagon was not a missile at all, but one of the hijacked
planes. And to prove this unlikely premise, they point to a propaganda
statement from the Bush regime, which rather stupidly claims that all but
one of the people aboard the plane were identified from the site by DNA
testing, even though nothing remains of the plane.

"The plane was vapourized by the fuel tank explosion," maintain these space
loonies, but only one of the people inside it were not identified by DNA
testing.

So there we have it. The qualities of DNA are different, depending upon
which city you're in, or perhaps depending upon which fairy story you're
trying to sell at any particular time.

Missiles have wings, too

This concoction about one of the hijacked planes hitting the Pentagon really
is a howler. For those not familiar with the layout of the Pentagon, it
consists of five rings of building, each with a space in between. Each ring
of building is about 30 to 35 feet deep, with a similar amount of open space
between it and the next ring.

The object which penetrated the Pentagon went in at about a 45 degree angle,
punching a neat, circular hole about 12 feet in diameter through three rings
(six walls).

A little later a section of wall about 65 feet wide collapsed in the outer
ring. Since the plane, which the conspiracy theorists claim to be
responsible for the impact, had a wing span of 125 feet and a length of 155
feet and there was no wreckage of the plane, either inside or outside the
building, and the lawns outside were still smooth and green enough to play
golf on, this crazy delusion is clearly a physical impossibility.

But hey, we've already disregarded the combustion qualities of jet fuel, the
normal properties of common building materials, the properties of DNA, the
laws of gravity and the second law of thermodynamics, so what the hell --
why not throw in a little spatial impossibility as well?

I would have thought that the observation that a solid object cannot pass
through another solid object without leaving a hole at least as big as
itself is reasonably sound science. But to the conspiracy theorist, this is
"mumbo jumbo." It conflicts with the delusion that they're hooked on, so it
"must be wrong" although trying to get them to explain exactly how it could
be wrong is a futile endeavour.

Conspiracy theorists fly into a curious panic whenever the Pentagon missile
is mentioned. They nervously maintain that the plane was vapourized by it's
exploding fuel load and point to the WTC crash as evidence of this behavior
(That is a wonderful fruit loop).

Like an insect which has just been sprayed, running back and forth in its
last mad death throes, they first argue that the reason the hole is so small
is that the plane never entered the wall, having blown up outside, and then
suddenly backflip to explain the 250 feet deep missile hole by saying that
the plane disappeared all the way into the building, and then blew up inside
the building (even though the building shows no sign of such damage).

As for what happened to the wings, here's where they get really creative.
The wings snapped off and folded into the fuselage which then carried them
into the building, which then closed up behind the plane like a piece of
meat.

When it suits them, they'll also claim that the plane slid in on its belly,
(ignoring the undamaged lawn) while at the same time citing alleged
witnesses to the plane diving steeply into the building from an
"irrecoverable angle."

How they reconcile these two scenarios as being compatible is truly a study
in applied stupidity.

Epilogue

Once they get desperate enough, you can be sure that the UFO conspiracy
stuff will make an appearance. The Arabs are in league with the Martians.
Space aliens snatched the remains of the Pentagon plane and fixed most of
the hole in the wall, just to confuse people. They gave the Arabs
invisibility pills to help get them onto the planes. Little green men were
seen talking to Bin Laden a few weeks prior to the attacks.

As the nation gears up to impeach the traitor Bush, and stop his perpetual
oil war, it's not helpful to have these idiots distracting from the process
by spreading silly conspiracy theories about mythical Arabs, stories which
do nothing but play into the hands of the extremist Bush regime.

At a less serious time, we might tolerate such crackpots with amused
detachment, but they need to understand that the treachery that was
perpetrated on Sept. 11, and the subsequent war crimes committed in
"retaliation" are far too serious for us to allow such frivolous self
indulgence to go unchallenged.

Those who are truly addicted to conspiracy delusions should find a more
appropriate outlet for their paranoia.

Its time to stop loony conspiracy theories about Sept 11.

Copyright Gerard Holmgren. Jan 2003 debunker@h...

posted 10-31-2003 07:17 PM            

The Hard Questions

In the late 60's, Jared Israel was a student radical at Harvard. He returned to politics in the late 1990's, over the breakup of Yugoslavia. He founded website emperors-clothes.com to pierce the distortions of the U.S. corporate media. With his partner, Illarion Bykov, he has assembled a series of solid reports that ask the hard questions about the 9/11 tragedy.

Jared Israel claims to have caught Vice President Cheney in a major slip-up. The official story from the White House is that President Bush first found out about the World Trade Center hits when he was visiting with students at the Booker School. However, on "Meet the Press," Cheney told Tim Russert that, around 8:46 AM that day, "The Secret Service has an arrangement with the F.A.A. They had open lines after the World Trade Center was... "

Dick Cheney stopped talking. According to Jared Israel, this sudden shut-up is crucial. If the F.A.A. was communicating with the Secret Service on "open lines" right after 8:46 AM, when the first tower was hit, then Bush and company in Florida would have been informed before he even began travelling to the school. This is supported by two journalists who were with Bush on 9/11: ABC's John Cochran and Associated Press' Sonya Ross report that the President stated he knew of the terrorists attacks before leaving his hotel. Why then did the President stick to his schedule? How could his safety be guaranteed? Time magazine once reported the Secret Service's biggest problem was that commercial jets could be hijacked while flying into D.C. over the Potomac and crashed into the White House. If commercial jets killing the President were such a pressing issue in 1994, how could the Secret Service not care in 2001?

Jared Israel's "indictments" on emperors-clothes.com have informed the television reporting of Barrie Zwicker at Canada's Vision TV. Zwicker's program, Insight Mediafile, asks why, "In the almost two hours of the total drama [of 9/11] not a single U.S. Air Force interceptor turns a wheel, until it's almost too late. Why? Was it total incompetence on the part of aircrews trained and equipped to scramble in minutes?"

"Simply to ask these few questions is to find the official narrative frankly implausible. The more questions you pursue, it becomes more plausible that there's a different explanation. Namely, that elements within the top U.S. military, intelligence and political leadershipÉ are complicit in what happened on September 11."

Zwicker, in letters to Emperors-clothes.com, later drew a comparison between the situation on 9/11 and the airplane disaster that killed professional golfer Payne Stewart. When Stewart's Learjet stopped responding to radio contact on October 25, 1999, an F-16 was by that plane's side within 18 minutes. The F-16 "intercepted" the wayward Learjet, i.e. caught up with it, and attempted to make visual contact with the plane's distressed crew. All of this was in line with the procedures published by the F.A.A. In Payne Stewart's plane, something had gone horribly awry, the windows were fogged over (probably from a loss of pressure) and everyone on board was likely dead by the time the plane crashed, out of fuel, in South Dakota.

If the skies in October, 1999, are so well-protected that a Learjet with five people on board warrants F-16 escorts once it deviates from its flight path in rural airspace, where are the fighter jets on September 11, 2001? The first hijacking deviated Flight 11 from its path at 7:45 AM. Flight 11 hit the North Tower of the World Trade Center at 8:46 AM. No planes were dispatched until 9:35 AM, after the Pentagon was hit.

Acting Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force General Richard B. Myers issued three contradictory statements about why no fighters were dispatched to protect America's capital. At Myers' confirmation hearings, Senator Bill Nelson of Florida demanded an explanation of the lack of fighters. Myers answered: "I spoke, after the second tower was hit, I spoke to the commander of NORAD, General Eberhart. And at that point, I think the decision was at that point to start launching aircraft. One of the things you have to understand, senator, is that in our posture right now, that we have many fewer aircraft on alert than we did during the height of the Cold War. And so, we've got just a few bases around the perimeter of the United States. So it's not just a question of launching aircraft, it's launching to do what?"

These three stuttering answers all stink. The initial comment about NORAD is a non-answer. The Senator asked bluntly, Why did you wait so long to launch planes? and Myers answer was, we decided to launch planes after the second WTC hit, but we didn't actually launch them until Pentagon was hit. That's not an answer.

Myers' claims about not having planes are just silly. Andrews Air Force Base is only 10 miles from the Pentagon. Two 'combat-ready' fighter squadrons call it home: the 121st Fighter Squadron and the 321st Marine Fighter Attack Squadron.

When Myers says, "to do what?" he is quite possibly playing dumb. As we saw with the Payne Stewart tragedy, the F.A.A. and military have rules for how an interceptor communicates to a wayward aircraft. The F-16 attempts to get the pilot's attention, using signals to determine if the airliner in distress is still being piloted by a trained pilot.

If it's true that the White House knew of the attacks on September 11 beforehand, the question becomes what would motivate them to sacrifice so many of us? Jared Israel speaks of his love for the common people, as a former Freedom-rider in civil rights struggles. Israel realizes that to be motivated to fight an unjust war for oil, the average people would be moved only by a personal sense of grief: "The American people will not go to war over imperialism. So [the powers that be] staged this blockbuster. I think American working-class people are fabulous, but they're misinformed."

Producer Barrie Zwicker in Canada is more explicit about the reasons why they might have allowed an attack on 9/11. He feels it's likely they attempted "To stampede public opinion into supporting the so-called war on terrorism. To justify a war on Afghanistan, to justify a future oil pipeline, the grab for Middle-Eastern oil." Zwicker is making reference here to an oil pipeline to the Caspian Sea oil basin. Dick Cheney has been speaking about this pipeline since 1992. The Caspian Sea's oil wealth is estimated at $4 trillion.

If the U.S. Government was complicit in 9/11, this is consistent with history: In 1896, the Spanish-American War was declared after the battleship Maine exploded, supposedly bombed. But in 1976, a Navy historian proved the explosion was caused by an accidental coal fire.

After the Bay of Pigs fiasco in Cuba, the military was eager to invade. In 1962, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Lyman Lemnitzer, proposed to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara "Operation Northwoods." According to National Security Agency archives, Lemnitzer suggested blowing up a commercial airliner and then blaming Cuba, or even killing astronaut John Glenn on February 20, 1962, in an explosion on the launch pad before Glenn became the first American to orbit the earth. In his new book on U.S. intelligence, Body of Secrets, James Bamford notes that "the Pentagon was capable of launching a secret and bloody war of terrorism against their own country in order to trick the American public into supporting a war."

In 1964, the Vietnam War was kicked into gear after the incident in the Gulf of Tonkin. The Pentagon falsely claimed "multiple attacks" from the North Vietnamese, and President Johnson escalated the fighting.

In 1991, public emotions were stoked by the masters of war. Wiley publicists fabricated a story involving Iraqi invaders who pulled Kuwaiti babies from incubators. A 15-year old Kuwaiti girl "Nayirah" gave eye-witness testimony before the "Congressional Human Rights Caucus." Before bombing Iraq, Bush, and top Senators made reference to her testimony multiple times. Two years later, it was revealed that the story was the creation of the Hill & Knowlton public relations firm, who had been hired by the Kuwaitis for a cool $10 million. The "Congressional Human Rights Caucus" was not an official body of Congress, although top Congressmen did attend Nayirah's testimony. "Nayirah" herself turned out to be the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the U.S., Saud Nasir al-Sabah.

On January 29, 2002, CNN reported that both the President and VP personally phoned up Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle and threatened him about his investigation of the intelligence failures that preceeded 9/11. On February 4, MSNBC reported that Cheney threatened to tar Daschle as an interference with the war effort. Will the world ever get the real answer about 9/11? Not if Bush and Cheney have anything to do with it.

Sources:
Beaty, Jonathan and S.C. Gwynne. The Outlaw Bank. Random House: 1993.

Towards the Brink, by Robert Parry, 9/17/01,
ConsortiumNews.com

Bin Laden comes home to roost His CIA ties are only the beginning of a woeful story
By Michael Moran, MSNBC

BBC2
Newsnight program trans. , Nov. 7 2001 FBI case# Case ID - 199-Eye WF 213 589. 199 I

'NBC, Meet the Press' (10:00 AM ET) Sunday 16 September 2001. Full transcript
Backup transcript

TIME Magazine (Domestic edition), 'NEVER SAFE ENOUGH,' by Hugh Sidey, November 14, 1994 Volume 144, No. 20

Federal Aviation Administration regulations cited: http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIM/Chap5/aim0506.html#5-6-4

posted 10-31-2003 10:13 PM            

The Stewart Learjet was intercepted quickly because 1) no one was responding from the aircraft 2) the transponder was still on and Air Traffic Control (ATC) could easily vector the interceptor aircraft to check out the Lear.

The four hijacked airliners all had their transponders turned off, which made tracking them very difficult. In order to intercept an aircraft, you need to know where it is first.

quote:

---

Myers' claims about not having planes are just silly. Andrews Air Force Base is only 10 miles from the Pentagon. Two 'combat-ready' fighter squadrons call it home: the 121st Fighter Squadron and the 321st Marine Fighter Attack Squadron.

---

Actually, the 121st is an Air National Guard F-16 unit that does not have an active alert posture (at least not prior to 9-11). VMFA-321 (the *real* way to describe the "321st Marine Fighter Attack Squadron") is a Marine Reserve fighter unit with no active alert posture.

"Combat Ready"...yes. Those units can mobilize and deploy for combat operations within a few days. But that's a huge difference from having an alert posture...that is, having fueled fighters with alert crews waiting to launch within minutes of being called. Neither unit had that capability at the time of 9-11. The only units that were pulling alert in the northeast at the time was the Massachussets ANG at Otis ANGB, and Langley AFB in Virginia.

quote:

---

The F-16 attempts to get the pilot's attention, using signals to determine if the airliner in distress is still being piloted by a trained pilot.

---

Actually, the fighter pilots do NOT "determine if the airliner in distress is still being piloted by a trained pilot". Maybe, perhaps in the wake of 9-11, they are trained to determine if it's a 9-11 style hijacking. But prior to 9-11, the pilots simply relayed simple signals to slow down, turn, land or continue. That's it. It was always assumed that pilots were flying the aircraft (in fact, the 9-11 hijackers WERE pilots...just not capable of fully operating the airliners they hijacked...but simply steering them was all they needed to learn how to do).

The simple facts are, if you look for it, you'll see that from the moment NORAD got the call from the FAA air traffic controllers that they might need to send up fighters, there were F-15s airborne within 15 minutes or so. Problem was, they didn't know where to go exactly.

Another issue ignored by the conspiracy theorists, but generally understood by all pilots and controllers, is that there was a period of confusion at first, and the different ATC sectors weren't talking to each other about the anomolies.

It's not uncommon to have an aircraft stop talking (lose radio contact) and start self-navigating. This situation is often called a NORDO situation (means NO RaDiO). When an aircraft loses the ability to make radio contact with ATC (be it a power failure, radio failure, etc), they often self-navigate themselves to a safe landing, and ATC generally clears the way for the NORDO aircraft. Since the four airliners were operating in 3 different ARTCC sectors, none of the controllers knew about the other wayward aircraft until AFTER the first tower was hit.

It's entirely understandable (to me, an 8-year professional pilot) that the controllers at first thought perhaps they had a NORDO airliner on their hands, and delayed contacting NORAD since it was a simple aircraft system failure, not a hijacking.

Further along, the controllers did hear sporadic transmissions hinting that something wasn't right, but there was no way to verify which aircraft it was coming from. Losing the transponder kept ATC from accurately tracking the wayward airliners. ATC radar is tuned down to a point so it doesn't get overloaded with rain shower returns and birds. So transponders are the primary way a controller tracks the air traffic. "Skin paints", or raw radar returns, are weak on ARTCC radars. They had a rough idea of the general direction of the airliners, but no way to confirm heading, altitudes or exact positions. Only the transponder is able to transmit altitude data, and a continuous, strong transponder signal is what ATC radar uses to accurate track and estimate an aircraft's speed and direction.

Now, I've spent alot of time explaining these points, and I'm a commercial jet instructor pilot with 8 years of flying experience. Yet I'm dismissed as though I don't know what I'm talking about.

And the truly frustrating thing is you'll accept as gospel the guesses and conjecture of people who barely fly on airplanes as passengers, much less operate them or have any meaningful knowledge of how the ATC system works.

I know many of you are computer professionals in your occupations. It's akin to ME (who barely understands how to turn a computer on and connect to the net) writing up complex stories on computer knowledge and other folks telling YOU (the computer expert) that you are wrong but I'm right.

It comes down to one simple fact. I'm NOT stating one way or another that the government did or did not know of 9-11, or did or did not have any connections to that dark day. But what I AM saying is that the accusations I see and the pseudo-facts that are being handily flung around like 100% fact are wrong.

You're being lied to just as you feel the government is lying to you. There are folks out there with political axes to grind, and they'll lie to you. Don't believe everything you read. If a computer expert says "that can't possibly happen on computer systems, and the people that came up with that hare-brained theory don't know squat about computers anyways", you'd at least consider such an experts opinion.

So I'm giving you mine. Secret societies and NWO hype aside, the accusations about the Air Force failing it's job, or that they were ordered to "stand down", or that no one called NORAD equals a government conspiracy is just that...hype with no substance. If you were to dig deep, and ask the aviation professionals their opinions, the system worked exactly like it was supposed to. Were their holes? Sure...obviously there were. But the military, NORAD, the FAA and everyone else involved with airspace management and defense that day did their jobs. There was no stand-down. No order to let the airliners crash. No intentional delay in getting fighters into the air.

posted 10-31-2003 10:41 PM            

NORAD

designed to track and intercept incoming soviet ballistic missiles.
Presumed to be radar jamming.

Failed to track four jumbo jets whose transponders were turned off?

Yet FOX weather tracks rain clouds and migrating geese?

who puts transponders on thos rain clouds and geese/

Or:

Who believes the LIE that the US military was not stood down on 911?

HELLO?

this is not rocket science!

Believe th ebilliondollar military is totally incompetent,
or believe the obvious.

Believe the facts or believe the bush fairy tale?

so simple

Payne stewart's plane has it's transponder still on yet 5 national guard jets responded.

Four hijacked jumbo jets ramming into buildings in restricted airspace and not one military aricraft responded.

Military Stand down!
makes it obviously a Reichstag Fire
Op Northwoods
staged
Wag-the-Dog event

posted 10-31-2003 11:02 PM            

You're confusing weather radar versus air traffic control radar. ATC radar is tuned down so it won't display rain and birds (read my post again, I already said this). Weather radar is much more sensitive, and is designed to pick up water droplets (ie, precipitation), not 150,000 lb airliners.

The military isn't incompetent, just they weren't prepared to take on the situation as it happened. I've been flying for 8 years, and *I* would have never envisioned such a plan prior to 9-11. The concept that hijackers would use airliners as missiles just wasn't considered. And as such, the military, NORAD and the FAA weren't prepared to counter such a plan.

As for five fighters intercepting Payne Stewart, it wasn't exactly as you lead it on to be. There was the initial interception, and from that point, the fighters simply took turns flying off the wing so they could go refuel. Instead you make it seem that five seperate interceptors made five seperate interceptions. That's not the case.

posted 11-01-2003 01:46 AM            

If there was no military stand down

Why did not one military aircraft shoot down or ram into any of those jumbo jets?

come on now..
The military I served in would beat to death any pilot who failed to protect his country.

Two hours with no air cover!

Two hours with no air cover
and a military configured to intercept incoming ICBM's or enemy bombers (with radar jamming presumed)

Get real..
Military that is incompetent to protect our country for two hours.

No stand down orders and you were all just incompetents?

Payne Stewart event proves that is a lie.

Try another Bush lie.

That one is not remotely believable.

It is totally beyond belief that any American serviceman would fail to protect his country for two hours in the absence of stand down orders.

And the insanely preposterous fantasy that local news' weather radar is superior to NORAD.
NORAD that bragged for decades they see anything as big as a grapefruit...

Does truth must matter nothing at all to you?

Try another Bush lie.

Those are not remotely believable.

Unless all you current military are "Hitler youth" worshiping Bush and hating America.

posted 11-01-2003 05:28 AM            

On 9/11, CIA Was Running Simulation of a Plane Crashing into a Building

Associated Press picks up story first reported by The Memory Hole [see below]

>>> Here's another admission which destroys the government's lie that it couldn't possibly have foreseen the use of planes to ram buildings.

The National Law Enforcement and Security Institute will be holding a conference called "Homeland Security: America's Leadership Challenge" in Chicago on 6 Sept 2002. The star speaker is Rudolph Giuliani. One of the other speakers is CIA man John Fulton. Here is the crucial sentence from the promotional literature for the conference:

On the morning of September 11th 2001, Mr. Fulton and his team at the CIA were running a pre-planned simulation to explore the emergency response issues that would be created if a plane were to strike a building.

Fulton's entire passage from the promotional literature

John Fulton - Intelligence Networking & Analysis

On the morning of September 11th 2001, Mr. Fulton and his team at the CIA were running a pre-planned simulation to explore the emergency response issues that would be created if a plane were to strike a building. Little did they know that the scenario would come true in a dramatic way that day. Information is the most powerful tool available in the homeland security effort. At the core of every initiative currently underway to protect our country and its citizens is the challenge of getting the right information to the right people at the right time. How can so much information from around the world be captured and processed in meaningful and timely ways? Mr. Fulton shares his insights into the intelligence community, and shares a vision of how today's information systems will be developed into even better counter-terrorism tools of tomorrow.

About John Fulton

John Fulton’s 25 years in the intelligence community has contributed to his recognition as an expert in risk & threat response analysis, scenario gaming, and strategic planning. He is on staff for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), currently serving as Chief of the Strategic War Gaming Division of the National Reconnaissance Office, and as a member of U.S. Joint Forces Command's Project Alpha - a prestigious "think tank" for advanced concepts related to such issues as homeland security. He formerly served as the mission director for our nation's satellite imagery program as well as replacing Army Astronaut Same Gemar as the Director of the National Security Space Master Plan for the U.S. Department of Defense and Intelligence Space Communities under the auspices of the Deputy UnderSecretary of Defense (Space).

His counter-terrorism and homeland security responsibilities include advising the Director Central Intelligence Staff for Homeland Security, the U.S. Marshall's Office, and collaboration with the National Security Council.

In the private sector Fulton has developed a number of patents related to positioning, "smart GPS " applications, communications, and audio/video technology. He oversees the development of public & personal safety applications of these capabilities through SafeSTAR projects, and contributes to the strategic planning and conceptual design of the SafeSTAR Homeland Security Command Center.

One week after The Memory Hole first reported this story (14 August 2002), it was picked up by the Associated Press in the following article:

Agency planned drill for plane crash last Sept. 11
Associated Press
August 22, 2002

WASHINGTON -- In what the government describes as a bizarre coincidence, one U.S. intelligence agency was planning an exercise last Sept. 11 in which an errant aircraft crashed into one of its buildings. But the cause wasn't terrorism -- it was to be a simulated accident.

Officials at the Chantilly, Va.-based National Reconnaissance Office had scheduled an exercise that morning in which a small corporate jet crashed into one of the four towers at the agency's headquarters building after experiencing a mechanical failure.

The agency is about four miles from the runways of Washington Dulles International Airport.

Agency chiefs came up with the scenario to test employees' ability to respond to a disaster, said spokesman Art Haubold. To simulate the damage from the plane, some stairwells and exits were to be closed off, forcing employees to find other ways to evacuate the building.

"It was just an incredible coincidence that this happened to involve an aircraft crashing into our facility," Haubold said. "As soon as the real world events began, we canceled the exercise."

Terrorism was to play no role in the exercise, which had been planned for several months, he said.

Adding to the coincidence, American Airlines Flight 77 -- the Boeing 767 that was hijacked and crashed into the Pentagon -- took off from Dulles at 8:10 a.m. on Sept. 11, 50 minutes before the exercise was to begin. It struck the Pentagon around 9:40 a.m., killing 64 aboard the plane and 125 on the ground.

The National Reconnaissance Office operates many of the nation's spy satellites. It draws its personnel from the military and the CIA.

After the Sept. 11 attacks, most of the 3,000 people who work at agency headquarters were sent home, save for some essential personnel, Haubold said.

An announcement for an upcoming homeland security conference in Chicago first noted the exercise.

In a promotion for speaker John Fulton, a CIA officer assigned as chief of NRO's strategic gaming division, the announcement says, "On the morning of September 11th 2001, Mr. Fulton and his team ... were running a pre-planned simulation to explore the emergency response issues that would be created if a plane were to strike a building. Little did they know that the scenario would come true in a dramatic way that day."

The conference is being run by the National Law Enforcement and Security Institute.

Aviation Week & Space Technology:
June 3, 2002

Exercise Jump-Starts
Response to Attacks
WILLIAM B. SCOTT/ROME, N.Y.,
HERNDON, VA., and COLORADO SPRINGS

On-the-fly innovation, backed by excellent training, 'probably saved many lives' when terrorists struck the U.S.

Sept. 11, 2001: "American 11 heavy, Boston Center. Your transponder appears to be inoperative. Please recycle. . . . American 11 heavy, how do you read Boston Center? Over.

Air National Guard F-15s from Otis ANGB, Mass., scrambled in response to the hijacking of American Airlines Flight 11. They flew supersonically to New York, then intercepted about 100 aircraft during the next 5.5 hr.

"Watch supervisor, I have a possible hijack of American 11 heavy. Recommend notifying Norad."

At 8:40 a.m. EDT, Tech. Sgt. Jeremy W. Powell of North American Aerospace Defense Command's (Norad) Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) in Rome, N.Y., took the first call from Boston Center. He notified NEADS commander Col. Robert K. Marr, Jr., of a possible hijacked airliner, American Airlines Flight 11.

"Part of the exercise?" the colonel wondered. No; this is a real-world event, he was told. Several days into a semiannual exercise known as Vigilant Guardian, NEADS was fully staffed, its key officers and enlisted supervisors already manning the operations center "battle cab."

In retrospect, the exercise would prove to be a serendipitous enabler of a rapid military response to terrorist attacks on Sept. 11. Senior officers involved in Vigilant Guardian were manning Norad command centers throughout the U.S. and Canada, available to make immediate decisions.

Marr ordered two F-15 fighters sitting alert at Otis Air National Guard (ANG) Base, Mass., to "battle stations." "The fighters were cocked and loaded, and even had extra gas on board," he recalled.

SCOTT GWILT/ROME SENTINEL

Relying on "skin-paint" radar returns, Air National Guard troops at Norad's Northeast Air Defense Sector tried to locate hijacked aircraft after terrorists silenced the transponders.

Marr called Maj. Gen. Larry Arnold, commander of the Continental U.S. Norad Region (Conar), at Tyndall AFB, Fla., told him about the suspected hijacked aircraft and suggested interceptors be scrambled. Arnold, who also heads the 1st Air Force for Air Combat Command, was in his Air Operations Center preparing for another day of the exercise.

"I told him to scramble; we'll get clearances later," Arnold said. His instincts to act first and get permission later were typical of U.S. and Canadian commanders that day. On Sept. 11, the normal scramble-approval procedure was for an FAA official to contact the National Military Command Center (NMCC) and request Pentagon air support. Someone in the NMCC would call Norad's command center and ask about availability of aircraft, then seek approval from the Defense Secretary--Donald H. Rumsfeld--to launch fighters.

Lt. Col. Timothy (Duff) Duffy, a 102 Fighter Wing (FW) F-15 pilot at Otis ANGB, had already heard about the suspected hijacking, thanks to a phone call from the FAA's Boston Approach Control. He had the call transferred to the unit's command post, grabbed Maj. Daniel (Nasty)Nash, his wingman, and started suiting up. Another officer told Duffy, "This looks like the real thing."

"Halfway to the jets, we got 'battle stations,' and I briefed Nasty on the information I had about the American Airlines flight," Duffy said. "About 4-5 min. later, we got the scramble order and took off."

Also an airline pilot, Duffy had a bad feeling about the suspected hijacking; something didn't feel right. Consequently, he jammed the F-15's throttles into afterburner and the two-ship formation devoured the 153 mi. to New York City at supersonic speeds. "It just seemed wrong. I just wanted to get there. I was in full-blower all the way," he said.

Unknown to Duffy, Nash and every commander being notified at the time, American Flight 11 had crashed into the north tower of the World Trade Center (WTC) about the time both F-15s were taking off. America's terrorist nightmare had begun.

Almost simultaneous with Marr's call to Arnold at Conar, the same hijack notification was being passed by phone to a Norad command center deep inside Cheyenne Mountain near Colorado Springs, and the joint FAA/ Defense Dept. Air Traffic Services Cell (ATSC) colocated with the FAA's ATC System Command Center in Herndon, Va. (AW&ST Dec. 17, 2001, p. 96).

"NEADS instantly ordered the scramble, then called me to get Cinc [Norad commander-in-chief] approval for it," said Capt. Michael H. Jellinek, a Canadian Forces (Navy) officer serving as Norad command director that morning. He's also director of plans, requirements and readiness at Norad's Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Station. Fortunately, Maj. Gen. Eric A. Findley, another Canadian and Norad's director of operations, was already in the mountain for the Vigilant Guardian exercise. He quickly approved the fighters' launch.

Back at the NEADS Operations Center, identification technicians were sorting thousands of green dots on their radar scopes, looking for American Flight 11. Since terrorists had turned off the Boeing 767's transponder, FAA controllers could only tell NEADS technicians where the flight had last been seen. The NEADS radar screens showed "primary" or "skin-paint" returns, the raw radar pulses reflected from an aircraft's surface.

Ironically, FAA officials only a few months earlier had tried to dispense with "primary" radars altogether, opting to rely solely on transponder returns as a way to save money. Norad had emphatically rejected the proposal. Still, on Sept. 11, Norad's radars were spread around the periphery of the U.S., looking outward for potential invaders. Inside U.S. borders, very few radars were feeding NEADS scopes.

In essence, technicians were half-blind, trying to separate hijacked airliners from thousands of skin-paint returns. At the time, more than 4,000 aircraft were airborne over the nation, most in the northeast sector, which monitors half a million square miles of airspace.

"We were trying to determine which [radar return] was him. But we couldn't get what we needed just from our scopes," said MSgt. Maureen Dooley, a noncommissioned officer in charge (NCOIC) of NEADS' identification technicians. She and other troops were constantly on the phone with the FAA, airlines and others, looking for clues. "If we could get good last-known-positions and tail numbers, that would help the fighters pick out the right aircraft."

"The biggest task was maintaining track continuity," echoed Tech. Sgt. Jeffrey Lamarche, NCOIC of the air surveillance section. Later, his team thought they had spotted a fifth hijacked aircraft. "This fifth guy made an abrupt turn toward a major city--but it was OK. He was told to land there. It sure had our hearts going and adrenaline pumping. We didn't know what he was doing."

Marr capsulized the tense moments: "The NEADS battle managers get the last known location, estimate [Flight AA11's] speed and find a green dot that's not identified. Almost as soon as it's discovered, it disappears. It's 8:46 a.m. A shocked airman rushes from the computer maintenance room saying, 'CNN is reporting that the World Trade Center has been hit by an airliner.' There are no other missing aircraft. As we watch the TV, another airliner shows up on the screen, aimed for the second tower [9:02 a.m.]. The shocking reality becomes apparent. This is no longer 'an accident.' New York City is under attack."

Flying supersonically, the F-15s were still 8 min. from Manhattan when United Airlines Flight 175 smashed into the WTC's south tower. "Huntress," the NEADS weapons control center, had told Duffy his hijacked target was over John F. Kennedy International Airport. He hadn't heard about the United aircraft yet.

"The second time I asked for bogey dope [location of AA11], Huntress told me the second aircraft had just hit the WTC. I was shocked . . . and I looked up to see the towers burning," Duffy said. He asked for clarification of their mission, but was met with considerable confusion.

In Norad's command center, "a bunch of things started happening at once," Jellinek said. "We initiated an Air Threat Conference [call]. We were getting information about other possible hijackings." Telephone links were established with the NMCC, Canada's equivalent command center, Strategic Command, theater Cincs and federal emergency-response agencies. At one time or another, President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld and key military officers were heard on the open line.

Confusion was rampant, but officers and enlisted troops immediately reverted to their professional roles, trying to sort rumor from fact. Findley and his senior staff in the Norad Battle Management Center told each air defense sector to "generate, generate, generate" sorties--get as many fighters in the air as possible.

AT THE TIME, NORAD had 20 fighters on armed alert throughout the North American continent. Only 14 were in the continental U.S. at seven bases; the rest were in Alaska and Canada. Within 18 hr., 300 fighters would be on alert at 26 locations.

Calls from fighter units also started pouring into Norad and sector operations centers, asking, "What can we do to help?" At Syracuse, N.Y., an ANG commander told Marr, "Give me 10 min. and I can give you hot guns. Give me 30 min. and I'll have heat-seeker [missiles]. Give me an hour and I can give you slammers [Amraams]."

Marr replied, "I want it all." NEADS controllers put F-16s at Langley AFB, Va., on battle-stations alert at 9:09 a.m., prepared to back up the F-15s over New York. But the FAA command center then reported 11 aircraft either not in communication with FAA facilities, or flying unexpected routes. At 9:24, the Langley-based alert F-16s were scrambled and airborne in 6 min., headed for Washington.

By 9:26 a.m., the FAA command center stopped all departures nationwide. At 9:41, American Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, elevating tension levels even further. NEADS' Sr. Airman Stacia Rountree, an identification technician, said, "We had three aircraft down and the possibility of others hijacked. We had to think outside the box," making up procedures on the fly. Before the day ended, 21 aircraft across the U.S. had been handled as "tracks of interest."

"We didn't know how many more there were. . . . Are there five? Six? The only way we could tell was to implement Scatana--sanitize the airspace. Get everybody down," said Lt. Col. William E. Glover, Jr., chief of Norad's air defense operations.

Gen. Ralph E. Eberhart, Norad commander-in-chief, was in the Cheyenne Mountain battle center by then. He and his staff suggested, via an open command link, implementing a limited version of Scatana--a federal plan designed to take emergency control of all domestic air traffic and navigation aids. Transportation Secretary Norman Y. Mineta immediately concurred and gave the order to get all aircraft on the ground as soon as possible. That action probably saved many lives, but without unnecessary, paralyzing restrictions of a full Scatana order.

Mineta's decision--and the military recommendation that triggered it--may have been prompted by a few airline pilots reporting terrorists on the radio, talking about other hijacked aircraft. American Flight 77 had hit the Pentagon, and United Flight 93 was being tracked, heading for Chicago or Cleveland, then Washington, prompting the F-16s' scramble.

"We had all of our armed fighters in the air, but needed more," Marr said. Every unit in the northeastern U.S. was loading F-16s, F-15s and A-10s with any armament available, then being directed to combat air patrols (CAPs) over major cities. Soon, Navy F/A-18s, F-14s and E-2Cs--some from two carriers steaming off the East Coast--were flying CAP and surveillance missions over major cities. Ultimately, Navy P-3s and USAF/ ANG C-130s would be pressed into service, using their normal radars to search for intruders.

At Norad, Glover phoned Arnold, telling him Vice President Cheney had given the authorization to shoot down any threatening aircraft in order to save lives on the ground. "We created a free-fire zone over the nation's capital," Arnold said. "Anyone airborne who did not immediately turn away from the center of town, or who did not land, could be shot down."

When someone--possibly President Bush--ordered the military to a Force Protection Condition Delta wartime posture, Norad commanders ordered massive steel doors be closed, "shutting down Cheyenne Mountain for real," the first time in its 43-year history, an officer said. The FBI had warned that a flight originating in San Diego might be hijacked and headed for a target in Colorado. Another rumor referred to a Ryder rental truck full of explosives and driven by "Arab-looking men" targeting the mountain.

"It didn't make sense, but those phone calls were happening," Glover said. Every rumor was treated as a potential threat.

OVER NEW YORK, Duffy and Nash requested that a Maine-based ANG KC-135 tanker--assigned to support 102 FW training missions that morning--be positioned at 20,000 ft. above Kennedy airport. "Then, we worked on intercepting and visually identifying nearly everything that was in the air for the next five hours," Duffy said.

"I treated this as a combat hop from the moment I saw the towers burning, and that made it easier to deal with . . . actions we might have to take," he added.

Duffy estimated the F-15s intercepted and escorted about 100 aircraft, including emergency, military and news helicopters, plus dozens of private pilots who were unaware of the attacks. Some had seen the smoke over New York and decided to investigate. Nash said the F-15s flew "low-and-slow" to intercept helicopters flying at 500 ft.

When the KC-135 exhausted its fuel load and had to depart, a KC-10 arrived to support the F-15s. Another two Eagles from Otis ANGB joined the first two, flying CAP over New York. Duffy and Nash were directly over the north WTC tower when it collapsed. When they finally returned to Otis, they had been on CAP about 5.5 hr.

Above Washington, F-16s flown by crews of the 119th FW from Fargo, N.D.--which had been pulling Norad alert duty at Langley AFB--were prepared to shoot down United 93, if it came toward the capital city. Instead, passengers rushed the terrorists, causing the Boeing 757 to crash in southwestern Pennsylvania.

MAJ. PHILIP J. MCCARTHY, a weapons controller at NEADS, located an AWACS crew in the southeastern U.S. on a training mission and arranged to reposition it in the Northeast. "We wanted D.C. as the primary area for AWACS, but also wanted him to look into New York," he said. In the confusion of the all-aircraft-grounding, someone told the AWACS to go back to Tinker AFB, Okla., its home base, but McCarthy was able to convince the crew to stay.

At the Herndon ATSC, Col. John Czabaranek and a growing staff of USAF Reserves--many reported, unasked, to help with the crisis--had become a critical communications node, shuttling information among the FAA, Norad, air defense sectors, the White House, Secret Service and other agencies. During the day, ATSC helped organize fighter escorts for Bush's Air Force One. The President was in Sarasota, Fla., when the attacks occurred, but was quickly taken to Barksdale AFB, La., then to Offutt AFB, Neb.

At one point, the Secret Service wanted to get Bush into Cheyenne Mountain, protected by tons of granite, yet well-connected to his staff. However, advisers convinced him that he should "remain visible to the public," an officer said.

"We received tasking from the Secret Service . . . to follow the President and protect him," Conar commander Arnold said in Lockheed Martin's Code One magazine. "We were not told where Air Force One was going. We were told just to follow the President. We scrambled available airplanes from Tyndall and then from Ellington [AFB] near Houston, Tex. . . . We maintained AWACS overhead the whole route."

Late in the day, after NEADS confirmed a suspected hijacked airliner from Madrid, Spain, had turned around and was on the ground, Air Force One was cleared to return Bush to Washington. NEADS and the Herndon cell also organized fighter escorts for Attorney General John Ashcroft and other national leaders when deemed necessary.

WHILE ALL MILITARY units responded quickly and professionally on Sept. 11, "citizen soldiers" were typically first on the scene. Air National Guard and Reserve units were called initially, simply because many of them were easier to contact without going through a long, tortuous chain of command. Since then, outmoded procedures have been altered to ensure faster reactions from all units.

"The responsiveness of the Air National Guard [and other] units called into action--and how quickly they all came to the defense of the United States--was phenomenal," said Col. Clark F. Speicher, NEADS vice commander. "Within a couple of hours, many of these units went from normal training to generating armed combat air patrols over many U.S. cities. There may have been a lot of different [armament] configurations out there, but so what." Fighters typically carried Aim-9, Aim-7 or Amraam missiles, and 20-mm. ammunition.

posted 11-01-2003 11:34 PM            

quote:

---

Why did not one military aircraft shoot down or ram into any of those jumbo jets?

---

The fact that our fighters failed to down the airliners does not mean there was a "stand down". They simply were unable to intercept the aircraft in time.

quote:

---

come on now..
The military I served in would beat to death any pilot who failed to protect his country.

---

You need not lecture me on devotion to service...I'm a member of the military.

quote:

---

Two hours with no air cover!

---

"Air cover" is relative. Despite what you may think, we DON'T (or not prior to 9/11) have a 24/7 fighter in the air waiting to shoot down airplanes. We DO have certain units that rotate an alert duty, with airplanes waiting to takeoff within 10-15 minutes of notification. There are typically 3-4 units nationwide that carry this alert at any given time. So we DID have air cover in the normal sense, and fighters were scrambled (to no avail) to find the missing airliners and figure out what was going on.

quote:

---

Two hours with no air cover
and a military configured to intercept incoming ICBM's or enemy bombers (with radar jamming presumed)

---

The military currently does not possess the ability to intercept ICBM missiles (hence, the National Missile Defense program).

Tracking bombers inbound to our Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) is entirely different from tracking airliners already operating within the National Airspace System (NAS). There is a relatively limited amount of traffic entering our nation's ADIZ at any given time, and most, if not all of it, enters at certain points via oceanic routings. Anything else is checked out.

An airliner operating within the NAS is mixed in with thousands of other airplanes, and is harder to find without a transponder code. Sure, enemy bombers can use electronic warfare to perhaps confuse our radars, that simply buys them a little time, nothing more. It's not a radar cloaking device. If NORAD can get a pretty good idea where they are, the onboard radar of the F-15C can finish finding them, but again, it takes a bit of time to do (hence why we have early warning radar systems way out in the Atlantic, Pacific and Greenland).

quote:

---

Military that is incompetent to protect our country for two hours.

No stand down orders and you were all just incompetents?

---

Just because an enemy was able to exploit a hole in our suit of armor doesn't mean we were incompetent. As I said previously, everyone in the military did everything within their power and ability, but we still failed. The system we had simply wasn't ready to respond to such a scenario. Those holes have been closed somewhat. I don't think you'll ever totally close the holes, unless you just want to completely clamp down on the airspace, which means far fewer airline flights, no civil private aviation, and hair-trigger shootdown situations. You don't want to go that far. So holes still exist.

quote:

---

Payne Stewart event proves that is a lie.

---

How? Because an air defense fighter intercepted an airplane transmitting a strong transponder signal, flying a straight flight path, with no other situations developing? If they DIDN'T find Stewart's airplane, the pilot would have to be blind and his radar would have to be inoperative. You're comparing two entirely different situations. Apparently you don't have a strong grasp of how the air traffic system works, how intercepts are done, or how radar/transponders work in general.

quote:

---

It is totally beyond belief that any American serviceman would fail to protect his country for two hours in the absence of stand down orders.

---

You contradict yourself here. First you're saying that military personnel would trip over themselves, even "beat to death" someone who failed to protect his/her country. Now you're saying that we'd silently turn our backs and obey an insane order NOT to defend our nation?

Let me put it to you this way: If any of us had the means, we were going out there to fight, orders in hand or not. I was in uniform that day. In fact, I was in my jet with the engines running that day. We were told to shut down so that the fighters from New Orleans could clear the airspace. Stand down my arse...

quote:

---

And the insanely preposterous fantasy that local news' weather radar is superior to NORAD.
NORAD that bragged for decades they see anything as big as a grapefruit...

---

When did I say weather radar is superior to NORAD radar? NEVER. In fact, what I did say is that weather radar is calibrated to pick up smaller things like precipitation (and birds), while air traffic control radar (not NORAD) is calibrated to be much more "big picture", so that rain and birds don't clog up the radar picture.

You need to understand the difference between radar calibration and radar quality. A radar can be super powerful and NOT pick up birds, but that's because the radar isn't designed to detect that stuff. Instead, it's designed to find larger objects hundreds of miles away.

Again, you're falling back to your Hollywood-fed perception of radar, NORAD and air traffic control.

quote:

---

Unless all you current military are "Hitler youth" worshiping Bush and hating America.

---

What is with you guys? Just because someone doesn't believe in your hare-brained conspiracy theories we're now "Hitler youth", love Bush and pray facing Washington DC? When did I ever say I love G.W. Bush? When? Find it somewhere, please, because I must be having a memory lapse.

posted 11-02-2003 07:52 AM            

It is a fact that standard intercept procedures for dealing with these kinds of situations are totally established, in force and online in these United States 365 days a year, 7 days a week, 24 hours a day.

Regarding rules governing IFR requirements, see FAA Order 7400.2E

'Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters,' Effective Date: December 7, 2000
(Includes Change 1, effective July 7, 2001), Chapter 14-1-2. Full text posted at: http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIR/air1401.html#14-1-2FAA

Guide to Basic Flight Information and Air Traffic Control (ATC) Procedures,'
(Includes Change 3, Effective: July 12, 2001) Chapter 5-6-4 "Interception Signals"
Full text posted at: http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIM/Chap5/aim0506.html#5-6-4

FAA Order 7110.65M 'Air Traffic Control' (Includes Change 3, Effective: July 12, 2001), Chapter 10-2-5 "Emergency Situations" Full text posted at: http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/ATC/Chp10/atc1002.html#10-2-5

FAA Order 7110.65M 'Air Traffic Control' (Includes Change 3, Effective: July 12, 2001), Chapter 10-1-1 "Emergency Determinations" Full text posted at: http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/ATC/Chp10/atc1001.html#10-1-1

FAA Order 7610.4J 'Special Military Operations' (Effective Date: November 3, 1998; Includes: Change 1, effective July 3, 2000; Change 2, effective July 12, 2001), Chapter 4, Section 5, "Air Defense Liaison Officers (ADLO's)" Full text posted at: http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/MIL/Ch4/mil0405.html#Section%205

FAA Order 7610.4J 'Special Military Operations' (Effective Date: November 3, 1998; Includes: Change 1, effective July 3, 2000; Change 2, effective July 12, 2001), Chapter 7, Section 1-2, "Escort of Hijacked Aircraft: Requests for Service" Full text posted at: http://faa.gov/ATpubs/MIL/Ch7/mil0701.html#7-1-2

'Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction 3610.01A,' 1 June 2001, "Aircraft Piracy (Hijacking) and Destruction of Derelict Airborne Objects," 4. Policy (page 1) PDF available at: http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf

The Air National Guard and Air Force air defense units of the United States were prohibited from carrying out their standard intercept procedures as detailed above on the morning of 911; after they had received the alerts from ATC and FAA. Absolutely no executive-level input of any kind is required for standard intercepts to be scrambled.

There wasn't any indication in any alerts received by air defense units that "shoot-downs" may be required as opposed to intercepts -- i.e.; that the planes were definitely under control of "hostile" forces -- because ATC/FAA could not have known that.

When the first alerts were received from Air Traffic Control, all that air defense units were required to do was scramble standard interceptors to make contact with the incommunicado and off-course jets. F-16s and other fighter planes would have overtaken every single hijacked plane on September 11, before they had reached their targets. To view locations of air bases: http://www.StandDown.net/USAFbases.htm

If, at the time of interception, it was determined the aircraft were under hostile control and likely to impact targets, high-level air defense commanders at the Pentagon's National Military Command Center (NMCC) are fully authorized under existing and established regulations and procedures to authorize a shoot-down, in order to protect the United States of America from attack.

Yet air defense units that were ready and able on 911 at at least 35 nearby installations were ordered not to scramble interceptors: they were ordered to stand down from carrying out even the first stage of standard intercept procedures.

These orders came from the executive office of the president as well as from complicit individuals in the aforementioned NMCC.

There is no question that if these interceptors had been scrambled at the time alerts were received, they would have intercepted the hijacked planes before targets were approached in every instance.

And there is no way that the office of the President or the NMCC could have known through any standard means that these incommunicado flights required anything other than standard interceptions, because ATC and FAA alerts did not relay any such information. The alerts simply requested that standard intercept procedures be implemented and that interceptors be scrambled forthwith.

Some disingenuous excuse-makers say things like: "Well, there was no air defense response because the U.S. had no procedures for dealing with such 'attacks,' because the U.S. had never been 'attacked' this way before."

This sheer, complete nonsense: fully established procedures for dealing with intercepts of all kinds, including of hostile aircraft, existed on September 11, as detailed above.

Furthermore: when those first alerts were received from ATC/FAA, there was no mention of any "attack" and no need for "unusual" procedures. There was only a need for standard, first-stage interceptions to be scrambled, and higher authorities prevented that.

Other disingenuous excuse-makers then say: "Well, of course higher authorities stepped in, because they had to see what was going on with the whole situation, as 'America was under attack.' "

America was not "under attack" when those first alerts were received; certainly ATC and FAA had no way of knowing so early in the proceedings that the jets which had broken communications and gone off-course were part of any "attack."

So why did the executive branch and high-level military authorities deliberately order the air defense interceptors to stand down? Nobody could have known that early in the proceedings that 'America was under attack"... or could they have known?

Those who ordered the stand down did know that early in the proceedings that "America was under attack" because they were complicit in the attack, and took all possible steps to ensure that the attack would take place, unimpeded by the air defense of the United States.

True patriots in this land who have sworn to protect and defend our Republic must consider these irrefutable facts and set about unswerevingly to bring these complicit individuals to justice.

As I may have told you long ago, I am a tyro at questioning the state. and such a task is not my principal activity. I am a small, specialty manufacturer who has gotten caught up in being disgusted by my government's lies and that has caused me to look at certain events more closely than those who are thought to be responsible for that scrutiny.

As you know by now, I have also been outraged by the monstrous lies that the government has foisted on the public, with the cooperation of the press, concerning the failure of the us military to interdict and prevent the murderously damaging conclusion of 3 or 4 commercial airliners on 911.

Just by searching The New York Times archives, I found the policy and the methodology for intercepting a runaway Lear 35 [Payne Stewart's charter]. The story clearly establishes that F-16's were scrambled to intercept this bizjet within 25 minutes of its failure to report to controllers upon its reaching its cleared altitude of 39,000 feet. These F-16's were scrambled only upon the loss of a radio communication: the transponder never ceased to function.

Air Defenses Stood Down On 911 After ATC Alerts Given

by R. Anderson

posted 11-02-2003 09:27 PM            

I have issues with that website. For one, it claims that 30-something US Air Force bases on the east coast could have responded. My question...responded with what?

Some of the bases the author questions why they didn't do anything:

Bolling AFB, Hanscom, Cape Cod, New Boston...those installations don't even have runways.

Dover, McGuire, Wright-Patterson, Gabreski, Pittsburgh, Pease, et al....they are home to cargo and aerial refueling units, not fighter units. So what does the author imply? That we should have scrambled a C-5 Galaxy to intercept the airliners?

He also states that there is a constant fighter patrol within the ADIZ, when there is not. There are routine patrols, yes. But not a constant presence. And any fighter on one of those patrols or out on a training flight can't simply be "diverted" to go on the chase, since fighters are very limited on fuel, they'd likely run out of gas before they ever got to any of the 9/11 aircraft.

Then the author states there was a stand down order issued by the military. Where is the proof, other than the fact that those 30-something bases did not field fighters that morning? Where is the documentation? Witnesses? Where are the pilots stating that they were unable to defend this nation due to Bush and Co. ordering them not to? Where is it?

Answer: There is no proof. It's all simply conjecture and rushing to conclusions based on a weak (or no) understanding of how things work within the military, the ATC system, and within the air defense system.

YES, there are rules of engagement that details how fighters intercept various types of incoming aircraft, hostile or not.

However, pre-9/11, fighters were typically NOT called to intercept an airplane based solely on loss of communications. As I've explained before, this situation is commonly referred to as NORDO, and you can find "incommunicado" procedures within the Flight Information Handbook, which details what Air Traffic Control expects you to do once you've lost radio contact. And no where in there does it state to expect to be intercepted. No where.

I personally experienced a situation that, from the outside, would have looked EXACTLY like a 9/11-style situation:

We were cruising at Flight Level 310 (31,000 feet), when we suffered a total Essential A bus failure. On the Learjet 35, the essential A bus powers all of our navigation and communication equipment, plus a few other items.

Among the things that lost power were both VHF radios, our UHF and HF radios, and our transponder.

So....there we were, flying around with no radios, no way to navigate (meaning we were flying off course), and no transponder for ATC to see us on radar. We spent 25 minutes trying to isolate the bus so we could restore at least the transponder and a radio.

We were successful, and we were able to contact Albuquerque Center and get vectored to Davis-Monthan AFB in Tucson.

But think about it....for 25 minutes, all the controllers could see was a jet lost all radio contact, the transponder signal disappeared, and we were no longer following our filed flight plan (because we had no way to do so). No fighters launched. No national security incident. The controllers knew the likely cause...we simply had a power failure onboard that caused us to lose contact temporarily.

Even if we had permanently lost power to all of our radios, the Flight Information Handbook specifies that we are authorized to divert to any suitable airfield for an emergency landing WITHOUT TALKING TO ANYONE.

So, when I say that our system wasn't ready for the 9/11 attacks, THAT is what I mean (the above situation). They weren't expecting those airliners to become flying missiles. They were expecting to hear from them again, and expecting to hear the captain saying "sorry, we temporarily lost radio contact".

posted 11-02-2003 10:44 PM            

I just want to thank you for your knowledgable posts on this thread. You could have read and decided not to bother, but I'm thankful and honored that you did.

If you have time, it would be great if you could respond to the other links FLKook gave you, just to present your pilot and military expertise in argument with the various points. Could you, please?

This helps all of us greatly to see a broader picture and hear your voice involved in stating the truth as you know it. OK?

Thanks so very much! Only when you have time!

No one on this board disrespects the military people at all! Many are vets on this board and we are appreciative and aware of your function in our defence! Many are passionate in their views and desiring authentic information and views. Please continue to post!

bc

posted 11-03-2003 03:59 AM            

The AF could have easily had an F-15 out of Otis down to NYC like a screaming ape and would have made it with time to spare had they been notifed.

But oh no....STAND DOWN...STAND DOWN...JUST A DRILL...JUST A DRILL.

By the way guys...I thought SADDAM was responsible for Sept. 11th

Did he leave his Koran in a nudie bar?

"oh my god...they are running Nothwoods"

posted 11-03-2003 04:01 AM            

He got discharged and comitted after he began to say (in 1968) that there were no North Vietnamese torpedo boats.

It is now common knowlege that Hundreds of military personnel lied or sustained the lie by their silence.

It has been proven again and again that US Military personnel will either lie or remain silent when they know for a fact the US Government has committied despicable acts.

The idea that the Bush Administration and the Bush military had no idea planes could be used in an attack..
Truth again to counter bushlies:

Visit the link and read about the Cessna crashed into the Clinton white House and how it was tracked on radar. http://www-ech.mit.edu/V114/N40/crash.40w.html
Hello?

>Radar Detected Airplane before White House Crash
By Ruben Castaneda and Pierre Thomas
The Washington Post
WASHINGTON

The plane that slammed against the White House early Monday morning had been detected by radar at National Airport minutes before the crash, according to federal investigators who are trying to determine why Secret Service officers guarding the mansion weren't warned of the aircraft's approach.
<

Now somebody claim again the radar that tracked that Cessna was unable to track a jumbo jet.

A repeat of the fairy tale that the US Military was not contingency planning regards aircraft crashes into buildings after the 1994 crash into the white House grounds.
That would be good for another laugh.

I have relatives in Iraq right this minute.
& support our troops
but fear for their safety because current commanders have proven themselves either incompetent or criminal in allowing 911 to occur.

The evidence linking BinLaden with 911 goes straight to the Bush family.

Facts abound to link the US Gov with 911.

People are on death row on less evidence than exists to prove dubya authorized OP Northwoods on 911.

My military oath of enlistment was to "uphold and defend the US Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic."

The current military seems to have no loyalty to the constitution nor to truth and is loyal only to Bush.

Kinda reminiscent of 1930's German military who were loyal to their leader above all else.

posted 11-03-2003 04:08 AM            

CORRECT...NOT BUSH, HALLIBURTON, THE CARLYLE GROUP, BECHTEL, LOCKHEED, et al.

"War is a racket."

--General Smedley Butler

Who are we really defending?

Who's getting rich.

We know.

posted 11-03-2003 10:25 PM            

We fly into Hanscom all the time, and use a small facility to drop off passengers.

posted 11-03-2003 10:59 PM            

These guys think they can snipe from behind a rock from the lofty perch of the mainstream press and remain unaccountable for their comments.

Their email addresses are:

rudolf.stoeber@split.uni-bamberg.de
(rudolf.stoeber at split.uni-bamberg.de)

keupp@psy.uni-muenchen.de
(keupp at psy.uni-muenchen.de)

posted 11-04-2003 09:20 AM            

"Conspiracies" huh Pacer..What about Gulf of Tonkin, Operation Northwoods, Kuwati Incubator, Sinking of Maine, and Lusitania?

I think you are theorizing as much as anybody else. Anybody who keeps claiming to know "facts" as much as much as Pacer, probably doesn't.

Now here's my opinion...Pacer is protecting his job by believing the nonsense and lies coming from rogue elements in the government. The only thing he knows more than most people here is how to pilot a jet. After that, his opinion is no more valid than anybody elses, contrary to his own belief system.

posted 11-04-2003 09:47 AM            

Our government would never hurt us.

If you believe that..I have some bridges i'd like to sell you.

Wow Pacer...when i was there I saw C-5B galaxies, Globemasters, C-130s and other AF aircrfat flying in and out of there on a regular basis....must have to do with me getting a clue or something.

posted 11-04-2003 12:06 PM            

I only respect people who respect me, and so far Pacer hasn't shown much respect to either you or myself, uniform or no uniform.

Now Mech, I respect you because you honestly felt you were defending The Constitution when you joined the Navy, but had the insight and intelligence to see the armed forces were protecting rich fat cats more than the average citizen. I salute for that, my friend.

If 2 people are standing in front of me, one is a homeless guy who smells, and is begging for money, but is polite, and the other is a cop or military person who is calling me names, guess who I would respect more?

The uniform doesn't change the core personality, and that's what Pacer is banking on. He can come up with the wildest "Coincidence Theories" I've heard on NORAD scrambing and deployment, then thinks everyone has to believe him because he is an air force pilot. It's as if he wants us to think he knows every pilot in the AF, Navy, and NATO, and their protocol.

He keeps saying he never said he likes Bush, yet backs up every policy and operation that Dumbya has come with. Sounds like DoubleSpeak to me.

Pacer, please wake up...You're being lied to.

posted 11-04-2003 09:33 PM            

I said Hanscom AFB does not have a runway. And they do not have a runway. When USAF aircraft deliver stuff to Hanscom, they use the adjacent civilian publicly owned Lawrence G. Hanscom airport. We fly into there all the time. But since the airport is NOT a military installation, and the USAF has no authority over the field, and it's not the military's runway, Hanscom does not have a runway itself.

To put it short...we can USE Hanscom airport, but we can't permanently base any aircraft from that airfield.

What you're saying is akin to claiming Los Angeles AFB has a runway just because LAX is right next door and USAF aircraft occassionally land there.

Swamp:

So the only thing I know more about is flying a jet? That's presumptuous of you. I have 12 years of military experience, and yet you claim you know as much, if not more than I do about ATC procedures?

I hate to clue you in about this, but "flying a jet" involves a little more than being able to takeoff, turn, land and taxi the thing. You have to understand everything from how the national airspace system works, how air traffic control works, have a working knowledge of basic weather, and a whole host of things.

And no, I'm not "banking" on the uniform making me something "more" of a person. I am who I am. I'm a professional pilot, and an individual with 12 years of military experience ranging from an enlisted E-1 up to the officer I am today. The only thing I "bank" on with my military background is a little experience to back up what I say.

And I back "every" Bush policy? Since when? I play devil's advocate quite often, but I don't agree with everything Bush says or does. I don't think he's the best thing since sliced cheese. He's an average president, at best.

posted 11-04-2003 10:08 PM            

Might I point out that the globalists systematically undermining United States national sovereignty, among other things by supporting outrageous criminal regimes like George W. Bush's (today: tomorrow they won't), and pushing the US into unwinnable wars, latest and worst so far being Iraq, are not inhibited by respect for US military status that Pacer so cynically and I believe knowingly and recklessly trades on.

Here is Gerard Holmgren's message:

Pacer advises us [[don't believe everything you read]]

Good advice if the writer never provides a word of documentation.

If you read through the entirety of what's been posted by Pacer on this thread, you'll find that for all the huffing and puffing and blustering pseudo expert ranting, there isn't a single source published for anything. Pacer depends entirely on the claim to be a pilot - which may or may not be true - and then pleads for blind trust on the basis of this unsubstantiated hearsay. This is a common tactic of those who have no facts or documentation to back up their wild spin. They pull out some alleged personal experience or qualification, which can't be verified, and then try to establish themselves as an exalted presence in the discussion, using it to spew it out hearsay and lies, disguised by the illusion of alleged personal credentials or experence. But a little deconstruction of the actual content easily exposes this scam.

For example Pacer writes.

[[The concept that hijackers would use airliners as missiles just wasn't considered. And as such, the military, NORAD and the FAA weren't prepared to counter such a plan. ]]

Here's the documentation which proves that this is untrue. Back in 1994, time Magazine published this.

"During the cold war, when security agents used to play war games involving terrorist threats to the White House, the one unsolvable problem was a commercial airliner loaded with explosives working its way into the landing pattern at Washington National Airport, then veering off for a suicide plunge into the White House."

Quoted and sourced at http://www.emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-3.htm

So not only was it envisioned - going back decades - but specific planning was devoted to trying to counter it. Considering that the Pentagon is also very close to the same airport this must have been included in any such plans. Perhaps this is part of the reason why there's a huge airbase, only 10 miles away? Andrews airbase, which Pacer claims is knowingly left unequipped to handle such a situation.

A point I'll come back to.

But at this stage, we've established that Pacer has, whether intentionally or not, told a huge whopper. And if Pacer is still reading this thread, then I expect a retraction of the above quote. If it's not forthcoming then we are perfectly entitled to assume that everything Pacer has written is a lie unless proved otherwise. And since there's not a word of documentation from Pacer in the entire thread...

Just to rub this point in a little more, here's more documention that this scenario had been actively considered.
http://www.hermes-press.com/omens.htm

''In at least three separate incidents or plots in the past seven years, there were clear threats to use airplanes as flying bombs to target buildings and people. These were known to U.S. intelligence before the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. In one of these plots, in 1995, a terrorist based in the Philippines, who was a trained pilot, threatened to fly an airplane loaded with chemical weapons into CIA headquarters in Langley, Va. Presumably, this got the attention of someone at the CIA, since the folks who work there, like anyone else, do not want to be blown up.

A year earlier, four gunmen of the Armed Islamic Group, or GIA, in Algeria hijacked a Paris-bound airliner and, as it later developed, planned to crash the plane--after taking on far more jet fuel than necessary--into the Eiffel Tower or blow it up over Paris.

The third incident was much more recent. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has said publicly that, on June 13, Egypt learned of a plan by Osama bin Laden, the chief suspect in the Sept. 11 attacks on the U.S., to assassinate President Bush "and other G-8 heads of state during their summit in Italy" in July. A leading French newspaper, Le Figaro, reported that Egyptian intelligence had warned the U.S. that the plan to kill the world leaders in Genoa included "an airplane stuffed with explosives."

Having established that Pacer told a whopper about the scenario never having been considered, it leads us to the question of Andrews airbase, a subject which always makes apologists for the Arab conspiracy theory squirm uncomfortably. Even before we start on the documentation, common sense tells us Andrews would be specifically designed to handle such an emergency.

For decades, US security services have been wrestling with the terrible potential problem of a hijacked ailiner loaded with explosives veering off for a suicide plunge into the White House. They have a huge airbase 10 miles away, but decide to make it some tinpot little operation where they cant even get fighters off the ground for days? Hello...

This is what Pacer wrote.

[[Actually, the 121st is an Air National Guard F-16 unit that does not have an active alert posture (at least not prior to 9-11). VMFA-321 (the *real* way to describe the "321st Marine Fighter Attack Squadron") is a Marine Reserve fighter unit with no active alert posture.

"Combat Ready"...yes. Those units can mobilize and deploy for combat operations within a few days. But that's a huge difference from having an alert posture...that is, having fueled fighters with alert crews waiting to launch within minutes of being called. Neither unit had that capability at the time of 9-11. The only units that were pulling alert in the northeast at the time was the Massachussets ANG at Otis ANGB, and Langley AFB in Virginia.]]

Once again this is pure hearsay, no sources, no documentation, and its implausible even on a speculative basis given the information above. But once again, here's documentation which proves that Pacer is telling another whopper.This is from the military itself and it describes the mission of the two units in question thus (a pre-Sept 11 posting by the way)
http://www.dcmilitary.com/baseguides/airforce/andrews/partnerunits.html

"as part of its dual mission, the 113th provides capable and ready response forces for the District of Columbia in the event of a natural disaster or civil emergency...In the best tradition of the Marine Corps, a 'few good men and women' support two combat-ready reserve units at Andrews AFB. ..Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA) 321, a Marine Corps Reserve squadron, flies the sophisticated F/A-18 Hornet. Marine Aviation Logistics Squadron 49, Detachment A, provides maintenance and supply functions necessary to maintain a force in readiness. "

According to Pacer, "combat ready" doesn't actually mean a force that's ready for combat, and "a force in readiness" means a force which isn't actually ready. What's more ready than ready? "Really, really ready" perhaps? "Supremely ready"? "More ready than ready" ?

If Pacer has documentation to show that "a force in readiness" actually means that "Those units can mobilize and deploy for combat operations within a few days", then provide it. If not, then admit to whopper number 2. And if neither is forthcoming then we are doubly entitled to assume Pacer to be a habitual and premeditated liar.

Furthermore, according to Newsday on Sept 23 2001, the excuse for not scrambling fighters from Andrews was not that the fighters were incapable of doing so, but
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-1.htm

"Air Force Lt. Col. Vic Warzinski, another Pentagon spokesman, [said]: 'The Pentagon was simply not aware that this aircraft was coming our way

and San Diego Union-Tribune 12 September 2001.
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-1.htm

"Air defense around Washington is provided mainly by fighter planes from Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland near the District of Columbia border. The D.C. Air National Guard is also based there and equipped with F-16 fighter planes, a National Guard spokesman said.

and London Sunday Telegraph Sept 14 2001.
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-1.htm

" Within minutes of the attack American forces around the world were put on one of their highest states of alert - Defcon 3, just two notches short of all-out war - and F-16s from Andrews Air Force Base were in the air over Washington DC."

So to sum up, we have documentation that Andrews is primarily responsible for air defence around the area of the Pentagon, is capable of scrambling fighters within minutes, and did so - after the Pentagon was hit - and that the excuse given for not scrambling beforehand is that they didn't realise there was an attack under way.

Now, like a second-rate conjuror, pulling the rabbit out of the hat, Pacer suddenly invents a wild story that Andrews was incapable of launching planes for days.

Whopper number 3

[[The simple facts are, if you look for it, you'll see that from the moment NORAD got the call from the FAA air traffic controllers that they might need to send up fighters, there were F-15s airborne within 15 minutes or so. Problem was, they didn't know where to go exactly. ]]

This simply isn't true. No aircraft were scrambled anywhere until after the Pentagon was hit.

Read the full documentation for this at
http://www.emperors-clothes.com/indict/faq.htm
Whopper number 4.

[[It's entirely understandable (to me, an 8-year professional pilot) that the controllers at first thought perhaps they had a NORDO airliner on their hands, and delayed contacting NORAD since it was a simple aircraft system failure, not a hijacking...

However, pre-9/11, fighters were typically NOT called to intercept an airplane based solely on loss of communications. As I've explained before, this situation is commonly referred to as NORDO, and you can find "incommunicado" procedures within the Flight Information Handbook, which details what Air Traffic Control expects you to do once you've lost radio contact. And no where in there does it state to expect to be intercepted. Nowhere. ]]

The FAA regulations from before Sept 11, which have been previously posted during this debate - and I will post them again if Pacer is stupid enough to challenge them - clearly state that any aircraft which is off course and/or is not responding to ATC communications is considered to be an emergency. And not just because it might be a hijacking. Even if there is no malicious intent, anything which is off course is a hazard to other aircraft. Accordingly AT Controllers are instructed to treat any such situation as an emergency and request a fighter jet escort. And they specifically instructed that if in doubt as to whether an emergency exists, to treat it as one. Furthermore, according to CBS news, prior to Sept 11, there was an average of 6.7 such intercept incidents per month.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/08/14/attack/main518632.shtml

Pacer tries to wriggle out of this by giving a long, rambling and probably entirely ficticous account of something which he himself personally experienced, in his capacity of a the pilot he claims to be. Of course the alleged incident is completely unverifiable. How convenient. So we're asked to believe that the FAA regulations, as published by the FAA itself , and the history of the implementation of these regulations as reported by the mainstream press is just rubbish, in favour of rambling hearsay on the internet from an anonymous indidual who claims to be a pilot and might or might not be, and has already been exposed as having told 3 huge whoppers. Moving right along...

Having exposed Pacer as a snake oil salesman who can't or wont supply a single word of documentation for anything he alleges, let's look at how heavily he leans on the unveriable calim that he's a pilot and some kind of expert that we're all supposed to be intimidated by and defer to on the basis of this mythical qualification. He may or may not be a pilot. It actually makes no difference. Even if he is, everything he's written here is exposed as a lie. But its more difficult to get away with such premeditated lying if one is able to spin the illusion of a personal experience or qualification to which others are expected to defer. Here's how heavily Pacer depends upon this cheap trick.

[[I personally experienced a situation ]]

[[It's entirely understandable (to me, an 8-year professional pilot) ]]

[[Now, I've spent alot of time explaining these points, and I'm a commercial jet instructor pilot with 8 years of flying experience. Yet I'm dismissed as though I don't know what I'm talking about.

And the truly frustrating thing is you'll accept as gospel the guesses and conjecture of people who barely fly on airplanes as passengers, much less operate them or have any meaningful knowledge of how the ATC system works.

I know many of you are computer professionals in your occupations. It's akin to ME (who barely understands how to turn a computer on and connect to the net) writing up complex stories on computer knowledge and other folks telling YOU (the computer expert) that you are wrong but I'm right. ]]

[[at least consider such an experts opinion.So I'm giving you mine. ]]

[[I've been flying for 8 years, and *I* would have never envisioned such a plan ]]

[[Again, I'm a military instructor pilot. I've got dozens of friends flying a variety of different types of aircraft for dozens of different squadrons, including some of those involved with the 9/11 incident. ]]

[[We fly into Hanscom all the time, and use a small facility to drop off passengers. ]]

[[I was in uniform that day. In fact, I was in my jet with the engines running that day. ]]

This is smoke and mirrors, cheap psychological intimidation which Pacer uses to try cover his wild fabrications. It's probably untrue, and even if it is true, its meaningless in the face of the documentation provided here. Just to prove that the experts lie (just in case Pacer actually is what he claims to be) on Sept 13, the BBC in trying to explain the neat vertical collpase of the WTC, published a statement by renowned structural engineer Chris Wise, that steel melts at 800C.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1540044.stm

Look up the texbooks and you'll find that its about 1540C. Wise can't possibly have made such a mistake honestly. The lesson : Demand documentation - even if you know the person has the qualifications that they claim. And if they can't prove who they are, then assume them to be lying about it, if everything else they say is lies.
Now note the hypocrisy of someone who never provided a word or documention for anything, spewed out a litany of proven factual innaccuracies, and relied entirely upon the personal self aggrandizement spin quoted above to try to cover it.

[[you'll accept as gospel the guesses and conjecture ]]

[[the pseudo-facts that are being handily flung around like 100% fact are wrong. ]]

[[There are folks out there with political axes to grind, and they'll lie to you. Don't believe everything you read.]]

[[There is no proof. It's all simply conjecture ]]

[[Where is the documentation? ]]

Pacer asks for documentation ! What a nerve !

End of Gerard Holmgren's note. Pacer, Boomer Chick made a mistake treating you with deference. And in my view swampgas is mistaken in his assumption that you believe your own lies.

WH