Why didn't the Air Force intercept the jet that hit the Pentagon?

[Octafish]

The United States Air Force maintains a big base on the East Coast at Langley, Virginia.
That's 125 miles or so -- about a dozen minutes' flight time -- from Washington, D.C.
The Air Force and Navy also have nearby bases, including
a base next door to Washington, Andrews AFB,
and the Navy down the coast at Oceana Naval Air Station near Norfolk.



Given the size of Department of Defense budget
and the best technology money can buy and all,
the Air Force and Navy must've known
a pair of hijacked passenger jets had struck the World Trade Center --
Flight 11 at 8:45 a.m. and Flight 175 at 9:03 a.m.

Flight 77 struck the Pentagon at 9:43 a.m.
That's almost an hour after the first hijacked plane had hit the WTC
and 40 minutes after the second jet hit the other tower.

So why didn't a flight of fighter jets scramble to intercept the jet heading for the Pentagon?
Aren't F-14s, F-15s and F-18s ready round-the-clock to get off the ground within a matter of minutes
in order to intercept Soviet bombers?

So, why didn't the Air Force intercept Flight 77?
They had at least 40 minutes warning that at least two jets had been hijacked that day.
From what I've seen, the corporate media seem to answer everything but this question.
Why that is, is another question.

[greyl]

1. How could they have done that with the transponder turned off? nt

[Octafish]

2. Military radar systems don't require a plane to be equipped with a transponder to work.

Radio Detection And Ranging was a big invention just before WW 2. All those planes approaching Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941 got detected on land-based radar and they didn't have transponders. Later, during the Battle of Midway, radar gave the American carriers early warning that the Japanese were on their way. Japan's fleet didn't have ship-borne radar.

The technology has advanced since then. It might be a cinch to detect something as large as a passenger jet -- especially considering the advanced weapons systems carried aboard our fighter jets, platforms capable of tracking and engaging several targets at one time.

[greyl]

4. Was it a cinch to isolate from a few thousand other planes in the air?

Even if they did isolate it, do you think they should have shot it down over DC, certainly killing many more innocent people just because they thought it might be eventually crashed on purpose? There's an airport right behind the Pentagon. At what point would the Air Force know that the plane was going to crash instead of landing at the airport?

Are you really saying you think it should have been shot down over a crowded city?

[Bolo Boffin]

5. "It might be a cinch" - Is it or is it not?

Are you just saying it could be, not having any idea of the actual capability?

[hack89]

10. Why do you think that there is a military radar system

that is designed to cover the US mainland? Look carefully at the location of military radars and you will see that they are on the coast looking outwards for aircraft and missiles approaching America.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

279. because of the military on 9/11 exercise they got confused

[biermeister]

11. Can anyone explain how the IFF system works?

International Friend or Foe? I believe that fighter planes have radar systems that paint the sky and identify potential targets. It then compares information provided by the transponder and identifies those targets as friendly. If a target doesn't have a valid transponders code it is then identified as a potential foe. It's like a red flag.

Can anyone explain IFF?

[sofa king]

52. Identification, Friend or Foe

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identification_Friend_or_Foe

IFF is still in use by both military and civilian aircraft. Modes 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are for military use only. Modes 1, 2 and 3 are collectively known as Selective Identification Feature (SIF) modes. Civilian aircraft use modes A, C and S. Mode C which includes barometric pressure altitude information is often used in conjunction with Mode A. Mode A is often referred to as mode 3/A due to the similarity to the military Mode 3. Mode S a new civilian mode developed to replace both Mode A and C.

IFF is also called secondary radar, with primary radar bouncing an RF pulse off of the aircraft to determine position. Position with IFF is determined by comparing antenna dish angle and the delay from the interrogator (1030 MHz) pulse to the received IFF pulses on (1090 MHz).

________________________

According to that Wikipedia article, Western IFF systems usually use line-of-sight microwave radars, so low-flying planes have a chance to evade it along with positional radar. The best way to spot an incoming aircraft which is deliberately trying to evade radar is to put a bunch of pilots in the air, because they're very good at spotting aircraft by sight.

What gets me is that I know for certain that an entire wing of F-18s (six squadrons of 3-5 planes each) was administratively stationed at Andrews AFB. Andrews always kept a considerable number of F-18s ready, while others underwent maintenance there. I know so because a pal of mine in the Navy managed to ground that wing once (and was immediately put on broom detail instead).

Why the hell wasn't that wing scrambled to provide a combat air patrol over DC?

Because they might have stopped that plane. If they stopped it, the accounting and counter-terrorism offices based in the Pentagon wouldn't have been destroyed, and those folks would have been out for blood the following day.

That would have been a bad thing for the perpetrators and those who allowed it to happen.

[hack89]

64. There are no F-18s at Andrews

it is not a Navy base. All the east coast F-18s were at either NAS Oceana or Cecil Field.

Unless planes are fueled and armed on strip alert, they can't be scrambled. Planes are not like cars - because of safety and never ending maintenance, fighters are not routinely fueled unless they are scheduled to fly. It takes a long time to arm them because the weapon dumps are in remote parts of the base for safety.

You need to brush up on how the air force was actually organized to launch interceptors on 911.

[sofa king]

85. Wow, you say that with such authority!

But you're completely wrong. In fact, according to Wikipedia, there is still a Marine detachment of F-18s there, and as I told you, throughout the 1990s and no doubt well into 2002 there was an entire Navy wing which kept some or all of its F-18s there.

But maybe I'm just making that up, to fuck with you.

[biermeister]

66. thanks, this is good- let's continue

We have been told that fighters were airborne that morning but apparently vectored in the wrong direct. Is it reasonable to believe that the pilots would have seen the hijacked planes through their IFF system regardless of the transponder's status (off vs. on)? Is it also reasonable to believe that they would have shown up as potential hostile targets? Does anyone know the range of this system?

thanks

[MrMickeysMom]

82. Hilarious!

It's all so clear how that fact was picked up! So, Whoah...THAT'S what those hats are for!

:tinfoilhat:

[seemslikeadream]

3. Oh my dear friend no one could have imagined

that's why

[Octafish]

41. Condescenda was in top form that day.

Rice Denies Book's Assertion She Brushed Off CIA Terror Warning

`Incomprehensible,' she says of the idea that she ignored Tenet's anxiety over a strike before 9/11.

By Paul Richter
LA Times Staff Writer
October 3, 2006

State Department officials acknowledged late Monday that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was at a 2001 meeting where she was reportedly warned of the need to act on an impending terrorist threat to the United States.

They said she met with then-CIA Director George J. Tenet on or around July 10. A new book by Bob Woodward says she brushed off Tenet's warning at that session.

SNIP...

"The idea that I would have ignored that, I find incomprehensible," Rice told reporters late Sunday during the flight. "I am quite certain that it was not a meeting in which I was told that there was an impending attack, and refused to respond."

The State Department said Monday that a meeting around the time described by Woodward had in fact taken place, based on government records, but that no new information was given to Rice, who then was President Bush's national security advisor.

In his book, Woodward writes that Tenet and J. Cofer Black, then director of the CIA's counterterrorism center, decided on July 10, 2001, that they had to request a dramatic, "out-of-cycle" meeting with Rice to describe their anxiety over the chance of an attack against American interests, possibly within the United States.

CONTINUED…

http://articles.latimes.com/2006/oct/03/nation/na-book3

[Bolo Boffin]

6. "From what I've seen, the corporate media seem to answer everything but this question."

And yet this question has been answered as well. Perhaps you need to do a little more digging.

[Octafish]

42. OT: What's the business about rape?

What does your tagline mean, Bolo Boffin?

We don't say a woman was raped 183 times. We say she was raped 5 times. Now how many times was KSM waterboarded?

Regarding the OP: Yes, I'd like to know why the jet wasn't intercepted. I wish the nation's media also were interested.

[Bolo Boffin]

44. Sorry that it's a little too subtle for you.

Would you ask Jonathan Swift for his best Irish baby recipes?

Regarding the OP: Your desire to know why isn't motivating you to go find the answers that are available, so you couldn't be that concerned about it.

[jberryhill]

7. Maybe it has something to do with the fact

that the Pentagon is located right next to a major airport, and having airliners flying toward it is pretty dang normal....

Note the runway at upper left:



This is also why there are no mythical "anti-aircraft systems" on the Pentagon - since shooting down dozens of flights into and out of Reagan National Airport every day was apparently considered to be a bad idea.

[Octafish]

43. Who said anything about ''shoot down''?

I asked why weren't the jets weren't intercepted? Big diff.

[bottomtheweaver]

8. I think they really overreached with this one.

Not just the lack of defenses but the hugely convenient demolition of the Trade Center, which was a mammoth asbestos time bomb ready to go off. In fact the lawsuits had already started rolling in, and it was only a matter of time before they had the biggest class action in world history on their hands. That won't happen now thanks to 911. Most potential claimants were incinerated and their families signed waivers to collect their survivor's benefits.

Anyway, if it weren't for 911, few would believe a word of what you and others have been trying to tell us for the last 45 years. Now we're finally starting to wake up.

[Theobald]

36. Do you have any evidence to back up your assertion

Please show me one lawsuit pre 9/11 that deals with asbestos in the WTC towers.

The north tower only had asbestos insulation up to the 40th floor and the second tower didn't have any asbestos insulation on the steel beams.

Please show me one pre 9/11 news article about the asbestos time bomb ready to go off.

The biggest class action lawsuit in history? Are you serious? The buildings held up to 50,000 people and they were going to create the biggest class action lawsuit in history? How the hell was that going to happen? Bigger than breast implants? Bigger than the Walmart employee class actions? Bigger than the class actions against Transunion? Bigger than class actions against Comcast, MCI, ATT and Washington Mutual?

[bottomtheweaver]

68. The PA itself lost its own 10-year court battle in May 2001

against its insurers to fund asbestos mitigation:

"Port loses claim for asbestos removal."
http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/trial-procedure-judges/9160294-1.html

As to the asbestos lawsuits against the Port, the PA had a legal department established specifically to handle asbestos claims. When I find a link about it I'll post it.

[Theobald]

78. So what your saying is you got nothing!

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey filed suit against their insurance companies to remove the asbestos and lost the case because unless there is an actual asbestos release or an imminent release leaves the property useless or uninhabitable, asbestos removal is not covered. That ruling totally refutes your previous statement.

Also, the cost of removal, 600 million dollars, was for the WTC, all three airports, and other PA buildings, so relatively speeking we are not talking about a lot of money.
"U.S. District Judge John W. Bissell earlier this month threw out the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey's final claims in a longstanding suit against dozens of insurers over coverage of more than $600 million in asbestos abatement costs at the World Trade Center, New York's three major airports and other Port Authority properties."

[bottomtheweaver]

81. Far from it: "The longest-running mass tort in U.S. history

. . . asbestos litigation has so far bankrupted 67 companies and wrung $54 billion from helpless corporations.<67> That’s more than the total bill for all Superfund sites, Hurricane Andrew, or the World Trade Center attacks.<68>

. . . . . . . .

"Driving up the cost are the sky-rocketing number of claims—60,000 a year<71>—often by people with little or no evidence of injury. . . . . Such was the case with six former railroad workers in a Lexington, Mississippi, case decided in October 2001. The jury awarded them $25 million each, even though not one of them exhibited any form of asbestos-related disease.<73>"

This is from a right-wing screed against trial lawyers, but the documentation is there if you want to check it.

link: http://www.triallawyersinc.com/html/part05.html

So let's see, 50,000 workers, times at least ten years, times $25 million each, comes out to $12,500,000,000,000.00.

I'd call that the world's biggest class action, wouldn't you?

[bottomtheweaver]

84. p.s. that's $12.5 trillion, and that was eight years ago. n/t

[Theobald]

90. Get real

You should try giving yourself an enema before you pull this shit out of your ass so it wouldn't stink so much.

Hypothetically speaking, let us stipulate that you are correct, and this was potentially the largest tort case in history, how does the buildings collapse, remove the liablility of asbestos exposure before the building collapsed?

Also, you have yet to provide any pre 9/11 evidence of someone, anyone, suing or thinking about suing the PA for asbestos exposure at the WTC.

[bottomtheweaver]

94. $12.5 trillion is pretty real,

and that's before the cost of litigation. Considering that the total payout for 911, including insurance awards, clean-up, survivors' benefits, "liberty bonds" and other compensation is estimated to have totaled $40 billion, it's easy to see the profit motive at work.

As for the PA office set up to handle asbestos claims, I can't seem to find any mention of it using Google, but lots of things have disappeared from the web in the last few years, so that doesn't surprise me. In any case, I'll post one when I find one.

[Theobald]

133. How is it real if you made the number up?

The only court case you sited refutes your own claim. The PA sued their insurance companies to remove the asbestos, the asbestos the PA put their themselves, and lost because the judge found no actual release and no threat of release that would make the building uninhabitable.

It's not easy to see the profit motive at work. What your saying is that in order to prevent lawsuits against asbestos exposure the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey had the buildings imploded, which would actually release the asbestos into the air, resulting in billions of dollars in claims, to prevent trillions in dollars in claims where no actual asbestos was released. Your theory makes no sense.

[bottomtheweaver]

136. Source: Roger Parloff, "Asbestos: The $200 Billion Miscarriage of Justice," FORTUNE, Feb. 17, 2002

I understand that you're reluctant to admit the truth, but the least you can do is click the links you keep asking for.

[Theobald]

237. Words mean things

I read your two links. One of them said that there was no asbestos danger in the towers and the second one was post 9/11; I asked for pre 9/11 articles backing up your claim that it was a time bomb waiting to happen and you have failed to provide that; you can't even find a post 9/11 article talking about the pre 9/11 claims about the danger of asbestos suits. The second one said that asbestos litigation was the longest running mass tort in US history. Which does not back up your claim that the towers asbestos litigation would have been the biggest in US history. You claimed 12.5 trillion dollars in possible damages and yet the article you cite claims the potential for damages in all asbestos related cases is 200 to 275 billion. Reading comprehension must not be your strong suit since all of the links you have provided have refuted your claims.

[bottomtheweaver]

245. "The jury awarded them $25 million each, even though not one of them exhibited

any form of asbestos-related disease." Those are the relevant words here. I wouldn't dream of saying "you do the math," because that would be asking much too much, so I did it for you, and the answer, since it was all of two posts ago and I wouldn't expect you to figure that out either, is $12.5 trillion.

[Theobald]

251. You've got the math right, but your calculations don't

make any sense. Yes they were awarded $25,000,000 each, but they were only a small fraction of the total railway employees, so why would you expect the 50,000 people in the trade center to win 25,000,000 each, as opposed to a small fraction of all employees? Also the case where they won $25,000,000 was reversed http://www.mssc.state.ms.us/Images/Opinions/CO23457.pdf, so they didn't win 25 million.

[Theobald]

252. Just one, that's all I'm looking for is

one article pre 9/11 that talked about the potential for the biggest mass tort in US history with regards to asbestos exposure at the WTC buildings or complex. Just one......

[bottomtheweaver]

259. You found as much as you're going to find right here.

I guess this is your lucky day. Any other dots you'd care to have me connect for you?

[Theobald]

261. I'd be lucky if you provided evidence to back up your assertions

The big question is how does the buildings collapse remove the liablility of asbestos exposure that occured before the building collapsed? None of the post 9/11 laws addressed pre 9/11 liablilty for non 9/11 related events, so they are still liable for asbestos exposure that occured prior to September 11th. Since that is the case than your theory doesn't hold water.

[bottomtheweaver]

262. Oh please. As if any amount of links would change your tune.

So far your refrain had been a big un-sourced "nuh-uh," complete with creative spelling and punctuation, so please don't be offended if I rate your knowledge of post-911 statutes and legislation at less than zero.

[SDuderstadt]

264. Ah, the "truther pre-emptive defense"....

"you wouldn't believe me anyhow no matter what I provided, so I won't provide any (and hope that no one realizes I actually can't)". Hysterical.

[Theobald]

266. You are the one who has made assertions and has refused to back them up.

Bottom "Trade Center, which was a mammoth asbestos time bomb ready to go off"
The buildings were mammoth but the asbestos only reached the 40th floor of the north tower. http://www.btinternet.com/~ibas/lka_world_trade_center.htm

Bottom "In fact the lawsuits had already started rolling in"
Have yet to provide evidence of even one lawsuit with regards to asbestos exposure pre 9/11.

Bottom "it was only a matter of time before they had the biggest class action in world history on their hands"
Failed to provide evidence it would have been the biggest with regards to the number of defendants (Suits against Walmart and Tobacco companies dwarf the potential of lawsuits with regards to trade center employees) and the evidence you provided for the biggest in monetary terms was rather weak. Just because 6 people won 25 million dollars, which was later overturned, does not mean you can take the total number of workers in the building and simply multiply by 25 million.

Bottom "That won't happen now thanks to 911"
What happened post 9/11 that would prevent WTC employees from filing lawsuits with regards to pre 9/11 exposure?

Bottom "Most potential claimants were incinerated"
That is a patently false statement and goes to show that you are either lying to us or lying to yourself. 2,726 people died because of the 9/11 attacks, how does that equate to most potential claimants being incinerated? It doesn't, it can't, which makes you wrong.

Bottom "and their families signed waivers to collect their survivor's benefits"
How does signing a waiver with regards to the 9/11 attacks equate to signing a waiver about somthing that had nothing to do with 9/11. Also, that would not cover workers who were not employed in the towers on 9/11 who didn't sign any waivers and were still 'exposed' to asbestos at the trade center pre 9/11.

All this came out of your first posting and all of it is wrong.

[bottomtheweaver]

267. I've made my case. You on the other hand have not.

For example, your entire wobbly argument rests on one preposterous and un-sourced claim: "None of the post 9/11 laws addressed pre 9/11 liablilty for non 9/11 related events."

Prove it, with links, or begone. :hi:

[Theobald]

268. You make shit up and then have the audacity to claim that I haven't proven my argument

You claimed that most potential litigants were incinerated. Less than 3,000 people died on 9/11, you claim that there are 50,000 potential claimants, which means that over 25,000 people would have had to die on 9/11 to make you correct. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm51spa6.htm

[bottomtheweaver]

269. Because you haven't. Please address the claim I mentioned above,

thanks.

[Theobald]

270. You have not made your case, providing factual incorrect information does not make a case.

Me "None of the post 9/11 laws addressed pre 9/11 liability for non 9/11 related events." It is kind of hard to prove a negative, especially to someone as factually challenged as you (of 'most potential victims were incinerated' fame). I could provide you a link to a house and senate bill and all you have to say is that is only one of them, there could be others, which would make you technically correct but inevitably wrong. I based my previous statement on the laws that I read, the discussions that took place during that time, the incongruity of the two issues, and that I can find no information that contradicts what I just said. Therefor I don't have proof and I am unable to locate the waiver form signed by victims so I can't provide you a link to that (If anyone has it please let me know). Is it possible that there is something out there that addresses pre 9/11 liability? I guess so, but it is highly doubtful, however you are correct I cannot prove my above claim.

However, my case does not rest on proving that the waivers don't address pre 9/11 liability. I don't need them, because only the people who accepted funds from the government were subjected to the terms of the waivers. There were tens of thousands of people who worked in the towers before 9/11 that didn't work in the towers on 9/11. They were all exposed to the asbestos in the buildings and therefor have equal claim as those who were working in the building on the day it collapsed. They didn't receive any money and so their right to sue has not been compromised.

[bottomtheweaver]

271. Sorry, that isn't anything close to proof of your claim. n/t

[Theobald]

272. How does it not prove my claim

You claim that workers in the building were going to sue the port authority for trillions of dollars based upon their exposure to asbestos in the building prior to their collapse on 9/11. I can't prove that the victims of 9/11 did not sign away their rights, but I do know that the former employees of the WTC who were not there on 9/11 did not sign away their rights, so unless congress passed a bill that took away the right of former employees to sue for asbestos related injury and hid that bill from the congressional record, I have proved my case.

[bottomtheweaver]

273. You (post #270): "Therefor I don't have proof." Correctemundo.

You haven't proven a damn thing. You've made some claims based on assumptions based on propaganda but when you get down to brass tacks, you and the rest of the OCT defenders don't have zip. I'm not trying to be nasty but just in case you haven't figured it out the official 911 story is a big fat lie from A to Z.

[Theobald]

275. Jesus Fucking Christ

I admit that I could not prove one of my statements and that somehow correlates to me not proving a damn thing? You have not backed off any of your claims, even the patentably absurd claim that most of the potential litigants were incinerated on 9/11, yet somehow me admiting that I couldn't prove something, not that I was wrong, just that I couldn't prove it, results in me being wrong on everything. Do you think more than 25,000 people were killed on 9/11 or do you disagree with the math that three thousand is more than half of 50,000?

Riddle me this, how did the WTC employees who were not working on 9/11 give up their rights to sue for asbestos exposure?

[defendandprotect]

104. Supposedly the WTC towers were going to have to be dismantled . . .

scaffolding built -- and literally dismantled ...!!

Demolition was NOT going to be permitted.

But, eh . . . seems to have happened nonetheless.

[SDuderstadt]

108. Anyone who believes that a 110 story scaffolding could be erected....

(let alone convince anyone to scale it) is in need of some serious intervention.

[Name removed]

130. Deleted message

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

[SDuderstadt]

143. It must be nice to live in such a black and white world where...

there are only two choices: be a "truther" or believe what "Bushco" told you. I have repeatedly asked you politely to stick to debating the issues and not question my motivation or my prpgressive credentials. Why can't you do that? Do it really hurt so bad to lose on the merits that you have to invent things about your "opponent"?

[Octafish]

46. I loathe liars.

The antidote for liars is the truth. That's why you, bottomtheweaver, and a lot of other DUers give a damn.

It should be clear that the United States government has failed to come clean about what happened on September 11. Why is that? What is there to hide?

Another question I'd like to see answered: Who benefited from the attacks?

Going from what is known about George W Bush and his family, we should consider his "administration" suspect in covering up, at minimum, criminal dereliction of duty, or, more likely, treason.

Why so many would defend Bush's version of events is another question. Its answer likely would be sickening.

[NowHearThis]

47. Good question about defending Bush's version

"Why so many would defend Bush's version of events is another question. Its answer likely would be sickening."

Sickening, yes. Surprising, no - not to many of us, anyhow.

[SDuderstadt]

55. "Truther Logic"...

"If you disagree with me, you're automatically defending Bushco"....truly silly.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

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

[bottomtheweaver]

65. Apparently the Trade Center towers were obsolete

before they were even completed, with multiple design flaws including narrow windows, inefficient elevators, and stifling HVAC systems, but the biggest problem was the asbestos they were saturated with. It's difficult to come to clear view of exactly how many tons were used and on how many floors -- estimates are between 100 and 400 tons, or more, and between 40 floors and 220 (every) floor -- but the Port Authority had just lost a ten-year court battle with insurers over mitigation and replacement costs, in May 2001 I believe, and considering the options available to them, the 911 solution was by far the most economical.

As to who benefited, both Cheney and Bush have multiple connections to the asbestos industry, which as corporate citizens go, ranks up there with the tobacco and nuclear energy industries.

[defendandprotect]

105. There were also severe and developing problems with

the facade --

read something on that a while back --

I'll see if I can locate it again. But, it entailed

something they used on the facade which was corroding.

[SDuderstadt]

109. "I'll see if I can locate it again."

In the entire time I have been here, I have NEVER seen D&P come back with "proof" of anything. Anyone else have the same experience?

[balantz]

9. What jet? n/t

[Octafish]

53. It's a disinformation scientist's dream job.

First there is a jet plane.
Then there is no jet plane.
Then there is.

[NowHearThis]

12. Who told you a jet hit the Pentagon? Your TV? Bushco?

Untruthers think they're at Mickey D's whenever a false premise is used to serve up a question. Have you noticed that they
didn't respond to the posts which aren't based on a false premise?

If a jet had hit the Pentagon and it wasn't part of a military exercise, the Sec. of Defense would have been fired, generals would have been court-martialed - not promoted, the President and VP would have had to testify in televised hearings before Congress,
no evidence would have needed to be planted, eyewitness accounts wouldn't have come also exclusively from the military industrial
complex, no fake scenes such as the one that was set up to appear as though a light pole had been struck by a plane and then fell on
a taxi (there's a thread in this forum in which the taxi driver in effect, confessed that he knew it was a phony scenario) would have
been necessary, the lawn in front of the building would have been scorched and there wouldn't have been any need to cover it up by
pouring sand over it, serial numbers on airplane pieces would have been traced to the actual crash jet, everyone who was alleged
to have been on AA FL 77 would still be alive, because it wouldn't have been necessary to sacrifice them by luring them to their
actual death site by lying to them and leading them to believe that they were going to the Pentagon to take part in a secret
military defense exercise, and we would have been shown unmistakable video images of a real AA airliner crashing into the building.

[SDuderstadt]

14. There are 100+ direct eyewitnesses who saw the plane hit...

and no amount of your silly spinning can change that.

[NowHearThis]

15. That claim was debunked many years ago. No one on your

team told you? Try doing some research instead of acting like a parrot.

[SDuderstadt]

16. How, specifically, was it "debunked"?

Are you claiming the witnesses weren't there?

[NowHearThis]

17. No.

I'm not "claiming" anything. What was proven years ago is that a cartoon plane was inserted into the videos that were subsequently
shown on TV.

The cartoon was so obvious that many people (thousands, actually - maybe millions or even billions) wonder if it was an intentional
slip-up to alert smart people that what they were seeing is exactly what it looked like: a cartoon plane.

It could also be that they were in such a hurry to complete the "operation" that they didn't have time to make it look
realistic, knowing that very few people would likely ever question it -- if they were even watching TV.

I would feel sorry that you were fooled if I believed that you really were fooled.

[SDuderstadt]

19. You still haven't dealt with the direct eyewitnesses...

because you can't.

[JuniperLea]

20. "if I believed that you really were fooled... "

Well stated.

[NowHearThis]

28. Thanks. BTW - do you have a clue about how to intercept a cartoon plane?

I sure don't.

[SDuderstadt]

30. Maybe while you're at it....

you can explain how direct eyewitnesses would even be able to see a "cartoon plane". In fact, wouldn't the direct eyewitnesses seeing no plane, as you claim, come forward en masse and say they saw no plane, especially when the video supposedly showed something totally different. I'd love to hear how you think the "perps" would have "gotten" to all those people.

[NowHearThis]

31. They saw the cartoon plane the same way YOU did. On TV.

nt

[SDuderstadt]

33. Now you're claiming that no one witnessed it live?

Really?

[NowHearThis]

92. No one could have witnessed a cartoon plane except on TV...

via a doctored video. That includes the BBC commentator who stood in front of a live shot of WTC7 and told viewers that
WTC7 had collapsed. Her timing was obviously a little off and she didn't seem to notice that the demolition hadn't
happened yet. She just read her script like a good team player.

[SDuderstadt]

98. I notice you still can't refute the direct eyewitnesses....

and, instead, stupidly imply that no one could have seen it live, which is ludicrous on its face.

As far as WTC 7 is concerned, do you honestly think someone who was "in on it" would announce the building fell before it actually did? Tell me something...did you know which building was WTC7 before you were told? Do you believe if you had asked the BBC reporter which building she was referring to she could have told you without asking someone?

See? This is the problem with the "truth movement". Everytime you think you have discovered a "smoking gun" there is a simpler explanation that is far more plausible than the truther claim. In fact, if you stitched all the truther claims together into one narrative, it would sound like a veritable "Rube Goldberg device".

[Name removed]

131. Deleted message

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

[Bolo Boffin]

138. So all the eyewitnesses that day didn't understand what it was they saw

until they went home and looked at it on TV?

:rofl:

[NowHearThis]

141. You don't know what they "understood".

What you SHOULD know is that no one could have seen a non-existent plane. The TV images were doctored with a cartoon plane
inserted into it. If a real plane had crashed into the building, it wouldn't have been necessary to do that.

Ghost planes and cartoon planes can melt into buildings, but real planes can't. It's simple. Why can't you grasp that?

[Bolo Boffin]

142. So the people that DID see a plane, who were there and saw it, what did they see?

Why can't you grasp that? People actually saw these planes with their own two eyes.

[Name removed]

145. Deleted message

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

[SDuderstadt]

147. Simple question....

are you saying there were no direct live eyewitnesses to the planes crashing into the towers???

[Name removed]

230. Deleted message

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

[SDuderstadt]

144. I notice you still can't refute the direct eyewitness testimony...n/t

[NowHearThis]

146. I think it's best to leave them alone with their fantasies

Why do you believe the impossible? You aren't crazy. Most of your ideas are, but YOU aren't. Lots of people believe in Santa Claus, the Ether Bunny, and George W. Bush, so if they want to believe that a cartoon plane is a real plane, let 'em.

[SDuderstadt]

148. Please tell us how a "cartoon plane" could be seen by a live...

direct eyewitness. Until you can explain that, it's apparent that you aren't here for real debate.

[NowHearThis]

149. TV, my friend. Have some. TODAY. In new, easy- to- swallow...

propaganda form.

[SDuderstadt]

150. They didn't see it on TV initially....they saw it live...

all your silly attempts to pretend otherwise don't change that. Again, how do you account for the numerous eyewitnesses who saw what you refer to as a "cartoon plane". Where are all the videos that surely must exist of the tower erupting in flame with nothing hitting it?

[NowHearThis]

152. Why do you believe in the impossible?

nt

[SDuderstadt]

154. Why don't you answer a simple question?

Again, you cannot refute the direct eyewitnesses, can you....

[Bolo Boffin]

151. So people looking at the WTC towers themselves on 9/11 - eyes on the buildings

were in fact watching television? They didn't actually see planes fly into those buildings? They actually saw -- what? -- huge television screens erected around the actual towers?

[Name removed]

153. Deleted message

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

[Bolo Boffin]

155. But they actually saw a plane. So it was there.

All of those people who saw a plane with their own eyes, they all were on LSD? Every one of them in New York and New Jersey that saw a plane actually hit the WTC Center, they were all of them high?

That's your explanation?

[NowHearThis]

231. It was deleted. I know that YOU can't delete messages.

I want to make that very clear. And in case you missed the first times before the unfortunate disappearances, the only place anyone
saw a "plane" crash was on TV images that were doctored with an inserted cartoon plane - after the explosions.

[Bolo Boffin]

232. It's utterly amazing to me that you think there were no eyewitnesses to 175 hitting the South Tower

That is dedication to a fantasy.

[SDuderstadt]

234. so, you acknowledge there are videos (which you claim were later ''doctored'' but...

you maintain that no one actually witnessed the plane hit the tower. wouldn't the people taking the video be witnesses. if they saw no plane and the plane was later edited into the video, why has no one come forward and say so? of course, your goofy claims keep coming.

[SDuderstadt]

156. Your post is patently offensive to people who lost their lives that day...

what are you really after here?

[NowHearThis]

233. It's against the rules to question motives. YOU should be glad.

Those rules were put in place for a reason and YOU of all people (or should I say of all of some of the people here) should
support those rules. The next time you question my motive for being here, I'm going to report you to BB and ask him to
take appropriate measures.

[SDuderstadt]

235. i don't question your motives, dude...

i question your lack of thinking and actual facts.

[NowHearThis]

236. Are you a clairvoyant? You don't have any basis for that insult.

It is precisely because I DO know how to think and use actual facts to reach logical conclusions that I know your
lame posts are amateurish. Your posts provide comic relief and I guess they also do slow down and distract the
search for truth, so in the end, we both win.

[SDuderstadt]

241. Hmmm, could you do us a favor and repost something of yours...

in which you actually provided proof of something, other than you just repeating the claim and insisting you are right?

[achtung_circus]

168. "I think it's best to leave them alone with their fantasies"

some people, yes. Have you considered what THEY might say to you?

[Liberal_Dog]

238. So, Jane Standley Did Not Know Which Building Was WTC-7...

but, somehow, she did know that the building had collapsed due to damage caused by debris from the Twin Towers.

Most interesting...

[Bolo Boffin]

239. Yes, she was responding to her collegue back in England

who was working off an erroneous Reuters story.

[SDuderstadt]

242. Unfortunately, it's not as mysterious as that...

news organizations try to scoop each other all the time. It had been known for much of the afternnon that WTC7 was unikely to remain standing. Standley was reading something prepared and, if I recall correctly, was qualified with words like "details are sketchy". The BBC has pretty effectively debunked this. If you don't buy their story, then you have to explain why the "perps" would deliberately put out news that gave away their "plot".

[NowHearThis]

248. You should try to write a comedic piece for the "New Yorker"

At least then you could tell your friends that you tried.

[SDuderstadt]

253. Would you mind if I submitted one of your posts and...

put my name on it? That would save a lot of time. I'd be glad to split the proceeds.

[NowHearThis]

255. Fine, but first would you do me a personal favor and kindly answer

some of the dozens of questions you have yet to even acknowledge much less answer? Thanks, I'll hold.

NOTE: I'm not asking you to address any of the stupid claims you've made that have been rebutted time and time again to the point
where you have apparently decided your best face-saving device is to hope the threads where they appear simply die. I'm talking about questions such as why can't you produce any proof that FL 77 was a scheduled flight on 9/11/01? If it was a scheduled flight you
would have immediately gone to your resources and come back with some proof. It's very telling that you have not done that.
Worse though, is your inability or unwillingness to show some respect and humility by admitting you were wrong/negligent/careless...
or whatever softer way you come up with to try and explain away that particular whopper.

[SDuderstadt]

256. Dude...for the last time...

it's YOUR claim that AA77 wasn't scheduled to fly that day and you keep failing to prove that in any way. You can try to shift the burden of proof to me as mush as you want, but your rhetorical trick isn't working. BTW, what you do claim is "proof" (an after-the-fact on-time performance database) actually DISPROVES your goofy claim. All you have to do is search for AA77's on-time performance for prior Tuesdays as far back as you want to go and it shows AA77 was regularly scheduled on those days. Hint: it was a DAILY flight!

[NowHearThis]

257. Dude - you can't prove FL 77 was scheduled & that's a fact.

Dude, if you could prove it, you would. Everyone knows it's crucial to the OCT/Fairy Tale.

[SDuderstadt]

258. Dude...you're the one who claimed to have proof it wasn't scheduled....

you keep trying to wriggle out of it.

[Bolo Boffin]

260. "Team from National Geographic Killed in Pentagon Crash"

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/09/0912_disasterngs.html

Two staff members of the National Geographic Society, along with three Washington, D.C., teachers and three students they were traveling with, were among the victims of the terrorist attacks in the United States on Tuesday, officials of the Society announced on Wednesday.

Ann Judge, director of the Society's travel office, and Joe Ferguson, director of the Geography Education Outreach Program, were accompanying the three teacher-student pairs on an educational trip to California.

They were all killed along with the other passengers of American Airlines Flight 77 after it was hijacked and crashed into the Pentagon at about 9:45 Tuesday morning.

...The group had boarded the Boeing 757 on Tuesday morning at Dulles International Airport in the Washington suburbs.

[defendandprotect]

263. Your post brings to mind . . .

that presumably the airlines would have had insurance on these flights and made claims?

I wonder if there are any public records on that??

:)

[NowHearThis]

249. Due to budget restraints, there was no one else in the studio...

to wave at her and give her the "blackout" signal. Also, the BBC at that time, lacked proper medical equipment needed to
perform certain procedures. Jane just blathered on as though nothing at all had happened to WTC7.

[JuniperLea]

34. I can only guess...

That you would have to draw a chase plane... I saw something similar in a Stephen King movie once:) I think it was King anyway.

[NowHearThis]

48. Hadn't thought about that, but you're right.

I bet you even make "them" smile, too.

More, more.

[SDuderstadt]

112. Still claiming no one could have witnessed the second plane crash live??

Still waiting, big brave man.

[Octafish]

56. I don't know, so I'm asking. This is supposed to be a democracy. It's my right and duty to know.

It is my belief that the nation's government has covered up what happened on September 11. It i s documented that they have not release the information we need to know -- from what happened at the Pentagon to what happened over Pennsylvania and in New York City.

The Commission charged with its investigation was designed to limit its ability to uncover truth. Henry Kissinger and then Tom Kean were oil-soaked, Lee Hamilton said the October Surprise never happened so you know he's going to get to the bottom of things - not. Then there's the chief of staff, Phil Zelikow who said he's an expert at storytelling and made the JFK story seem irrelevant to history. And Smirk and Sneere didn't even have to testify under oath and they testified together.

That's not to say I'm convinced the government's critics are 100-percent correct, however. The thing is, the critics and I want to learn what happened. And, in the process of investigation and discussion, we have been on the side of truth more than Bush and his cronies and supporters. They wouldn't recognize the truth if it hit them in the face.

[William Seger]

63. Hit me in the face with some 9/11 truth, Octafish

Poser.

[Octafish]

71. You friends with the Amazing Randi, too?

Gosh, there are a lot of you around.

[William Seger]

72. James Randi doesn't waste time on conspiracists

But yes, there are a lot of us around who think that bullshit doesn't do anyone any good, whether it's bending spoons with your mind or homeopathy or talking to dead people or people who claim that cell phone calls can't be made from airplanes, so the 9/11 calls must have been faked. If you really cared about the truth about 9/11, you certainly wouldn't want to be mislead into a false conclusion by bullshit. But if what you really care about is getting more people to believe the same thing you do, bullshit like that is useful, and so is labeling anyone who refutes it as "Bush and his cronies and supporters."

Poser.

[defendandprotect]

265. You seem to overlook the fact the OFFICIAL story is 9/11 was a CONSPIRACY . . .!!!

[William Seger]

327. No, I don't "overlook" that

I'm simply using the idiomatic definition of "conspiracy theory": an implausible theory held with near-religious conviction for no good reason. No sensible person asserts that 9/11 could not be an "inside job" because conspiracies don't exist; they assert it because A) such an elaborate, complex, and extremely risky Rube Goldberg plot is not plausible; and B) none of those theories are supported by credible, unambiguous evidence. If the "truth movement" can ever find that elusive "smoking gun" they won't be called "conspiracy theorists" anymore. Ironic, huh.

[SDuderstadt]

73. what i find truly amazing about many truthers is...

the degree to which they disavow/pillory critical thinking. jref is a forum that champions critical thinking. wouldn't you think people who profess to seek the ''truth'' wouldn't seek to scapegoat/discredit a critical thinking website?

[noise]

93. There is a double standard

as the claims of government officials are not critically examined.

[SDuderstadt]

99. Oh, bullshit....

refuting the goofy claims of the "truth movement" doesn't require agreement with suspect claims of the government.

[noise]

102. I agree

That wasn't my claim. My claim was the JREF crowd focuses all their skepticism on critics of the government's account. One would think real skepticism would involve all questionable explanations. How many threads at JREF consist of JREF'ers questioning any aspect of the government's account? Zero? One every few weeks? Why aren't authority figures held to at least the same (though it should be much higher) standard as "truthers?"

I've posted here and there about the inexplicable government conduct in relation to al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar. Bamford (Shadow Factory) and Wright (Looming Tower) are both on the record admitting the given explanations don't add up. Why isn't this discussed at JREF by the skeptics community?

[defendandprotect]

106. And, supposedly, there continues to be no record of these calls . . .

[SDuderstadt]

110. I'd like just one time to read something by D&P without the word "supposedly" in it....

In her world, "supposedly" = "I have no proof of it whatsoever, so I'll just assert it as fact and, if anyone challenges me for proof, I'll ask them why they 'support Bushco'."

[William Seger]

62. My parents' neighbor told me he saw the plane hit

He also told me he thinks the CIT fly-over crackpots are full of shit. Thinking that there wasn't even a plane is even nuttier.

[SDuderstadt]

13. Maybe if you understood the difference between "combat-ready" and "on alert"...

you wouldn't ask such stupid questions.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

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

[SDuderstadt]

21. For whatever it's worth...

it's "whose", not "who's". "Who's", of course is a contraction for "who is". I try to help where I can.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

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

[SDuderstadt]

23. Why do you think anyone would answer a patently offensive question like this?

What's really odd is you claim referring to someone as a "truther" is calling them a "name".

[JuniperLea]

24. Why? You do it every day and expect...

No, demand an answer. Yet you are here tap dancing around the question that has been asked every way it can be asked. All you can manage to do is answer a question with a question, dodge and deflect. Telling. Very telling.

[SDuderstadt]

26. Please point to where I have done anything as patently offensive as what you've done...

of, course, I realize I am trying to reason with someone who thinks referring to someone as a "truther" is no different than referring to someone as a "asshole".

[JuniperLea]

35. The post to which I reply now is offensive

Condescending, rude, and disgusting. One "man's" ceiling is another man's floor... what is offensive to one may not be offensive to another. I am offended by name calling. You are name calling. I am offended. How much further to you require your pablum to be digested before you get it?

[SDuderstadt]

37. Please point out where I am name-calling....

otherwise this is just more of your bullshit.

[JuniperLea]

38. Being willfully obtuse is annoying as hell

I never said that particular post had name calling in it, I said it was insulting. Jesus...

[SDuderstadt]

39. Read it again....

I didn't say you were referring to that post. I am asking you to point to any example where I have called anyone a name, including you. I would also like to point out that you referred to me as "fucking dense", then you complain about name-calling. It's truly a hoot.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

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

[Jetboy]

127. still waiting big brave man.

That is what you wrote. One could interpret that as name-calling. It certainly is offensive.

[Jetboy]

128. You also said, 'Maybe if... you wouldn't ask such stupid

questions.' I could understand why the other poster could find that offensive.

[SDuderstadt]

157. How hard is it to learn the difference between...

"combat-ready" and "on alert"?

[Octafish]

170. Condescension suits you.

What's that got to do with the question?

The USAF is supposed to have "combat-ready" AC ready to intercept potential threats at a moments notice.
That's why Congress and the White House give the Air Force all those billions every year.

[Bolo Boffin]

171. How many?

How many were they supposed to have ready in 2001? Do you know?

[SDuderstadt]

180. I see you still haven't researched the difference between...

"combat-ready" and "on alert", otherwise you would know that "combat-ready" merely means they can launch within 24 hours. Why don't you know this?

[BeFree]

195. You can back that up?

What official stance can you find to back up your assertion that combat ready means 24 hours lead time. Gawd forbid we ever have to wait 24 hours for our fly-boys to be ready to fight!!

Yall are going way off the deep end here. As expected.

[SDuderstadt]

197. You don't even know wtf you're talking about...

but you know for sure that I'm "going off the deep end", right? Does it ever occur to you to do sufficient research first before "just asking questions" or, worse, drawing unwarranted conclusions? If I suggest a difference between "combat-ready" and "on alert", why do you jump to the conclusion that means we have to wait 24 hours for all "our fly-boys to be ready to fight"? Would it make sense to have all of our forces on the most expensive standby status (on alert) or would it make sense to have some of them on a less expensive standby status, but still ready to fully deploy within 24 hours (combat-ready)?

http://archive.gao.gov/t2pbat3/151250.pdf

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/NORAD

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/NORAD#cite_note-3

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Andrews_Air_Force_Base


I swear, if you just go down your usual "you just believe Bushco" bullshit, I'll regard it as a personal attack. Stick to the issues.

[Octafish]

199. Bush lied in regards to September 11. That's why I asked one question.

In response, you and your chums give me the treatment and ask more than 100 questions.

One difference between my question and yours: I don't feign indignation with those who ask questions or disagree.

Thanks for the links.

[SDuderstadt]

200. It isn't indignation because anyone asks question or disagrees....

My problem with the "truth movement" is that it asks questions, doesn't wait for an answer, then makes goofy and easily disproven claims. I despised Bush and I'm grateful he's gone. I sincerely hope he and Cheney are indicted, prosecuted and convicted. But, I just don't see the evidence that the Bush administration, in any way, made 9/11 happen or willingly allowed it to happen. I do believe they were totally asleep at the wheel, mishandled the response to 9/11 and cynically exploited it for their own purposes.

[NowHearThis]

201. Pretty harsh treatment of President Bush.

Are you concerned that others might interpret it as a personal attack on the former President? Don't worry, I won't
alter the moderators, but still, it is mighty harsh and I could see where some people might feel it's so over the line
as to amount to being a personal attack.

Republicans are people too, you know. Don't THEY also deserve respect?

[SDuderstadt]

202. You might want to check the rules, dude....

it's pretty silly to claim that a member here is not permitted to "attack" W. You might want to review the history of DU. You're just sore that your personal attacks on other members keep disappearing for some reason.

You might want to give the moderators a heads up that you're contemplating "alter"ing them.

P.S. How are you doing with that refutation of the live direct witnesses to the planes being flown into the WTC?

[achtung_circus]

209. but the moderators

may not wish to be "altered".

[Octafish]

204. It took 36 minutes for you to reply to my question. If we'd intercepted the plane that fast...

...I never would've asked the first question.

As for the rest of your observations, thanks!

I didn't ask for them, but, thanks! Interesting!

[SDuderstadt]

219. Doesn't your question assume we could have but we didn't?

I have no doubt that anyone involved that day desperately wanted to intercept the airliner, but were unable to. For example, as regards Andrews:

(After 9:03 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Secret Service Wants Fighters Scrambled from Andrews; None Are Ready to Fly

A few minutes after 9:03 a.m., a squadron pilot at Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland (just ten miles from Washington), hears that two planes have crashed into the WTC. He calls a friend in the Secret Service to see what’s going on. The Secret Service calls back, and asks whether Andrews can scramble fighters. According to weapons officer, Major Dan Caine, who takes this call, the Secret Service agent then tells them “to stand by and that somebody else call.” Apparently anticipating the need to launch fighters, one commander has already started preparing weapons for the fighters. However, the weapons are located in a bunker on the other side of the base, and the process takes time. Senior Master Sergeant David Bowman, 113th Wing munitions supervisor, says, “We were doing it as fast as we could, because for all we knew the terrorists were getting ready to hit us.” It normally takes three hours to get weapons from the storage sheds and load them onto the fighters. However, on this occasion, it is later claimed, it only takes 45 minutes. The fighters don’t take off though for about another hour and a half (see (10:42 a.m.) September 11, 2001). Whilst the crew at Andrews are unloading missiles onto a flatbed trailer, Dan Caine answers another phone call from someone in the White House, requesting armed fighters over Washington. Caine says: “I could hear plain as day the vice president talking in the background. That’s basically where we got the execute order. It was ‘VFR (Visual Flight Rules) direct.’” Meanwhile, there are also three unarmed F-16 fighters assigned to the Andrews base on a training mission 207 miles to the south in North Carolina. These are not recalled until much later, and don’t reach Washington until 10:45 a.m. NORAD commander Major General Larry Arnold has said, “We have any aircraft on alert at Andrews.” However, prior to 9/11, the District of Columbia Air National Guard based at Andrews had a publicly stated mission “to provide combat units in the highest possible state of readiness.” Prior to 9/11, the mission statement was posted on the DC National Guard’s public website. Shortly after 9/11, this mission statement is removed and replaced by a DCANG “vision” to “provide peacetime command and control and administrative mission oversight to support customers, DCANG units, and NGB in achieving the highest levels of readiness.”

I'm sorry, but I don't have a link for that; it's from Cooperative Research. Anyone asserting (I'm not saying you btw) we should have scrambled fighter jets from Andrews are unwittingly claiming we should have sent unarmed fighter jets to try to intercept AA77.

[BeFree]

203. Yep, off the deep end

Every military plane that is on alert status is combat ready. Your effort to divide the two is at best farcical and at worst deceiving.

A link you posted about the alerted aircraft finally being placed over New York City (albeit after the first plane crashed) claims a 'combat patrol' was set up right then and there.

You fail again.

[SDuderstadt]

205. Look, dude...

I can't help it if you can't distinguish between "combat-ready" and "on alert". That you would think every fighter jet is or should be on the same readiness status is truly goofy.

[BeFree]

206. Hehehe

Again: all "on alert" aircraft are by definition "combat ready."

Is every aircraft always on alert status? No, that's not what we are talking about here. We are talking about the on alert planes on 9/11 being combat ready, and they were. Why are you even arguing this?

[SDuderstadt]

208. Dude, you still don't get it....

I am beginning to suspect some real cognitive problems here. Try to imagine a Venn Diagram. Yes, it is true that every fighter jet that is "on alert" is also combat-ready (duh. If it wasn't even combat-ready, how in the world could it be "on alert"?). Of those planes that are "combat-ready", some are "on-alert", which is an even HIGHER readiness status, as well as more expensive to maintain. So, for the record, all fighter jets "on alert" are, by definition, "combat-ready" (although they are a readiness level above that). But, it isn't true that all fighter jets which are "combat-ready" are "on alert" and that's where you keep going offtrack. The problem is you're applying a literal definition of the phrases when, in fact, they are AF/ANG terms which have SPECIFIC meaning.

I hope you get it this time because I am not going to waste any more time trying to do so.

[BeFree]

210. Good dancing

But you lose. Your words:

""I see you still haven't researched the difference between...
"combat-ready" and "on alert", otherwise you would know that "combat-ready" merely means they can launch within 24 hours. Why don't you know this?""

Not only is your tone arrogant but your words you are now trying your damndest to dance away from. But there they are, verbatim.

On alert aircraft are combat ready. Your sad attempt to divide the two from each other is taking it over the deep end.

Combat ready means ready to combat before being alerted and while on alert ready status they are armed and ready for combat just like the late coming planes on 9/11 were. Those planes were combat ready because they were on alert. When launched they were combat ready. When alerted they were combat ready. No differences they were the same.

[SDuderstadt]

211. Dude, I'm going to try one-more time...

First of all, the distinction between "combat-ready" and "on-alert" is the AF/ANG's distinction, not mine. A higher readiness status would presume it already met the readiness status just below it. But if you think that every fighter jet sitting on every AF/ANG base in the country is sitting there fully fueled, fully armed (including missiles) and with a pilot ready to go IMMEDIATELY, then I cannot help you. That's the distinction of "on alert". "Combat-ready" is the next highest readiness status, but the time window can be up to 24 hours.

For the life of me, I don't understand why you can't get this and why you continue to argue about something you're so obviously wrong about. I truly believe it is these kinds of cognitive lapses which make you a "no-planer". With that, I am invoking the "Lared Rule".

[OnTheOtherHand]

215. maybe you can start over in English

Are you saying that "on alert" is synonymous with "combat ready"? If not, what do you think the distinction is?

[BeFree]

218. The claim was that was a difference

We are talking about the planes on 9/11 that were sent to find Fl 11, Right?

Ok, those planes were combat ready, right?

Once they were combat ready they were ready to be alerted and were placed on alert ready status. At some time they were alerted to fly.

If they were not combat ready they would not have been placed on the flight line reserved for alert ready planes.

Do you think they would put a non-combat ready plane on the alert line?

[SDuderstadt]

222. Jesus Christ, BeFree....

you still can't seem to get this straight. NO ONE is saying that merely "combat-ready" fighter jets were taking up space reserved for fighter jets "on alert". "Combat-ready" and "on alert" are NOT THE SAME THING and I don't know how long this is going to take to sink in with someone who has such trouble with nuance.

There were fighter jets "on alert" at Langley. There were no fighter jets "on alert" at Andrews, there were only "combat-ready" fighter jets. A major distinction between "on alert" and "combat-ready" is that "on alert" fighter jets can launch within 15 minutes. Since fighter jets that are merely "combat-ready" are not fucking ARMED and it takes several hours to arm them, by repeatedly asking why we didn't send "combat-ready" fighter jets to intercept AA77, you are essentially asking why we didn't send unarmed fighter jets. I hope you will agree that is an absurd question.

[BeFree]

224. Man

That's the second time in this thread yall have use Jesus' name!!!

We didn't send unarmed jets up at least on the first alert. They were combat ready before they were placed on the alert line. That way, when they were alerted to fly they were ready to do combat. Not all planes are ready to do combat, but any plane placed on the alert line is combat ready.

[SDuderstadt]

226. You still can't grasp what "combat-ready" means...

a "combat-ready" fighter jet is still not ARMED (I mean, do you honestly think that every fighter jet sits on the tarmac with deadly missiles on it, or do you th9ink the AF/ANG has certain checks and balances in place?). It takes several hours to arm them (for examples, the missiles are not stored close to the jets and have to be retrieved from some distance).

The problem is you're arguing from what you think "combar-ready" does or should mean rather than the very specific meaning the AF/ANG attaches. Here's a hint: if you're going to argue effectively, abandon your definition of what you THINK the terms mean and adopt the AF/ANG's specific meaning.

[OnTheOtherHand]

225. there is a difference, and, so?

No one is claiming that non-combat-ready planes were put on alert. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think anyone is claiming that all combat-ready planes are on alert. Are you claiming that?

As for the planes that were actually sent to find Flight 11, presumably those planes were indeed on alert -- and indeed they were actually sent. So, what's the issue?

I can imagine two or three possible issues. One is if planes on alert weren't scrambled until later than they should have been. Another is whether they got the wrong orders when they were scrambled. And a third is whether some planes on alert never were scrambled. (For instance, many people seem to believe that there were planes on alert at Andrews AFB that weren't scrambled.)

[SDuderstadt]

227. Having this "debate" with BeFree is pointless until...

he abandons his personal definition of "combat-ready" in favor of the AF/ANG's specific operational definition of both "combat-ready" and "on alert". I sometimes wonder if these "interludes" with BeFree arise because he truly doesn't understand or grasp something cognitively or whether, in actuality, it is a "truther" rope-a-dope strategy designed to exasperate those trying to help them, so they can later claim they won.

[Bolo Boffin]

228. My vote is for "rope-a-dope". n/t

[OnTheOtherHand]

229. I wonder the same thing

I thought it might be interesting to get BeFree's response to "so what?" I think that BeFree is more than capable of "rope-a-dope," but since I'm pretty sure you're the one who brought the "on alert" issue into the thread, I can't rule out that it is absolutely irrelevant to what he actually is trying to say.

Incidentally, not long ago BeFree had four consecutive posts in which he laid out his ideas about what happened on 9/11. I give him some credit for that.

[achtung_circus]

217. Try this.

[BeFree]

207. For folks wondering what we are discussing

I see you still haven't researched the difference between...

Edited on Sat May-09-09 10:12 PM by SDuderstadt
"combat-ready" and "on alert", otherwise you would know that "combat-ready" merely means they can launch within 24 hours. Why don't you know this?

[BeFree]

284. Ready?

The dictionary says ready means immediate. Ready, in the real world does not mean "we can launch in 24 hours" ready in the real world means we can launch immediately, quick.

We hashed this out further on this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=246787&mesg_id=246936

If the military ever said they are not combat ready, they'd be in trouble, so they have to say ready. They basically made up the term 'combat-ready'. Most of the forces are not ready right now to do combat. Soldiers in Iraq are, but stateside? Not so much.

However, planes on alert are combat-ready by definition.

Hope this clears that up.

[vincent_vega_lives]

289. planes on alert are combat-ready by definition

Yes but combat-ready Airwings don't necessarily have aircraft on alert. ONLY hte Air National Guard had aircraft on alert on 9-11. The USAF had ZERO. Do some research.

[BeFree]

290. If that is true...

...that the AF had no planes on alert status then they had no planes that were combat ready. Meaning that no planes could be immediately launched and able to do combat immediately.

However, any plane on alert is by definition ready to do combat. The military term "combat ready" is not a real world term. A real world term is combat capable. 'Ready' just sounds so much better. But it is not true. I can see where some people would be fooled, but just because the military says so does not make it a fact.

[vincent_vega_lives]

292. I see you have youself convinced

Try not to confuse your opinion with fact.

Andrews Airwing is "combat-ready".

http://www.andrews.af.mil/

It has NO aircraft on Alert status.

http://archive.capecodonline.com/special/terror/achange9.htm

[BeFree]

296. Again?

What is the real world definition of ready? Get your dictionary out and see. There is no exception there for made up military terms.

Are you claiming that if the military says so, it is true?
Isn't that pretty much the same idiotology (sic) that says if Bushco says so, it is true? If Cheney tells you that torture works, do you believe them?

It is a sign of critical thinking that one takes what Bushco, the military, et al, with an idea that they are being deceptive.

Again, in this case, the military by using the term 'combat-ready' is being deceptive. Hell, they have to be deceptive, but that is no excuse for trying to push it off as the truth on us. So just stop it. Quit digging your hole.

[vincent_vega_lives]

304. The Military uses terms for specific things

not in ways you wish it did. The fact that you can't come to grips with the concept that you just might be wrong is telling.

Combat-Ready does NOT = Alert status. If it did then you would not need to discern which aircraft were on ALERT STATUS and which weren't!

Think of it this way. The US Army maintains hundreds of combat-ready units. However there are only a very few Army units on around-the-clock Alert status that can deploy overseas within 24hrs. That being a single Brigade of the 82nd Airborne. It has their equipment, supplies and ammunition palitized ready to load onto aircraft. It's personnel are limited TDY and leave.

It is very expensive and taxing to aircrew to maintain aircraft on alert status. The Pilots have to remain in the ready room constantly during their shift. Down the Cape they have two recliners set up with snacks, videos, console games to keep them occupied during their shift. Aircraft are armed and fueled, which means they need to be guarded by Air police. Maintenance people need to be on site 24-7 to ensure the aircraft can perform it's mission. You know even active duty Air Force personnel work 8 hr days and go home to their families after work when not on overseas or training deployments.

[BeFree]

313. Yeah

Those guys on alert are combat ready. I dare you to tell them they aren't, they'd bust you down so quick VVL would become VVDead.

If all American troops were combat ready, why were only 4 fighters launched?
Because only those 4 fighters were combat ready.

Too, if they were all combat ready then why didn't they do combat that day?
Because they weren't ready to do combat.

Why weren't they ready to do combat that day?
Because they never imagined they'd have to do combat against hijacked airplanes. In other words they weren't ready for that. I bet they are now.

[SDuderstadt]

306. Unfuckingbelievable...

the military is being deceptive? Do you honestly think the military is out to deceive you in this matter, or is it operational terminology that you simply don't understand? If I buy a TV that is "cable-ready" does that mean it laready has to be hooked up to cable or else it's "deceiving" people.

I used to think bullshit like this was just your rope-a-dope strategy, but I'm beginning to realize that you believe this nonsense. Question: do you really think "Bushco" invented the term "combat-ready"? Do you have any idea at all how long the military has been using this terminology?

[BeFree]

310. There you go again

Yeah, the military is deceptive. Doh! It is part of their MO.

Operational terminology is one thing that is deceptive in a large sense. For one thing they have different levels of readiness. C-1 through C-4, I believe.

Like I say, a soldier in Iraq is combat-ready, soldiers stateside not; in relative terms. Which brings us to this: Soldiers on Alert status in the states are combat-ready, soldiers not on alert are NOT necessarily ready to do organized combat in the definitive 'ready' term. But if on alert, they are. I know your pride demands you stick to your guns because you think the military is not deceptive and that leads you astray, but that is your problem.

If, as you say, the military was combat ready, then why didn't they do combat that day? America was attacked... combat was brought to them and they didn't do a goddamn thing to stop it. They are quoted as saying they never thought about the possibility. And you call that being ready?

[Bolo Boffin]

312. No, soldiers stateside are analogous to combat-ready. Soldiers in Iraq are analogous to alert status

Can't you get anything straight?

[SDuderstadt]

316. No. your inability to grasp the difference between two operational terms...

is your problem. No one else fucking cares.

I am done with your silliness.

[SDuderstadt]

305. For the last time, BeFree....

"combat-ready" and "on-alert" have specific operational meanings. Just because "combat-ready" doesn't mean what YOU think it should mean (with your goofy, "well, my dictionary says..." ploy, doesn't mean anything. This is getting silly. Maybe you should call us the SecDef and demand that all military terms conform to your dictionary. I'm sure he'll take your call.

Your literalism is getting boring.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[JuniperLea]

45. You should learn to read for comprehension...

Clearly I said I changed my mind on how I wanted to phrase this. And I didn't say he was, I asked whose it was.

[SDuderstadt]

54. I don't know about you, but I'm starting the stopwatch...n/t

[NowHearThis]

67. ATTN: This is DU, not Craigslist. Take the alt. lifestyle talk...

to somewhere else. It's inappropriate here. Maybe you find it interesting/amusing, but this isn't the place for
that kind of talk.

Thank you.

[SDuderstadt]

69. ''that kind of talk''

maybe you should direct your comments to the originator of ''that kind of talk''. that would, of course, be juniperlea, not bolo. but, you already knew that.

[NowHearThis]

70. In your fevered mind, "merely" repeating it is OK?

I'm sure there are many people here who aren't offended by the references and a few who probably enjoy reading salacious
material, but it's still out of place on a site like DU.

It's unfortunate that your loyalty to "the team" is stronger than your concern that even your mother might be offended
if she were to chance upon her darling's effort to defend what she surely would consider to be inappropriate references.
Of course, your mother would have to be able to recognize that it's you. Otherwise, she could only be offended by bb's
fantasies.

[SDuderstadt]

74. how is it bolo's ''fantasy''??

you do realize it was juniperlea who uttered the smear, right? why don't you take it up with her and quit wasting people's time?

[Bolo Boffin]

77. If you have a problem with my posting, alert the moderators.

If you have a problem with the subject matter here, talk to the originator and ask her/him to stop being factually inaccurate about his or her smears of other people.

[BeFree]

160. Thanks, Bolo

That was cool that you repeated that, made me laugh my ass off, and if it hadn't been for you, I'd be like, WTF? Thanks, dude.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

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

[SDuderstadt]

60. Do you think one has to "believe Bush"...

to know the difference between "combat-ready" and "on-alert"? There are answers to your question if only you would be open to them and quit assuming that people who disagree with you on the facts are somehow Bush supoorters. I'm not.

[Octafish]

115. So why don't you investigate Bush's version of events?

All I did was ask a question -- not tell you or anybody else what to think. So why do you give me the what's for? Try turning your energy on Bush's version of events. You might be surprised by what you find.

[SDuderstadt]

117. Because one does not need to rely on "Bush"...

you're making a stupid either/or argument that presumes the only evidence for the so-called "OCT" has to come from the Bush administration. It's stupid on its face.

[NowHearThis]

132. Why would it be in HIS interest to investigate Bush's version?

nt

[BeFree]

79. Welcome to the dungeon, Octafish

Here there be whips and chains. And a cabal of posters who are more than willing to use those whips and chains on anybody and everybody who doesn't see the world thru their rose colored glasses.


Good to see you down here, we need the company. If we all share the attacks they'll get worn out one day and leave us alone so that we may question Bushco in some resemblance of peace? And, we'll stop being subjected to anymore Bushco proffered lies, like the OCT and the 9/11 Commissions.

[whatchamacallit]

27. Because they were told not to

Fucking Duh!

[Octafish]

58. It seems that way to me, too.

Here's a link from a friend of my hairdresser:

The JFK Assassination and 9/11: the Designated Suspects in Both Cases

So, it appears a little more complicated than even Dick Cheney's psychiatrist suspects.

[Liberal_Dog]

29. What Difference Does It Make?

At the time, the military did not have the needed authorization from POTUS to shoot down civilian airliners.

So, what could they have really done about it anyway?

[Octafish]

59. Intercepting possible threats from the air is part of the mission of the United States Air Force

On the ground, USAF, Navy and Marine jets are useless. I'm not sure what would happen, but they needed to rendezvous with the jetliner in the air in order for POTUS or Sneering Dick Cheney or SecDef or whomever to have the chance to make a decision. Otherwise, the armed forces are not meeting their responsibility.

[SDuderstadt]

61. And jets were scrambled...

they just didn't get there in time. There were also mitigating factors. But you can't learn them when you're busy accusing everyone of being a Bush supporter. Do you know what an ADIZ is? Do you know why they pointed outward on 9/11? Do you care?

[vincent_vega_lives]

295. Actually the ANG has that mission

To provide the Aircraft and pilots, except for Alaska.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/airdef/overview.htm

The US force is currently comprised of 180 Air National Guard F-15A/B and F-16A/B aircraft located in 10 units and 14 alert sites in the United States. In addition to the 10 dedicated units, 2 F-15 dual-tasked general- purpose units stand alert for NORAD -- an active unit at Elmendorf, Alaska, and an Air National Guard unit at New Orleans, Louisiana -- part of which is on 24-hour alert.

[Beam Me Up]

32. Your question is based on an assumption.

Are you willing to question and investigate that assumption?

In post #12 above, NowHearThis has outlined a few of the problems. The most important thing to understand is that for the official account to be true, the flight path along which the plane flew to cause the physical damage is extremely specific. A deviation of a few feet laterally or horizontally would have caused a completely different set of physical damage. You're familiar with the "magic bullet" of the JFK assassination. What we have at the Pentagon is an equivalent "magic flight path". However, to understand it, you have to familiarize yourself with the specific details of the damage observed, the terrain surrounding the Pentagon, the official NTSB flight path study and accompanying data from the alleged AA77 Flight Data Recorder retrieved at the scene, the ASCE's Pentagon Building Performance Report, and the 84Rades data, among other things.

At the most superficial level, we know precisely what that flight path needed to have been to a) knock down the five light poles observed and b) hit the Pentagon such that the entire body of the airframe could have slid into the Pentagon between the first and second floors without the engines causing damage to the foundation. A bit further to the left or right and it would have missed one or another of the five poles; a bit higher in elevation it might have missed a pole and the damage to the facade and interior damage would have been different. Had it been a few feet lower, it would have impacted the lawn and caused damage to the foundation. We have a very precise line of flight along which the plane would had to have flown to cause the damage observed. Any significant deviation from that flight path calls into question the entire event as purported.

Many observed early on that the scene at the Pentagon did not conform to what one might reasonably expect at such a crash site. I will forebear listing them all which have been debated endlessly for many years. However, with the release of the NTSB "black box" (Flight Data Recorder) data and NTSB provided animation generated from that data, a completely new "wrinkle" was introduced into the investigation. The full animation can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aP3EMnCx4yI (The Wagner accompaniment is most annoying and was certainly not a part of the original NTSB production. I advise turning off the sound.)

The problem is, this NTSB provided animation derived from data alleged to have come from Flight 77's Flight Data Recorder is completely inconsistent with the physical damage in several respects. A ) it ends one second prior to impact; B ) it shows the plane on a heading that is completely irreconcilable with the downed light poles and the damage path within the Pentagon itself and C ) it shows the altitude in the last second before impact to be far too high to impact the Pentagon at all.

This is the "magic flight path" and it presents us with a conundrum that is every bit as suspicious as the JFK "magic bullet". The conundrum is this: If we take the NTSB generated data at face value as presented, the plane it represents could not have caused the physical damage observed. In fact, this 80 ton aircraft would had to have "zigged" well over 100 feet horizontally and "zagged" about 100 feet vertically and instantaneously to hit the light poles and enter the Pentagon near parallel to the lawn. As it is, if flight trends continued through the not shown final second (+ or -) the aircraft described in this animation would not have hit the Pentagon wall but would have flown over it at an altitude of some 70 to 100 feet. THUS, if we accept the NTSB generated animation at face value, the Flight Data Recorder from which this data was derived could not have been found within the Pentagon rubble unless it was placed there after the fact.

Here is a brief review of the final seconds of that animation (again, an animation provided by the NTSB itself) indicating the problem: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-Q8nSEeUec

Logically we have two data sets, the physical damage and the NTSB data. As presented, they are irreconcilable. One data set can, conceivably, be true and the other false but both data sets can not be true as presented. Since the physical damage is "assumed" (by most) to be "true" -- that is, to have been caused by the impact of Flight 77 -- the inclination is assume there is some problem with the NTSB supplied data. If this is so, the NTSB has not made any effort to rectify this confusion. Of course, logically, we have to include the possibility that BOTH sets of data are false or falsified. The question then becomes, if a government agency was going to falsify data, why wouldn't they do it in such a way that the data sets matched? The problem then, of course, goes to motivation about which one can only speculate.

I know you well enough, Octafish, to know you're quite familiar with mysteries wrapped in riddles inside enigmas -- and in what sense they are fingerprints of covert operations, how they are often handled and controlled and how they function to deflect and obscure. There is much more than what I've presented here, of course, but this should be sufficient to peak your curiosity.

[NowHearThis]

49. Extremely valuable post. Rare to see such an intelligent and...

well-written analysis. You have a powerful ability to reason; a sure sign of high intelligence. We are fortunate to have the
benefits of your well-written, easily grasped message.

Your family must be very proud of you. Thanks for being here.

[William Seger]

75. Faulty assumptions

Coordinating the FDR data with radar data shows that the FDR data ends about 4 seconds before impact, not 1 second, and losing altitude rapidly. After adjusting for all the factors involved, there is no significant discrepancy between the FDR data and the rather obvious flight path and impact point. But even if there was, only a completely irrational person would conclude that the FDR data is so reliable and infallible that we need to conclude that all that physical evidence must have been faked and all the witnesses must be lying.

The animation is based on the FDR data, but that Pentagon graphic is NOT part of that data: That's just something added as a visual aid. The FDR data shows a magnetic heading of 70, which (after adjusting for wind drift) is perfectly consistent with the obvious path of damage and the impact point. However, that Pentagon graphic is rotated by about 20 degrees. What appears to have happened is that whoever put that animation together tried to apply a 10 degree compensation for the magnetic heading to get a true heading, but rotated the graphic in the wrong direction. Mystery solved.

And seriously, how much sense does it make to say that the data from an FDR found in the Pentagon proves that the plane didn't hit the Pentagon?

[Beam Me Up]

76. I didn't say that it did. Perhaps you need to read my post more carefully.

I said the two data sets as presented are irreconcilable, do you disagree with this? You are saying the animation wasn't derived from the data. How very odd of the NTSB to supply a "visual aid" that is not derived from data.

[William Seger]

80. I DID read your post carefully. Perhaps you should read mine

> "I said the two data sets as presented are irreconcilable, do you disagree with this?"

Yes, I disagree with that, and I said why.

> "You are saying the animation wasn't derived from the data."

Again, perhaps you were reading too quickly. That's not at all what I said. Your "1 second before impact" is based on the pure assumption that the timestamps in the FDR are synchronized with the "official" impact time. But the FDR data does not record the impact time. It does, however, record data that can be synchronized with radar returns, and that synchronization shows that the FDR data ends about 4 seconds before impact -- i.e., enough time to descend to the elevation of the clear and obvious impact point. I also said that even if it didn't, you failed to provide any rational reason for thinking that the FDR altitude data is so infallible that it refutes a literal mountain of physical evidence and over a hundred published eyewitness accounts.

> "How very odd of the NTSB to supply a 'visual aid' that is not derived from data."

The animation shows a mag heading of 70, and that is the same number as the CSV version of the FDR data. From other FDR data, the track angle (true course over land, after adjusting for wind) was 71.4 magnetic. Adjusting for the difference between magnetic north and true north at the Pentagon, the heading was 59.8 and the track angle was 61.2. That's the data., BMU. You can use Google Maps or Google Earth to find for yourself that the graphic in the animation is simply wrong, regardless of how "odd" you find it, and the best hypothesis seems to be that whoever placed it in the animation tried to adjust magnetic to true and simply rotated the graphic in the wrong direction. If you've got a better explanation, you seem to have omitted it, but regardless of the reason, it's simply wrong.

[johndoeX]

86. Radar vs FDR data

Radar Data cannot be "synchronized" with FDR data as there is no Mode C present in Radar Data. Furthermore, Farmer admits a "large margin for human error" when he plotted his radar data. We would quote it, but Farmer erased his site twice.

RADES altitude data shows AA77 at 50,000 feet in some portions. How does that coincide with the FDR? It doesnt. RADES altitude data is unreliable at best and this is why the NTSB puts such disclaimers as "potentially large errors" when referring to primary radar returns.

The FDR data is not missing any seconds west of the pentagon wall according to the NTSB. The FDR data is filled for many parameters as plotted by the NTSB rght up till "impact time" of 09:37:45... as calculated and stated in the NTSB Flight Path Study.

Please visit http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=7163 where many common arguments and those who make excuses for the govt story are addressed.

[William Seger]

87. Well, it it ain't Cap'n Bob hisself

Here's that link to Farmer's analysis:
http://aal77.com/ntsb/Final%20Analysis%20of%20NTSB%20Fight%20Data%20Recorder%20Freedom%20of%20Inform.pdf

And here's a link to a rather lengthy thread on JREF, covering 2.5 years, where many common FDR arguments and those who make excuses for terrorists -- and who believe that the FDR found in the Pentagon proves the plane didn't hit the Pentagon -- are addressed:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=66047

Oh, yeah, and here's a link to a DU thread where Cap'n Bob tries to lie his way out of a faulty analysis with a phony graphic:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x161557#163129

So, how are those DVD sales coming, Cap'n Bob? Did you catch up with Dylan Avery's 9/11 income yet?

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

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

[William Seger]

91. Well, keep up the good work

According to a http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/pollquestions38-80%3Ayouandthe911truthmove">2007 poll of "truthers" themselves":

77. Please name the three theories promoted by TM members that you think have been most damaging in terms of public perception of the movement. Rank them from most to least damaging.

1) No plane at Pentagon, 39%
2) No planes at WTC, 32%
3) Pod theory, 14%

[johndoeX]

101. FDR Location

Can The Govt Get Their Story Straight? - Location Of Flight Data Recorder
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/FDR_location_091607.html

Lies, Conflicting Reports, Cover-Up's
Location of American 77 Flight Data Recorder - Part II
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/location_2.html


Our "interpretation" of the FDR is a simple as determining 2+2=4. Any student pilot can do it as the NTSB did all the work. Its apparent you are having problem with reading an altitude plotted next to a time stamp by the NTSB. But these people dont have such a problem..

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core

The list continues to grow.

[William Seger]

126. It would be so simple

... if your "altitude plotted next to a time stamp" could show the actual impact time, huh. It's apparent that you are having a problem with ordinary logic.

Now, tell me again why your interpretation of the FDR data is so infallibly accurate that we should ignore that mountain of physical evidence and all those witnesses? I keep forgetting how you rationalize that.

[johndoeX]

161. Are you saying the NTSB is wrong?

So, are you saying the NTSB Flight Path Study stating the "impact time", signed off by Jim Ritter, the csv file time stamps, also plotted by the NTSB, AND their Time Correlation Study, are all all wrong?

How much experience do you have in Aircraft Accident Investigation and/or FDR Analysis, because the NTSB and all these Aircraft Accident Investigators/FDR Experts disagree with you.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/core

The list continues to grow...

[William Seger]

178. Ah, does anybody know what time it is

So, you're saying that the NTSB can't be wrong about the "impact time" relative to the FDR data; they're just wrong about there being an impact? Again, logic just isn't your strong suit, is it? Why does the FRD data end at all if there wasn't an impact?

Are you suggesting that there are NTSB Aircraft Accident Investigators/FDR Experts who would agree with you that the FDR found in the Pentagon tells us that the plane didn't hit the Pentagon? So, how much experience in Aircraft Accident Investigation and/or FDR Analysis does it take to figure that out?

Farmer's analysis, which coordinates the FDR and RADES data, gives convincing argument that the FDR positional data ends 6 ± 2 seconds prior to the impact location, and that the CSV file data is shifted relative to the FDR by 4 seconds. If we assume that Farmer is correct in those conclusions, then there is no need whatsoever for the incredibly imaginative narrative of an invisible 757 flying over the Pentagon, an astounding amount of extremely convincing physical evidence being faked, and for over a hundred published eyewitness accounts being either mistaken or fraudulent (not to mention one unpublished account from my parents' neighbor). Your response is that Farmer has been shown to be wrong before, therefore that highly implausible narrative is a rational alternative. Really? And if "wrong before" is a disqualification, on what grounds do you claim the credibility to make such an astonishing assertion?

And let me understand this: You expect me to be impressed by how many people buy that bullshit -- so impressed that I start thinking it must make sense?

No, Cap'n Bob, I don't think it's my lack of "experience in Aircraft Accident Investigation and/or FDR Analysis" that's the problem here. I think the problem is your lack of a sense of humor; otherwise you'd appreciate how ridiculous you look.

[johndoeX]

196. NTSB, L3 Communications, Numerous Verified Experts

William,

There is a reason our list continues to grow with verified experts in their fields and your list consists of not one verified aviation expert, a washed up "mathematician" who cannot even calculate the proper vector analysis for G Loads (nor admit such a mistake), and a janitor.

Since you missed it the first time, i'll bold it this time.

You cannot accurately synchronize RADES Data with FDR data, especially sans Mode C . Again, even Farmer himself stated a large potential for human error in his plot. Please do your research and stop believing those who make excuses for the govt story based on faith and inaccurate/error filled analysis. There is a reason Farmer refuses to post at Pilots For 9/11 Truth and refuses to debate topics related, while we are growing a list of courageous verified experts putting their credentials and professional reputations on the line recording the FBI and NTSB looking for answers.

The NTSB, L3 Communications (the manufacturer of the FDR), Numerous verfied experts, and even the data itself, all disagree with you (and with Farmer) regarding "missing seconds of data" west of the Pentagon wall. The lists continue to grow. It is your logic which is flawed as you cannot come up with one plausible theory for missing seconds west of the wall. Even a third party independent researcher has thoroughly debunked the Randiland excuses for corrupt/erased data. Go look in the thread you linked! I dont think anything will change your mind or stop you from making excuses from behind your screen on a daily basis for the govt story based on your beliefs. Im sure if elements within our govt are found guilty for the crimes of 9/11 and hanging in the streets, you'll be there to protest. It is your right. But you will be very wrong as usual.


As for Farmer, he is THE definition of waffling... Some may want to listen to this recorded call of him...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=15715

The man is thoroughly discredited.

Also, please click the links with heavily sourced research regarding location of FDR in the thread above titled "FDR Location".. as it appears you havent done so and prefer to regurgitate debunked nonsense.

Now that we are repeating ourselves, dont be offended if i dont stop by to reply in a timely manner.

edited for typos

[William Seger]

213. You've wasted a lot of time trying to make that case...

... unsuccessfully so far, but the reason you're wasting your time anyway is that you appear to be (intentionally?) ignoring the bigger picture. Either the FDR was found in the Pentagon or it wasn't. If it was, then it's beyond absurd to suggest that you can use the FDR data to prove the plane didn't hit the Pentagon. If it wasn't really found there, then it's not reasonable to suggest that the data on it means anything at all about the plane that did indeed hit the Pentagon. If you'd like to suggest it really is the AA77 FDR but it proves the plane was too high to hit the Pentagon so it must have planted there later, well... you've been hanging with the CIT boyz too long if you can't see why it's beyond idiotic to believe that a 7-fuckin-57 flew a few feet over the Pentagon and nobody noticed. Again, here's the approximate view that my parents' neighbor (and at least several dozen other people on that quarter-mile stretch of 395) would have had, with the plane hitting around the corner on the left side:



And that's just one road. The Pentagon is completely surrounded by roads, and the plane would have had to fly very low over several more before it could make its "getaway." ALL of those roads would have been full of traffic at that time of morning. The CIT's idiotic "stage magic" hypothesis simply wouldn't work except possibly for the people who were directly along the flight path and might miss seeing the plane flying away because of the fireball. (How they could have possibly missed it leaving the area after flying through the fireball is a detail the CIT boyz perfer to ignore, for obvious reasons.) But to anyone who was at least a little to the side of the flight path, it would have looked exactly like a low-flying plane had dropped a bomb, because they would easily see the plane leaving the area.

So far, the CIT boyz have come up with one witness who says he saw a plane about 100 feet over the south parking lot. But there's just a couple of problems with that claim: 1) It would have taken him a minimum of about 5 seconds to get out on the loading dock, by which time the plane would have been about 3/4 miles away, not 100 feet over the south parking lot. 2) If the plane came from anywhere to the west, there's no way it could have turned quickly enough to take the path he says he saw, while any approach path that would allow that departure path simply doesn't agree with any other witnesses, including the CIT's. And most importantly, 3) nobody else saw any plane fly low over the Pentagon and leave the area. The CIT hypothesis that they were all "confused" because of reports of a second plane in the area are equally idiotic, since people who just watched a plane "bomb" the Pentagon would not likely to be confused by those reports, even if they had actually heard them. But the truly idiotic thing about the entire CIT hypothesis is that the "perps" would have even planned such a stunt with the expectation of getting away with it, and nobody involved said, "Gee, what if someone sees the plane leaving?"

So the very best you can really accomplish with all this FDR analysis is to show that the data must not be correct, for whatever reason, and you're still a long way from actually proving even that. (BTW, how's that technical paper for peer-reviewed publication coming? Need a few more years?)

I'll give you a free logic lesson, Cap'n Bob. The generally accepted definition of "valid" logic is that if the premises are true, it cannot be that the conclusion is false. But when the conclusion is clearly absurd, then you know you fucked up somewhere, without even tracking down the fallacy that caused it. Reductio ad absurdem is an useful means of restating an argument to show that it leads to absurd conclusions so if can't be correct. But the PfT and CIT use it as there actual argument and then brag about how many paranoid people fall for it. Amazing.

[SDuderstadt]

214. "Either the FDR was found in the Pentagon or it wasn't....

If it was, then it's beyond absurd to suggest that you can use the FDR data to prove the plane didn't hit the Pentagon".

Seger, you just put your finger on it and illustrated why I shake my head at "truthers" so much. I seriously believe there is some sort of cognitive gap that makes them develop and subsequently defend theories that just don't fly (no pun intended). Why someone would try to use data from an FDR found within the Pentagon to try to prove the plane actually DIDN'T hit the Pentagon is truly baffling.

[ThePentaCon]

274. William, why do you dedicate yourself to the obfuscation of facts?

... unsuccessfully so far, but the reason you're wasting your time anyway is that you appear to be (intentionally?) ignoring the bigger picture. Either the FDR was found in the Pentagon or it wasn't. If it was, then it's beyond absurd to suggest that you can use the FDR data to prove the plane didn't hit the Pentagon. If it wasn't really found there, then it's not reasonable to suggest that the data on it means anything at all about the plane that did indeed hit the Pentagon. If you'd like to suggest it really is the AA77 FDR but it proves the plane was too high to hit the Pentagon so it must have planted there later, well...

William, why do you continually use this faulty logic to bully people? The FDR was NOT found on 9/11. It was found 3 days later and according to two different sources, in two different places. Clearly finding an object that is supposed to be the black box of Flight 77 3 days later is not proof against the evidence we have uncovered.

Did the black box see the plane approach on the SOUTH side of the Citgo? Did the black box see it go into the first floor instead of pulling up into ascent over the highway? Can the black box refute the fact that the plane was seen flying away after the fact? No it can't and certainly not with all the problems and anomalies it displays.


you've been hanging with the CIT boyz too long if you can't see why it's beyond idiotic to believe that a 7-fuckin-57 flew a few feet over the Pentagon and nobody noticed.

You keep saying this, but people DID NOTICE!!! Roosevelt Roberts being one of them, Dewitt Roseboroough potentially being another. ANC worker Erik Dihle said the following:

"Some people were yelling that a bomb hit the Pentagon and that a jet kept on going."
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=499&st=0

So clearly people saw it. Stop lying.


Again, here's the approximate view that my parents' neighbor (and at least several dozen other people on that quarter-mile stretch of 395) would have had, with the plane hitting around the corner on the left side:

Riiiight. The same "parents' neighbor" you mentioned before and the time before that. Funny thing is you never provided an identity for this supposed neighbor. Isn't that interesting? There is no proof this person exists. This sounds like the desperation of an op or a person with a serious investment in not admitting they were wrong.

This is not a witness. It is nothing but conjecture and hearsay.

It certainly doesn't affect the REAL account of the REAL person, Roosevelt Roberts, who saw the plane flying around south parking immediately AFTER the explosion.



And that's just one road. The Pentagon is completely surrounded by roads, and the plane would have had to fly very low over several more before it could make its "getaway." ALL of those roads would have been full of traffic at that time of morning.

And we don't doubt that. We know plenty of people saw it. That is why they created the 2nd plane Cover Story:

http://www.thepentacon.com/2ndplanecoverstory2.htm
http://www.thepentacon.com/Topic5.htm


The CIT's idiotic "stage magic" hypothesis simply wouldn't work except possibly for the people who were directly along the flight path and might miss seeing the plane flying away because of the fireball. (How they could have possibly missed it leaving the area after flying through the fireball is a detail the CIT boyz perfer to ignore, for obvious reasons.) But to anyone who was at least a little to the side of the flight path, it would have looked exactly like a low-flying plane had dropped a bomb, because they would easily see the plane leaving the area.

Listen to yourself. You keep rambling on with the same idiotic statements. NEWS FLASH:

ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE.

Just because we don't present an abundance of people who saw the plane flying away, does not mean it did not happen.

The plane through the fireball was our early belief, but that doesn't mean it happened that way. We have enough evidence that it tried to avert the building and flew to the side of the building, just as witnesses told Dave Statter.

So far, the CIT boyz have come up with one witness who says he saw a plane about 100 feet over the south parking lot. But there's just a couple of problems with that claim: 1) It would have taken him a minimum of about 5 seconds to get out on the loading dock, by which time the plane would have been about 3/4 miles away, not 100 feet over the south parking lot.

You know this how????? You know how fast the plane was moving? You timed it? You been there? You worked on the dock? How do you know that the explosives weren't set off seconds before the plane even reached the building? You don't. But knowing the type of person you are, you will pretend you do.




2) If the plane came from anywhere to the west, there's no way it could have turned quickly enough to take the path he says he saw, while any approach path that would allow that departure path simply doesn't agree with any other witnesses, including the CIT's.


Oh please. You don't even know what the plane did exactly, how fast it was going, what type of plane it was or EXACTLY where Roosevelt saw it or what he saw it do, but you are positive it "there's no way it could have turned quickly enough".

Give it a rest, William. You are reaching.


And most importantly, 3) nobody else saw any plane fly low over the Pentagon and leave the area.

Again, people did. We've shown you.



The CIT hypothesis that they were all "confused" because of reports of a second plane in the area are equally idiotic, since people who just watched a plane "bomb" the Pentagon would not likely to be confused by those reports, even if they had actually heard them. But the truly idiotic thing about the entire CIT hypothesis is that the "perps" would have even planned such a stunt with the expectation of getting away with it, and nobody involved said, "Gee, what if someone sees the plane leaving?"


Oh because William Seger has the complete understanding of how psy-ops work. He can prove our media isn't manipulated by the likes of Operation Mockingbird or anything like that. He doesn't take into consideration that two planes hit the towers in an apparent terrorist attack and people were conditioned to believe a plane had hit.

What did you expect William? A coalition of flyover witnesses to come marching down the street waving their fists in anger on the morning of 9/11? You don't even know how many people even saw this event, but you're convinced this imaginary group could have turned the tide.

You're ridiculous.

So the very best you can really accomplish with all this FDR analysis is to show that the data must not be correct, for whatever reason, and you're still a long way from actually proving even that. (BTW, how's that technical paper for peer-reviewed publication coming? Need a few more years?)

I'll give you a free logic lesson, Cap'n Bob. The generally accepted definition of "valid" logic is that if the premises are true, it cannot be that the conclusion is false. But when the conclusion is clearly absurd, then you know you fucked up somewhere, without even tracking down the fallacy that caused it. Reductio ad absurdem is an useful means of restating an argument to show that it leads to absurd conclusions so if can't be correct. But the PfT and CIT use it as there actual argument and then brag about how many paranoid people fall for it. Amazing.


Come on tough guy, explain how the plane hit the light poles and the Pentagon approaching from the north side of the Citgo.

Better yet, can we here at CIT engage in a telephone ebate discussion with YOU the great William Seger? Maybe you can wrangle up your fake parents' neighbor witness?

Or better yet, why don't you gather up the cajones to confront Roosevelt Roberts or the NoC witnesses and tell them they didn't see what they emphatically claim they saw.

The fact is the plane approached on the north side, pulled up into ascent, and was seen at 50-100 ft alt banking/flying around south parking, looking a like a pilot that missed his landing zone target and was coming back around.

The simple fact that the plane being on the north side of the gas station has been corroborated to the point of redundnacy should concern you or at least leave you open to the possiblity that the plane did not hit the building. The fact that you are illogically married to the idea that it did not fly NoC only amplifies the psychological control fear has over you.

Don't fault us for a conclusion we reached based on the evidence, a conclusion that was validated by one Roosevelt Roberts Jr.

[NowHearThis]

276. ThePentaCon: Sticking it to The Man

Nicely done, richly detailed expose of a major lie about the OCT.

Note to "William": On behalf of those of us who are interested in this topic, I urge you to accept the challenge of a radio debate.
EVEN if you have to send in a substitute advocate who is more adept at defending the impossible without resorting to unsportsmanlike
conduct.

[Bolo Boffin]

277. Need some KY there, NowHearThis? n/t

[ThePentaCon]

278. Thanks NHT

If only we could get Bolo to concede something. You are wrong sometimes, right Bolo?

Isn't there any chance you are wrong about this?

[William Seger]

280. If you had any FACTS you wouldn't be such a laughing stock

> "Don't fault us for a conclusion we reached based on the evidence, a conclusion that was validated by one Roosevelt Roberts Jr."

Bullshit. You could not have reached your conclusions "based on the evidence," because you don't really have any. After several years of "research," all you have is a handful of highly dubious anecdotes. In fact, since the very beginning of your little project, you have slashed-and-burned your way backwards through the actual evidence and the vast majority of the witnesses in an unsuccessful attempt to justify the absurd "conclusion" that you started with. Ultimately, your "conclusion" is based on unsubstantiated denial of the evidence and unadulterated slander of any and all witnesses who unambiguously confirm what all that physical evidence clearly shows.

How hard is it to figure out that Roberts couldn't have gotten to that loading dock fast enough to see the plane over the south parking lot? Apparently, it's somewhat beyond the arithmetic and/or logic capabilities of the CIT. How hard is it to figure out that his claim doesn't even match that "north of the Citgo" path you've been peddling, anyway? Apparently, a little too tough. How hard is it to figure out that if a few witnesses, years later, remember a "north of the Citgo" path, but still agree with all the other witnesses and all of the physical evidence that the plane hit the building, then the obvious explanation is that either their memories or their perceptions of the path are faulty? Apparently, that's a concept CIT can't quite grasp. So, somebody said that somebody else said that "a jet kept going," but somebody else said no, the plane hit the building, and the CIT can't look at that path of destruction, those 757 plane parts, and the shredded bodies of AA77 passengers and figure out who was right? Apparently, the CIT prefers "some other method" for sorting out such things, which certainly cannot be called "based on the evidence."

Yet you accuse me of "obfuscation of facts?" Sorry, but my parents' neighbor has your number, and I agree 100% with his assessment of your "conclusion based on the evidence."

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?" True, but making highly implausible claims and accusations with such an appalling absence of evidence is certainly evidence of cluelessness. Unless, of course, you're a con man, in which case the cluelessness is on the part of the marks. When NowHearThis gets his allowance, maybe he'll buy a DVD.

[NowHearThis]

281. My cousin in Denver was there and he didn't see it

Neither did his wife and kids. Their dog claimed to have seen it and said he knew it was one of those hijacked planes because he
could see Osama waving from an aisle seat. Before you say "impossible", let me remind you that it COULD have happened.
Besides, Osama hasn't been seen since that day, so maybe my cousin's dog really did see him on "the plane".

[ThePentaCon]

282. CIT hearts William Seger

> "Don't fault us for a conclusion we reached based on the evidence, a conclusion that was validated by one Roosevelt Roberts Jr."

Bullshit. You could not have reached your conclusions "based on the evidence," because you don't really have any.

Really? Because I would say we do. In the form of heavily corroborated eyewitnesses. Would you like to tell us how the plane hit the light poles, showed up low and level across the lawn as seen in the gate cam video, and caused the external and internal directional damage after approaching from the north side of the Citgo?


After several years of "research," all you have is a handful of highly dubious anecdotes.

Oohh poor little William Seger. It hurts him so much to admit he was wrong. William, I highly suggest you re-evaluate your position. These are scared witnesses to a military deception, not anecdotes.


In fact, since the very beginning of your little project, you have slashed-and-burned your way backwards through the actual evidence and the vast majority of the witnesses in an unsuccessful attempt to justify the absurd "conclusion" that you started with.

Ultimately, your "conclusion" is based on unsubstantiated denial of the evidence and unadulterated slander of any and all witnesses who unambiguously confirm what all that physical evidence clearly shows.

Stop generalizing and lying William. Yes we did not believe a 757 hit the Pentagon and yes we went there prepared to learn otherwise. It simply needed to add up. Sorry. It didn't. The plane was NOT on the south side where it needed to be, doing what it needed to do. The "actual evidence" you speak of is what brought us there in the first place. The "actual evidence" is the crime itself. And we never ignored the "vast majority of the witnesses". Stop lying, William. We contacted a good majority of them and the alleged witnesses (ops). Here's the link ONCE AGAIN *sigh*:

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=82

There are actually probably less than 15 witnesses that can be considered "impact/no flyover witnesses" BUT they are still unconfirmed and unconfronted when it comes to the evidence at hand.


How hard is it to figure out that Roberts couldn't have gotten to that loading dock fast enough to see the plane over the south parking lot?


How hard is it to figure out that he did? You don't have enough information to say that. He was 7 steps away, that is only a few seconds, couple that with the possibility that the event started before the plane reached the building and it makes perfect sense that he would have seen the plane.


Apparently, it's somewhat beyond the arithmetic and/or logic capabilities of the CIT. How hard is it to figure out that his claim doesn't even match that "north of the Citgo" path you've been peddling, anyway? Apparently, a little too tough.


His account does match with a North of Citgo path, because a NoC plane cannot hit the Pentagon which is what he saw, a plane that did not hit the Pentagon and was flying away. You do not know where he saw that plane exactly.

I spoke with him off recording and he understood the implications of what he saw. He understood there was a C-130 that flew in a few minutes after the event at a much higher altitude. He maintained that was NOT the plane he saw. He backed out of the interview we had scheduled and was scared. And here you are shitting on the man. Good job, William!


How hard is it to figure out that if a few witnesses, years later, remember a "north of the Citgo" path,

A few years later? Are you trying to imply something William? Are you trying to imply that their memories are faulty regarding a VERY SIMPLE right or left, black or white detail? A detail that had them looking in a specific direction, with specific things in the background like ANC or the Citgo, looking at a plane doing a very specific thing? Is that what you are trying to imply? All 13 witnesses all independently corroborated about this detail?

William you do know Sgt Lagasse put the plane on the north side in 2003 right? And ANC guys were recorded on the north side shortly after 9/11 right???

You know that right William?

Right William? You do know that don't you William? I mean we've told you a million times, but like someone promoting subterfuge, you ignore it.

but still agree with all the other witnesses and all of the physical evidence that the plane hit the building, then the obvious explanation is that either their memories or their perceptions of the path are faulty?

Oh yeah, that is what you are trying to imply.
So which is it William? Did they see it on the northside or did they see it impact? You can't have both. You are behaving like a lunatic with this insane doublethink.

Why haven't you gathered up the courage to tell the witnesses they didn't see the plane approach on the north side of the Citgo, William? Why are you trying to cast doubt on men who can't defend themselves here? Why would you be that unfair William? Confront them with your blatant accusations.


Apparently, that's a concept CIT can't quite grasp. So, somebody said that somebody else said that "a jet kept going," but somebody else said no, the plane hit the building,

Right and the people who said the jet kept going were right. The plane clearly now has been proven to be on the north side of the Citgo flight path. This means the plane cannot hit.


and the CIT can't look at that path of destruction,

No see, it is William Seger who can't look at the ACTUAL path of the plane that has been confirmed now. CIT did look at that path-that is why we went there to confirm it. What are you not getting William? Why do you continually bypass these facts and force your belief in the fairy tale onto others as if what we are showing you doesn't matter.


those 757 plane parts,

Not proof, William. The parts didn't report or record the plane flying on the south side. They aren't even confirmed as coming from AA77. Regardless, this just means it was planted.


and the shredded bodies of AA77 passengers

Not proof. There is no proof that there were AA77 passengers inside the pentagon. There is no independent verifiable chain of custody proof to the DNA. There is no independent verifiable proof that DNA tested and matched at the lab even belonged to the passengers.

and figure out who was right?

We know who was right. The people who saw the plane on the north side. We confirmed it.


Apparently, the CIT prefers "some other method" for sorting out such things, which certainly cannot be called "based on the evidence."

There is no other method. We have uncovered the fact that there was a military deception. We can only give explanations to account for what we are seeing.

Yet you accuse me of "obfuscation of facts?" Sorry, but my parents' neighbor has your number, and I agree 100% with his assessment of your "conclusion based on the evidence."

Yes, William. Obfuscation of the facts. Have you read your posts? I mean really, denying the witnesses because their accounts were recorded 5-6 years after the fact about a simple detail they ALL MATCHED on???

We don't care about your parents' neighbor. He doesn't exist as far as we're concerned. You don't either. Who is William Seger? Just some guy on a message board is spits venom and subterfuge when it comes to 9/11 truth. Is that even your real name?

He has our number? Does he have our e-mail too? Send it to him if he doesn't and have him contact us to explain how a plane approaching from the north side of the Citgo hit the light poles and the Pentagon and ask how come he didn't see the silver commercial aircraft liner with jet engines flying 50-100 ft over and around south parking lot, looking like a pilot that missed his landing zone was coming back around.

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?" True,

Well at least you admit it. So do you withdraw that argument?


but making highly implausible claims and accusations with such an appalling absence of evidence is certainly evidence of cluelessness.

What is denying 13 people all emphatically telling you the plane was on north side of the Citgo in a bank while refusing to confront them on it evidence of? Clueless cowardice?


Unless, of course, you're a con man, in which case the cluelessness is on the part of the marks. When NowHearThis gets his allowance, maybe he'll buy a DVD.

Aww, William, are you still salty about us selling DVD's to raise funds for our research? Are you still sore over the fact that people asked us to put them on DVD? Are you mad that some people want to donate to our cause, William? Awww, suck your thumb, perhaps it will sooth you and help you feel better.

Do con men normally give out the product for free online, William?

[NowHearThis]

283. Devastating work, ThePentaCon. Congratulations and thanks.

In your post you wrote: "Who is William Seger? Just some guy on a message board is spits venom and subterfuge when it comes to 9/11 truth. Is that even your real name?" I don't claim to know, but on a FL 93 thread that Spooked9/11 started sometime back, he (seger)
claimed to be a pilot. He didn't qualify the claim by saying he is an amateur pilot and since the discussion involved
a large commercial airliner, the obvious inference is that he wanted readers to think he is/was a commercial pilot.

The other day he said he's a software engineer. Quite a career change, but certainly possible.

[William Seger]

294. Bullshit

No, liar, I have never "claimed to be a pilot" of anything except Microsoft Flight Simulator. And anyone who is paying attention knows that I "spit venom" at 9/11 bullshit, not "9/11 truth." Deal with it or don't; I couldn't care less how it affects bullshitters. PentaCON's bullshit may be "devasting" to what little sensibility you possess, but even most of the "truth movement" seems to be able to see right through it.

[NowHearThis]

298. I see your weasel and call you on it.

When you wrote in a post that you are a pilot, you didn't say you were "ONLY" a MS FS pilot. You made the flat statement that you are
a pilot. It was in the context of a response you made to Spooked911 about FL93.

Your credibility is, in my view, impeached. Why should anyone believe anything that you say? Your integrity is zero.

[William Seger]

302. Then link to the post, mouth

You are a liar. You cannot link to any such post because I have never made any such claim. And we'll discuss "credibility" again the next time you post bullshit.

[SDuderstadt]

307. Seger never ever claimed to be a pilot, dude...

If he did, it should be easy to point to the specific post where he did instead of just slinging your usual bullshit. Pathetic.

[NowHearThis]

318. See Post #294

More to follow about that plus more about his original post where he claimed to be a pilot.

Have you read all of william seger's posts? Is that your statement?

[Bolo Boffin]

320. Seger doesn't claim to be a pilot there.

try again.

[SDuderstadt]

321. We breathlessly await your evidence, dude...

Of course, if you actually had it, you'd post it. You'll pull your normal whack-a-mole strategy for a while, then hope and pray everyone will forget you made a silly, bullshit claim that you can't back up. In fact, I'm surprised that you haven't demanded that Seger prove he DIDN'T say it.

[William Seger]

297. SSDD

... and it doesn't get any better with the repetition. Your entire career as a "9/11 researcher" centers around either not being able to figure out what happened to AA77 or hoping that there are lots and lots of NowHearThises around. Did he put in his order yet?

[NowHearThis]

300. You claimed to be a pilot. You aren't. You now say you are a...

software engineer. If you weren't being honest in the past, why should anyone believe you now?

[SDuderstadt]

308. YOUR dishonesty is stunning...

if Seger EVER claimed to be a pilot, it should be easy for you to link to that post, Of course, you won't because it simply doesn't exist. In my opinion, you are disrupting with deliberate false accusations.

[NowHearThis]

319. Do I detect a bit of hedging on YOUR part, too?

Are you saying that you know he never claimed to be a pilot (other than saying so in post #294) because you've read all of his posts?
Is that what you want us to believe? I don't think it is what you want us to believe, and your hedging is a strong indication of
that.

Post #294 ought to be a big clue to you that Seger is nervous about all of this. Maybe "nervous" isn't the right word for someone
as arrogant as he, so make that "concerned", not nervous. He has good reason to be both.

[SDuderstadt]

322. Post #294 doesn't say anything about him claiming to be a pilot, dude....

If you have the post in which Seger claims to be a pilot, please provide it, otherwise, withdraw your claim. You're real close to disrupting here.

[OnTheOtherHand]

323. "it simply doesn't exist" -- yep, sounds like a hedge to me!!

For what it's worth, I looked at every post by William Seger containing the word "pilot" in a thread started by spooked911, as identified by the DU search function, going back to 2005 (although I'm fairly certain you are referring to a recent thread). So, speaking for myself, that would be my strongest basis for saying that he never claimed to be a pilot.

Prior to that, my strongest basis would have been facial implausibility. I haven't read every post by Seger, but surely I've read hundreds. I would no more expect him to claim to be a pilot than I would expect you to profess your admiration for Richard Perle. It makes no sense. I searched (it didn't take long) because I thought my search might unearth an interesting misreading -- but not even. You've just jumped the shark.

[William Seger]

325. "nervous about all of this"?! Have you completely lost contact with reality?

Let's try this again, mouth: You are a liar. I have never made any such claim. You will NOT find that imaginary post because no such post exists. Is that clear enough to penetrate that fog? Not that you really have any credibility to lose, but I strongly recommend that you admit that you "misremembered" something or other and apologize.

[Octafish]

95. Remember Dick Cheney threatened Tom Daschle if the Senate were to investigate?

That's when I smelled a cover-up. The Kissinger Commission was a joke. Henry the Killer, a wanted war criminal, stepped down as chairman rather than disclose his client list.

The new co-heads, Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton, continued the tradition. Tom Kean had financial interests in UNOCAL, a company interested in building a natural gas pipeline across Afghanistan, and Lee Hamilton is a large reason Poppy Bush and Bill Casey got away with the October Surprise and Pruneface Reagan got foisted on America.

The investigation was not thorough and the report is incomplete. The investigators did not question important witnesses under oath and in public, including George Walker Bush and Richard Bruce "Dick" Cheney. The investigation did not address the issues of pre-attack warnings that were ignored by Bush and his cronies. Someone should've asked the smirking idiot why he kept reading "The Pet Goat" or whatever it was rather than leading the country's defense.

What's also telling is how little was spent in the investigation. Some have reported more money was spent investigating Clinton’s affair with an intern. Putting a time limit on the investigation also was a clever way to limit what could be investigated and reported.

One of many, many issues ignored by the press was the government’s reaction to the attacks. One of the first things Bush and his cronies wanted to do was attack Iraq. Gee. That’s the same thing the PNAC group wanted to do – a decade earlier, but said they’d need another “Pearl Harbor-like event” to get America to go along.

So, I don’t know if my question is based on the facts that I’ve heard or is an assumption of believing what the government and TV have told me. That video you linked me too (Thanks, my Friend!) shows exactly what we need to know. That jet plane seems to have been flown by a pro or a computer. And the crash scene doesn't seem to look like other jetliner crash scenes. Then these are among the reasons why We the People need to investigate.

IMFO, the government story keeps lots of information secret to cover someone’s treasonous ass. The night of Sept. 11, 2001, I smelled a rat. I've seen that rat in action ever since -- from stolen elections to domestic spying to vanishing civil rights to lying America into war to the $11 Trillion rip-off of the middle class and a whole lot more -- ever since. My asking about it shouldn’t cause people to have conniptions, yet it does.

[Beam Me Up]

97. Indeed it does cause *some* to have conniptions.

I moved out away from the dungeon a long time ago for precisely this reason. It is more than unfortunate because DemocraticUnderground is one of the best forums on the internet.

[William Seger]

179. Which questions?

Why were warnings ignored when "the system was blinking red?" Why did our intelligence fail to detect the plot or prevent the hijackers from entering the US when some of them were targets of investigation? Why did it take so long for the FAA to notify NORAD of the hijackings? Who financed the operation?

If so, then I defy you to find any "Bush supporters" on this board having "conniptions" about asking those questions.

Poser.

[Octafish]

240. You keep calling me ''Poser.'' Where's your journal, William Seger?

You don't have one because you don't add anything to the discussion.

Who's the poser?

[SDuderstadt]

243. I vote for Octafish....

after all, Seger does not have a journal!

[Octafish]

246. Where's yours? Amazing Randi?

Right?

[SDuderstadt]

254. "Truther Logic"...

unless you have a journal, you're not qualified to speak about anything.

[William Seger]

244. You are

> "You don't have one because you don't add anything to the discussion."

Ah. I was wondering why I don't have a journal. Thanks for clearing that up. (And that's about as close to answering my question as I expected from you.)

[Octafish]

247. Where's yours? Also at Amazing Randi's?

Right again?

[William Seger]

250. Where's my what?

:shrug:

Where's my journal? I thought you just said I don't have one because I don't contribute anything to the discussion?

But, hey, maybe I can start a journal and write about stuff like this: You linked to a post I made on the JREF conspiracy theory board in which I described the results of an experiment to see if I could make a cellphone call from over 30,000 feet. The results were that I got a signal three times in approximately 10 attempts. I tried once to call my home answering machine and was apparently able to get through and stay connected for about 10 seconds. This was, of course, in response to the frequent claims that such calls can't be made, which supposedly "proves" the calls must have been faked. My journal might also summarize some of the other things I've found and posted on this board after investigating for myself some of the claims made by the "truth movement."

So do you or do you not care about the truth, Octafish, or is anyone who argues against some of the abject bullshit peddled by the "truth movement" a "sickening" "Bush supporter?"

And, do you know what the term "poser" means?

[Old and In the Way]

324. I agree Octafish.

Any normal President, truly blindsided by such an event, would have reacted with calls for an immediate investigation with unlimited federal resources to get to the bottom of what happened. But not the Deciderer. Even though he was hung out to dry on 9/11, he does everything possible to avoid a public investigation. Not the actions of someone who is innocent and wanting the truth to be exposed.

Some here will tell us, "he was embarrassed by his own incompetence....that's why he obstructed justice." AFAIK, gross criminal negligence is still a criminal offense. You can go to jail for killing a person while not paying attention when driving a car. But I guess you get to start illegal wars when your inaction on threats leads to the deaths of 3000 Americans.

[leftofthedial]

50. a. there wasn't one to intercept.

b. their commander in chief's commander didn't want them to participate in the proceedings.

[Realityhack]

83. Given the time that has elapsed since the attacks and the oversimplification...

of your question I can only assume that you are either willfully ignorant of the extensive information readily available on this topic or you are asking a dishonest question.

[Octafish]

96. Why can you you call me ignorant or dishonest, yet I can't mention someone supports Bush's version?

That's weird.

[Old and In the Way]

89. 77 and 93 were both delayed from their planned take off times.

77 was 10 minutes late and 93 was 41 minutes late. That's a lot of time for Smirk to burn reading books in an Elementary School. Maybe if 93 was off on time, 77 doesn't fly almost 1/3 of the way cross the country before turning back to Washington. Had there been no plane delays, no one would be asking where the military was.

[Octafish]

100. That's incredible. Jets still on the ground could've been warned.

George Bush's government had plenty of warning before that day, as well.

From The Boston Globe of Nov. 23, 2001:

Two of the other four were the only hijackers to have been on the bureau's terrorist-alert list: Khalid Almihdhar, and Nawaf Alhazmi, both Saudis. The other two hijackers were identified as Majed Moqed and Salem Alhazmi, both Saudis.

Those were the two guys the CIA forgot to tell the FBI about. Of course, Prince Bandar Bush's wife sending them money was nothing worth investigating, let alone telling the American people about.

And the story gets worse and worse. And it will continue to get worse and worse -- until enough of We the People demand answers.

[Bolo Boffin]

107. My, my. You're showing your well-practiced ability to focus on what you want to believe on

and not the full range of information out there, explaining why Flight 77 could not have been intercepted.

AA77 was hijacked for 41 minutes, which comprised of:
24 minutes during which the aircraft was believed to have crashed
12 minutes during which the aircraft was missing and suspected of being hijacked
5 minutes during which the aircraft was a suspect hijack but being tracked on radar

Now how you think any plane at all could have intercepted Flight 77 with five minutes notice, I've no idea. Perhaps if you had dug a little deeper into this before running off and spouting conspiracy theories, you wouldn't be embarrassing yourself like this.

[Octafish]

113. Where am I ''spouting conspiracy theories''? All I've done is ask a question.

Which "conspiracy theories" have I spouted off, boloboffin?

Why does me asking a question make you so upset?

[Bolo Boffin]

118. And I've provided part of the answer, yet instead of thanking me

You go off on tangents.

[BeFree]

159. Thanks, Bolo

You are a good soldier, on the wrong side, but still...

Your answer from above: ""explaining why Flight 77 could not have been intercepted.

AA77 was hijacked for 41 minutes, which comprised of:
24 minutes during which the aircraft was believed to have crashed
12 minutes during which the aircraft was missing and suspected of being hijacked
5 minutes during which the aircraft was a suspect hijack but being tracked on radar

Now how you think any plane at all could have intercepted Flight 77 with five minutes notice,""

24 minutes they believed it crashed and no plane was sent to see if it had or where it had crashed?

Then for 12 minutes they figured, golly gosh, it might have been hijacked!! Then for 5 minutes, they knew it was hijacked. That's 41 minutes of thinking the worst, and yet no intercept ever intercepted 77. Heh, that's a god damned failure.

But you knew that, didn't you?

[Bolo Boffin]

162. "no plane was sent to see if it had or where it had crashed? "

How do you know this was the case?

Flight 77 was heading due west when its transponder was turned off. It then began flying east.

The suspected crash site was not where the plane was. The suspected route was not the direction the plane was flying. And the plane was flying in an area that lacked primary radar coverage.

So how exactly where people supposed to know what Flight 77 was doing, BeFree? Are you sneering at them for not being psychics?

[BeFree]

163. No

You said they thought it had crashed after it's transponder was turned off. Anyone with any forethought would imagine they'd send a plane to find the crash site. Are you saying they did not send a plane to find the crash site?

Of course you wouldn't say something so stupid. So we agree they sent a plane to find 77. At this time did they sit on their hands and say, ''well, we sent a plane, nothing else to do""? Meanwhile they knew there were several planes used as missiles.

Look, they were confused, NORAD was confusing everyone with their exercise, 77 flew into an area that radar couldn't find the plane (damn smart hijackers there, eh?) and they thought 77 had crashed. And there was a plane sent to find 77 but it never found 77.

So, for someone to ask why didn't a plane intercept 77 is a damn good question, even tho you may adamantly object, you're just plain wrong. ATC knew for 41 minutes that something was wrong.

So what is your agenda?

[Bolo Boffin]

164. "Meanwhile they knew there were several planes used as missiles. "

How do you know this is true? Why would they think "crash" if they knew about "several planes used as missiles"?

Who is this "they" you are talking about? ATCs? Are they such a monolithic organization that what one knows, all of them know? That what one control center knows, all of them knows?

"For someone to ask why didn't a plane intercept 77 is a damn good question," I agree. But that damn good question has an answer, and you and Octafish both seem to be doing a good job of avoiding that answer so you can yell at me.

[BeFree]

165. Yell at you?

Getting sensitive, are you?

You've given no answers, but don't feel bad, Bushco has given no answers, so how could you give an answer?

What is the problem is you acting like you have the answers and when called on that you react that we are yelling at you. This is NOT about you Bolo, so quit trying to make it about you. Maybe you need a break?

ACT knew, for 41 minutes at least, that 77 was having serious problems, yet the record shows that no intercept was launched to help 77. That is a serious failure of protocol and leads to folks questioning why the breach of protocol took place. That's all.

But since there are no answers we are left to try and figure it out. Hey, Bolo, it wasn't your fault then, but you are a problem now. My advice? Just stop it.

[Bolo Boffin]

166. Yes, I have given answers. Maybe not answers you want to accept, but they are the answers.

AA77's transponder was turned off in a part of the USA with no primary radar coverage. Yes, that right, there's gaps in the primary radar coverage. With simultaneous loss of communications and transponder, the ARTCC controller rightly assumed the aircraft had crashed.

Indianapolis Centre then followed correct procedure and notified surrounding ARTCCs so airspace along AA77's flightpath could be sterilised. Meanwhile, of course, AA77 had turned around and was heading east, not west. When it entered an area with primary coverage at 0905EDT, no one noticed because they were looking west.

At 0908EDT Indianapolis Centre activated the USAF's Search and Rescue units at Langley AFB, to commence a search for AA77's wreckage.

By 0920EDT, Indianapolis Centre staff had learned that there were multiple suspected hijackings in progress. At this moment they began to suspect AA77 may have not crashed, but been hijacked.

There was no "serious failure of protocol" by Indianapolis Center, as you call it. On the contrary, they were following protocol.

[BeFree]

167. Failures of protocol

"AA77's transponder was turned off" Right then and there protocol demands an intercept and alarms at any ATC in the area. Failed.

"...the ARTCC controller rightly assumed..." You mean, wrongly assumed the aircraft had crashed. Failed again.

"...primary coverage at 0905EDT, no one noticed" Another failure. And by this time several aircraft were KNOWN to have been hijacked, but telephones were still working, eh?

"...At this moment they began to suspect AA77 may have not crashed, but been hijacked." Compound failures equaling a breach of protocol.

After all, Bolo, these are NOT answers. It is, instead, a story of great failures.

I can't believe you don't call it for what it is!!

[Bolo Boffin]

169. "Right then and there protocol demands an intercept and alarms at any ATC in the area."

Prove this statement. Be specific.

[BeFree]

172. Of course not

When a transponder goes out and communications are cut off there is no cause for alarm!!

Tell the yahoos at randi's about this failure, would you. They are supposed to be skeptics, right? Well, they ain't worth a hill of fire ants with what they supplied you.

Skeptics over at randi's? Bushco butt kissers is more like it!!

[Bolo Boffin]

173. All I'm asking you to do is cite the actual protocol that you are using to make your assertions

Is that too much to ask?

[BeFree]

174. Shirley you jest?

We don't keep that in stock here.

Maybe you can get it at randi's skeptic barn and Bushco butt kissers emporium?

What, you think that when a transponder goes off and communications with the pilot go down that ATC personnel have to go check the employment manual to find out what to do next?

Are you that far out of the loop? Have I been giving you more credit than you are due? My bad.

[Bolo Boffin]

175. No, I don't. I'm asking you to support your assertion with the facts.

I'm giving you absolutely all of the credit you deserve: none. Support your statement. Now would be good.

Leaving off all the attacks on me would also be helpful to a fruitful discussion.

[BeFree]

176. What do I get in return?

We'll make a deal: I give you what you want and when I do, you give me what I want.

[Bolo Boffin]

177. BeFree, these questions aren't hard.

Produce the protocol. As soon as you do, we can stop all of this silliness and look and see what protocol actually was and whether it was followed or not.

You've made several statements about what that protocol is. Produce the protocol that you are citing. It should be easy to do, since you've been talking about what protocol was. You must know what that protocol is. Otherwise, you will have been making up what you think the protocol was and lambasting them for not following what you assume the protocol to be. Perhaps there's another choice here, but I don't think so.

You either have the ATC protocol you've been asserting to be true, or you don't. Stop your silly games and produce it.

[BeFree]

181. Nope

Are you arguing that I am wrong? That protocols were followed?

When I find the internet links... hard work... then I will start a new thread and I want you to reply to the OP in the affirmative that you agree to the ground rules.

So all you have yo do is reply now that you will post in my new thread and then in that thread agree to the ground rules and then, if I am wrong, you win!!

[Bolo Boffin]

182. Jesus Christ, what drama. All I'm asking is that you support what you say.

And there's all this High Noon bullshit.

[BeFree]

183. High noon?

Now you are being dramatic.

No, what I want is to call you out in a new thread. If I am going to do the hard work of getting the quotes needed to show you where I'm coming from, I don't want to do it in this dark black hole of a 180+ post thread, I want you to be right up front on the top so everyone can see it and let them decide. Let them be the jury of who is right. Be a man, what have you got to lose?

[Bolo Boffin]

184. "If I am going to do the hard work of getting the quotes needed"

If you're going to make assertions about factual things, THIS IS WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO. Stop whining and support your fucking statements.

[BeFree]

185. Not whining

I am challenging you. You think I don't know what it is I say. And your attacks here about stupid questions are tiresome as all get out and so I want to teach you a lesson on a new thread.

So be strong, say OK, I accept this challenge from Befree. What have you got to lose?

Have we got a deal, yes, or no?

[Bolo Boffin]

186. You have made assertions about ATC protocol. Support them. n/t

[BeFree]

187. I will

But this is my last try to get you to do the right thing and let me call you out up front and honestly. Of course, you know I'll clean your clock, so why would you?

That's it for me, Bolo, you've declined to stand strong and take it like a man, so I'll just have to figure another way to learn you a lesson. Oh well.

That's it for me, catch you later.

[Bolo Boffin]

188. You have made assertions about ATC protocol. Support them.

You have made these assertions in this thread. The discussion is on topic. At least the discussion of the assertions is on topic. Your grandstanding and distraction tactics aren't.

Support your assertions. Quit manufacturing drama and support your statements.

[OnTheOtherHand]

190. maybe I can explain this to you

You may not have noticed this in your time at DU, but when people post factual claims without supporting them, it's common for others to ask for evidence.

And it's reasonable. No one wants to wander into a conversation saying something about how ATC protocols were recklessly abandoned on 9/11 (or whatever), and then realize their best evidence for it is that some anonymous Internet poster said it was true. That's almost useless. Actual evidence could be very useful.

It's true that sometimes it's hard work to produce evidence that does exist -- and then there is no way to force specific people to take it seriously. But at least others can look at it.

When someone asks you to support a claim, and you turn it into a personal drama, you feed doubts about the credibility of all your claims. Unless that is actually your objective, you would be much better off limiting your claims to what you are prepared to support. If you don't know what ATC protocols require, you could still ask pointed questions. Instead of bickering with each other, we could be looking stuff up. Even if we're stuck disagreeing about all sorts of things, we can still help each other figure stuff out.

[BeFree]

191. Nice sentiment

Problem is it's a one way street here. We have thousands of unanswered questions and we get no help getting answers - all we get is obstruction.

What we get is the Bushco story, the OCT. That OCT is full of holes.

Basically there are two sides here, the OCT fundies who dare not think out of the OCT box, and those who do.

Bolo thinks he has me in the wrong but he isn't certain enough to accept my challenge and so I am just playing with him.

I will back up my assertion. In the meantime common sense tells you that when the transponder goes off and communications with a pilot are shut-off, certain ATC protocols are followed and alarms go off, except for that one day it didn't work that way.

The usual defense of U.S. airspace on 9/11 was not conducted in accord with preexisting protocols.

Everyone knows that to be true and Bolo's assertion that it is not true is incredible.

[OnTheOtherHand]

192. although the rules mandate "respect," no one really can require that

There is almost no limit to the extent of disrespect that can be expressed here. You can feed the flame wars as enthusiastically as you wish. If your highest purpose here is to call out the people you perceive as "OCT fundies," it's a safe guess that that is all you will accomplish.

I will back up my assertion.

Excellent.

In the meantime common sense tells you that when the transponder goes off and communications with a pilot are shut-off, certain ATC protocols are followed and alarms go off....

So far, yes. However, my common sense doesn't tell me that those protocols have included having NORAD immediately scramble some fighters, or whatever else it is you are certain should have happened.

The usual defense of U.S. airspace on 9/11 was not conducted in accord with preexisting protocols.

Everyone knows that to be true....

In the utter absence of supporting evidence, I have to assume for the time being that no one knows it to be true. If you know it to be true, the question remains, How do you know it to be true? Like Bolo, I await your answer, if any.

[BeFree]

193. Yer kidding?

You don't know it to be true? The history of the ATC when it comes to protocols, while not easy to dig up, is pretty well known to avid followers of such situations. I figured Bolo to be avid. I was wrong.

I see that not only do we have questions that need answers but that we also have a great deal of educating that needs to be done. Whereas the FOCTs have only to follow their script.

Do you know how hard it is to learn somebody something when they won't even listen?

[OnTheOtherHand]

212. who isn't listening?

You've been asked repeatedly to support your claims, and so far, you've said that you will, eventually, someday. :shrug:

[Bolo Boffin]

216. BeFree has said that s/he will, eventually, someday if

I will agree to agree to heretofore-unrevealed conditions to justify his/er onerous effort in collating quotes from some undefined place on the Internet.

Otherwise, for some reason as yet to be determined, BeFree will not be obligated to defend his/er own statements about ATC protocol.

Looks to me like squid ink while beating a retreat. BeFree could just document the assertions s/he has made. Instead, we have High Noon.

[OnTheOtherHand]

220. I'm trying to take BeFree at his word in #187

which was, unconditionally (as I read it), "I will."

It took him a very long time to get to that point, but he got there. It remains to be seen what will happen next.

[Bolo Boffin]

221. Well, we will see, won't we? ;)

From my reading of what he said, the support for his statements was only coming if I agree to agree to his as-yet-unrevealed conditions in a callout thread. Frames are everything with BeFree, and that statement came with all kinds of small print.

[SDuderstadt]

223. He can't respond right now because...

he is still trying to grasp the difference between "combat-ready" and "on alert", although it has been patiently explained to him numerous times.

[BeFree]

285. Response

On this post on this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=246787&mesg_id=246823

The 9/11 commission stated that established protocols were not followed on 9/11. I am not making that up, it says so right in the report!!

[OnTheOtherHand]

287. well, it says that Boston Center directly contacted the military (NEADS)

but somehow I don't think that supports your argument.

It also says something that I don't think you've managed to read correctly yet. Let me try to make it really simple for you: there was no protocol for a scenario where four planes were hijacked, went off transponder, and started flying into buildings. So it was necessary to improvise.

What is missing, so far, is evidence of an instance in which someone didn't do something that protocol required. It is logically possible that FAA HQ deviated from protocol in not immediately informing NMCC of the hijack information it had received from Boston Center -- but no one has presented evidence one way or the other on that.

[BeFree]

291. "It" what is it?

The Question: Did Boston Center follow the protocol in seeking military assistance through the prescribed chain of command?

The Answer from the 9/11 Commission:

""Boston Center did not follow the protocol in seeking military assistance through the prescribed chain of command.""

[OnTheOtherHand]

293. try responding to my text

Or not. The choice is yours.

[Bolo Boffin]

299. This is an example of your cherry-picking the 9/11 Report

Boston Center's "not following protocol" resulted in a faster response time. You are arguing that not following protocol resulted in a slower response time.

You can continue the Wrong Way Riegals act if you like, but I don't know why you seek to embarrass yourself like this.

[BeFree]

301. Hey

I quoted your bible. If you have a problem with your bible, take it up with them.

And here you say ""...resulted in a faster response time.""

You can prove that? You made an assertion, back it up. Prove that it resulted in a faster response time.

[Bolo Boffin]

303. Read the rest of that paragraph you quoted. n/t

[BeFree]

309. What bullshit!!

You are something. Back up your assertion: It was a faster response time.

I know you can't, but I will call you on your bullshit. You called me on my assertions and I produced, just like I said I would, but here you are claiming faster response time for what your bible says was failure of protocols.

How can you even stand yourself, I wonder? What agenda is it that drives you people to such extreme bullshit?

[Bolo Boffin]

311. I wonder why you will keep embarrassing yourself like this.

I told you to read the rest of the paragraph you are quotemining to get your answer about faster response because of Boston Center not following protocol. I reproduce it here (with citation, something you haven't bothered to ever give, because that would enable exposure of your bullshit faster).

9/11 Report, p. 20 (pdf 37) --

Boston Center did not follow protocol in seeking military assistance through the prescribed chain of command. In addition to notifications within the FAA, Boston Center took the initiative, at 8:34, to contact the military through the FAA's Cape Cod facility. The center also tried to contact a former alert site in Atlantic City, unaware it had been phased out. At 8:37:52, Boston Center reached NEADS. This was the first notification received by the military - at any level - that American 11 had been hijacked.

The quote you are using to show a slower response time actually shows a faster response time.

[BeFree]

314. Yep

Like we've always said, the boots on the ground did their jobs to the best of their capability. It was the political appointees and managers that failed.

Why is that so hard for you to get?

[Bolo Boffin]

315. No one here is fooled by your silly games. n/t

[OnTheOtherHand]

317. the inference about embarrassment seems obvious n/t

[defendandprotect]

103. Evidently, when we taxpayers fund MIC, we don't include "communications" . . !!!

Supposedly all of these alleged 9/11 hijacked flights flew over dozens of military bases!!!

:nuke:

[SDuderstadt]

111. Again, "supposedly"....

hmmm, we should ask ourselves why D&P never bothers to completely research something before she just blurts it out here at DU. The funniest "blurt" so far was when she claimed that JFK's fatal headshot was actually delivered by his limo driver.

[Octafish]

114. That's it in a nutshell. We still don't know.

If the 9-11 Commission report is the official version of what happened, we've been fed a steaming heap of sideshow swill.

I thought this was a democracy, one where We the People call the shots. We still haven't gotten the complete story, not by a long shot.

The attacks of September 11 are exactly why the Constitution mentions only one business by name -- the Free Press. That is for the citizenry to make good decisions, We the People need good information.

[SDuderstadt]

116. What's keeping you from getting....

the "complete story"?

[Octafish]

119. Answers to questions.

Here's another one:

Why did Bush keep reading with the grade-school kids after being informed “Mr. President, America is under attack.”?

No, I don't believe Bush's version that he didn't want to alarm the young ones.

Maybe Bush thought Andy Card was talking to somebody else, knowing he was never elected President.

But without an answer from Bush, under oath and in public, I won't really know what he was thinking and why wasn't he doing anything to defend America when the nation was under attack.

[SDuderstadt]

120. Which proves what?

That he's a fucking idiot or that he masterminded the attacks on 9/11? I vote that he's a fucking idiot. How about you?

[NowHearThis]

137. Proves that Bush was comfortable with 9/11 being an inside job

Bush has a degree from Yale and a degree from Harvard. He's not an idiot. But, Presidents don't ordinarily cook up black
operations such as 9/11. Others do that for him.

[sofa king]

286. It can easily be both.

He's a fucking idiot, and through his position as Chief Executive, he is also ultimately responsible for the success of the attacks.

He's a Harvard and a Yale graduate, but he was also an impeccably connected frat boy with a file cabinet full of old tests and papers at schools with longstanding traditions of not allowing legacy students to fail out. As a budding narcissist, he was no doubt already surrounding himself with unscrupulous people smarter and more competent than himself--people who could take tests for him, if necessary. He lied, cheated and vacationed his way through the Air National Guard, though his business career, and through the Presidency of the United States, never once showing a glimmer of brilliance, and we would be foolish to believe his college experience was any different. He is evil and stupid.

But let's not push the stupid thing too far. He's got something up there. But not enough to be President, which probably requires someone very smart to do the job well, which he certainly did not.

I for one think the My Pet Goat incident can be easily explained by a simple one sentence tip-off: "Tomorrow, Mr. President, something unexpected is going to happen. When you hear about it, just keep doing what you're doing and let us take care of it."

And so he did, even though it was the stupidest thing he could have done.

As I have said, time and time again, the beneficiaries of this crime are right out there for all to see: The Bush Administration, Israel, and Saudi Arabia have all benefited massively from 9/11, from the day it happened. Al Qaeda did not benefit massively from it from the day it happened; nor did Saddam Hussein, Hamas, or the Taliban. That doesn't mean al Qaeda didn't plan and execute it, but what they wound up doing was dropping a bushel of lemons into George Bush's lemonade maker, and the only real question is whether or not Bush knew the date of delivery.

[greyl]

121. ..."without an answer from Bush, under oath and in public, I won't really know..."

You've got to be fucking kidding. If he was under oath in public you'd believe him? Why the fuck would you believe him?
I think only the 20-percenter idiots still believe his sorry excuse.
He didn't do anything because he is an incompetent dipshit who didn't know what to do.
Furthermore, the fact that he didn't do anything and ended up looking so lame is further evidence that there wasn't a 9/11 Inside Job conspiracy. You would expect "them" to be much better prepared with some staged "GW - Our Christian Nation's Hero" sequence of action.

[noise]

122. Some other possibilities

1) Sinister message to the public. "Look at this America, I'm going to sit here and do nothing while people are being killed. And I'll get away with it too."

2) Transparent MO. For whatever reason it seems the objectives of the transparent MO are more important than any complications related to the cover up. Objectives=intimidate, demoralize and confuse anyone who isn't fooled by the propaganda. It doesn't get more confusing than to be expected to cheerlead for a guy who sat in the classroom doing nothing. And then later find out he received all sorts of warnings in the previous weeks. And then be told you are an unpatriotic conspiracy nut for questioning his conduct.

[greyl]

123. I think those are extremely unlikely.

1) Sinister message to the public. "Look at this America, I'm going to sit here and do nothing while people are being killed. And I'll get away with it too."

The message I got was "I'd better not panic while the cameras are rolling, I don't know what the fuck I should do anyway, oops, I crapped my pants."

I can't imagine grand conspirators being motivated to construct a coy "sinister message" that reeks of weak inaction that only a few dozen people would receive when the Bush admin spent so much money and effort on constructing the swaggering tough guy image for little Georgie.
That's just not plausible.

2) Transparent MO. For whatever reason it seems the objectives of the transparent MO are more important than any complications related to the cover up. Objectives=intimidate, demoralize and confuse anyone who isn't fooled by the propaganda. It doesn't get more confusing than to be expected to cheerlead for a guy who sat in the classroom doing nothing. And then later find out he received all sorts of warnings in the previous weeks. And then be told you are an unpatriotic conspiracy nut for questioning his conduct.

Not sure I grasp the entirety of what you're saying there.
In any case, I wasn't intimidated or confused by the propaganda and I've never seen or heard of anyone being called a conspiracy nut for questioning his conduct. A rare xenophobic asshole might have called it unpatriotic, but so what. As I recall, his non-presence that day was covered in the news.
Again, I think if 9/11 was an inside job, the geniuses who planned it would have seen that it made more sense to tightly control Bush's videotaped live reaction to hearing about it. It would have been great for his image, and made more of the American people more willing to put their faith in and support the competent, heroic leader.

All in all, I don't think your 2 possibilities are as likely as the virtually null hypothesis that George W. Bush is an incompetent dipshit.

[noise]

124. Why weren't his handlers worried about his public image?

Why wasn't there any follow up to Card's comment?

This is way beyond incompetence. We have conduct that makes no sense. That is the reason people still bring it up. Bush's bizarre conduct has never been credibly explained.

[greyl]

125. I'd speculate it's because they didn't have their heads in the game.

They were all set for a lazy morning of photo-op BS and got caught by surprise.
There just isn't one tiny damn thing about it that looked impressive, let alone planned in advance.

Why wasn't there any follow up to Card's comment?

You mean why didn't Bush take immediate action and get involved in the blooming crisis?
Incompetent dipshit.

[Old and In the Way]

140. At best, Bush should be indicted on gross criminal negligence.

Or at least until we get the real facts of 9/11 through discovery. It's pretty obvious that they knew what was coming and chose to either let it happen (what did the WH have to say on terrorism on the lead up to 9/11? Not much....not even a 'heads up' warning) or make it happen. Why? We know the Niger Yellowcake scam started at the very beginning of 2001...part of the Bush/Cheney 'evidence' that Iraq was planning to nuke us. We know Cheney was busy in the Spring of '01 planning their hostile takeover of Iraqi National Oil. We know PNAC laid out the blueprint for the New American Century and US domination of the Middle East.

I love how our anti-truther friends readily agree to Bush's "idiocy" as a reason to give that administration a pass. "Bush was too stupid to pull this off." Fact is, he did. With lots of help from the MIC, the corporate media, the 9/11 Commission, and Friends of Bush. The fact that they ultimately failed in no reason not to hold them accountable for the deaths of 3000 Americans that day. Any way you slice it, they are still criminals who should be indicted and tried for their crimes.

[Jetboy]

129. The GW Action hero had to wait a couple of days....

But no President this side of Washington had a higher approval rating than W right after his 'get the people who knocked down these buildings' speech. And he would've continued in that hero roll had he not done such a terrible job as President.

I think that it was really odd how Bush and Cheney testified before the 911 Commission together and that the public has never gotten to see the tape or the transcripts.

[defendandprotect]

134. Agree -- also Bush's stopover at Offutt A/F base was equally strange ---

After a private dinner with various Florida politicians (including his brother Jeb) and Republican donors, Bush went to bed around 10:00 p.m.

Surface-to-air missiles were placed on the roof of the resort

and an Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) plane circled high overhead. It’s not clear if this type of protection was standard for the president or whether security was increased because of possible threats.

And, while it would be taken for granted that the Pentagon had anti-missile defense -- which in
any case was turned off -- there are those who will try to create doubts about that.

Air Force One Takes Off Without Fighter Escort

And then the false reports of Air Force One being a target, yet Bush gets no fighter escort until much later.

It turned out the entire story was made up

No one knew exactly where the bogus story originated from, but “what can be safely said is that it served the White House’s immediate purposes, even though it was completely untrue.” What were those purposes? A well-informed, anonymous Washington official said, “It did two things for . It reinforced his argument that the President should stay out of town, and it gave George W. an excellent reason for doing so.” When Bush was asked in May 2002 why he had flown to two Air Force bases before returning to Washington,

Bush said, “I was trying to get out of harm’s way.”

It would appear that fighters arrived some time between 11:00 and 11:30. These fighters were supposed to be on 24-hour alert, ready to get into the air in about five minutes. If we assume the fighters flew at a speed of 1,100 mph, the same speed Major Gen. Arnold said fighters used to reach New York City earlier in the day when traveling a comparable distance , the fighters should have reached Sarasota in about 10 minutes. Yet they took around two hours to reach Air Force One from when they were likely first needed, shortly after 9:00. <.b>

then . .

Air Force One landed at Barksdale Air Force base near Shreveport, Louisiana at about 11:45 a.m.

Air Force One landed at Offutt shortly before 3:00 p.m. At 3:06, Bush passed through security to the US Strategic Command Underground Command Center and was taken into an underground bunker designed to withstand a nuclear blast.

Also note that immediately Cheney is whisked off to a secret bunker --

As a side note, Warren Buffett, one of the richest people in the world, was hosting an unpublicized charity benefit inside the high security Offutt military base at 8:00 a.m. With him were

business leaders and several executives from the World Trade Center, including Anne Tatlock of Fiduciary Trust Co. International, who likely would have died had it not been for the meeting.

They watched a lot of the television coverage that morning, but it’s unknown if any of these people were still at Offutt by the time Bush arrived in the afternoon.


http://www.historycommons.org/essay.jsp?article=essayaninterestingday

[NowHearThis]

135. Good info won't come from corp. media, gov't PR & propaganda...

nor will it come from any of the seemingly endless number of right-wing "think" tanks, foreign proxies, embedded propagandists/apologists in every form of media - including the Net, nor will it come from those who want you
to believe that lies should be treated as equal to truth.

How many 9/11 critics have you seen on TV? How many people have you seen on TV advocating alternatives to more wars?
You're probably aware of the famous case in which the PR firm Hill & Knowlton was hired to tell Congress and the world
the BIG lie about how Iraqi soldiers killed babies in Kuwait hospitals by unplugging their incubators. What makes you
think the government wouldn't use disinformation to convince the world of the Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory? Would
the same government (or one of its proxies) also use every means possible to not only SEll the OCT (remember the "Popular
Mechanics" 9/11 propaganda piece WRITTEN by Michael Chertoff's relative?)...but also to suppress the TRUTH about 9/11?

As you well know, when the government manufactures evidence (doctored videos w/cartoon planes), withholds evidence, and
uses implied threats ("you're either with US or the terrorists") against potential whistle-blowers, it isn't easy to
get good information, nor is it easy to spread it around without being subjected to tactics of people who don't want
you to have access to good information.

[greyl]

189. Terrible info will flow from the 9/11 Truth Industry. nt

[NowHearThis]

194. Untruths will flow from the Untruth Cartel. nt

[Bolo Boffin]

139. Aren't F-14s, F-15s and F-18s ready round-the-clock to get off the ground within a matter of minutes

"Aren't F-14s, F-15s and F-18s ready round-the-clock to get off the ground within a matter of minutes
in order to intercept Soviet bombers?"

How many do you think are ready to do this within a matter of minutes? Take a guess and we'll compare it to reality.

[BeFree]

158. Well

All that pales when you consider that NORAD was running an exercise on 9/11 and probably had dozens of planes in the air all over the northeast. Bushco was asked for those details but for some reason they never did tell anyone.

You support the idea that NORAD was in the air that day, why not do us a favor and ask them for the answers? If any of us do they would be suspicious, eh?

Surely you support a better investigation with all the questions answered by the government?

[vincent_vega_lives]

288. Do some research

The exercise running that day was a CPX...a Comand Post Exercise. In otherwords...no planes.

[HamdenRice]

198. This remains one of the more inexplicable aspects of 9/11 nt

[StrictlyRockers]

326. The evidence points to a stand down order.

Every other time a plane in US airspace goes "off-line" the SOP is to scramble a jet within minutes and that always happens. It did not happen this time and SOP was not followed. It begs the question, why only this time?

[William Seger]

328. No, it doesn't

Got any evidence that isn't covered here? http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Stand_Down