Thanks to you DU, I can now answer all of your 9/11 plot questions!

[JackRiddler]

So, what really happened on 9/11?

Here's my latest model:

Three of the flights after being taken over (whether by hijackers or remote means) switched off their transponders, rendering them invisible to secondary radar. 11 and 77 did this immediately and never switched on again; while 175 only switched to a different (but detectable) signal for at least some minutes and 93 (I think) switched off and then on again.

On losing transponder beacons from their secondary screen, ground-based air traffic controllers can switch to primary radar, reasonably expecting to see the skin paint of the errant flight.

Instead, on 9/11 they are surprised to see that the area the hijacked flight has entered contains a number of unknown primary blips, none of them with beacons.

The additional blips are being produced by the various military-game flights, whether these are manned, drones, C3 attacks or internal injects.

Part of the wargame scenario is to produce apparent hijackings and see how air defense reacts, and in this the military succeeds marvelously, with almost no one knowing yet that "real" hijackings are also underway.

Possibly of greatest significance is that three of the 9/11 flights -- after their diversions -- flew through areas straight into areas where the FAA's primary radar had been disabled (following the 1999 budget cuts). While 77 supposedly flew over a very large such area in West Virgina twice, 11 and 93 both went out of their way to enter very small blind-spot regions. Both may have switched off their transponders while actually within these blind areas!

So, on 9/11 three of the supposed crash flights disappear from secondary radar, and then also briefly disappear from primary radar! They reemerge from the blind spots as beaconless, primary blips among a number of other blips, which are being produced by the wargames.

Blips merge. Panic ensues.

"Which of these are the hijacked flights?"

("Or wait," others say they asked, "are the hijacked flights part of the exercise?")

"Can someone get me some fuck at the military who actually knows how to stop the wargames? Who the fuck is in charge?"

"Hey, what if one of these blips is an additional "enemy" craft, in addition to the hijacked flights?"

Etc.

(NOTE: a few hours later, the ATCs responsible for the first two crash flights will be asked to tell all they remember in a taped session. The tapes are later destroyed, as we learned last year.)

The military has already made it clear that exercises were suspended and screens cleared only at some point AFTER 9:03.

(See the wargames timeline at

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&before_9/11=militaryExercises

Please note that my thoughts here presuppose intimate knowledge of these timeline entries, so read them if you haven't.)

AFTER 9:03.

This admission tells us that Eberhart's "30 seconds" of resetting the system (according to his cite in the 9/11 Commission report) only came AFTER the second crash. It is tantamount to a confession.

At that point, the attacks had been in motion and known for nearly 50 minutes! By that time, the essential part of "the 9/11 mission"--hitting both WTC towers--had been accomplished. (In fact, if AA 77 and UA 93 had not been delayed on the ground, all of the attacks would have been concluded before the wargames were suspended!)

While this is all happening, the key guys at the top of the chain of command for responding to this crisis all find reasons to go missing until 9:03 or much later:

Bush wants to know what happens to the Pet Goat and hang out with the poor black kids for another 30 minutes, because he loves'em so and doesn't want to scare them. Luckily, someone has told the Secret Service not to haul ass.

Mies (who ran the Global Guardian master wargame incorporating Stratcom and NORAD out of OFFUT AFB) stays at the Offutt private charity breakfast--with Warren Buffett!--until after the second crash. Myers claims he hung out (with Cleland!?) and didn't know jack until a couple of minutes before the Pentagon got hit. (Clarke totally contradicts him, so one or the other is a liar.)

Rumsfeld plays Johnny Steadfast to his morning routine until the Pentagon is hit, and then disappears for an hour afterwards, later claiming he had to play Florence Nightingale. His performance is so outstanding that in the end, even the 9/11 Commission has to admit that the NMCC was still searching for his ass at 10:30 am! (And remember, this is the guy who by order of June 1st 2001, had inserted himself into the military chain of command for domestic air defense interceptions!)

Winfield is not officially in charge of NMCC until 10:30, having asked quite suddenly the night before to be replaced during his next morning's scheduled shift from 8:30am to 10:30 am, the two hours during which the attacks actually took place. A year later, he talks to a documentary interviewer as though he had been in the room all along.

Also on the night of the 10th, at around the same time as Winfield's rescheduling, other Pentagon generals were cancelling their next morning's air-travel plans and Willie Brown was being called by his "airport security" adviser and being told not to fly to New York on 9/11/01. Interesting.

Over at the NRO, a fire-drill planned for 8:30am is based on the scenario of a plane hitting the building. Occupying the 3,000 NRO employees in this fashion incidentally fulfills two functions: a) there is an empty back-up building for any spare "hijackers" to hit; and b) potentially unreliable people who might spot something suspicious if they're at their regular post are instead playing fire-drill, after which they receive word of the real attacks and... are told to go home and take the day off. (NOTE: Though we've never heard anything about it, it will NOT surprise me if one day we hear a similar exercise was being held at the NSA and similary kept people occupied.)

No one is in charge, no one is responsible. Among the top guys, only Cheney admits to having been present at an actual lever for making relevant decisions during the attacks, and he's not even officially part of the chain of command!

In the end, Cheney probably does issue a standdown at some point between 9:03 and the Pentagon hit (which explains the "do the orders still stand?" question from the "young man" reported by Mineta). Cheney would have had the highly credible excuse that, given the earlier confusion (and false assumption of 11 hijackings thanks to the wargames!) they'd have to wait and be absolutely certain a craft was hostile, or else they'd end up shooting down civilian planes.

By then, the confusion of the wargames was being replaced by the new burden of carrying out the Garvey/Sliney order and initiating 4,000 ASAP landings (of ALL planes, including military, though the FAA presumably lacks the authority to require that).

Thus was the necessary protective cover provided that allowed the Pentagon plane (or whatever object it was) to accomplish its mission. (Anyway, someone at the Pentagon might have asked, why should we waste an anti-aircraft missile on this thing, when it's conveniently headed straight for the mostly empty, newly-reinforced part of the building where those fucking annoying ONI guys hang out? Hell, we need some sympathy here. Show the world how bad those fuckers really are, and why we all need to join up in the NEW WAR.)

After that, as it became clear that only one potential hostile was still in the sky, UA 93 was almost certainly intercepted and shot down. The rather naked cover-up since then has obliterated early reports that military planes were indeed on its tail and that Cheney issued a shoot-down order for it. More recently the Commission has moved Cheney's order forward in time by about 40 minutes and given us the further lotto-scale "coincidence" of a random seismic event that "just happened" to mimic a plane crash in the same place three minutes after the Commission's "real" crash time.

Or let's say the whole thing was done by remote avionics (whether these are strap-on or via a software backdoor, obviously there are many potential solutions to remote avionics and DARPA and its predecessors have been working on it since the 1950s).

93 simply could have been steered straight into the ground by the controllers, preventing a passenger takeover and at least giving genesis to "Let's Roll." (Note to spooked911: it fell well into soft ground over a former quarry and exploded within it, which produces all that confetti-sized debris and no visible large pieces. So say people I know who went to Shanksville to check out the land.)

MEANWHILE, IN NEW YORK... (insert demolitions here).

Bush, who given his behavior obviously knew there was no problem in "America being under attack" when Card told him so at 9:05, almost certainly knew few details in advance about the "Pearl Harbor" he would be receiving that day thanks to his generous black-op associates.

He certainly acts like he has foreknowledge and he's (poorly) playing a "somber" role, but why would anyone need to over-inform this idiot, who after all has a penchant for bad impromptu performances?

All he needs to know beforehand is that he will get to play war president. Big war, real soon.

His behavior after leaving the school suggests the following:

By the time he figures out enough, many of his crew are probably in panic that they fucked up some obvious detail that is going to hang them. (Possibly: the 93 and 77 delays meant that everyone had to maintain their duh-what-do-I-do mental holding patterns for longer than originally expected.) They find it essential to go to the control center for the wargames (Barksdale and then Offutt). Just in case some really big distraction needs to be cooked up, this also puts them firmly in place at Offutt's underground nuclear war control bunker, with the "doomsday planes" still in the air.

NOTE: I know, Tarpley has a very different understanding of the above but he proceeds from the pure speculation that the "Angel" warning ("Air Force One is next") was a genuine death threat to Bush from an invisible government that is completely separate from the Bush mob. Isn't it more likely that this same invisible government went to great lengths to put the Bush mob into power so that they could manage the necessary 911 and the "New War"? To me, "Angel" is rather obviously a story juiced up by Rove, Cheney and Safire to excuse their boy's "Odyssey to Offutt" after Bush came under fire from McCain and others for having "run away" from DC, and Tarpley's fallen for it.

At Offutt, the key admin plyers, NORAD and Mies coordinate the story that now must inevitably follow. Some were more in the know about the day's events than others, some were directly involved, some had little clue. Some may even think it was all pulled off by Osama and the 19 Pirates. But now they are all equally in the soup. They must swear allegiance to The Brotherhood of the OCT.

Their secret invocation, valid as both their excuse for 9/11 and as their general philosophy:

"NO IMAGINATION!"

Then he's off to DC for the Bin Ladin frame-up and the declarations of war. He has his milk and cookies (decorated with Prozac chips), writes his diary entry, and goes to bed a righteous man.

Then (according to official story) some SS agents wake him up, saying some object is coming for the White House, and hustle him down to the bunker. Damn them, don't they know the show's long over and this can only be a false alarm?

Off in Afghanistan, genuine Islamofascists, patsies and their controllers alike are all celebrating how well their plot to strike Satan turned out. Who would have thought that the motley crew they dispatched for this job could actually get in, hide out, evade detection, stay off the bottle, learn to fly, overpower crews instantly with knives only, prevent captains from broadcasting hijacking beacons, fly straightaway into the radar blind spots, keep the U.S. air force on the ground for two hours, cause the military high command to take a masturbation break, and locate the emptiest spot in the Pentagon while flying along the ground?

But they did it, all praise to the Will of God!

The Big Wedding of the interests we now shorthand as Neocon and Islamofascist is complete. Their shared world-view (in which the clash between them defines all moral questions and determines the politics of our age) has just successfully committed a coup d'etat on the global Zeitgeist (which had been drifting too obviously into Globalist Aquarian).

A new age begins.

---

Question:

How did "hijackers" (or plane controllers, whether remote or in the cockpit) know where the primary-radar blind spots were? In the case of 11 and 93, they actually went out of their way to enter them.

---

Treason is too simple and obvious an explanation, so I'm sure LARED, Mercutio"ATC" et al. will come up with a suitably pretzely version, which they can claim better suits "the Razor" they keep waving at our rhetorical throats.

And I'm sure some folks on the other side of the line will jump in to explain how irrelevant all of the above thoughts are, given that the WTC had a concrete rebar core and the video shows that UA 175 was actually an AWAC carrying Noah's ark in a sling below it.

Meanwhile, I'm busy and do believe I am done posting here for a few days, except for certain necessary announcements on upcoming activities in NYC.

I'll check in on this thread in a week.

[spooked911]

1. Why "thanks to DU"? Did you learn all this info at DU?

In any case, the scenario is reasonable, more or less the standard Ruppert model for the events of 9/11.

To answer your question, the hijackers/controllers knew where the radar blind spots were because they were military/government insiders. I don't think the Islamic hijackers planned the attacks THAT well.

I also happen to think turning off the transponders allowed a plane swap with remote-control drones, a la Northwoods.

I understand flight 93 went down in soft ground in a filled-in quarry --the problem is that this doesn't explain the extremely violent explosion that apparently shredded the wings and tail of the plane.

[JackRiddler]

13. Nope.

Of course I didn't learn all of this at DU, but some of it. Plus it's a good place to test ideas with people who will show no scruples in their attempts to shoot'em down.

Plane-swapping is possible, but isn't simple blip-swapping much easier?

Does not require switching passengers on to a death plane (and the armed guys who'd be willing to do that, and the much larger cover-up within the military).

It's much easier to steer the real plane in to a crash by remote control, feels like less blood on your hands even if it isn't, and it ties up all the loose ends. Less complex.

I'm still not convinced of your Shanksville theory (yeah, I read the other thread). First of all, do you have comprehensive crash site photos? Second, it fell in to the ground fast enough that it would have crashed fully before exploding. Third, it might have gone in upside down...

[spooked911]

29. Blip-swapping is easier but we don't really know

how they might have done plane-swapping. They didn't have to kill innocent passengers (though if they were willing to commit 9/11, I don't think this would bother them too much), many of the passengers could be fakes to begin with. I don't see that it is less complex to rig up and steer a hijacked passenger plane by remote control than to engineer a plane swap.

As far as Shanksville, the question is: how did the tail and black boxes end up deep in the ground along with the accordioned fuselage if the plane exploded spewing passenger bits all over? This is simply contradictory.

Answer: I think they are lying about either finding the black boxes or about the passenger remains, probably about the black boxes, most likely much of the plane was blown up by missiles before it crashed.

I don't see how if flight 93 was upside down when it crashed it changes any of this.

[DemonFighterLives]

2. Very Thorough Version of the Events

:dilemma:

[MercutioATC]

3. Do you have a source for the following quotes?:

"Which of these are the hijacked flights?"

("Or wait," others say they asked, "are the hijacked flights part of the exercise?")

"Can someone get me some fuck at the military who actually knows how to stop the wargames? Who the fuck is in charge?"

"Hey, what if one of these blips is an additional "enemy" craft, in addition to the hijacked flights?"

...just asking.

[LARED]

4. My guess

poetic license

[MercutioATC]

11. Yeah, but I want Jack to say it...

:)

[JackRiddler]

12. Can't help you

Obviously it's poetic license, the whole thing is a speculative deduction designed to explain anomalies that the official story fails to explain.

I'm going to assume that you're not so stupid you didn't figure that out yourself. Yet you play naive, avoiding the substance of this model.

Possibly because it explains 9/11 better than the official story, and you have no credible argument against it?

Further supporting that idea is that you still haven't taken up the challenge from another thread:

Explain the Commission Report's Phantom 11 for us. How does this "false information" originate within the FAA if someone isn't seeing a blip on the screen that they take to be AA 11? Without a blip, do they merely guess there might be a Phantom 11 over Jersey, and request interceptors to "somewhere"?

Come on, you're an ATC, aren't you?

[MercutioATC]

17. It's extremely unrealistic...

(the supposed controller statements)

...and it implies that the controllers feel the same way you do about this issue (and that they knew about the scope of the military exercises).

You'll have to elaborate on your second question a bit.

[JackRiddler]

23. bullshit

I've elaborated on this question to you a few times in other threads and you obviously have no answer.

The Commission introduces the idea that Flight 11 after its crash was mistakenly thought by someone at FAA to have continued south over New Jersey. The Commission says the Langley fighters were originally scrambled to intercept this "phantom" flight. This serves to explain why fighters from Langley were scrambled although, according to Commission, AA 77 had not yet been spotted and FAA had not yet alerted NORAD about its diversion. They conclude the discussion with a statement that they have not been able to find out the origin of this false information from FAA.

How does one imagine there is a Phantom flight, unless they see a blip that they take to be that flight? How does one scramble planes to a non-existent flight? What position does one give the interceptors for the non-existent plane?

I submit that this means someone must have seen a blip they mis-identified as AA 11 over Jersey. Tell us what you think.

If you agree, construct a theory for how that blip got there. Until then, you are not credible.

[MercutioATC]

46. You don't know ANYTHING about ATC, do you?

The controller was looking at dozens of primary targets (legitimate ones...planes without a transponder turned on show up as primaries and there are quite a few of them out there). They selected one of these targets as a probable AAL77. They were mistaken.

It's that simple.

How did the "blip" get there? It was a plane...just not AAL77.

[JackRiddler]

47. sloppy

According to Commission the phantom flight was thought to be AAL 11.

The real ATCs I am in touch with put the lie to your repetitive talking-points denialism that anything could be suspicious in the official conspiracy theory; and they don't resort to condescension in place of argument.

What motivates you to come to this board every day, anyway?

[MercutioATC]

55. Was that supposed to make sense?

I KNOW the target was "thought to be AAL11". I'm just explaining how the identification could be easily confused. It's not like THAT primary target was the only one out there.

I didn't say that nothing was questionable. However I've seen SO MANY conspiracy theories that resulted from an abysmally poor knowledge of things like ATC (like this whole "phantom flight/radar injects" issue). As I recall, you demeanor has been less than cordial...I'm just responding in kind.

My main motivation is what I touched on above. I've seen quite a few people use arguments based on wholly false assumptions to support their theories. As far as ATC goes, I'm in the position to either confirm or deny the validity of some of these contentions. It's really easy to make wild assumptions about things you don't understand. I try to explain some of the the mechanics and procedures and show why some things could/could not have happened.

[JackRiddler]

58. Was that supposed to say anything?

Use of ad-hom "that's all silly" opener; invocation of experthood without content.

Rejected.

[MercutioATC]

60. Jack, thanks for clarifying...

If you can't answer a simple question, I really don't see the need to respond any longer.

If you do choose to pursue an actual dialog instead of simply spewing goofy one-line (o.k., in your case two-line) "dismissals", you know how to reach me.

[DemonFighterLives]

5. Some good stuff in here from the last day of testimony on 9/11

http://www.willthomas.net/911/911_Commission.htm

The exercise quote is basically there.
clip..
8:37
FAA Boston Center contacts NEADS, saying, “We need someone to scramble some F-16s or something up there, help us out.”

“Is this real world or an exercise?” asked the military liaison officer?

“No, this is not an exercise,” responded the FAA official. “Not a test.”

Something also very interesting on the systems used by the controllers and FAA:
clip..
In fact, US military defenders and air traffic controllers in the United States share the same radars. Known as the Joint Surveillance System, this billion-dollar network of long range Air Route Surveillance Radars provides total air defense and air traffic control for the continental United States. On Sept. 11, “real time” radar coverage of the entire US eastern seaboard and its approaches were available at all times to both FAA and USAF control centers using an overlapping mix of older ARSR radars with a range of 200 nautical miles and their Model 4 replacements that can locate and track aircraft out to 250 sea miles.





East Coast air route radars on Sept. 11

[MercutioATC]

6. Yes, we DO use some of the same radar sites.

However, the data feeds from each radar site into each facility separately and is procesed there.

[Informed Citizen]

7. A rare moment for DU9/11 - Thanks!!!

JackRiddler,

Or should I call you Santa Clause? Your work is an incomparable gift to those who seek the truth, but do not have all the elements before them with which to formulate such a complete, deductive model of the events of 9/11. I have read all of the major 9/11 books and watched all the videos, and none of them attempt to formulate such a specific account of that day's events. This is because it is only in the realm of deductive correlation that this model can arise, and most of the major theorists are careful only to discuss what they can prove by more inductive means. I believe that deductive theory, or the most reasonable theory derived from assessing the relationship between all the elements of fact involved must be respected for its ability to see past the secrecy of our leaders. Your theory is certainly many times more likely than the 'official coincidence theory'. I will be printing it and most likely memorizing the basic outline. Keep adding to this model of events. Truth activists need these theories in order to effectively counter the 'official theory'. You give us ammunition with which to wage this battle.

- I.C.

[JackRiddler]

14. THANKS (blush!)

Kind words. Welcome to DU.

[petgoat]

67. After all this is done, the Nobel Committee will create a new

prize for truth.

[demodewd]

8. how do you account for....?

Two major areas of difference here.

First..the delay at Newark for #93 already puts the plane 41 minutes behind schedule and yet it proceeds to allegedly fly all the way out to Cleveland before turning around. Thats an additional 50 or so minutes. Why? This postpones the crash at Shankville by more than a half hour probably much much longer. The 50 or so minutes taken to make a flight path to Cleveland is the key. Obviously the perpetrators would have preferred to finish their treachery far sooner. That 50 minutes was necessary to buy time. For what? Your scenario doesn't provide an answer or deal with this important question.I suggest that the Bumble Bee scenario makes more sense in interpreting this delay. Something vitally procedural was done during that long flight out to Cleveland(probably by a drone) for the whole operation to be successful. Were passengers from Flights 11 and 175 loaded onto Flight 93 at a rendezvous military facilty? Were the passengers checked on Flight 93 to insure identities to make lock tight the cell phone and let's roll myth played out on phantom 93? I think the delay and long flight path to Cleveland is a huge smoking gun.

Secondly...you account for no physical and photographic anamolies at the crash sites which questions the validity of the original flights doing the damage. At the Pentagon there are just too many exceptions to believe that 77 was the plane. The lack of identifiable parts,the lack of bodies on the yard and freeway. The lack of cars and trucks being turned over and out of control when a commercial jet would have necessarily flown over them by less than fifteen feet. The hole in the A-E drive. The reported smell of cordite. The removal of ALL photographic evidence by the FBI. The difficulty in flying a 757 that low without encountering the "balloon effect" which causes the craft to rise ,certainly at such high speeds.

Then there are the other anamolies at the WTC sites. The flashes. The pod? The dramatic coloration difference in the two fire plumes of the WTC 1&2. The difficulty in making such a steep bank into WTC2. Can you discount all of these as fictional or o f no importance to your scenario?

[JackRiddler]

15. answers

First... Why does 93 go all the way to Cleveland? Take a look at the radar gaps. It flies straight into a relatively small area of primary radar gap and that is exactly where it turns around.

Bumble planes raises a lot of problems, and I think you demonstrate it. Just imagine: a squad of killers who shepherd people from one plane to another, knowing what they are doing, seeing them up-front. Isn't it much easier to kill by remote control?

Second... I don't need to make use of these. The above explains standdown, timeline anomalies, chain of command, etc. but leaves out a lot of other aspects (for example: the hijacking plot or patsy trail).

As for the Pentagon, I'm sick of it. There is nothing definitive about the no-77 evidence, sorry, and I've been at this at least as long as you have. Jim Hoffman's very convincing, I don't feel like going through it all again.

Tellingly, you write, "the lack of identifiable parts,the lack of bodies on the yard and freeway."

NO. All you can prove is a lack of PICTURES of parts and bodies. You don't see them in the available pictures, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

What's the point of speculating when only THEY have the evidence in hand? Demand a FOIA. (I know, it's pathetic, but what else are you supposed to do, just make up the evidence you don't have access to? Never mind.)

I don't see a pod. Sorry. I've looked carefully at this and I am satisfied it's the wing fairing. And in all footage the "flash" only ever occurs at nose-cone contact to building.

[demodewd]

19. Cleveland Rocks!!!

First... Why does 93 go all the way to Cleveland? Take a look at the radar gaps. It flies straight into a relatively small area of primary radar gap and that is exactly where it turns around.

My emphasis is on the length of time the flight took to Cleveland.It was ridiculously unnecessary. The plane was already 41 minutes bebind schedule.Come on boys lets rap things up but ..no!.. its rather a stroll out to Cleveland first.

Bumble planes raises a lot of problems, and I think you demonstrate it. Just imagine: a squad of killers who shepherd people from one plane to another, knowing what they are doing, seeing them up-front. Isn't it much easier to kill by remote control?

The people were probably already asphyxiated.

Tellingly, you write, "the lack of identifiable parts,the lack of bodies on the yard and freeway."

NO. All you can prove is a lack of PICTURES of parts and bodies. You don't see them in the available pictures, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

If they don't exist they don't exist. That is my point.

And in all footage the "flash" only ever occurs at nose-cone contact to building.

Only at the right side entry point. No observable flashes from either engine,wings,vertical stabilizor.

[MercutioATC]

20. Ahem...there's no primary radar coverage gap over Cleveland.

Seriously, there just isn't one there...


...that's my airspace, I know of what I speak.

[JackRiddler]

21. There IS no gap...

Obviously there isn't, given that primary radar gaps were closed again after 9/11. Why do you use the present tense?

I was inaccurate. I should have said, the primary radar gap NEAR Cleveland on 9/11/01.

As in here:



And here, though I'm not sure of origin for all the data:



From discussion at http://team8plus.org/forum_viewtopic.php?7.202

So, what about the Commission's Phantom 11? You've been avoiding it for weeks now. You have zero cred until you come up with a hypothesis that explains how it originated from anything other than someone seeing a blip, whether caused by an object or an inject.

[MercutioATC]

22. I'll verify it, but I don't believe that gap existed on 9/11 either.

I'll get back to you.

As far as your harping about "the Commission's Phantom 11", I've asked you to narrow down exactly what you want answered. If you'll ask a specific question, I'll do my best to answer.

[spooked911]

28. Oh come on, you KNOW what he is asking

if there were no injects, why did the controller think flight 11 continued past NYC?

[MercutioATC]

45. Do you have any idea how many legitimate primary targets there are?

The controller was looking at, most likely, dozens of primary targets. They picked the wrong one...

I'm telling you, "injects" into the FAAs computers would be a lot more difficult than most people realize. We're compartmentalized...we don't share radar data. Into the military's computers for wargames purposes? Certainly. The FAAs computers? No way.

[spooked911]

50. what do you mean "pimary targets"?

you mean there are lots of radar targets without transponder data and he picked the wrong primary blip as flight 11?

I actually believe you that the military wouldn't normally inject blips into FAA computers -- it doesn't make much sense for them to do that. So either it wasn't done on 9/11 or somehow someone (the Ptech connection?) got access to FAA compuers and put in the extra blips to screw up the air traffic controllers.

[MercutioATC]

52. That's exactly what I mean.

At any given time, there are quite a few radar targets (skin paints) without transponder data in any given area. Without knowing where the actual plane was, he'd have to guess based on the speed of the target...and even commercial jets can fly at anywhere between 160-350 knots (meaning they can "look" like almost any other plane when all you have to look at is a primary target).


With only a primary target, any radar identification would be a guess.


I'll allow that it would be POSSIBLE for a company to inject data into FAA computers as some have said was done on 9/11. However, they'd have to do the following:

1) Gain access to secure facilities protected by armed guards.

2) Tap into a dozen or so different computers, all at different facilities, and have that data synchronized.

3) Pull all of this off without any of the Airways Facilities people (our techs) noticing, either during or after the intrusion.

Basically, there's no reason for PTech to mess with FAA computers when they were running a wargames simulation. Civilian ATC didn't need to see the targets and having the data in FAA computers would put the flying public at risk. I can't imagine anybody would authorize this.

[spooked911]

57. Ptech has terrorist connections and is linked to multiple US

military agencies.

I'm not saying they did it, but Ptech would be the most likely mechanism if it was done.

[Woody Box]

70. But they surely highlighted the naked FLight 11 blip, didn't they?

I think this would be standard procedure after the Boston controllers were positive that Flight 11 was a hijack!? To let all sectors know that this was the hijacked flight!?

[MercutioATC]

53. He was told to look for a primary target and he did. (see Post #52)

With the multitude of primary targets available to choose from at any given time, he picked the wrong one.

[Kevin Fenton]

24. No gap for 175?

If I understand you correctly, then you're saying that United 175 didn't go through a radar gap, but the other three planes did.

If the hijackers were genuine, then their motivation for going through the gaps is clear, as is their motivation for turning off the transponders when they are over these gaps - they don't want interceptors to find them.

In addition, United 175's motivation for not bothering with a gap or turning its transponder off properly is also clear - it was diverted south of its preplanned course because it was asked to look for American 11. The hijackers, upon taking control of the plane, realised they were actually south of their radar gap (perhaps supposed to be the same one as American 11) and that they would be better off going straight to the target without bothering to try and hide.

Any complaints?

[JackRiddler]

26. this is not a bad explanation

Help me, do you have a link to ground-to-air communications for UA 175 establishing this diversion to the south?

And what about the curiousity (which I don't say must definitively mean anything) that the 93 and 175 routes matched for a few miles over Jersey (at the same time)?

[Kevin Fenton]

32. Oops!

I originally took this:
"8:37 a.m.: Flight 175 Pilots Asked to Look for Flight 11
Flight controllers ask the United Airlines Flight 175 pilots to look for a lost American Airlines plane 10 miles to the south—a reference to Flight 11. They respond that they can see it. They are told to keep away from it. Apparently, Flight 175 is not told Flight 11 has been hijacked. Flight 175 itself is hijacked a few minutes later."
to mean that it was actually sent south to have a look for the plane or was diverted to get out of its way.
The 9/11 Commission and this article:
http://www.boston.com/news/packages/underattack/news/planes_
reconstruction.htm
say that United 175 was diverted because of American 11, but the article (but not the staff statement) says that it was supposed to turn right, not left. However, the course on the maps you referred to indicates that it turned left, not right. Whichever way it should have gone, it seems to have gone left (south), so I guess it was probably not where the hijackers expected it to be when they hijacked it.

I don't think the routes matching means anything suspicious - I guess United 93 was flying the way it always did and that United 175 wanted to copy normal flight routes, as American 77 did. For it to mean anything sinister, the two different delays would have had to have been pre-arranged, which is I think would be pretty tricky and I just can¨t see the point.

[spooked911]

27. So of all the planes that were in the air that morning in that area

if just happens to be flight 175 that is asked divert and look for flight 11?

Doesn't that seem to be too mcuh of a coincidence?

[Kevin Fenton]

33. Not really

Given that they both left Boston at about the same time for the same destination.

[spooked911]

35. Yes, but they were taking quite different routes.

So it is not clear that 175 would have been closest.

[Kevin Fenton]

38. Apparently it was ten miles to the south

8:37 a.m.: Flight 175 Pilots Asked to Look for Flight 11
Flight controllers ask the United Airlines Flight 175 pilots to look for a lost American Airlines plane 10 miles to the south—a reference to Flight 11. They respond that they can see it. They are told to keep away from it. Apparently, Flight 175 is not told Flight 11 has been hijacked. Flight 175 itself is hijacked a few minutes later.

Maybe they asked other planes as well, they certainly should have moved other planes out of the way.

[adolfo]

68. WTC7

You forgot building 7. The building that fell and wasn't hit directly.

WTC7 also had the same characteristics as WTC 1&2. ie: molten metal and implosion. Interestingly, Silverstein (owner) admitted to "pulling it" (demolish) on a documentary.

Demos require engineers and lots of time for planning which requires more than a few hours, or even days.

[Make7]

9. Why do they hate us? ( n/t )

[stickdog]

10. You managed to hit A LOT of very sore points in the post.

Great job, but I personally don't think the onus is on US citizens to do anything other than point out the obvious fact that we've been lied to about 9/11 in many BIG ways.

[JackRiddler]

16. true enough

but that hasn't prevented many people from trying outlines to a novel.

Fact is, US citizens have no onus other than to point out that we've been lied to, however many of them refuse to believe that.

However, I've found that skeptics of 9/11 skepticism (to coin a phrase) want a believable model of how it MIGHT have happened to help them get over their denial.

[Kevin Fenton]

18. Nitpicking and other more serious objections

Why do you think the military-game blips were displayed to controllers at Boston Centre at the time American 11 was hijacked? And why do you think they were all in the same area? Surely, even if the exercise was confined to NORAD's northeastern sector in the continental US, that's actually quite large and many of the blips (if they were displayed to Boston Centre at that time) would have been very far away.

United 93's transponder was turned back on from 10:00 to 10:03.

Given that United 175 didn't turn its transponder off, how did it get switched?

You seem to be assuming that genuine hijackers would be stupid and would not know about problems with primary radar. Weren't lots of them involved in drug smuggling down in Florida? Surely, one of the first things a smuggler pilot learns is where the radar holes are - every country has them. If the hijackers were genuine, why would they not attempt to hide the planes? They should certainly learn about radar holes in Florida and attempt to find them.

American 77 would not have hit the Pentagon before the wargames were suspended if it had left on time. It was 10 minutes late taking off, whereas American 11 was 14 minutes and United 175 was 16 minutes late.

I thought the Willie Brown thing was significant too, but PT says not - apparently it was related to some previous security alert over the Pacific or something. I don't know whether United 93 would have arrived in SF before or after Brown left.

Isn't the NSA supposed to have intercepted a message celebrating the success of the attacks - so I guess it was operational?

I doubt there are missiles at the Pentagon - the only reliable source for this I can find is John Judge and he saw them in the 1950s. Anyway, the plane approached on the route taken by planes coming in to RRWNA and then went down to tree-top height below the radar. If the pilot knew the missiles were switched off, why didn't he just barrel into it?

If Bush has foreknowledge, why does he act like it? Is he just a knobwit who can't act?

If Bush shouldn't have gone to Offutt, where should he have gone?

Other random questions:
How come the demolition of the WTC is so obvious? Why don't they blow the right tower up first? why don't they use less explosives? why let RG know a couple of minutes beforehand? why not make it fall down slower? etc.
How come the other flights are (supposed to be in the case of United 93) hijacked at the same time American 11 crashes?
If United 93 was crashed by remote control, how do you account for the roving engine, debris at Indian Lake, etc.?
How come the cover stories ("I don't have a mobile phone", "I forgot I was secretary of defence and was playing doctors and nurses", "I was reading a story about a goat") are so crap? Shouldn't they have thought of something better? Or didn't they know beforehand and were told afterwards?
How come, according to the OCT, the pilots clearly didn't have the skills to fly the planes? Couldn't they have found more believeable hijackers?
Finally, what's the point? Whenever the military has seized/kept control of a country in the past, it was in response to a direct threat (e.g. communism in Italy during the cold war). What was the threat in the US in 2001?

[JackRiddler]

25. Please see the graphics I just posted above.

"Why do you think the military-game blips were displayed to controllers at Boston Centre at the time American 11 was hijacked?"

I am guessing this is how it happened. There were military flights relating to the wargames, probably including drones, in the NEADS sector, so that when 11 turns off transponder at primary radar gap, the controller switching to primary sees multiple blips.

"And why do you think they were all in the same area?"

I suspect they were all over the map. The OP is a deduction, but only with guesses deriving directly from known facts, i.e., no secondary deductions following from earlier deductions.

"Surely, even if the exercise was confined to NORAD's northeastern sector in the continental US, that's actually quite large and many of the blips (if they were displayed to Boston Centre at that time) would have been very far away."

I'd like to see the data so we don't have to guess. At any rate, the Commission was dishonest in its coverage of this issue.

"United 93's transponder was turned back on from 10:00 to 10:03."

Which tells us what? Why do you think it was turned on again? Did the passengers and original pilot regain control? Or what?

It crashed at 10:03 or 10:06, depending on whether lies are more likely to be told by Commissioners or seismographs.

"Given that United 175 didn't turn its transponder off, how did it get switched?"

Look at the map. Route corresponded to UA 93 (simultaneously) for several miles over Jersey. Interesting, no?

"You seem to be assuming that genuine hijackers would be stupid and would not know about problems with primary radar. Weren't lots of them involved in drug smuggling down in Florida? Surely, one of the first things a smuggler pilot learns is where the radar holes are - every country has them. If the hijackers were genuine, why would they not attempt to hide the planes? They should certainly learn about radar holes in Florida and attempt to find them."

Maybe you're right. Why isn't this enormously salient point treated in the Commission Report? Why isn't guaranteeing full primary radar coverage one of their recommendations (in place of guaranteeing a federalized ID card for everyone)?

"American 77 would not have hit the Pentagon before the wargames were suspended if it had left on time. It was 10 minutes late taking off, whereas American 11 was 14 minutes and United 175 was 16 minutes late."

When were the wargames suspended? We only know, after 9:03. That wouldn't have left much time after the confusion subsided if AA 77 had left on time and the crash had occurred 15 mins earlier, at 9:22.

"I thought the Willie Brown thing was significant too, but PT says not - apparently it was related to some previous security alert over the Pacific or something."

Please source. This is the only entry on the timeline:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/searchResults.jsp?events=on&searchtext=%22Willie+Brown%22&titles=on&descriptions=on&periodadded=&periodlastchanged=&project=--+none+--&topic=--+none+--&timeline=complete_911_timeline&category=--+none+--&timeperiod=&entitytype=--+none+--&dosearch=Perform+Search

Eight hours prior to the attacks, San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown receives a warning from “my security people at the airport,” advising him to be cautious in traveling. Later reports claim that this is because someone saw the State Department warning of September 7 (see September 7, 2001), which focused on the threat to military personnel in Asia. Brown is scheduled to fly to New York the next morning. The source of the warning, and why it was personally issued to Brown, remains unknown.

"I don't know whether United 93 would have arrived in SF before or after Brown left."

Which is irrelevant.

"Isn't the NSA supposed to have intercepted a message celebrating the success of the attacks - so I guess it was operational?"

Whatever. I think there were "real" al-Qaeda hijackers or dupes involved, so this message is fine with me.

"I doubt there are missiles at the Pentagon - the only reliable source for this I can find is John Judge and he saw them in the 1950s. Anyway, the plane approached on the route taken by planes coming in to RRWNA and then went down to tree-top height below the radar. If the pilot knew the missiles were switched off, why didn't he just barrel into it?"

I don't know who the pilot was or if a pilot was in charge.

Your RRWNA point is irrelevant, according to official story: the 77 blip was spotted entering DC airspace by ATC Danielle O'Brien, and the controllers watching it were astonished at speed and maneuvers, thought it was a fighter plane.

"If Bush has foreknowledge, why does he act like it? Is he just a knobwit who can't act?"

I think he acts like it. The expression is of guilt and fear, not shock, and then he sits there for 7 minutes without desiring further info than "A second plane has hit the Towers. America is under attack."

"If Bush shouldn't have gone to Offutt, where should he have gone?"

Irrelevant, and I don't say where he "should" have gone. He did go to Offutt, home of STRATCOM and hq for the day's master wargame, Global Guardian.

Other random questions:
"How come the demolition of the WTC is so obvious? Why don't they blow the right tower up first? why don't they use less explosives? why let RG know a couple of minutes beforehand? why not make it fall down slower? etc."

How does any of this conflict with what I wrote in the OP?

"How come the other flights are (supposed to be in the case of United 93) hijacked at the same time American 11 crashes?"

They weren't. According to OCT, AA 11 hijacked at 8:13-8:20, UA 175 at around 8:41, AA 77 at 8:54-9:00. UA 93 originally by 9:16, but now much later according to the Commission's "purified" timeline.

"If United 93 was crashed by remote control, how do you account for the roving engine, debris at Indian Lake, etc.?"

I put that up as a possibility. I expect it was a missile after remote control was lost (which the reactivated transponder may indicate).

"How come the cover stories ("I don't have a mobile phone", "I forgot I was secretary of defence and was playing doctors and nurses", "I was reading a story about a goat") are so crap? Shouldn't they have thought of something better? Or didn't they know beforehand and were told afterwards?"

I don't know who knew what exactly or why their cover stories are so crappy. I'd like to ask these guys under oath, wouldn't you?

The real question is, how come Americans eat crap from the TV every day?

Any complex operation will leave loose ends. Without the safe assumption that the corporate media will present any official story as gospel and Americans will swallow it, engineering 9/11 would have never been contemplated.

"How come, according to the OCT, the pilots clearly didn't have the skills to fly the planes? Couldn't they have found more believeable hijackers?"

Apparently it's believable enough to a majority of people.

Again, my guess is that a number of "real" Qaeda guys were in the U.S. plotting to do something like 9/11. The question is whether they were the ones who brought it to fruition on the day.

"Finally, what's the point? Whenever the military has seized/kept control of a country in the past, it was in response to a direct threat (e.g. communism in Italy during the cold war). What was the threat in the US in 2001?"

This is a big question. Who says the military seized control? Who says 9/11 has to be

I say the salient coup d'etat was not a matter of personnel, but of mass psychology. A new era is ushered in. Long-planned wars are launched. Domestic repressions are justified. Massive profits accrue. A certain crash on Wall Street is depicted as a financial accident caused by a foreign scapegoat. Americans' psychological resources are martialed for crisis and war, at a time when the country is heading for bankruptcy and at a major geostrategic disadvantage, when many wars are considered necessary. PNAC plan can be implemented. And 3,000 deaths are peanuts to those who plan millions of deaths abroad.

[spooked911]

31. Good answers.

[Kevin Fenton]

36. Various

I thought all planes showed up on primary radar, regardless of whether they have transponders on or off, although I suppose it's possible to filter planes out with transponders if that's the way the software's written. Anyway, even if we assume the inserted dots/live-fly hijack planes (if the latter actually existed) aren't randomly distributed over the whole NEADS area (I guess they should be near big cities where there are proper targets), then how many of them could be close to American 11 to be mistaken for it? - one or two at most at my guess; some/most of the inserted dots/live-fly planes probably aren't even in Boston's sector.

The Commission was dishonest in its handling of just about every issue.

I find it hard to account for the transponder coming on and then off again. I've never sat in the cockpit or a jetliner or worked a transponder. My best guess is that the passengers, upon regaining control, turn it on again (one of them was an ATC so he would have understood its importance and may have been worried about being intercepted). When the missile hit, it went off.

Why is the Commission report so crap that it even misses lots of points in favour of (a version of) the OCT?
(1) The Commission can't actually do much investigating - the actual on the ground work was done by the FBI and that was bungled/curtailed, IMHO for improper reasons, i.e. if they had more time they might have figured out United 93 was shot down, the WTC was demolished, who the hijackers really were, etc.
(2) They would be embarassing, for example the issue of drug smuggling by Al Qaeda would not reflect well on the countries through which the drugs were being moved (friendly Arab ones in the Gulf). If (some of) the pilots really were trained at US military institutions, this would obviously look bad. Mansour Khaled was left out because it would cause trouble with Pakistan. The Al Qaeda/radical Islamist network in the US (with whom the hijackers must have been in some sort of contact) are left out because some of them are informers, others are Saudi agents, maybe for other reasons too.
(3) They're just a bunch of idiots who haven't done their homework. They can't even come up with a decent theory about how the hijackers sequenced the hijackings, IMHO American 11 was supposed to go first (because there would be no reason to shoot it down, as it was probably just a normal hijack, it would get a "free hit") and the others were supposed to be hijacked at the time it hit. The Commission just says they were hijacked soon after takeoff.

I thought the fact it was SF was significant - I think there must be something to the fact that most of the hijackers were flying from/to
the airports which were targeted in the Millenium Plot (LAX and Logan) - but PT says:
"I don't put much stock in the Willie Brown warning. I think it may have just been coincidental. He didn't put enough stock in it to actually cancel his plane."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_
all&address=125x44077#44178

American 77
The original list of hijackers contained the name Mansour Khaled, which was then replaced by Hani Hanjour almost immediately. Atta lived and organised radical Islamist activities in Hamburg with another Mansour (Atif bin Mansour), who was a fighter pilot for the Pakistani airforce. Muslims often have lots of names and his full name could be something like Atif bin Mansour Khaled (Atta wasn't the lead hijacker's last name, he just started using one of his middle names as his last name a couple of years before the attacks because he felt like it).
My point with copying the usual approach to RRWNA and then going below tree-top height is that it wouldn't set any missiles off (if they were automatic, if they existed - both of which I doubt, but lots of people seem to believe this).

Guilt and fear are not words I would have used to describe Bush before, but maybe you have something. Generally, I think that from the US government viewpoint 9/11 looks like an operation that went wrong, rather than one that went right. Maybe he's thinking, "Christ, that's not supposed to happen!"

I'm knackered, just one more point about believablility.
Generally, people don't know any of the details about 9/11, which is why they believe the official story. For example, when I was first told that the hijackers learned to fly in the States and paid only 10,000 dollars apiece for it (this is what I was told originally), I said "So what, I guess they could already fly smaller planes like 737s and just took upgrade courses in the US." So when I found out they weren't supposed to be able to fly at all before they arrived in the US and never (according to the OCT) actually flew any Boeings at all, I was pretty surprised. The same goes for the fuel at the WTC, how many people know they were 767s? I bet most think they were jumbos with full tanks? In Al Qaeda Jason Burke (who is actually quite a decent reporter) says that they were carrying 26,000 gallons each - more than the planes' maximum capacity! And he's an expert. How many people know the fuel burned up in the first couple of minutes? But even NIST admits it's true. Most people have never heard of WTC7. If people actually knew the details, they wouldn't beleive the OCT so much.

I don't buy "mass psychology" as a reason for a coup - it just doesn't pull my chain; has it ever been done before? I don't think the country actually changed direction, just accelerated perceptibly.

[spooked911]

30. I think the flight 93 plane transponder was turned back on because it was

a wargame plane, one of the live-fly hijacking exercise planes-- that decided to get out of the exercise. Which is why they were shot down.

It simply makes no sense that terrorist hijackers would turn the transponder on at that time otherwise.

[Kevin Fenton]

34. Oh no, not more wargames!

How about the passengers seized control, turned it on and then it went off when the plane was hit by a missile.

If it was a live-fly plane, wouldn't they have codes or some sort of secure communications they could use to get out of the exercise?

[spooked911]

37. How would the passengers know to turn it on?

As far as your question, who knows? We have no idea how the live-fly hijacking exercise was set up unfortunately. You might think they would have those, but who knows.

Yet another possibility is that the original flight 93 pilots were still alive and somehow got control back of the plane and turned the transponder back on.

[Kevin Fenton]

39. ATC passenger

"Between 10:00 and 10:06"
There was at least one passenger, Don Greene, who was a professional pilot. Another passenger, Andrew Garcia, was a former flight controller."

If the passengers took over the plane, the pilot would sit in the pilot's seat and the ATC guy would sit in the co-pilot's seat. The former ATC should know about transponders and be worried about interceptors, so he should turn it on.

[spooked911]

41. Well, isn't that a coincidence????

The funny thing, the phone calls from the flight, the passengers who say they are going to fight the hijackers (and there are many calls)-- they NEVER say anything about a pilot on board, nor do they talk about Garcia. It's odd.

[JackRiddler]

43. sorry

I don't think it's odd that the callers neglect such details.

I think the idea that they might have managed to turn on the transponder again and were shot down in response is, well, plausible.

[spooked911]

62. The callers had plenty of time for other details in their phone calls

that I won't go into here.

The point being is this: if the passengers knew there was a pilot on board who might be able to fly the plane and bring them all home alive, don't you think SOMEONE might have mentioned that to their loved one on the phone?

I think it is quite odd no one mentioned it, considering how many phone calls there were on that plane.

Even Jere Longman, who strained mightily to present the official flight 93 story in his book "Among the Heroes" thought it was odd that no one mentioned the pilot passenger in their calls.

[medienanalyse]

40. oh dear Jack

so the wargames theories have weakened your brains too ?

"Instead, on 9/11 they are surprised to see that the area the hijacked flight has entered contains a number of unknown primary blips, none of them with beacons."

Have a look at CIMIC in my file /schluesselfrage.html.

There is no way of surprise for ATCs.

There are no "hidden" areas" for RADAR at all. (Except behind monzains - but there are no monzains reaching 10 kilometers high).

Airspace has 3 (three) dimensions. Which says: if you leave your space in height it is notced. When did that occur?

To make it short:
all these theories are not valuable at all. They are nothing more than lame excuses for FAA and especially NORAD on the base of the same "we could not connect the dots"-shit which we know of CIA, FBI, INS and so on.

They all try tro avert the key question.

Sorry to disappoint you.
Sorry for my straight words. But it is your fault if you do not get the main girder of thoughts.

[JackRiddler]

42. I'm sorry about that

You say there were no radar gaps? You say radar gaps are impossible without mountains?

Well, you'd better tell the head of the ATC's association, who seemed to think otherwise in his 1999 congressional testimony urging that Congress stop the FAA's plans to deactivate primary radar coverage in certain areas:

QUOTE

"In the rush to modernize enroute centers, we must retain current system safeguards, such as primary radar—which FAA plans to deactivate beginning June 2000. Primary radar is the least sophisticated type of surveillance, but it is the only tool currently available to detect aircraft or objects without an operating transponder. If a plane is equipped with a transponder, it can fail for many reasons, including electrical and mechanical failure; however, pilots can also choose not to turn them on. You can imagine that people involved in illegal activities would certainly like to keep themselves invisible—and that’s what will happen if primary radar is turned off."


http://nlc.natca.org/OLD%20files/MM%20Feb%2099%20senate%20test.htm

Testimony of
Michael P. McNally, President
National Air Traffic Controllers Association
before the
U.S. House of Representatives
Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Aviation Modernization
of the U.S. Air Traffic Control System
February 11, 1999

We don't actually disagree that a standdown was arranged on 9/11/01, do we?

You're only missing that the planned confusion was the means by which everyone at FAA, NORAD, ETC. ended up feeling compromised, as though they fucked up, and yet had the oops-excuse, without really knowing exactly what happened or what their own role was in the events. So everyone keeps quiet. (I assume you don't think that EVERYONE was in on the plot?)

What's so mysterious to you about that?

[medienanalyse]

44. cheers to the primary, yes. But ...

Dear Jack,

you remember when we met ? I had a really good witness with me, remember ? NATO- officer, airforce, well acqainted to QRA procedures and exercises. You know me as a serious researcher. Who likes to keep it simple.

There is no border, no limit for primary except things. Like a mountain, a cloud, the bow of the earth and so on. Do you get that? It is the sense of radar to be stopped by things and not by airspace sectors, responsibilities and so on.

So you have a good and nice quote. Yes, every sentence is okay. And it is NOT a testimony which says: we have gaps. It just says: "do not change everything to secondary".
Which is understandable. Clouds must be seen- they have no transponder. Balloons must be seen. Small aircraft (which are forced to have transponders nowadays nearly everywhere, but five years ago not yet).

So primary is necessary, will be necessary and is available on every airport. maybe not to every ATC. But "in case of" they can switch and see as far as weather conditions and mountains allow it. 10.000 airports, linked with one another, guve a good survey. Even when some of them are only mere strips.

That is why the ATCs in Nashua could see what was going on around UAL93.
That is why Reagan airport warned the White house (when Andrewws and Cleveland and so on did not) because of AAL77

Must I give you the quotes that the "hijacked" airliners WERE SEEN ?

You know these quotes. You just ignored them because of a theory of radar which has gaps.

Have a look into any schoolbok about the physics of tadar. Yawm.

I am so tired to wake people up about the CIA assets who try to spread theories about the "melting steel", too small holes, rardar gaps and all this "physical evidence"- shit.

About the brutal kill of the WTC towers: first by a missile, than by the planes which were not the planes, then by explosions and next week by what physical invention more?

These assets in the forums are necessary to divert attention from the "who did it" to the "what could have happened". Which is a completely different question.

Stay on the ground, Jack. Please. So not get a conspiracy nut. Not you.


BTW: NORAD sees everything. Why ? Because satelites and missiles shot by the enemy do not have transponders too. space begins in 1000 km above ground. The ISS is only some 300 kms above ground. They are seem and surveyed. And vice versa there is a lot of gear watching the ground too. Who the hell is interested to tell us they do not see all ?

Remember the surveillance cameras - in Boston or in Lodnons subway. They HAVE the pictures. They have and do not punlish and they want more and more. no gaps, no gaps, no gaps. What a stinking litter



And one last remark: your quotze must be read as a plead for the autonomy of the FAA against the total control of NORAD. NORAFYou say there were no radar gaps? You say radar gaps are impossible without mountains?

Well, you'd better tell the head of the ATC's association, who seemed to think otherwise in his 1999 congressional testimony urging that Congress stop the FAA's plans to deactivate primary radar coverage in certain areas:

QUOTE

"In the rush to modernize enroute centers, we must retain current system safeguards, such as primary radar—which FAA plans to deactivate beginning June 2000. Primary radar is the least sophisticated type of surveillance, but it is the only tool currently available to detect aircraft or objects without an operating transponder. If a plane is equipped with a transponder, it can fail for many reasons, including electrical and mechanical failure; however, pilots can also choose not to turn them on. You can imagine that people involved in illegal activities would certainly like to keep themselves invisible—and that’s what will happen if primary radar is turned off."


http://nlc.natca.org/OLD%20files/MM%20Feb%2099%20senate...

Testimony of
Michael P. McNally, President
National Air Traffic Controllers Association
before the
U.S. House of Representatives
Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Aviation Modernization
of the U.S. Air Traffic Control System
February 11, 1999

We don't actually disagree that a standdown was arranged on 9/11/01, do we?

You're only missing that the planned confusion was the means by which everyone at FAA, NORAD, ETC. ended up feeling compromised, as though they fucked up, and yet had the oops-excuse, without really knowing exactly what happened or what their own role was in the events. So everyone keeps quiet. (I assume you don't think that EVERYONE was in on the plot?)

What's so mysterious to you about that?
D wants its own glights to be undetected but to get all information by primary itself. This cannot be tolerated by any FAA system officer. For sure they argue with civil traffic - but they mean every traffic. And never forget: CIMIC serves whom ? Who is in Herdon ? Who sits on Andrews AFB? Who in the Pentagon?s war room ?

[JackRiddler]

48. "the bow of the earth"

When Alexandrians climbed up to high places a couple of thousand years ago in the hope of seeing all the way to the edge of the earth's flat disk, they found instead that the horizon still drew a vast circle around them, beyond which they could not see. So they figured out the world must be round.

Given the earth's curve, as well as the hills, mountains, clouds, etc. which you also admit exist, there is a horizon for each primary radar installation. Its radius depends on the installation's altitude and signal strength. (The earth's curve is the most obvious cause.) Detection of objects beyond a given installation's horizon is still possible, but becomes spotty, and so you need a station further on to make sure you have all areas covered.

Where is that horizon for any given installation? Let us not guess. Show me the figures for a typical array.

Why shouldn't the horizon produce blind spots in reliable ATC coverage? Don't you find it strange that two of the 9/11 flight paths directly meet such gaps, and turn towards their targets exactly there?

Furthermore, what is unlikely to you about the idea that C3 countermeasures have developed many means of confusing radar, and that these might have been employed in the course of wargames? Ask your NATO man about the feasibility (not about whether it's "standard" or wise to conduct such operations).

What is so unlikely about the idea that, as part of a wargame script, injects were electronically played into the FAA processors as well as NORAD's (the latter of which has been admitted). Or do you believe an utterly air-tight, unhackable wall protects the FAA system, as described so glowingly by our resident "ATC"?

You read McNally's statement as a defense against a potential NORAD take-over of FAA's jurisdiction. Doesn't that make it believable that NORAD (or Stratcom) might decide to see how well they could play FAA's system as part of a drill script? And given that not everyone knows when they are to be "tested," what if the ATCs were not warned in advance of the day's activities?

Don't tell me about 10,000 radars at airports. Are they all feeding into a system that rationalizes everything into a single picture for ATCs?

There is an integrated main primary system in place, designed to cover all areas without interference, and this was being stripped in advance of 2001.

This isn't about making excuses for the 9/11 air interception "failures." It's about deconstructing how the ultimate planners created a situation where the excuses would seem valid, both for themselves and to the many people who were only indadvertantly involved in the 9/11 plot, but who know fragments that could expose this. The logical device for this was wargames. Shouldn't we be wondering who arranged to schedule them for Sept. 11?

And don't tell me about conspiracy theories. You've said the cell phone calls were all impossible (I don't believe that, but I suppose it is possible to fool relatives, too). No phone calls would seem to support the idea that the 9/11 flights were subjects of a readiness drill and that somewhere, people were assigned to use phones to pretend they were passengers.

Please don't start lumping me in with missiles, mininukes, or bogus "steel melting" arguments. I didn't bring up any of that.

[medienanalyse]

49. curve. Okay. Curve. I am still learning.

Yes and you did not talk about melting steel.

But you follow in your arguments a line of "what if`s". You ask me about "so unlikely about the idea" and so on. You argue about the flight paths. Source: FAA. What the hell do we really know for sure about flight paths ? Nada. Raw estimations because of origin and end. You talk about gaps. Source: FAA. What do we really know about these gaps ? Nada.

You talk about the horizon:

"Why shouldn't the horizon produce blind spots in reliable ATC coverage? Don't you find it strange that two of the 9/11 flight paths directly meet such gaps, and turn towards their targets exactly there?"

Yes the horizon will produce blind spots, to answer your first question. And no I do not find it strange - because I do not have any cause to believe in these spots.

You just do not answer that the flights were seen as I said.
You do not answer that the horizon is very limited when a 3km mountain strands justr in front of you - but even then you place the radar just on top of one of the high mountains. Where the hell are the big mountains ? I do not doubt gaps in low areas - but they are of no interest becaause our flights did their manouvers in 10 km ++ hight.
Otherwise, and you do not answer that too, if they would have left their height and not only their direction, there is even more cuse to switch to primary radar, to use the equipment of NORAd, to scramble fighter jets.

No I do not know the exact number of primary radar gear. I just do know: every secondary is based on primary. have you ever seen the detailed view on such a screen. Cleveland ARTCC provides some nice views.

Again: they were SEEN, hundreds og miles away. In this part of the world big airliners do not get lost.

And again: the whole military is based on a simple definition between "exercise" and "real". It is a question of one word. It is IMPOSSIBLE to mix that. BTW: a long time before the Alexandrians. Gladiators need to know "real" and "exercise".

I still tell you as loud as I can: "Pleiten, Pech und Pannen" (not connecting the dots) is a government theory with no real base.

About cell phones: calls in 10 km height have no sense because of the speed which makes necessary the sudden interchange between ground stations and cell phone. on or near the ground in the phase of start or landing we have: les speed, less distance, talks are possible and dangerous because of the lot of interference with the airplabes radioing. The claim of the greek in Thessaloniki to have had contact withg his cousin led to his police arrest. So: no phone calls. Not theory - but it is derailing our issue.

[JackRiddler]

54. But my friend!

I like "bow of the earth." It's medieval and poetic.

I agree with everything you say! (Well, almost.) And I feel like I am a terrible failure as a communicator.

First of all, this IS my "What-Ifs" thread. I feel like it, it's an Internet board discussion, so I do it. If you want to see my "no what-ifs" work for the general public, please go to this, for which I was the editor and main author:

http://www.Justicefor911.org

Secondly, let's see if I can finally communicate it: I'm not describing "what really happened" The attacks were self-evidently allowed to proceed in a fashion that can only be the result of conscious facilitation, and that should be that - but it isn't for most people. I am describing how the cover-up and the ability to deny what happened (for those who were not involved in a conspiracy) was built into the operation from the very beginning, along with the rest. That is the function of the wargames. And this requires deconstruction, you must go into the wires and show why "not connecting the dots" is absurd.

It is the same problem as with the Commission. We know they're a bunch of liars from the first moment, we have historical experience and anyone who falls for the process after the name Kissinger falls shouldn't be driving heavy vehicles at night. Nevertheless, in the absence of the proof that logic tells us must be there but belief can always deny until it is actually produced, we are stuck in the process of deconstructing the Commission's lies. So we have spent the last year. Sad, it is. Unavoidable, also.

So don't tell me I'm derailing. Remember, the whole world is NOT watching this thread, and good readers will figure out what is meant anyway, and bad readers won't get it, and hostile readers will refuse to get it. As always.

Be well.

[medienanalyse]

61. What am I ?

A good reader ? A bad one ? For sure not a hostile one.

But I feel shaken between sentences sounding like the Official Conspiracy Theory, multiple Rorschach, simple CT, fine irony and tests of new thoughts. I try to see you not derailing and I try to refine my English vocabulary, improve my reading skills and rethink that I am not the only one on earth who likes joking.

Like gaps, radar, cell phone abilities some more seems to be a question of measures. Both bow and curve are correct. And their is always more behind the horizon.

[Old and In the Way]

51. Knowing if 11,175,93,77 were part of the wargames seems central to

this discussion. I agree with the remote control idea, too.

Wouldn't a military simulation of terrorist plane hijackings include testing out the Global Hawk technology?

Wouldn't all those engineers and program managers from Textron (?) that were involved with that technology be a clue that they might have been along for the exercise? Of course, they might have known a little too much about that.

To add realim, I'd think you'd want to have some "terrorists" along .....and provide cover for the RC plan.

[soliddemocrat]

56. I'm looking for a hyperlink

Hello Everyone, I'm looking for an article that has a hyperlink that proves that President Bush has ties with Osama Bin Laden and the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. If you can find it on these discussion boards e-mail me the hyperlink on this website not just for where the article is found but the hyperlink for the article as well. Thank you for your time. I'm going up north this friday and my Grandma is a solid Democrat and i want to be able to show her this article. I hope to hear from you soon,good luck in all you do.

[JackRiddler]

59. Bush-Bin Ladin money connections

Carlyle Group dossier
http://www.hereinreality.com/carlyle.html
all valid as of Sept. 2001: the fund that combines Bin Ladin bros. money with Bush money in taking advantage of defense boom; has unbelievable cast of characters: Papa Bush, Baby Bush, Carlucci, Major, Bin Ladin Bros., Baker III as lawyer.

Bush-Bin Ladin money connections via James Bath
http://www.bushnews.com/bushmoney.htm

I also remember an article titled "Blood Bath" or Bloodbath, google that together with the words James Bath, George W. Bush, Saudi and you should find it.

For many more links, but still partial, go here:
http://summeroftruth.org/#911itself

(let it load!)

Then scroll down to section of links on "Who Is Osama Bin Ladin" on history of this figure in CIA-backed operations.

and then scroll down further to section titled "Bush-Bin Ladin Money Connection."

Still very partial, but a good start...

[JackRiddler]

63. months later kick

I still like this, though more pieces have in the meantime been uncovered to solidify it...

[jmb597]

64. 9/11 wasn't an original idea

JackRiddler, I came acrossed this and it's quite intriguing if its true...have you ever heard of Operation Northwoods? Read all of it, but if you want something quick...Scroll down to page 13.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/Northwoods.html

[jschurchin]

65. Welcome to the.......

world of the strange and bizarre. You have just entered the Dungeon, and I am pretty sure all the people here are familier with Operation Northwood's. Anyway, Welcome.

[jmb597]

66. thanks!

Yeah, I have been coming here for awhile, been doing my own research and I haven't seen anyone talk about it, so I figured I would bring it up on my very first post! Thanks for writing!!

[SpecialK]

69. A Place to Start?

Hi There - Longtime DU reader, new member here!

I'm extremely intrigued by these theories. Except that I feel, like most Americans, I don't know the 'official' account given by the gov as regards to the discrepencies and bizarre events of 9-11, and have no desire to read the entire 9-11 commission report.

But I am intrigued by the research done here - can any of you point to a website or book where people like me can start reading about these theories v. 'official' accounts? Ones that we can read without being ATC experts? :-) Thanks for any help!!

[Woody Box]

71. Rowland Morgan/Ian Henshall: "911 revealed"

The best MIHOP overview I know, also suited for "beginners".

The book has also been recommended by the State Department:

http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Sep/16-241966.html