911 Skeptics will love this TV ad....

[althecat]

http://tinyurl.com/3ew96

[Must_B_Free]

1. oh that's killer!

excellent execution of the concept.

[punpirate]

2. Wouldn't you love to see that...

... as a 30-second spot during Fox News? :P

Cheers, Al.

[Jim Sagle]

3. Outasight!

[MercutioATC]

4. Good, but misleading...

It was the WRITTEN policy that off-course planes be intercepted. In fact, this had never been an issue. As an air traffic controller, I can say that before 9/11 an off-course, out-of-radio-contact aircraft was suspected of having mechanical problems, not a hijack issue. Had that happened pre-9/11, we would have notified our supervisor and monitored the aircraft. The information would have been slowly passed up the chain of command, until NORAD was finally contacted to make a decision. This IS, in fact, what happened on 9/11.

It makes nice hype, but I can honestly state, from an insider's position, that there was no intentional decision not to intercept the hijacked planes. It was simply a case of seeing something we'd seen before and not realizing that it was different this time. Aircraft are constantly losing radio contact or dealing with malfunctioning transponders. We see it on a daily basis. We do handle things differently now, but pre-9/11, this was viewed as "business as usual" and handled as a low priority.

My point is that while the procedures did exist on paper, our standard procedure was different than it is now. There was really no conspiracy to "ignore" these planes.

[skypilot]

5. I couldn't watch the video...

...but I would like to ask you this. I don't think that the ATC ignored the planes either but they have gone on the record as saying that they knew at 8:20 that Flight 11 had been hijacked, however, NORAD claims that they weren't notified until 8:40. Is it possible that it took 20 minutes for info to pass up the chain of command?

[MercutioATC]

20. Possible, yes. However, there is significant "fudge factor" here.

They knew that something was wrong at 8:20. In hindsight, that was when they should have known it was a hijack if they had been thinking that way. New York Tracon isn't the busiest facility in the country, but it does have dome of the most densely populated airspace. As a controller (especially pre-9/11) your first priority during a busy period such as a morning departure push is to keep planes from bumping into one another. If one of them stops talking to you and makes turns on its own, you FIRST get everybody out of his way and THEN handle notifications. That's one delay.

The number of links in the chain of command contributed to further delays. It's different now, but we operated under a completely different set of expectations pre-9/11.

[worldgonekrazy]

41. But the Bush admin had very detailed warnings about 9/11

They were told by a number of different foreign intelligence agencies that Al-Qaeda was planning an attack using civilian airliners during the week of the 9/11 attack.

With that info in mind, the Bush administration and intelligence officials should have figured out pretty damn quick what was happening. Yet, even after TWO planes hit the WTC they did not scramble jets to intercept the plane in Pennsylvana or the one that hit the Pentagon. How do you explain that?

[MercutioATC]

65. Which, if true, is great evidence of incompetence.

It doesn't, however, constitute anything other than conjecture which MIGHT support a LIHOP or MIHOP theory.

I'm not even trying to debunk those theories. I'm simply illustrating how the supposed "evidence" has gaping holes in it at times, mostly due to laypersons' incomplete understanding of how things work. Once the methods and environment are understood better, some of the arguements simply aren't as persuasive.

[stickdog]

6. See, I believe this until the first plane hits the WTC.

After that, I can't fathom the level of incompetence that resulted in not a single fighter (supposedly) even being sent to intercept Flight 93 nearly 90 minutes later, and over 105 minutes after the first plane was reported hijacked.

Perhaps you could take a stab at explaining this to me?

[moof]

7. yes, what stickdog said !!!

and as long as you are at it tell us all why shrub was not impeached
the moment he returned to Washington after sitting on his butt in a classroom reading a goat story after being made aware that America was under attack.

[MercutioATC]

19. Because 93 wasn't a suspected hijack then.

Remember, there were 4500 planes in the air over the continental U.S. at the time. If anything, they were concentrating on the east coast, not over Cleveland.

With the old procedures, things took time. If you had a plane that stopped talking to you, it was a low priority...you got to it when you had time. If that plane also changed course, you'd expect emergency of some electrical or com malfunction, not hijack. After trying to reach the pilot a few times, you'd tell a supervisor. Assuming the supervisor wasn't in the middle of something else, they'd immediately forward the info to an ops manager and the military desk. Once THOSE people reviewed the situation, calls might be made to regional headquarters and NORAD.

Obviously, things are a little different now. However, I still see things that don't get followed through on as per procedure at times (by the military, not us). I realize that it's easy to say "things should have been done differently", but if people truly understood what we actually do, they'd realize that
it's just not that simple.

[worldgonekrazy]

42. But you've already heard about the other hijackings

I'm sorry man, it just doesn't add up. Like Stickdog said, the level of incompetence that would have to have been involved is just unbelievable, IMO.

[stickdog]

77. Pardon me, but I don't find this explanation convincing in the least.

Are you saying the entire ATC/FAA/NORAD/defense system was unaware of what was happening in NY?

Because, if not, why in the hell wouldn't anybody with critical information be immediately advancing it -- procedures be damned?

Why do the folks who sat on this information still have jobs? And why was General Myers rewarded for his pitiful 0 for 4 interception ratio just two days after the attack?

In short, who was running interference on 9/11 and who was competently performing their jobs only to meet this interference? Because "procedures" were not responsible for the delay. Some people with names were.

[MercutioATC]

83. I'm afraid that I can only answer your first question.

I AM saying that the first indication the controllers at my facility had of problems was CNN. The "entire ATC/FAA/NORAD/defense system" as you call it is a disjointed group of bureaucracies and facilities that don't always communicate well with each other. Nobody had to "sit on" information or intentionally cause delays...they were a product of the inefficiencies in the system. Things are different now, but while there COULD have been some conspiracy, the delays in notification were absolutely attributable to the way the system worked at the time.

[Oilwellian]

9. What do you suppose....

the "policy" would have been if Bush warned the FAA & NORAD of a possible imminent attack on this country using airplanes as weapons? Afterall, he received a briefing on August 6th, just weeks before 911, warning him of such a possibility.

[HFishbine]

13. Question

Your explaination explains how there may have been some delay while information was run up the chain of command to NORAD. But are you aware of how long NORAD waited before acting once they were informed?

[MercutioATC]

21. No idea. What I DO know is...

...that it takes a lot of money to keep fighters on constant patrols, which is one of the reasons the military didn't do it prior to 9/11. Imagine that NORAD got a call at 8:40am. First, they have to look at the data and then make a decision as to how to handle it (8:50am). THEN, they have to coordinate with the nearest bases to contact pilots, get them in flight gear, get them in the planes, and get them off the ground (I'd bet at LEAST another 10-15 minutes). Then, of course, there's the wait to decide if we're going to shoot down civilian airliners. Again, I don't know what NORAD does in these circumstances, but it seems reasonable to me.

[RBHam]

24. Bullshit

Standard Operating Procedure is automatic. Always has been. Do you expect us to forget that in 2001 on more than 100 different occasions, jets were scrambled when planes went off course, do you recall Payne Stewart? On 9-11 these procedures were ignored. There is only one rationale : They were deliberately stood down. Bush, Cheney and Myers are traitors and it's to your shame that you so clumsily try and exonerate them.

Nice try, "insider".

http://www.nancho.net/countercoup/911links.html

[MercutioATC]

32. Gotta love the conspiracy theorists...

The simplest explanation is usually the correct one. In this case it holds true. Believe what you will, I'm just trying to lendmy view as somebody who actually understands the day-to-day workings of the system.

[worldgonekrazy]

43. Ah you see, we disagree on what the "simple explanation" is

You are going out of your way to rationalize a "coincidence theory." I think Occam's razor says that when enough shit is fucked up as it was on 9/11, something stinks. Gross Incompentence at the very least, but I suspect something far worse.

[TankLV]

49. You didn't answer his/her question!

Answer the question!

And, as far as your claim that NORAD was never on round-the-clock flights, that is A LIE! Only recently - this misadministration? - were the proceedures changed so that round-the-clock flights were discontinued.

[MercutioATC]

66. I never said that NORAD didn't do what you call "round-the-clock"

flights. They are, however, expensive and the military didn't conduct nearly as many air patrols as they do now. A That aside, what question didn't I answer?

[RBHam]

75. Exposing NORAD's Wag The 911

Exposing NORAD's Wag The 911
Window Dressing Tale
Using NORAD’s Own Press Release
And Fifth Grade Math
by Mark Elsis, Lovearth.net, January 8, 2002

"In the beginning of a change,the patriot is a scarce and brave man, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."
Mark Twain

"Fear not the path of truth, for the lack of people walking on it."
Robert Francis Kennedy

More...

http://www.standdown.net/

[RBHam]

76. More on Elsis, he's helping a 9-11 widow sue Bush

Breaking News
Federal Lawsuit: Ellen Mariani (911 Widow) vs. Bush

http://www.911timeline.net/marianivsbush.htm

The "Summary of Facts" will set the foundation to support Plaintiff Counts as set forth herein. A complete highly researched timelines of "911" by American Citizen Mark R. Elsis ( http://911Timeline.net and http://StandDown.net ) who has agreed to testify to his research on behalf of Plaintiff, and believed to be one of the "most comprehensive minute by minute accounts of the events of "911".

[althecat]

35. With all due respect.. do you think we were born yesterday?

Or perhaps came down with the last rainshower.

I have read the rest of your posts here and the ones from others who seem to put a great deal of store in what you say.

Congratulatutions on being an ATC... it's a real job. But that does not mean you should be condescending to those who for good reason have concerns about 911.

Firstly to deal with this first post.... your explanation while superficially attractive to those who insist on keeping their eyes closed does nothing to explain why NORAD did so crap with both flight 77 or 93. There was a) plenty of time to do something & b) two planes already crashed into buildings at the time so no reason for air traffic controllers to consider there is anything more important than telling Norad what is going on.

Secondly and equally important. What is up with NORAD telling three different stories about what happened on 911?

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0306/S00031.htm

Thirdly why is it that ATC staff working that day on these flights told Kirsten Breitweiser and her friends that the FBI took all their records and told them to speak to noone?

http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2003/12/24/nh_widow_waiting_for_answers_from_sept_11_attacks/

And why is it that to this day Norad refuses to hand over transcripts of its communications with the FAA?

So Mercutio let me make a small suggestion. Rather than telling those of us who are trying to find out what is really happening in this story to look the other way, perhaps you should put your great insider talents to work finding out from some of your fellow ATCs what really happened on 911 and then getting back to us.

In the meantime unless you can produce something a little more compelling than condescension and sarcasm you will certainly not affect one iota my opinions on this issue, nor I would think the views of the numerous full time professional researchers who have looked at these issues.

[MercutioATC]

40. I hope this helps straighten things out...

1) I'm not attempting to be condescending to people who have concerns about 9/11. I have concerns, too. What I DO take issue with are people who accuse me of being in league with the administration and "so clumsily try" to "exonerate them". To say that "Standard Operating Procedure is automatic. Always has been." and using this as irrefutable proof of a conspiracy shows very little understanding of what we actually do or the climate in which we worked pre-9/11. THAT was what I was responding to, not the difference of opinion.

2) The entire ATC system was not notified of the first two crashes. Our controllers first found out about it on CNN when everybody else did. I realize that this event is very easy to "Monday-morning quarterback", but everything I've seen supports the theory that things happened slowly because we'd never encountered a situation like this before and, frankly, we had been lulled into a state of complacency. As I said, pre-9/11 an aircraft that turned unexpectedly and stopped talking to us would NEVER have been assumed to be hijacked...we'd automatically expect mechanical problems.

3) I have no idea why NORAD does what NORAD does. As far as the "gag order", it's standard. We all have secret security clearances and are prevented from talking about many things we see and do as a matter of course. The FBI was simply reinforcing this. Later, as you know, the involved controllers WERE allowed to speak and were interviewed by the national media.

I HAVE posted such information. I work with Stacey Taylor (in who's airspace Flight 93 crashed) on a daily basis. It's from her that I got the information on Flight 93 and the likelihood of it being shot down. I'm not suggesting that anybody look the other way, I'm just trying to dispel common misconceptions.

[MercutioATC]

45. A next-day edit to the above

"It's from her that I got the information on Flight 93 and the likelihood of it being shot down."

I wanted to clarify that the "likelihood of it being shot down" is percieved by Stacey and the most of the other controllers where I work as low. Upon rereading my post, I realized that this could have been misinterpreted.

[Silverhair]

48. The REAL reson why you are being flamed.

Your posts are rational, logical, and have insider information. They are very informative. However, to a conspiracy theorists, the conspiricies that he thinks he sees fulfill the place that a religion does for many people. It makes him feel like he is one of the select few who are in the know, who are able, by reason of his superiour gifts, is able to see beyond the obvious. He will defend his religion against all attacks, no matter how logical, because it is, ultimately, a religion and must be believed in spite of all evidence. He has Faith in LIHOP.

When you posted reasons not to believe in the LIHOP religion, the conspiracy theorists responed as do most religious people do when their faith is attacked. Instead of logical analysis, they attacked back.

[Character Assassin]

51. This is the correct answer. Conspiracy theorists flee from logic

And always will.

[RBHam]

52. You people are either delusional or collaborators.

Why don't you tell the 9-11 widows that they are illogical, demnted, copnspiracy theorists out to destroy the Democratic Party? That they're just a bunch of wackos with no facts and a burning hatred for America?

N.H. widow waiting for answers from Sept. 11 attacks

Boston.com News
Excerpt:
Mariani said her latest lawsuit is aimed at proving that the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks were no surprise to the government. She believes the federal government was aware the attacks would take place.

"I'm 100 percent sure that they knew," she said. "I'm challenging the courts, the government, United Airlines and the courts in Manhattan."

Information has been withheld from the families, said Mariani, such as the list of passengers on the flights.

"I don't see any foreigners names on there," she said, referring to the Arab hijackers. "They know the list of all the people getting on the plane; give it to us."

Mariani said she also wants to know who entered the planes that crashed.

"I want to see their surveillance tapes and the black boxes; you can't destroy them," she said. "Where are they? Why are they telling control-tower employees to shut their mouths?"

Mariani said it was difficult to get a lawyer to take her case.

"Nobody dared take this case because it's against the government -- nobody. I talked to a lot of them. Big shots -- I mean, big-time attorneys didn't want this case," she said.

more...

http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2003/12/24/nh_widow_waiting_for_answers_from_sept_11_attacks/

[Character Assassin]

53. Ah, yes, the old 'either/or' canard. The sure sign of a steel-trap mind

Why don't you tell the 9-11 widows that they are illogical, demnted, copnspiracy theorists out to destroy the Democratic Party?

Why would I? I harbor no illusions that they're 'out to destroy the Democratic Party'. I'll leave the whackjob delusions to others, thanks.

That they're just a bunch of wackos with no facts and a burning hatred for America?

Again, you have nothing to counter logic, and fail to even recognize it.

[RBHam]

55. So prove to me that I'm wrong.

Instead of insulting me.

Can you tell me why the White House is stonewalling the investigation, or why Bush and Cheney intimidated Daschle into "limiting" the congressional investigation, or why they refuse to release the information requested to the victim's families?

And, since you are so logically superior to me, perhaps read the rest of the posts : especially Minstrel Boy's post #38.
Why were there promotions for failure, and pink slips for whistleblowers?

My "steel trap" mind can't seem to rationalize this one for the "coincidence theorists" at all. To me, it seems that 9-11 wasn't an intel failure, but as Mike Ruppert said, an intel success.

Actually, you shouldn't worry about us "fringe" conspiracy nuts - we're no threat. Everything we question about 9-11 will have a logical answer. Just like JFK/MLK/RFK's assassinations, or the Gulf Of Tonkin resolution, or Iran/Contra...

Don't worry about us. We're so obviously out of touch we couldn't possibly be a threat. Could we?

[Silverhair]

57. Numberous DUers with first hand knowledge of parts of the

ewvents of 9-11 have posted to refute the so called "facts" that CTists keep coming up with. The very progressive web site, Znet, has an entire page devoted to debunking LIHOP & MIHOP.

Furthermore, the burden of proof is upon the person making the claim, not upon those who do not believe the claim.

I am reminded of a TV ad a few years ago that was running on the Mississippi Gulf Coast. Some guy claimed to have been abducted by space aliens and had written a book about it. The ad would make the claim, "...and he has NEVER been disproved."

Disproving a CT is much the same. No matter what evidence is offered that the CT is pure bullcrap, the true believer will simply develop a new twist in the CT so the the evidence against becomes further proof of the great skill of the conspiritors.

[RBHam]

60. Znet's page doesn't have all of the facts either...

Or did BushCo give them access to the black boxes, the surveillance videos, the closed testimony of Richard Myers as to why the Air Force responded so abysmally...

What? BushCo refuses to release important evidence?

Oh. Well then. Obviously they're on the up and up. After all, George was placed into the White House by God hisself.

By the way - you offer no evidence of the official story. Probably because the "evidence" is a sham. Or do you believe Islamic Fundie suicide bombers put their mission in jeopardy the night before by frequenting brothels and dropping hints that they're terrorists, visiting strip clubs and causing a scene threatening America and 'accidentally' leaving their Korans behind, and carry on affairs with girls in Florida while training ata Florida Flight School run by a Jeb Bush political donor by the name of Rudi Dekkers. http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=4724.
Or that they all pile into one car to go to the Boston Logan airport, cramming for their nefarious deed right to the last moment and after exiting the car make sure that Arabic flight manuals (If they were sleeper agents, why not use an English manual to alleve suspicion?) and a portrait of Osama bin Laden are left prominently displayed on the back seat.

As former German defence minister, Andreas Von Buelow, stated : "You have to question evidence like that, when it's left in the form of elephant tracks."

We haven't even gotten into the fact that the "sleeper agents" were tracked throughout the US by FBI agents, whose investigations were shut down at high levels by people who then received promotion and awards.

Znet can be wrong, too. I note that they are very selective in what aspects of the 9-11 conspiracy theory to attack.

I suggest you visit www.globalresearch.ca.
It's not a "conspiracy site". They are a solid research organization who've been tracking the phenomenon of Islamic terrorism and their links to the Pakistani ISI, the Afghani Taliban and, ultimately, the CIA.

[Kellanved]

63. don't take that stuff too seriously

Von Bülow never was Defence Minister and is a nutcase - I'd say he is about as crazy as LaRouche.

[RBHam]

64. Sorry, former 'cabinet' minister

And he doesn't sound crazy to me, he makes a lot of sense.

Former German Cabinet Minister Attacks
Official Brainwashing On September 11 Issue
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/VonBuelow.html

So does Michael Meacher, former environment minister in Britain

This war on terrorism is bogus
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/comment/0,12956,1036687,00.html

And is Gore Vidal off his rocker, too?

Gore Vidal claims 'Bush junta' complicit in 9/11
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,6903,819932,00.html

Yup. All certifiable. They have absolutely NOTHING to back their claims. Must be why the Corporate Media NEVER trys to spike these stories in the US - after all, they have nothing to fear from a Conspiracy Theory...do they?

[Character Assassin]

58. Oh, please. I'm not making an assertion in the positive.

And, as such, I have nothing to prove. Again, were you at all familiar with the rules of logic, you would already understand that.

Instead of insulting me.

This coming from the guy with the 'delusional or collaborator' remark? Yeah. Uh-huh.

Can you tell me why the White House is stonewalling the investigation, or why Bush and Cheney intimidated Daschle into "limiting" the congressional investigation, or why they refuse to release the information requested to the victim's families?

Can you prove this is part of a conspiracy?

And, since you are so logically superior to me, perhaps read the rest of the posts : especially Minstrel Boy's post #38.
Why were there promotions for failure, and pink slips for whistleblowers?

Can you prove this is part of a conspiracy?

My "steel trap" mind can't seem to rationalize this one for the "coincidence theorists" at all. To me, it seems that 9-11 wasn't an intel failure, but as Mike Ruppert said, an intel success.

Yes, that would likely stem from your preconceptions. Can you prove your assertion?

Actually, you shouldn't worry about us "fringe" conspiracy nuts - we're no threat. Everything we question about 9-11 will have a logical answer. Just like JFK/MLK/RFK's assassinations, or the Gulf Of Tonkin resolution, or Iran/Contra...

Can you prove those can be equated to this supposed conspiracy?

Don't worry about us. We're so obviously out of touch we couldn't possibly be a threat. Could we?

No, but your certainly can be predictable and therefore boring.

[Skittles]

79. HEY

can you prove it is NOT ?????

[frogfromthenorth2]

80. To ask somebody to prove that something doesn't exist is plain

stupid.

[Minstrel Boy]

81. "Can you prove this is part of a conspiracy?"

Vincent Bugliosi has something to say about this:

"Conspiracies are conceived in shadowy recesses.... Conspiracies are proven bit by bit, speck by speck, brick by brick, until all of a sudden you have a mosaic. They are proven by circumstantial evidence."

p. 304, The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, by William Turner and Jonn Christian

[Silverhair]

54. Just because she is a victim, doesn't mean that she is correct.

If you would carefully read what you wrote, you would see that it is a statement of faith, not a logical arguement. And yes, the ones that believe in LIHOP do believe in a wacko CT.

[RBHam]

56. uh huh

so it's wrong to expect your Government to have a complete, thorough, unfettered, public and independent investigation?
we are to EXPECT the Government to cover up evidence and withhold pertinent facts? and that is to lead us to believe that the Government really wants us to know the truth?

I'm glad you're comfortable with this. It'll make it easier after Bush wins the next election, using the official story of 9-11 as a bludgeon against those "soft on everything" Democrats. That is, if martial law hasn't been declared yet.

That's me : a whacko conspiracy nutjob! :crazy:
Completely harmless, I can assure you.
No need to call Tom Ridge on me!
After all, there's so very few of us to worry about.:eyes:

[Silverhair]

59. We do indeed need investigation into incompetence, but

for such an investigation to go in the direction of LIHOP is just plain silly.

[RBHam]

62. OK

So why did those Office heads who quashed Rowley's and Wright's investigations get rewarded? Why were the whistleblowers, who did THEIR jobs, get the heave ho?

When Thomas Kean came out and said that heads should roll, he was told to shut up. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2003/12/18/03850/244
The next day he backed off and was clearly nervous when asked if hew had been pressured by "higher ups".
And their must have been a reason to get Cleland off the commission.
http://truthout.org/docs_03/112303A.shtml

Why was Lee Hamilton given the position as the Democratic chair of the Commission when he is tainted with covering up Bush I's role in Iran/Contra? Here's what Hamilton said regarding what he viewed the 9-11 commission's job should be:
“The focus of the commission will be on the future. We want to make recommendations that will make the American people more secure. ... We're not interested in trying to assess blame, we do not consider that part of the commission's responsibility.”
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/wot/sept11/911commission.html

If the White House can't even let a token head roll for propriety's sake, does this not suggest that LIHOP is a possibility?

PNAC needed a Pearl Harbour for their plan, Brzehinski also stated that a Pearl Harbour was needed to get the American people to accept a war of global domination, a massive ruse like this HAS been proposed before: Operation Northwoods.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/jointchiefs_010501.html..

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...


"We need a common enemy to unite us."

[MercutioATC]

67. I do understand that it's not what some people want to hear...

...and I'm not implying that there's no reason to ask questions, but some of the arguements simply don't hold water. I feel there's enough evidence of incompetence without resorting to unprovable, extremist accusations.

I'm not even suggesting a theory...just telling what I know of the procedures that were in place at the time and relaying the views of some of the controllers that actually watched it happen.

[rman]

78. how do you know there was no conspiracy?

Assuming you are indeed an air traffic controller, do you know all that your bosses are doing, all their considerations regarding their actions? That does not seem very likely.
It seems to me you are claiming more authority then you can show for.

[MercutioATC]

82. Not at all...I'm simply pointing out that many of the supposed "unusual

events" were not that unusual at all. Conspiracies aside, we did NOT handle these things the same way pre-9/11 and the delays are not out of order with the way we did things at the time.

[frogfromthenorth2]

8. I am not a skeptic and It doesn't do a thing for me... sorry

[Sterling]

11. I am and it does for me.

I think the more Americans that learn these facts the more skeptics you will see. Great work!!!!

[Catherine Vincent]

10. That's a great ad by moveon.org

You notice the facts that was mentioned and not rumor and gossip?

[skypilot]

12. I couldn't play it...

What ground did it cover?

[stilpist]

17. It's a video that apears to be the pilot's view

as a plane flies toward the WTC. Pop-ups appear and simulate a conversation about 9/11. Such as why didn't the AF intercept? and Bush's ties to bin-Laden. Ends with a Move-On url under the caption "Ask Bush about 9/11."

[skypilot]

18. Thanks, Stilpist

It would be great if they also did one with the hijacker's eyeview of the plane zeroing in on the Pentagon. This would help drive home the point that that particular eyeview came almost an hour after the first attack.

[maggrwaggr]

14. Love it! How do I vote?

I want to vote for THAT one

[TNOE]

15. One of the best

I love it too.

[YNGW]

16. Woah!!

Cheech: And what did you do?
Chong: I dropped acid and listed to Black Sabbath at 78 speed.
Cheech: What happened?
Chong: I saw God!
Cheech: He.. saw.. God.. OK, back to our program............

[solinvictus]

22. Truth

I don't care if the ad is the truth or not as long as it can damage Dubya's credibility and image. I hate to be this way, but idealism will not win elections. It's a good short piece of propaganda that seems like it would be effective. Now, for the hard part, who's going to sell any ad space to air it????

[Silverhair]

23. What this ad will actually do is help Bush.

I realize that I am critizing a religion, but LIHOP is a nutty conspiracy theory, and is viewed as such by almost everybody. Even the noted progressive site, Znet, give ample reasons why LIHOP just isn't so. As you can see in this thread, an real world ATC guy debunks part of it from personal knowledge of ATC procedures, pre 9-11. So if this were to air, the reaction of the general public would be that the Democrats are desperate and grasping at straws.

Few people vote for parties that appear desperate.

[RBHam]

26. procedure

if a plane's transponder goes off - the procedure calls for automatic scrambling, they have to be told to stand down.

get that. there is no standing around by the pilots, they go into full intercept mode immediately. their superiors decide when to call OFF the response.

on 9-11, somebody told pilots to stand down before they got into the air. that is a fact. and it is just one of many facts that are being down played and/or ignored.

[MercutioATC]

84. That's completely untrue...at least from a practical standpoint

The fact is that we are constantly losing transponder returns and radio contact with aircraft. In the past if the situation continued past 5-10 minutes or the aircraft started deviating from its course or altitude, we'd suspect some mechanical problem and monitor the plane, getting everybody else out of its way. The LAST thing we'd assume is a hijack (unless the transponder started squawking "7500").

The problem is, some people who have never seen us work read something about "procedure" and build an entire theory on an incorrect premise. If what you suggest HAD actually been practiced, we'd be calling NORAD 40 or 50 times a day at minimum.

Your understanding of the procedure as it was applied is inaccurate. There was no "automatic scrambling". Pilots do not go into "full intercept mode" (whatever that is) "immediately". There is no proof that I'm aware of that any pilot was told to "stand down" whether before or after they were airborne.

That doesn't mean that there aren't things to question. It simply means that you're basing at least part of your theory on inaccurate assumptions.

[Selwynn]

25. What a bunch of bull crap.

Yeah - real powerful add. A bunch of bullshit conspiracy statements with zero evidence. Yup, I'm convinced.

Incompetance, yes. Conspiracy no.

The biggest reason why 9/11 happened is because America at every level didn't really honestly believe something like that would ever happen here.

Bush doesn't want the facts about 9/11 to come out because he knows it will show what colossal incompetance there was at every level of government when dealing with the attack.

By the way, for months now I've seen tons of people talking about the plane that supposedly flew around and picked up Bin Ladins family -- and in all that time I've never seen ONE BIT of hard evidence that proves this isn't a bullshit lie. All i've seen is the same kind of conspiracy supposition, speculation, and circumstantial "evidence" of about that same caliber that people use to try and say the moon landings were faked.

It takes a much bigger leap of faith to believe that there was a master plan by Bush to LIHOP or MIHOP that it does to believe that the Administration was guilty of gross in compitence both in not taking the intelligence serious in its arrogance (we know Bushco is capable of that) and by being stunned into inaction when it happened.

Furthermore the more we fixate on stupid conspiracy theories the less relevant we are to actual voters. Everytime I hear bullshit conspiracy crap like this I want to vote for someone else. So does the public at large. We need to focus on the incompetence of the Bush Administration - something we can prove, not fantastic conspiracy nonesense that we can't prove.

[nomatrix]

33. What really is annoying is this crap

"By the way, for months now I've seen tons of people talking about the plane that supposedly flew around and picked up Bin Ladins family -- and in all that time I've never seen ONE BIT of hard evidence that proves this isn't a bullshit lie. All i've seen is the same kind of conspiracy supposition, speculation, and circumstantial "evidence" of about that same caliber that people use to try and say the moon landings were faked."

Selwin-
There is a search tool called google.
In the Search box type in....
9/11, Bin Laden family, plane, united states.
Wait Two, count them, 2 seconds. A link you might know...

This is a Conservative Magazine.

The Great Escape: The U.S. helped the bin Ladens leave the country immediately after 9/11. Why?

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york091102.asp

Bill Carter, the FBI spokesman, is adamant. "We were given full access to the individuals on that plane," he says, "and we were satisfied that we did not believe any of those individuals had anything to do with the 9/11 plots."

The plane to which Carter refers was an aircraft chartered by the Saudi government in the days after the terrorist attacks. The individuals were two dozen members of Osama bin Laden's extended family who had been living in the United States. Saying they were afraid that family members might suffer retribution in the U.S., the Saudis asked for American assistance in getting them out of the country. With the help of the FBI, the Saudis and the bin Laden family chartered an aircraft to pick up family members in Los Angeles, Orlando, and Washington, D.C. The bin Laden plane then flew the relatives to Boston, where -- one week after the attacks -- the group left Logan Airport bound for Jeddah."

"While FBI agents looked into bin Laden family members in the Boston area immediately after September 11, it appears that the agents' first chance to interview them -- or other family members who lived elsewhere in the country -- came on the day they left the U.S. Each family member was given the all-clear on the basis of a single, day-of-departure interview -- conducted, in Bill Carter's words, "at the airport, as they were about to leave."

Read it.
With the help of the FBI.
Got it.
Now go blow........
out your candle.
Merry Christmas.

[Selwynn]

69. Hey by the way - I totally stand corrected! /wears the cap of shame! :)

Yup, you were right I was wrong. You know everything, I don't know anything.. you're very handsome, I am .... not attractive... :P

Sorry I didn't get back to this thread for a long time.

I totally stand completely corrected. I like to admit my gaffs, that's how I maintain credibility.

Thanks - every time I heard references to the plane/bin ladin thing, it was always without reference and I seriously thought it was just a unevidence speculative claim.

Merry belated Christmas to you!

[RBHam]

71. Selwynn...

Come up here to Saskatchewan, I know a guide at this lodge and he can help you have the greatest fishing trip you ever went on.
Minnesota? Maine? Michigan? Bah! This is where the real call of the wild can be heard!

Besides, you might be connected someway, note the name of the lodge...

http://www.selwynlakelodge.com/

[Sterling]

72. That is VERY big of you.

I have huge respect for people who can admit when they make a mistake.

I can understand why people initially disregard these facts out of hand. It just paints such an ugly picture most of us would rather pretend everything is ok.


It is too bad there are others here who still choose to omit this information from their worldview and feel the need to insult others who seek the truth about 9-11 and what our government is up to in general.

It is good to have this kind of discussion out in the open, anyone who reads this thread will have a chance to learn what you did and might hang around and learn a whole lot more. That really bothers some people.

[althecat]

36. Ok Selwynn... You really aren't trying.

That is trying to understand the conspiracy or the evidence. There is lots of real evidence there but it is hard to present it in a 30 second commercial... the advert does a good job nevertheless.

On the other hand you do a good job of hitting a fair few excuse buttons on your post.

- First you hit the cockup button
- Then you make an excuse for the shrub which even if it is true kind of misses the point in that it is adverts like this and the 911 skeptics that have flushed all the evidence of incompetence into the public eye that is in the public eye...
- Then you make a truly mindless observation about an incontrovertible fact about the bin-laden evacuation
- Then you push the cockup button again
- And finally you nail your point home with a threat to vote for someone else...

Really. And who else is there exactly?

What you are really saying is that the fact that people dare question the President over 911 makes you want to vote for him?

Sorry. Call me stupid or naive but I just don't get that. And while it is possibly an effective talking point that probably gets people to shut up at campaign fundraisers and cocktail functions, it really doesn't bare any scrutiny.

Anyone considering voting or Bush presumably has a latent tendency to consider voting Bush. And at a time like this this speaks volumes about where you are coming from on this issue.

Merry Christmas & Good Night

[worldgonekrazy]

44. As Hitler said

"The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed, for the vast masses of a nation are in the depths of their hearts more easily deceived than they are consciously and intentionally bad. The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them a more easy prey to a big lie than a small one, for they themselves often tell little lies, but would be ashamed to tell big lies."

Think there might be some truth to that?

[JackRiddler]

46. Bin Ladin airlift...

As of Sept. 2003, as reported in NYT etc., the White House has admitted ORDERING the airlift of Bin Ladin brothers and Saudi elites after 9/11. Something ridiculously easy to confirm. But why let facts interfere with your prejudices?

[RBHam]

27. from unansweredquestions.org, a former DUer's site...

:: Air Defenses ::

The first hijacking was known by Boston ATC at 8:28, (Village Voice, amongst others). The Pentagon admits to being aware of one hijacking at 8:40, (Boston Globe) and two hijackings by 8:50 (General Myers). General Myers told the Senate on Sept. 13th that "we did scramble fighter aircraft...after the Pentagon was struck". That is, fighters were scrambled at 9:40, a full hour later. A story that fighters were launched from Otis AFB and Langley AFB appeared in the press on Sept. 14th. Why the delayed report ? Rough calculations of the time and distance traveled show they would have been flying at less than half their top speed. Surely this was a situation requiring emergency measures?

Flight 93 was in the air, with the hijacking confirmed, for more than half an hour before it crashed, but no interceptors launched from Andrews AFB, only 10 miles and mere minutes flight time away - even after a second (hijacked-confirmed) plane had struck the WTC (according to "official" government military sources). All this flies in the face of standard procedure. Why was the air response so inadequate?

Sept 11: Unanswered Questions (140pp. deep analysis)

http://www.communitycurrency.org/IndexMX.html

Szamuely, George, ‘Nothing Urgent,’ New York Press, Vol. 15, No. 2,

http://www.nypress.com/15/2/taki/bunker.cfm

Zwicker, Barry, ‘The Great Deception: What Really Happened on Sept. 11th Part 2,’ MediaFile,

Vision TV Insight, 28 January 2002,

http://www.visiontv.ca/programs/insight/mediafile_Jan28.htm

McMurtry, John, ‘Decoding 9-11’

http://www.snowshoefilms.com/mcmurtryDecoding.html

[Selwynn]

28. Misleading.

General Myers told the Senate on Sept. 13th that "we did scramble fighter aircraft...after the Pentagon was struck".

Notice that part is in quotes.

That is, fighters were scrambled at 9:40, a full hour later.

Notice that statement is NOT. Where's the proof that fighters were scrambled a full hour later? I haven't seen any.

Speculation about the flying velocity of planes is tenuous and best and in my opinion fairly weak.

All of that stuff there is worded like propaganda, worded in a way to make theories sound like facts, and without any sources for confirmation of hard facts.

Edit - you're first link is just another what really happened link. The second link to the New York Press article is more of the same. A lot of speculative statements without hard evidence. At best it goes to prove negligence not a conspiracy. You're third link is dead, and your fourth link is link to a 100% opinion piece be someone trying to sound philosophical without doing a very good job of it.

[RBHam]

29. you are quoting his overview

he draws them from the links provided. and myers has still to be called to account regarding his failure. in the open congressional hearings, he claimed "national security" when the questioning got to this point. he then was interviewed in closed session. the public is still being kept from the truth. Remember suspected cia plant william safire claiming a white house source (Rove) told him that "codes had been stolen"? It was an attempt to set up a plausible explanation for the air force's failure that day.
later, it was determined that enough yahoos would buy the official story and accept a cover up that they didn't need this flim flammery. the story simply disappeared and Safire skates on - like Novak skates on after helping Rove get back at Joe Wilson by outing his wife...

anyway, here's more on bush, cheney and myer's possible guilt.

A) Failure to scramble planes

* 'Powerful Evidence that Air Force Was Made to Stand Down on 9-11,' by John Flaherty & Jared Israel
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/update630.htm

* 'Why Were None of the Hijacked Planes Intercepted?'

http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-1.htm
Discusses the failure to scramble planes over Washington, D.C. until after the Pentagon was hit. It also provides a general outline of our charges. This is useful because some material has not yet been posted.

* 'Mr. Cheney's Cover Story'

http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-2.htm
Discusses Vice President Cheney's remarkable appearance September 16th on "Meet the Press." Cheney's attempt to cover-up the failure to scramble planes makes things worse.

[Selwynn]

30. Possible guilt of what? Ineptitude? Sure. Clandestine Conspiracy? No.

Anyway, its Christmas day and I don't really feel like spending it arguing about 9/11.

[RBHam]

31. There is definitely ineptitude...

Shouldn't someone be held accountable?

Myers was promoted to Head of the Joint Chiefs.

Now, you are correct.

Let us stop this, Silverhair, for now. We both have good points, too bad neither side of our arguments are in the public domain. You have to admit, after what happened to Kean when he demanded accountability, that the White House is hiding something. It could be just plain ineptitude - but that is just as bad, if the public becomes fully aware of the orchestrated attempt to stonewall the 9-11 commission.

I think it's the key to the 2004 elections, because BushCo USES 9-11 so effectively to advance their agenda. Without 9-11 they have nothing.

Merry Christmas!
May we have a much better new year than last, and
'God bless us, everyone'.

[proud patriot]

34. Some comedy relief for everyone ....Enjoy

He Can't Do That
http://www.bushin30seconds.org/vote/view.html?ad=KoF.pdImt6buKg.txkAdAnZpZXctMjI1Nw--

Seriously !!
http://www.bushin30seconds.org/vote/view.html?ad=UTGzk8zRf4oXVGn4LcTpl3ZpZXctNzY5

[RBHam]

37. If somebody screwed up on 9-11 re: air defenses...

When will anyone be held accountable? Where does the buck stop? Why was AF General Richard Myers promoted to head of the Joint Chiefs, after such a collossal dereliction of duty? Why was he in private conversation with Republican chair of Intel Shelby when the first planes hit, and why did he only emerge from said meeting after the Pentagon hit? Why did he have to plead "National Security" when the open congressional hearing asked him about these issues? Why is Myers' subsequent closed door testimonial with the intel committe being kept from the 9-11 commission?

Not one prominent intelligence executive, or indeed, not one agent, has been reprimanded or pink slipped. In fact, the FBI agent running the office that shut down whistleblower Colleen Rowley's request to investigate Massoaui, was given an award and a promotion. Whereas, Rowley is being forced out of her job, she is viewed with suspicion by her superiors...

What does all this tell you?

[Minstrel Boy]

38. some more whistleblowers

FBI Special Agent Robert Wright. He has been reprimanded, gagged and investigated at least three times for publically stating the FBI had foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks, including date, targets and suspects. However, the FBI command cut short agents' investigations, threatening them with prosecution under the National Security Act if they publicised information pertaining to their investigations.

Twenty-year veteran of the State Department, Michael Springman. He lost his job for objecting to what he'd seen while stationed at the visa bureau in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. The bureau was run as a CIA operation, and Springman was forced to approve al Qaeda recruits for training in the United States. This, long after the defeat of the Soviets in Afghanistan. Fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers entered the United States through Jeddah.

Lt. Col. Steve Butler, vice chancellor for student affairs at the Defense Language Institute in Monterey. He was threatened with court martial and lost his appointment for publicly charging that "Bush knew of the impending attacks on America. He did nothing to warn the American people because he needed this war on terrorism. What is...contemptible is the President of the United States not telling the American people what he knows for political gain." What cause did Butler have to say this? 9/11 hijacker Saed Alghamdi, who entered the US through through Jeddah, studied at the Defense Language Institute while Butler was vice chancellor.

It's the whistleblowers who are reprimanded, gagged, investigated, losing their jobs and possibly more (what did John Kokal know?). No one has paid yet for the intelligence "failure" of 9/11. To the contrary, they've been promoted. And not just Richard Myers.

Michael Maltbie, the FBI supervisory special agent accused of blocking field agents from obtaining a warrant to search Zacarias Moussaoui's computer, was promoted to field supervisor, a position which allows him to direct investigations.

Dave Frasca, head of the FBI's Radical Fundamentalism Unit, who quashed both Rowley's investigation and the corroborating warning from the San Diego office that al Qaeda was training at flight schools, was promoted after the attacks.

It's often said of 9/11 that we need to ask, who benefits? We should also ask, who's rewarded? Who's punished?

[RBHam]

39. So, where does that leave the "ineptitude" defence?

Nowehere. The post above says it all - BushCo HAD to know what was up, for they went to extraordinary lengths to make sure the attacks were successful.

That Booker video (anybody got a link?) is another nail in the coffin. In light of what we know now, that Bush already knew about the first plane before entering the school, that he had briefings warning of hijackings; his actions that day speak volumes.

[cowpie]

47. The democratic party circles the drain

and sites like moveon.org merrily paddle it along. I wonder what the next progressive party will be. Hopefully one that isn't taken over by conspiracy theorists and nutjob websites.

[RBHam]

50. Yes. We know you can't wait for a one party state...

Don't worry, when the neo-cons have their Black Ops boys hit California next year, you'll get what you want.

Martial Law.

Be nice to us in the detention camps, okay? We were just trying to save America fom Nazi Germany's fate.

[Sterling]

61. This from a disrupter

Proof once and for all that we do have people here telling us that "LIHOP/9-11 will destroy the party" that clearly do not have the best interest of the party in mind when they post here.

[RBHam]

68. THE CLINCHER

When the Bush Knew controversy first hit the New York Post I immediately smelt the old political trick of leak it first yourself, then go into damage control, then attack anybody who doesn't buy your spin.

Remember - the NY Post is a neo-con Right wing rag of renown. Why didn't the Wash Post or NY Times run it? Because Rove leaked SOME damaging details to the Post. Rove could control the story that way necause the Repug operative writers there would write it the way Rove wanted it.

Then Bush defended himslef. Then Cheney said that it was "beyond the pale!" to even dare suggest such a thing! Most Democrats cowered in fear to such a degree that it could only invite contempt. Perhaps the anthrax mailings and the perceived threat of losing their cushy jobs took precedence over doing their sworn duty. They even dragged Laura Bush onto CNN so she could do her Stepford routine. I still see red everytime I remember her admonishing those "that would politicize the family's grief". She didn't mention that the 9-11 families are the pre-eminent ones demanding answers. BushCo's been trying to screw them since Septemver 12th. Thus, the Empty Chair in honour of the victims at the State Of The Union address. Instead of having to invite someone whom they couldn't control.
http://members.shaw.ca/rb.ham/articles/03-01-31-emptychair.htm

If there was nothing to the Bush Knew controversy why would Karl rove leak it to a friendly newspaper so as to attack the straw man his own leak created?

Because it ain't no strawman, friends.

It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out who benefitted from 9-11 - and you'd have to be deaf, dumb and blind not to recognize the deliberate stonewalling and cover ups that have been going on BOTH pre and post 9-11...

It's the horrible, awful truth. And now that the Ennabling Act has been passed -

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=963100

it may be too late to stop America from having to drop the c in her name and adding two K's.

Fascism has finally blossomed fully in the heart of the United States of America. You have become what you hate.

[Sterling]

73. Great take on the Bush Knew post story!!!

thx.

[RBHam]

74. It was so obvious...

When they actually trotted out Laura Bush to be interviewed by Bush family favourite Eva Zahn, and proceeded to bash the victims of 9-11 for demanding the truth, well...

And you can tell she was coached, she was so stiff and prepared. Even to the upturned, slightly sideways tilt of her head (she must have had Peggy Noonan drilling her, once she let her head relax and it started to level out, like a light went on, she quickly drew it back to her Noonan tilt).

And Cheney - "That's beyond the PALE!"

Well, if it's beyond the pale, and noone is even allowed to consider it, then it's all the easier to get away with!

And the Corporate Media band played on, as the USS Titanic Administration raced on with their PNAC inspired plan of global domination and arrogant unilateralism...

[RBHam]

70. Sunday kick

:kick: