| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Energy Forum » ATC Says 9-11 was "Inside job."
Page 2 of 2 Goto page Previous 1, 2
|
| Author |
Message |
| Guest |
 Posted: Tue Apr 01, 2008 7:27 pm |
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 19:17:58 -0500, strabo <strabo@flashlight.net>
wrote:
Quote: SAC@usa.com wrote:
On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 14:22:41 -0500, strabo <strabo@flashlight.net
wrote:
I was in SAC.
I'll bet you weren't. And if you were, it was so long ago that your
"knowledge" is quite outdated. SAC's fighter squadrons, meant to
accompany bombers on their mission, not intercept aircraft, were
disbanded in 1957. SAC itself was disbanded in 1992.
I know the the safeguards and procedures that were in
place then and on 9/11.
Obviously, you don't.
Detection and protection against unauthorized
aircraft within US borders was initiated in 1947.
And that was never the job of the Strategic Air Command. And SAC was
established in 1946.
We are talking about internal air security.
Which was never SAC's mission. You're caught in a lie.
Quote: SAC set the standards.
Perhaps, but they didn't have the mission. You're caught in a lie.
Quote: NORAD received the military and civilian reports and intercepts flew
from SAC and ADC bases.
Intercepts didn't fly from SAC bases sport. SAC bases were in the
middle of the country. Interceptors flew from the fringe.
Quote: When SAC was shut down the procedures remained.
Perhaps, but those procedures never included domestic civilian
airliner intercepts.
Quote: You spill a lot of ink trying to distort the obvious.
A lie is "the obvious"?
Because you're a liar.
Quote: I want you to fly a plane of any size and unannounced, into Washington
DC or NYC airspace. Let us know how it turns out.
What happens today in 2008 has absolutely nothing to do with what
would have happened in 2001, sport.
Quote: Those controls that you will encounter were supposed to be in
place on the morning of 9/11. It's as simple as that.
No, they weren't. Read the FAA procedure 7610-4J, Chapter 7.
http://web.archive.org/web/20011122232504/http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/MIL/Ch7/mil0701.html
You'll find that the military had exactly three designated jobs if
they were REQUESTED to respond to a domestic hijacking:
7-1-1. PURPOSE
The FAA hijack coordinator (the Director or his designate of the FAA
Office of Civil Aviation Security) on duty at Washington headquarters
will request the military to provide an escort aircraft for a
confirmed hijacked aircraft to:
a. Assure positive flight following.
b. Report unusual observances.
c. Aid search and rescue in the event of an emergency.
***
Not a word there about shooting down a domestic, civilian airliner.
BTW, how do you propose that a mitary radar operator could tell if a
domestic, civilian airliner had been hijacked over the United States
on 9/11 without being told by the FAA? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Richard Macdonald |
| Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 3:16 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
<norad@norad.mil> wrote in message
news:q0k5v3tgo4ere6j23k6mqt9s9ti45sdiko@4ax.com...
Quote: On Tue, 01 Apr 2008 19:17:58 -0500, strabo <strabo@flashlight.net
wrote:
SAC@usa.com wrote:
On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 14:22:41 -0500, strabo <strabo@flashlight.net
wrote:
I was in SAC.
I'll bet you weren't. And if you were, it was so long ago that your
"knowledge" is quite outdated. SAC's fighter squadrons, meant to
accompany bombers on their mission, not intercept aircraft, were
disbanded in 1957. SAC itself was disbanded in 1992.
I know the the safeguards and procedures that were in
place then and on 9/11.
Obviously, you don't.
Detection and protection against unauthorized
aircraft within US borders was initiated in 1947.
And that was never the job of the Strategic Air Command. And SAC was
established in 1946.
We are talking about internal air security.
Which was never SAC's mission. You're caught in a lie.
SAC set the standards.
Perhaps, but they didn't have the mission. You're caught in a lie.
NORAD received the military and civilian reports and intercepts flew
from SAC and ADC bases.
Intercepts didn't fly from SAC bases sport. SAC bases were in the
middle of the country. Interceptors flew from the fringe.
I would love to see someone try and fly an intercept with a B-54G/H
and see what they could do if they caught anything other than watch.
All the fighters were TAC and ADC, not SAC, which has the BOMBERS.
--
Richard A. Macdonald, CPA/EA
SSG(Ret), USA, ADA, 16P34
Air Defense Artillery, Death from Below
Gib mir Schokolade und niemand wird verletzt!!! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| POW. |
| Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 9:49 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article <1207091311_399@isp.n>, strabo <strabo@flashlight.net>
wrote:
Quote: I know the the safeguards and procedures that were in
place then and on 9/11.
Attorney General Mukasey lies about 9/11 and international spying
By Larry Chin
Online Journal Associate Editor
Mar 31, 2008, 00:18
In a recent speech at San Francisco¹s Commonwealth Club, Attorney
General Michael Mukasey
defended the Bush-Cheney administration¹s illegal domestic spying agenda
by proclaiming that
the 9/11 attacks could have been prevented if the government had been
able to monitor overseas
phone calls to the United States.
Like every other member of the Bush-Cheney administration, Mukasey is
lying. Lying about the
fact that the ³war on terrorism² is a fabrication. Lying about the
pervasive worldwide
eavesdropping capabilities of US intelligence agencies. Lying about the
fact that 9/11 was a
long-planned Anglo-American false flag covert operation.
According to Mukasey¹s spin on the now-classic 9/11 fiction, Bush-Cheney
³knew there had been a
call from some place that was known to be a safe house in Afghanistan
and we knew that it came
to the United States. We didn¹t know precisely where it went. We¹ve got
3,000 people who went
to work that day, and didn¹t come home, to show for that.²
In typically wide-eyed fashion, the San Franciso Chronicle report
proceeds to add more red
herrings to the proceedings, noting that ³Mukasey did not specify the
call to which he
referred. He also did not explain why the government, if it knew of
telephone calls from
suspected foreign terrorists, hadn¹t sought a wiretapping warrant from a
court established by
the Congress to authorize terrorist surveillance, or hadn¹t monitored
all such calls without a
warrant for 72 hours as allowed by law.²
Mukasey did not bother to mention any of these things, because he knows
that the US
government¹s spying capabilities are overwhelming, and that their
continuous (illegal) use
trumps congressional oversight, and the law itself.
Investigators such as former NSA operative James Bamford (author of the
expose of the NSA, Body
of Secrets) and Mike Ruppert¹s Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the
American Empire at the
End of the Age of Oil have thoroughly detailed the pervasiveness and
effectiveness of a wide
range of spying and intelligence programs used by intelligence and law
enforcement agencies.
These include Echelon and PROMIS, which are used by operatives in
criminal fashion, as ordered
by high-level officials, specifically to get around all oversight.
As written by Ruppert: ³Echelon is a highly secret technical
intelligence gathering system used
to monitor worldwide communications and coordinated in the U.S. by the
National Security
Agency. Participating countries, who eavesdrop on the citizens of the
other member countries --
to avoid civil restrictions preventing governments from spying on their
own citizens -- then
pool and share their information. Participating countries include the
U.S., Australia, Canada,
New Zealand, Great Britain and Germany. The eavesdropping covers both
telephone and email
communications.
"According to a Feb 13, 2001, UPI story detailing Echelon's use against
bin Laden and other
terrorist organizations, ŒThe targets of Echelon center on the
penetration of the major
components of most of the world's telephone and telecommunications
systems. This could cover
conversations NSA targets. Also included are all the telexes carried
over the world's
telecommunications networks, along with financial dealings: money
transfers, airline
destinations, stock information, data on demonstrations or international
conferences and much
more.¹²
In Crossing the Rubicon, and in his many investigations for From The
Wilderness, Mike Ruppert
exposed the fact that intelligence agency penetration and foreknowledge
leading up to 9/11 was
complete: ³Long before 9/11, US and foreign intelligence had achieved
penetrations of al-Qaeda
by human, signal and electronic intelligence,² and that ³there was very
little that al Qaeda
did that the Bush administration and many other governments were not
aware of.²
Furthermore, Ruppert noted that ³based upon what is known about
successful intelligence
penetrations for years prior to the attacks of 9/11, Osama bin Laden
could not have sneezed
without the CIA or the NSA knowing about it.²
³Al-Qaeda,² an Anglo-American covert operation, was not only thoroughly
penetrated, but guided
and manipulated into fulfilling their roles.
As exposed by Michel Chossudovsky in his book, America¹s ³War on
Terrorism²: ³The foreknowledge
issue is a red herring. The ŒMilitant Islamic Network¹ is a creation of
the CIA. In standard
CIA jargon, Al Qaeda is categorized as an Œintelligence asset¹ . . .
support to terrorist
organizations is an integral part of US foreign policy. Al Qaeda
continues to participate in
CIA covert operations in different parts of the world.²
Anglo-American involvement with ³the terrorists,² and the Bush-Cheney
administration¹s role
behind 9/11 are, of course, the focus of a gargantuan cover-up at the
highest levels of world
governments. ³Al-Qaeda² is a perpetual covert operation, supported by a
bipartisan consensus.
(See "Who is Osama bin Laden?" and "Al-Qaeda:the database".)
It is no surprise that Mukasey (who was installed specifically to
continue Bush-Cheney¹s
torture, domestic spying and world war agendas) and other members of the
Bush-Cheney criminal
syndicate will never stop lying about the overwhelming and complete
surveillance that agencies
such as the CIA and NSA have enjoyed over the US population (and,
indeed, the entire world,
including pinpoint real-time penetration of terrorist and
intelligence-supported ³terrorist²
groups) for decades.
Mukasey and others continue to wield the fear-based 9/11 fabrication to
expand the endless ³war
on terrorism,² justify carrying out brutal criminal activities out in
the open, and to fully
install a "Homeland Security" police state within US borders.
--
when you believe the only tool you have is a hammer.
problems tend to look like nails. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 12:50 pm |
|
|
|
|
On Mar 30, 8:30 pm, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
Quote: From:http://www.communitycurrency.org/robin.html
The First Fifteen Minutes of September 11th
Former Air Traffic Controller Robin Hordon speaks out
on 9/11, NORAD and what should have happened on 9/11.
By Jeremy Baker
Within three hours of the attacks on the World Trade Center and
Pentagon, Robin Hordon knew it was an inside job.
snip
Ad now the Officials do what they do so well.
Deny.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=GRI20080401&articleId=8514
Late in the day on 9/11, CNN put out a story that began: "Barbara
Olson, a conservative commentator and attorney, alerted her husband,
Solicitor General Ted Olson, that the plane she was on was being
hijacked Tuesday morning, Ted Olson told CNN." According to this
story, Olson reported that his wife had "called him twice on a cell
phone from American Airlines Flight 77," saying that "all passengers
and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of
the plane by armed hijackers. The only weapons she mentioned were
knives and cardboard cutters."2
Ted Olson's report was very important. It provided the only
evidence that American 77, which was said to have struck the Pentagon,
had still been aloft after it had disappeared from FAA radar around
9:00 AM (there had been reports, after this disappearance, that an
airliner had crashed on the Ohio-Kentucky border). Also, Barbara Olson
had been a very well-known commentator on CNN. The report that she
died in a plane that had been hijacked by Arab Muslims was an
important factor in getting the nation's support for the Bush
administration's "war on terror." Ted Olson's report was important in
still another way, being the sole source of the widely accepted idea
that the hijackers had box cutters.3
However, although Ted Olson's report of phone calls from his
wife has been a central pillar of the official account of 9/11, this
report has been completely undermined.
Olson's Self-Contradictions
Olson began this process of undermining by means of self-
contradictions. He first told CNN, as we have seen, that his wife had
"called him twice on a cell phone." But he contradicted this claim on
September 14, telling Hannity and Colmes that she had reached him by
calling the Department of Justice collect. Therefore, she must have
been using the "airplane phone," he surmised, because "she somehow
didn't have access to her credit cards."4 However, this version of
Olson's story, besides contradicting his first version, was even self-
contradictory, because a credit card is needed to activate a passenger-
seat phone.
Later that same day, moreover, Olson told Larry King Live that
the second call from his wife suddenly went dead because "the signals
from cell phones coming from airplanes don't work that well."5 After
that return to his first version, he finally settled on the second
version, saying that his wife had called collect and hence must have
used "the phone in the passengers' seats" because she did not have her
purse.6
By finally settling on this story, Olson avoided a technological
pitfall. Given the cell phone system employed in 2001, high-altitude
cell phone calls from airliners were impossible, or at least virtually
so (Olson's statement that "the signals from cell phones coming from
airplanes don't work that well" was a considerable understatement).
The technology to enable cell phone calls from high-altitude airline
flights was not created until 2004.7
However, Olson's second story, besides being self-contradictory,
was contradicted by American Airlines.
American Airlines Contradicts Olson's Second Version
<snip> |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Kirby M. Wilson |
| Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 2:07 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 2, 5:50 pm, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
Quote: On Mar 30, 8:30 pm, knews4u2c...@yahoo.com wrote:
The First Fifteen Minutes of September 11th
Former Air Traffic Controller Robin Hordon speaks out
on 9/11, NORAD and what should have happened on 9/11.
By Jeremy Baker
Within three hours of the attacks on the World Trade Center and
Pentagon, Robin Hordon knew it was an inside job.
snip
Ad now the Officials do what they do so well.
Deny.
Late in the day on 9/11, CNN put out a story that began: "Barbara
Olson, a conservative commentator and attorney, alerted her husband,
Solicitor General Ted Olson, that the plane she was on was being
hijacked Tuesday morning, Ted Olson told CNN." According to this
story, Olson reported that his wife had "called him twice on a cell
phone from American Airlines Flight 77," saying that "all passengers
and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of
the plane by armed hijackers. The only weapons she mentioned were
knives and cardboard cutters."2
had still been aloft after it had disappeared from FAA radar around
9:00 AM (there had been reports, after this disappearance, that an
airliner had crashed on the Ohio-Kentucky border). Also, Barbara Olson
had been a very well-known commentator on CNN. The report that she
died in a plane that had been hijacked by Arab Muslims was an
important factor in getting the nation's support for the Bush
administration's "war on terror." Ted Olson's report was important in
still another way, being the sole source of the widely accepted idea
wife has been a central pillar of the official account of 9/11, this
report has been completely undermined.
"called him twice on a cell phone." But he contradicted this claim on
September 14, telling Hannity and Colmes that she had reached him by
calling the Department of Justice collect. Therefore, she must have
been using the "airplane phone," he surmised, because "she somehow
didn't have access to her credit cards."4 However, this version of
Olson's story, besides contradicting his first version, was even self-
the second call from his wife suddenly went dead because "the signals
from cell phones coming from airplanes don't work that well."5 After
that return to his first version, he finally settled on the second
version, saying that his wife had called collect and hence must have
By finally settling on this story, Olson avoided a technological
pitfall. Given the cell phone system employed in 2001, high-altitude
cell phone calls from airliners were impossible, or at least virtually
so (Olson's statement that "the signals from cell phones coming from
airplanes don't work that well" was a considerable understatement).
The technology to enable cell phone calls from high-altitude airline
flights was not created until 2004.7
The truth is finally revealed -
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/9_11_conspiracy_theories
and for the normal people -
http://www.911myths.com/
http://www.debunking911.com/links.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debunking_9/11_Myths
http://www.answers.com/topic/debunking-9-11-myths
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html
http://www.debunk911myths.org/
http://www.slate.com/id/2088092/
http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Myths-Conspiracy-Theories/dp/158816635X
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=13&articleID=000DA0E2-1E15-128A-9E1583414B7F0000
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2006/04/19/cstillwell.DTL
http://www.2spare.com/item_43133.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory
http://www.carpenoctem.tv/cons/ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| zzbunker@netscape.net |
| Posted: Wed Apr 02, 2008 10:02 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Apr 1, 8:17 pm, strabo <str...@flashlight.net> wrote:
Quote: S...@usa.com wrote:
On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 14:22:41 -0500, strabo <str...@flashlight.net
wrote:
I was in SAC.
I'll bet you weren't. And if you were, it was so long ago that your
"knowledge" is quite outdated. SAC's fighter squadrons, meant to
accompany bombers on their mission, not intercept aircraft, were
disbanded in 1957. SAC itself was disbanded in 1992.
I know the the safeguards and procedures that were in
place then and on 9/11.
Obviously, you don't.
Detection and protection against unauthorized
aircraft within US borders was initiated in 1947.
And that was never the job of the Strategic Air Command. And SAC was
established in 1946.
We are talking about internal air security. SAC set the standards.
SAC set the standards for intercepting Soviet Bombers in the
*1950s*.
Since the 1950s, what has happened in air defense has been the
addition
of the loss of a good size amount of nuclear material, bio-weapons,
and
radiological weapons. Which is why SAC was even disbanded.
Quote: NORAD received the military and civilian reports and intercepts flew
from SAC and ADC bases. When SAC was shut down the procedures remained.
You spill a lot of ink trying to distort the obvious. I wonder why.
I want you to fly a plane of any size and unannounced, into Washington
DC or NYC airspace. Let us know how it turns out.
Those controls that you will encounter were supposed to be in
place on the morning of 9/11. It's as simple as that.
----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----http://www.pronews.comThe #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text - |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 2 of 2 Goto page Previous 1, 2
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Mon Sep 08, 2008 12:50 am
|
|