Friday, April 11, 2008

Evidence is Growing: Continuity of Government Plan is Currently in Effect

In two previous posts (here and here), I showed that Continuity of Government (COG) plans were implemented on September 11th, and I argued that it is possible that they have never been suspended.

Now, one of the top investigative journalists in the country, Larisa Alexandrovna (the lead journalist at Raw Story), says:
"it seems to me that this administration has justified its crimes by NOT suspending the state of emergency that went up on September 11, 2001. They are using emergency powers if you look at the whole of the spying, military actions inside the US, etc. I would wager that if asked, this administration will admit that we have been in a state of emergency for their tenure in office."
Remember that Continuity of Government plans -- that is, the measures that go into effect in case of emergency -- suspend the Constitutional form of government, cut elected officials out of the loop, and may even allow the government to tell the media what it can and cannot report.

Remember also that the entire Homeland Security Committee of the U.S. Congress has been denied access to the government's Continuity of Government Plans even though it has clearance to view such plans (video; or here is the transcript). Indeed, a member of that Committee has said "Maybe the people who think there’s a conspiracy out there are right”.

If we are in a state of emergency and COG plans are in effect, then Congress acting even more obviously like corporate and military lapdogs than normal and totally ignoring the will of the people would make sense. It would make sense that "impeachment is off the table", because Congress would not even be sitting at the table under a non-constitutional COG form of government; and Congress certainly would not be a co-equal branch of government with the Executive branch.

If we are in a state of emergency and COG plans are in effect, then the corporate media's acting even more obviously like the disinformation arm of the government than usual would make sense.

Given the stakes, it is vital that we demand that Congress and the White House state on the record whether or not Continuity of Government plans are currently in effect. We're not going to make any progress on whatever issue is most important to us -- peace, liberty, election integrity/vote fraud, 9/11 truth, etc. -- if we are living under a COG regime and we don't even know it.

And our strategy will be different depending on whether we are living under a COG regime or a Constitutional form of government.

We have to find out one way or another.

For a full discussion on COG, see this.


13 comments

"The US Air Force Shot Down Flight 93"

The following comment was posted to my blog today (I do not know who the author is -- he posted semi-anonymously; so decide for yourself whether or not you believe him):
"I am an Air Force veteran. I was serving at Langley AFB, Virginia on Sept. 11. (not to be confused with CIA headquarters at Langley, VA). The "Alert Squadron" of 4 F-16 Falcons also stationed at Langley AFB was scrambled AFTER the "plane" crashed into the Pentagon. Because of my position as a ground equipment mechanic, I had access to the flightline operations that day. My friends were Crew Cheifs and Weapons Loaders, among other professions on the flightline that day. One of my [unusual] duties that day was to drive a Loader (personal friend) along with a rack of live missiles (AIM-9's and AIM-120's) across the active runway to the Alert Squadron and drop them off. I was towing equipment to the flightline, so when it was time to go back and pick up the Loader (and our missile trailer) I was unable to do so, but another member of my Flight (a good friend, and later roommate) did go. According to my roommate (and I later confirmed with the Loader) the Loader was completely silent most of the trip back to our side of the base, after they crossed the active, he spoke. "They shot one down." JJ replied "WHAT?" Loader:"One of those 16's came back with one less missile than it left with" That was all. As they pulled back in to the squadron area, The loader was whisked away by his commanders for debriefing. I didn't see him for a few days, but when I did, he said he couldn't talk about it, but he confirmed that what my roommate had told me was true.

The US Air Force shot down Flight 93. I haven't told this to many people. I told my parents and other family members shortly after I left the military. They didn't believe it. I figured no one else would either. I kept my mouth shut. Everyone was dedicated to the president and the country (not really) And anything that went against the Official, media delivered story was viewed as unpatriotic. I knew that I loved this country, so I kept my mouth shut. I just can't do that anymore. I know that I don't have any documents to prove it, and I have no way of knowing where the others involved are now days, so I can't prove anything. All I have is my word. and with God as my witness that is the truth."


49 comments

Thursday, April 10, 2008

If We Don't Learn Our History, We're Doomed to Repeat It

Everyone has heard the saying "if we don't learn our history, we're doomed to repeat it".

Let's see if history can teach us anything about 9/11:
  • It is widely accepted that the Nazis, in Operation Himmler, faked attacks on their own people and resources which they blamed on the Poles, to justify the invasion of Poland
  • It has now been persuasively argued — as shown, for example, in this History Channel video — that Nazis set fire to their own government building and blamed that fire on others (if you have trouble playing the clip, it is because the website hosting the clip requires you to download the clip before playing it). The fire was the event which justified Hitler's seizure of power and suspension of liberties
  • Recently declassified documents show that in the 1960's, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil, and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. If you view no other links in this article, please read the following ABC news report; the official documents; and watch this interview with the former Washington Investigative Producer for ABC's World News Tonight with Peter Jennings
  • Famous leaders have stated again and again that false flag terror is the name of the game:
  • U.S. President James Madison said: "If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."
  • Adolph Hitler said: "Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death".
  • Nazi leader Hermann Goering said:
    "Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country".
  • Josef Stalin said:
    "The easiest way to gain control of a population is to carry out acts of terror. [The public] will clamor for such laws if their personal security is threatened"
Given the above-described history of false flag terror, it is beyond dispute that we must carefully scrutinize what really happened on 9/11, and that we cannot take the government's word for it.


8 comments

Global Warming: First Do No Harm

Whatever you think about global warming, our first responsibility is to make sure that the cure is not worse than the disease. As the father of medicine -- Hippocrates -- put it, "first do no harm".

In other words, if all the patient has is a slight headache, you don't want to bleed him with leeches and then cut out part of his brain.

What am I talking about? Well, initially, liberal pundit Noam Chomsky has said that he would submit to fascism if it would help combat global warming:
"Suppose it was discovered tomorrow that the greenhouse effects has been way understimated, and that the catastrophic effects are actually going to set in 10 years from now, and not 100 years from now or something.

Well, given the state of the popular movements we have today, we'd probably have a fascist takeover-with everybody agreeing to it, because that would be the only method for survival that anyone could think of. I'd even agree to it, because there's just no other alternatives right now."
(page 388).
I don't care if Godzilla is about to attack . . . submitting to fascism is always a bad idea.

Moreover, I heard years ago in college that people were debating dropping a nuclear bomb on the Isthmus of Panama (the little spit of land which separates the Pacific ocean from the Carribean), in order to join the two oceans and so - hypothetically - curb the effects of global warming.

Now, "government scientists are studying the feasibility of sending nearly microscopic particles of specially made glass into the Earth's upper atmosphere to try to dampen the effects of 'global warming.' "

Some people are also suggesting cutting down trees and burying them.

These proposals are insane. They would cause unimaginable damage to human health, and could very well destabilize climate in a manner we haven't foreseen.

Whether you believe in man-made global warming or not, it is vital that we all use our heads and stop our government from doing anything crazy and destructive in the name of protecting us from global warming.


2 comments

Wednesday, April 09, 2008

Numerous Structural Engineers Now Publicly Challenge Government's Explanation for Destruction of the World Trade Center

Numerous structural engineers now publicly challenge the government's account of the destruction of the Trade Centers on 9/11, including:

Two professors of structural engineering at a prestigious Swiss university (Dr. Joerg Schneider and Dr. Hugo Bachmann) said that, on 9/11, World Trade Center 7 was brought down by controlled demolition (translation here)

Kamal S. Obeid, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Berkeley, of Fremont, California, says:
"Photos of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the unexplainable collapse of WTC 7, evidence of thermite in the debris as well as several other red flags, are quite troubling indications of well planned and controlled demolition"
Ronald H. Brookman, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Davis, of Novato California, writes:
"Why would all 110 stories drop straight down to the ground in about 10 seconds, pulverizing the contents into dust and ash - twice. Why would all 47 stories of WTC 7 fall straight down to the ground in about seven seconds the same day? It was not struck by any aircraft or engulfed in any fire. An independent investigation is justified for all three collapses including the surviving steel samples and the composition of the dust."
Graham John Inman, structural engineer, of London, England, points out:
"WTC 7 Building could not have collapsed as a result of internal fire and external debris. NO plane hit this building. This is the only case of a steel frame building collapsing through fire in the world. The fire on this building was small & localized therefore what is the cause?"
Paul W. Mason, structural engineer, of Melbourne, Australia, argues:
"In my view, the chances of the three buildings collapsing symmetrically into their own footprint, at freefall speed, by any other means than by controlled demolition, are so remote that there is no other plausible explanation!"
David Scott, Structural Engineer, of Scotland, argues:
"Near-freefall collapse violates laws of physics. Fire induced collapse is not consistent with observed collapse mode . . . ."
Nathan Lomba, Structural Engineer, of Eureka, California, states
"I began having doubts about, so called, official explanations for the collapse of the WTC towers soon after the explanations surfaced. The gnawing question that lingers in my mind is: How did the structures collapse in near symmetrical fashion when the apparent precipitating causes were asymmetrical loading? The collapses defies common logic from an elementary structural engineering perspective. “If” you accept the argument that fire protection covering was damaged to such an extent that structural members in the vicinity of the aircraft impacts were exposed to abnormally high temperatures, and “if” you accept the argument that the temperatures were high enough to weaken the structural framing, that still does not explain the relatively concentric nature of the failures.

Neither of the official precipitating sources for the collapses, namely the burning aircraft, were centered within the floor plan of either tower; both aircraft were off-center when they finally came to rest within the respective buildings. This means that, given the foregoing assumptions, heating and weakening of the structural framing would have been constrained to the immediate vicinity of the burning aircraft. Heat transmission (diffusion) through the steel members would have been irregular owing to differing sizes of the individual members; and, the temperature in the members would have dropped off precipitously the further away the steel was from the flames—just as the handle on a frying pan doesn't get hot at the same rate as the pan on the burner of the stove. These factors would have resulted in the structural framing furthest from the flames remaining intact and possessing its full structural integrity, i.e., strength and stiffness.

Structural steel is highly ductile, when subjected to compression and bending it buckles and bends long before reaching its tensile or shear capacity. Under the given assumptions, “if” the structure in the vicinity of either burning aircraft started to weaken, the superstructure above would begin to lean in the direction of the burning side. The opposite, intact, side of the building would resist toppling until the ultimate capacity of the structure was reached, at which point, a weak-link failure would undoubtedly occur. Nevertheless, the ultimate failure mode would have been a toppling of the upper floors to one side—much like the topping of a tall redwood tree—not a concentric, vertical collapse.

For this reason alone, I rejected the official explanation for the collapse of the WTC towers out of hand. Subsequent evidence supporting controlled, explosive demolition of the two buildings are more in keeping with the observed collapse modalities and only serve to validate my initial misgivings as to the causes for the structural failures."
Edward E. Knesl, civil and structural engineer, of Phoenix, Arizona, writes:
"We design and analyze buildings for the overturning stability to resist the lateral loads with the combination of the gravity loads. Any tall structure failure mode would be a fall over to its side. It is impossible that heavy steel columns could collapse at the fraction of the second within each story and subsequently at each floor below.

We do not know the phenomenon of the high rise building to disintegrate internally faster than the free fall of the debris coming down from the top.

The engineering science and the law of physics simply doesn't know such possibility. Only very sophisticated controlled demolition can achieve such result, eliminating the natural dampening effect of the structural framing huge mass that should normally stop the partial collapse. The pancake theory is a fallacy, telling us that more and more energy would be generated to accelerate the collapse. Where would such energy would be coming from ?"
David Topete, civil and structural engineer, San Francisco, California

Charles Pegelow, structural engineer, of Houston, Texas (and see this)

Dennis Kollar, structural engineer, of West Bend, Wisconsin

Doyle Winterton, structural engineer (retired)

Michael T. Donly, P.E., structural engineer

William Rice, P.E., structural engineer, former professor of Vermont Technical College

See this website and this website for further additions.

There are many other structural engineers who have questioned the government's account in private. We support them and wish them courage to discuss these vital issues publicly.

See also this.


8 comments

Friday, April 04, 2008

It Is NOT Too Late

With the never-ending assaults on our constitutional liberties by the wanna-be fascists . . .

With the constant manipulations of the economy by the powers-that-be . . .

With the mountain of horrific crimes committed by the mega-corporations in Iraq and America
. . .

With the constantly-increasing blizzard of psyops and snow-jobs by the corporate media . . .

It is easy to lose hope

Or to have the fire of righteous anger doused by the dampness of fatigue

Or to ease up on trying to fix things

A Little Perspective

It is vital to put things in perspective:
  • We are (still) able to share real news on the Internet
  • We are (still) not locked in prison camps set up for those who criticize the government
  • We have (still) not bombed yet another country for oil
  • There has (still) not been a nuclear or bio false flag
  • We are (still) able to access food and other necessities
Therefore, we still have resources to work with . . .

NOW Is the Time

Indeed, while the forces of darkness are perhaps greater than ever before, we also have more awareness and more resources than ever before. More people understand the history of false flags than ever before. More people understand than ever before that wars are fought for the financial interests of the few (according to Noam Chomsky). More people can access uncensored information on the Net than ever before. More people see the big picture than ever before.

I'm not saying everything is okay and we should relax. I am saying that the battle isn't over yet. Liberty and justice and sanity can still prevail.

NOW is the time to stand up and insist on our freedom.
NOW is the moment to seize victory away from those who want to manipulate us.
NOW is the window of opportunity when the people can throw off the yoke of the tyrants.

We still have everything we need to win.
It is (still) not too late

NOW is the perfect time to take action!


6 comments

To Keep America Safe, We Must Impeach Bush and Cheney for Their Disregard of Life on 9/11

Even if you (unlike the military leaders, intelligence professionals, scientists, engineers, and other highly-credible people who question 9/11) -- do not believe that elements within the U.S. government intentionally aided and abetted the September 11 attacks, or let them happen on purpose, you have to admit that the government failed to do its job of protecting the American people.

For example, 9/11 was completely foreseeable. U.S. and allied intelligence services had penetrated the very highest levels of Al Qaeda prior to 9/11 and heard the hijackers' plans from their own mouths.

However, even the 9/11 Commission found that the Bush administration did nothing to prevent the attacks. For example, 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said:
"The president says, if I had only known that 19 Islamic men would come into the United States of America and on the morning of 11 September hijack four American aircraft, fly two into the World Trade Center, one into the Pentagon, and one into an unknown Pennsylvania that crashed in Shanksville, I would have moved heaven and earth. That's what he said.

Mr. President, you don't need to know that. This is an Islamic jihadist movement that has been organized since the early 1990s, declared war on the United States twice, in '96 and '98. You knew they were in the United States. You were warned by the CIA. You knew in July they were inside the United States. You were told again by briefing officers in August that it was a dire threat.

And what did you do? Nothing, so far as we could see on the 9/11 Commission. Now, that's in the report. And we took an oath not to talk about it during the campaign ....
"
Indeed, before 9/11, U.S. and allied governments had prevented the arrest of many of the hijackers.

In addition, once the 9/11 attacks were under way, what did the Bush administration do? You might think that I'm going to say "nothing".

Actually, they did worse than nothing. They actively interfered with the ability of the military and civilian air traffic controllers to prevent or minimize the catastrophe.

Don't believe me? The director of the U.S. "Star Wars" space defense program in both Republican and Democratic administrations, who was a senior air force colonel who flew 101 combat missions (Col. Robert Bowman) stated:
"If our government had merely [done] nothing, and I say that as an old interceptor pilot—I know the drill, I know what it takes, I know how long it takes, I know what the procedures are, I know what they were, and I know what they’ve changed them to—if our government had merely done nothing, and allowed normal procedures to happen on that morning of 9/11, the Twin Towers would still be standing and thousands of dead Americans would still be alive."
What does he mean? He means that the normal airplane intercept protocols were wholly ignored on 9/11.

Of course, President Bush read My Pet Goat for seven minutes after being informed about the second airplane, and then loitered at the school for a long time after that. If he had acted decisively and told the air force to immediately intercept all hijacked planes, lives would have been saved.

Moreover, Vice President Dick Cheney was in charge of ALL of the war games which occurred on and coordinated the government's "response" to the attacks (see this Department of State announcement; this CNN article; and this essay). The war games had previously been spread out over the course of a couple of months, but someone -- with Cheney in charge -- moved up all of the war games to 9/11. Because of this scheduling, on the morning of 9/11, five war games and terror drills were being conducted by several U.S. defense agencies, including one "live fly" exercise using REAL planes. Then-Acting Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force General Richard B. Myers, admitted to 4 of the war games in congressional testimony -- see transcript here or video here (6 minutes and 12 seconds into the video).

Some of the war games included inserting fake radar information onto air traffic controllers screens (pay-per-view article; reprinted here) . Air traffic controllers claim they couldn't see some of the hijacked planes, and that they were still tracking what they thought were hijacked planes long after all 4 of the real planes had crashed. This implies that false radar blips remained on their screens after all 4 planes went down.

And fighter jets were sent far off-course over the Atlantic Ocean in the middle of the attacks (testimony of Senator Mark Dayton), neutralizing their ability to intercept the hijacked airliners.

And people within the U.S. government, including Dick Cheney, watched Flight 77 as it approached the Pentagon from many miles out, and watched other of the hijacked planes for many miles, but failed to take any steps to intercept any of the aircraft.

Finally, someone ordered the tenants of the Twin Towers back into the Towers. They died when the buildings collapsed. It is not clear who ordered the people back in; but -- even if Bush or Cheney were not responsible for the order -- given that 9/11 was a national emergency, they had the power to order a full evacuation. Thus, the blood of those who died in the Twin Towers is on Bush and Cheney's hands as well.

Therefore, it is beyond argument that Bush, Cheney and the other leaders of our government failed to protect us on 9/11, and increased the death toll from the attacks.

Bush and Cheney's Criminal Negligence and Wilfull Disregard of Loss of Life on 9/11 is Grounds for Impeachment

According to the former U.S. Attorney General, Ramsey Clarke, criminal neglect is a basis for impeachment. Specifically, in the articles of impeachment against President Bush and Vice President Cheney which Clarke drafted, he lists as one of the grounds for impeachment: "Engaging in criminal neglect".

Similarly, Elizabeth Holtzman, former Congresswoman who served on the House Judiciary Committee during Nixon's impeachment, co-authored the 1973 special prosecutor statute, and co-wrote the book, The Impeachment of George W. Bush, has stated that criminal negligence is a basis for impeachment:
"The president neglected his duty over matters of vast consequence and in situations where the trust placed in him was great. This conjunction of his failure to take care and his reckless indifference to human life provides the basis for impeachment."
Other constitutional experts have also stated that criminal negligence or willfull indifference to loss of human life is a basis for impeachment.

Given the discussed-described facts, it is beyond dispute that President Bush and VP Cheney were -- at the very least -- grossly negligent and willfully indifferent to loss of human life before and on 9/11.

They should therefore be impeached. If we do not impeach Bush and Cheney, it will set a dangerous precedent for future Commanders-In-Chief and Vice Presidents . . . that they can act with gross negligence and callow disregard for human life, and not face any consequences.

Bush and Cheney should also be impeached for falsely linking Iraq and 9/11.

In addition, they are also subject to criminal prosecution for their criminal negligence and disregard for loss of human life.


2 comments

Why Don't the Democrats ask Mukasey Some Real Questions?

Its headline news that top Democrats are asking Attorney General Mukasey to explain his comments about a pre-9/11 phone call from a terrorist to the United States.

Why doesn't Congress ask Mukasey some real questions. For example:


0 comments

Wednesday, April 02, 2008

9/11 Truth is Not "Old News"

Every time an important fact undermining the official story about 9/11 is raised, defenders of the government's version try to label it as an "old story" which is "not news".

Are they right?

Well, the Iraq war is "old" news, right? The fact that Bush lied us into it?

The fact that it was an unnecessary war?

The fact that it is bankrupting the U.S.

Oh wait ... The war is CONTINUING, so it is still news.

Similarly . . .

The entire "war on terror" is based on 9/11.

TRILLIONS have been spent on wars in Afghanistan and Iraq due to the government's story about 9/11 (and so the U.S. is in a recession, and possibly heading into a depression.

Many, many people have been killed and tortured due to the government's story about 9/11.

America's constitution has been shredded due to the government's story about 9/11. Spying on all Americans. Public dissent cracked down on, free speech stomped on ... due to the government's story about 9/11.

That's all old news, right?

Oh wait . . . all of these things are still ongoing...

Indeed, many former high-level officials are warning that the government might use false "provocations" to start new wars.

Is it therefore remotely possible that it might be worth double-checking what the government says about 9/11, given that hundreds of top structural engineers, architects, scientists, military leaders, congressmen -- and even the 9/11 commissioners themselves -- question the government's version of how the Trade Centers were destroyed?

In modern day America, is checking the government's claims so unusual that that is considered news?

Incidentally, the "old story, not news" label was actually perfected by Karl Rove. Specifically, Rove taught people to "slime" the character of the person accusing the White House of wrongdoing, or otherwise to misdirect the debate. If that that was not possible, or was not working, he advocated labeling any harmful facts as "old news", and thus not worth paying any attention to.


1 comments

Monday, March 31, 2008

Air Traffic Controllers Do Track Planes Even with Transponders Off

Before 9/11, no transponder had ever become inactive, and so the military and FAA didn't have any experience on how to track planes with their transponders off. Right?

Well, a Miami-Herald article from September 14, 2001, states:

The transponder [on Flight 77] went off about 9 a.m., the company said.

At that moment, the flight would have been under the control of the Indianapolis Air Route Traffic Control Center, one of 20 regional centers that track flights between airports.

The trouble should have been instantly noticeable, traffic controllers say.

Flight 77, like other planes, at first showed up on radar screens as a short solid line, with a readout that identifies the plane and gives its altitude and speed. When the transponder shuts down, the short line vanishes. The speed number goes away, too.

"It's just something that catches your eye,'' one controller says.

And it's not that unusual. Transponders fail from time to time; commercial aircraft are required to carry a spare. Although it isn't clear what happened in the case of Flight 77, a controller's first move typically would be to contact the pilot, and tell them the transponder wasn't working.

The official hijacking protocols provide that the loss of transponder signal be treated as a "no radio" emergency. On 9/11, that is exactly what happened, at least for some of the flights (The protocols also state: "The NORAD control facility shall be advised if the hijacked aircraft is squawking a different transponder code". In other words, the moment a plane stops broadcasting the normal transponder code, NORAD is immediately notified).

As former air traffic controller Robin Hordon, who knows the flight corridor which the two planes which hit the Twin Towers flew "like the back of my hand" and who handled two actual hijackings says:

It is important for people to understand that scrambling jet fighters to intercept aircraft showing the signs of experiencing “IN-FLIGHT EMERGENCIES” such as going off course without authorization, losing a transponder signal and/or losing radio contact is a common and routine task executed jointly between the FAA and NORAD controllers. The entire “national defense-first responder” intercept system has many highly-trained civilian and military personnel who are committed and well-trained to this task. FAA and NORAD continuously monitor our skies and fighter planes and pilots are on the ready 24/7 to handle these situations. Jet fighters typically intercept any suspect plane over the United States within 10 - 15 minutes of notification of a problem.

This type of "immediate, high speed, high priority and emergency" scramble had been happening regularly approximately 75 - 150 times per year for ten years. In the same ten years, there were ZERO "low speed, delayed reaction, and low priority" hijacking scrambles reported, which means that the only time interceptors were ever scrambled for ten years before 9/11, they were using the high speed immediate scrambles.

On 9/11, Flight 77 was in fact tracked on radar, and could have been intercepted with fighter jets. However, the plane was allowed to go on a joy-ride all over the country with its transponder off for three-quarters of an hour. As the above-quoted Miami-Herald article states:
Forty-five minutes. That's how long American Airlines Flight 77 meandered through the air headed for the White House, its flight plan abandoned, its radar beacon silent.

* * *

Who was watching in those 45 minutes?

"That's a question that more and more people are going to ask,'' said one controller in Miami. "What the hell went on here? Was anyone doing anything about it? Just as a national defense thing, how are they able to fly around and no one go after them?''

Even with the transponder silent, the plane should have been visible on radar, both to controllers who handle cross-continent air traffic and to a Federal Aviation Administration command center outside of Washington, according to air traffic controllers.

The FAA, which handles air traffic control, would not discuss the track of Flight 77 or what happened in air-control centers while it was in flight. Neither would American Airlines.

***

But even if the plane remained silent, controllers could still find it -- by switching their screen display to the old-fashioned radar that bounces a signal off the plane's metal skin.

***

Military jets are routinely scrambled in the case of hijackings and "runners,'' planes that do not answer or do not heed air traffic controllers. But FAA officials would not say when controllers detected the errant Flight 77 or whether any fighter jets were able to get into the air to confront it.

Fighter jets are based nearby, in Virginia, and could have reached the White House within minutes, aviation sources say.

Dick Cheney also monitored flight 77 for many miles as it approached the Pentagon (confirmed here).

Similarly, an ABC News article states:
"Controllers at the Boston Center knew American Airlines Flight 11, which departed at 7:59 a.m. ET from Boston for its flight to Los Angeles, was hijacked 30 minutes before it crashed. They tracked it to New York on their radar scopes. 'I watched the target of American 11 the whole way down,' said Boston controller Mark Hodgkins. "
And air traffic controllers and others tracked Flight 175.

Indeed, radar data declassified in 2006 shows that the planes were tracked on radar virtually their entire flight, and that altitude was known for the planes during most of their flight (only flight 77 was purportedly off-radar for part of its flight).

And, as recounted by a high-level Secret Service agent:
"Through monitoring radar and activating an open line with the FAA, the Secret Service was able to receive real time information about . . . two hijacked aircraft as they approached Washington, D.C. "
Norad Admits Planes Show Up on Radar Even with Transponders Turned Off

Even Neads, the Northeastern sector of Norad, admits that the hijacked planes would have appeared on radar as dashes even after the transponders had been turned off:

Because they had been informed its transponder was off, [Neads] knew to look for a tiny dash instead of the usual dot.

A similar report states:

NEADS Staff Sergeant Larry Thornton says, “Once we were called by the FAA, we could find split-second hits on what we thought we were looking for. . . We were looking for little dash marks . . . .”
But the government claims that it could not locate the hijacked planes because the skies were crowded with other planes, and the military air traffic controllers could not find the planes among all of the plane signals. As NEADS' Thornton said:

"But the area was so congested and it was incredibly difficult to find. We were looking for little dash marks in a pile of clutter and a pile of aircraft on a two-dimensional scope.” Each fluorescent green pulsating dot on their radar scopes represents an airplane, and there are thousands currently airborne, especially over the busy northeast US.

However, the hijacked planes flew in many areas which were not high-traffic areas.

Moreover, it makes no sense that air traffic controllers could not focus their radar scopes solely on airplanes without transponder signals. In other words, let's say a Cuban jet flew onto the East Coast of the United States without any transponder signal. Would Norad say "Sorry, we lost the bad guy's nuclear-armed fighter jet amidst all the commuter flights"?

That makes no sense.

Remember that Norad had run drills for several years of planes being used as weapons against the World Trade Center and other U.S. high-profile buildings, and "numerous types of civilian and military aircraft were used as mock hijacked aircraft". In other words, drills using REAL AIRCRAFT simulating terrorist attacks crashing jets into buildings, including the twin towers, were run. See also this short excerpt of a Peter Jennings newscast on 9/11. Moreover, the military had previously run war games involving multiple, simultaneous hijackings , so this aspect of 9/11 was not as overwhelming as we have been led to believe..

Air traffic control radar, or at least military radar, must -- with the push of a button -- be able to use computer programming to hide all data for planes which have been accounted for as normal, civilian airplanes. In other words, those with working transponder signals. Even if air traffic controllers have to switch from secondary to primary radar, there must be a function for the computer to remove from primary radar signals which include transponder data.

If that were not the case, America's trillion-dollar defense system would be rendered useless.


2 comments

Thursday, March 27, 2008

The 9/11 Stand Down in 2 Minutes

NORAD, responsible for intercepting errant aircraft over the U.S., has a standard operating procedure for scrambling planes for interception which takes less than 15 minutes

They did this successfully (on time) 129 times in 2000 and and 67 times between September 2000 and June 2001.

Yet, on September 11th, they failed to do their job 4 times in a single day:

You might think that the military couldn't find the hijacked planes because the hijackers turned off the transponders. However, a former air traffic controller, who knows the flight corridor which the two planes which hit the Twin Towers flew "like the back of my hand" and who handled two actual hijackings says that planes can be tracked on radar even when their transponders are turned off (also, listen to this interview).

As a former senior air force colonel said:
"If our government had merely [done] nothing, and I say that as an old interceptor pilot—I know the drill, I know what it takes, I know how long it takes, I know what the procedures are, I know what they were, and I know what they’ve changed them to—if our government had merely done nothing, and allowed normal procedures to happen on that morning of 9/11, the Twin Towers would still be standing and thousands of dead Americans would still be alive. [T]hat is treason!"
Norad's stand down on 9/11 was so blatant that Norad has been forced to give 3 entirely different versions of what happened that day, as each previous version has been exposed as false. When someone repeatedly changes his testimony after being caught in lies, how believable is he? The falsity of Norad's explanations were so severe that even the 9/11 Commission considered recommending criminal charges for the making of false statements.

In addition, Dick Cheney monitored flight 77 for many miles as it approached the Pentagon -- one of the most heavily-defended buildings in the world -- and yet ordered that the airplane not be intercepted (confirmed here). Given that Cheney was in charge of all of the war games and coordinated the government's "response" to the attacks on 9/11 -- apparently including Norad (see this Department of State announcement, this CNN article, and this essay) -- Cheney's orders regarding flight 77 seem to be part and parcel of the Norad stand down.


2 comments