911: What makes you suspicious - now with added extra poll option!

[mauvais]

But over the (probably) most protected airspace on earth

It's not though, is it? That would be any military area, including SUAs, and then any airport operating area. Why would a metropolitan sector be heavily protected in peacetime?

we are told there was just something of a cockup. Or 4 simultaneous cock-ups to be precise. I find that hard to swallow.

Why four, and not one? It's not until the second crash that we're sure something is happening; even then, what do you do? Can you say that, in every disaster scenario imaginable, with the sparse and probably bad incoming information that these entail, you would coordinate a more appropriate effort? You might want to bear in mind some of the aforementioned difficulties and also include friction and resistance from others.

It is also worth noting that these "bungling" controllers managed to ground every flight in the states without a hitch.

How long did it take them? Did any pilot continue for longer than necessary? Did any planes still take off after the instruction was given? Was the decision made as soon as it should have been? You don't know if there were hitches; grounding all planes eventually is as easy as getting old.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Ed and MM

As I understand it, it is standard procedure to scramble fighter aircraft in such instances as the controllers experienced. This failed to happen in 4 instances and explanations have always seemed to me to be a bit weak.

MM, I understand that the Pentegon itself is somewhat a military area, or area of considerable military concern.

Ed - The "bungling" is what the official conspiracy says happened i.e that it was all just a cock-up, which maybe it was but there isnt enough evidence for it IMHO.

I have the quotes of many conversations somewhere and there is some curious stuff in there. I'll try and dig it out. I appreciate the challenges btw

 

[mauvais]

As far as airspace goes, and in terms of sectors and SUAs, there's nothing special about the Pentagon. There can't be a no-fly zone around it due to its proximity to airports.

Places like that and the White House probably have some local AA capability, i.e. someone with a Stinger, but that's off topic and irrelevant - you couldn't do anything effective when facing an airliner.

There will be no direct evidence for a cockup because it is inherently a failing of the system; if someone is sixty seconds too slow to make a decision or pass on information, then is that "evidence"? Probably not. What if everyone is sixty seconds slow? Is that "evidence" for a cockup? Yes, but you'll have a job identifying it in the first place, never mind presenting it as a key failing.

 

[WouldBe]

It is also worth noting that these "bungling" controllers managed to ground every flight in the states without a hitch.

Which is easilly done with co-operative pilots and getting aircraft to land
is a normal part of their job.

 

[editor]

Which is easilly done with co-operative pilots and getting aircraft to land is a normal part of their job.

Pretty obvious you would have thought, but in the land of conspiracies, even a pilot doing his everyday job is somehow deemed proof of something untoward.

 

[WouldBe]

Standard procedure, I'm afraid, because he's not really interested in facts

And a fact that will be conveniently forgotten the next time IFF codes are mentioned on a 911 thread and I have to spell it all out again.

 

[sparticus]

MM and Ed you seem to have a pityful level of understanding of the basic facts and evidence that surrounds the air defense failings on 9/11 and the level of incompetence that the Kean Report pinned on the FAA. To say for example " It's not until the second crash that we're sure something is happening; even then, what do you do?" as MM does, is to show you don't even know the basic facts.

The air defense "bungling" as described in the Kean report displays incompetence that is beyond belief.

 

[editor]

MM and Ed you seem to have a pityful level of understanding of the basic facts and evidence that surrounds the air defense failings on 9/11 and the level of incompetence that the Kean Report pinned on the FAA.

So what are you saying what really happened 'truth seeker'?

 

[mauvais]

I couldn't really give that much of a toss to investigate it further, unless you can pull out something of actual interest, instead of vague ramblings about hijack alarms.

I do however know plenty about aviation, though you don't actually need any particular specialist knowledge to make my claim. I would probably not make the decision to shoot any aircraft down based on the initial information, until the point where the second aircraft hit the WTC, rendering any further hesitation rather pointless.

 

[editor]

I would probably not make the decision to shoot any aircraft down based on the initial information, until the point where the second aircraft hit the WTC, rendering any further hesitation rather pointless.

Bear in mind that the confusion at the time was so great that even after the second plane hit the towers, one TV commentator was wondering if it was the result of some terrible navigation systems error!

 

[mauvais]

I can't immediately find anything that identifies FAA failings on the day in the 9/11 Commission Report. I can only find analysis of the emergency services response. Perhaps someone more familiar with it can direct me to the appropriate section?

I did find a few interesting quotes in it though, which you'd do well to examine:

This paper exercise involved a scenario in which a group of terrorists commandeered a Learjet on the ground in Atlanta, loaded it with explosives, and flew it toward a target in Washington, D.C. Clarke asked officials from the Pentagon, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and Secret Service what they could do about the situation.Officials from the Pentagon said they could scramble aircraft from Langley Air Force Base, but they would need to go to the President for rules of engagement, and there was no mechanism to do so.

So, we've just seen some of the organisational and procedural blocks inherent in getting two orgs or departments to work together.

Neither the intelligence community nor aviation security experts analyzed systemic defenses within an aircraft or against terrorist controlled aircraft, suicidal or otherwise. The many threat reports mentioning aircraft were passed to the FAA.While that agency continued to react to specific, credible threats, it did not try to perform the broader warning functions we describe here. No one in the government was taking on that role for domestic vulnerabilities.

Now we've seen issues of responsibilities and both organisational and operational problems. We've seen that they didn't have all the necessary contingency plans and didn't anticipate certain events.

Before 9/11, it was not unheard of for a commercial aircraft to deviate slightly from its course, or for an FAA controller to lose radio contact with a pilot for a short period of time. A controller could also briefly lose a commercial aircraft's transponder signal, although this happened much less frequently. However,the simultaneous loss of radio and transponder signal would be a rare and alarming occurrence, and would normally indicate a catastrophic system failure or an aircraft crash.In all of these instances,the job of the controller was to reach out to the aircraft,the parent company of the aircraft,and other planes in the vicinity in an attempt to reestablish communications and set the aircraft back on course.Alarm bells would not start ringing until these efforts-which could take five minutes or more-were tried and had failed.

Now we've seen a number of assumptions that didn't fit the scenario, and reasons why responses might be slowed.

Now, apologies for the length of this one, but it's quite informative:

The FAA and NORAD had developed protocols for working together in the event of a hijacking.As they existed on 9/11, the protocols for the FAA to obtain military assistance from NORAD required multiple levels of notification and approval at the highest levels of government. FAA guidance to controllers on hijack procedures assumed that the aircraft pilot would notify the controller via radio or by"squawking"a transponder code of "7500"-the universal code for a hijack in progress. Controllers would notify their supervisors,who in turn would inform management all the way up to FAA headquarters in Washington.

Headquarters had a hijack coordinator,who was the director of the FAA Office of Civil Aviation Security or his or her designate. If a hijack was confirmed, procedures called for the hijack coordinator on duty to contact the Pentagon's National Military Command Center (NMCC) and to ask for a military escort aircraft to follow the flight, report anything unusual, and aid search and rescue in the event of an emergency.

The NMCC would then seek approval from the Office of the Secretary of Defense to provide military assistance. If approval was given, the orders would be transmitted down NORAD's chain of command. The NMCC would keep the FAA hijack coordinator up to date and help the FAA centers coordinate directly with the military.NORAD would receive tracking information for the hijacked aircraft either from joint use radar or from the relevant FAA air traffic control facility. Every attempt would be made to have the hijacked aircraft squawk 7500 to help NORAD track it.

The protocols did not contemplate an intercept.They assumed the fighter escort would be discreet,"vectored to a position five miles directly behind the hijacked aircraft," where it could perform its mission to monitor the aircraft's flight path. In sum, the protocols in place on 9/11 for the FAA and NORAD to respond to a hijacking presumed that the hijacked aircraft would be readily identifiable and would not attempt to disappear; there would be time to address the problem through the appropriate FAA and NORAD chains of command; and the hijacking would take the traditional form: that is, it would not be a suicide hijacking designed to convert the aircraft into a guided missile.

On the morning of 9/11,the existing protocol was unsuited in every respect for what was about to happen.

 

[sparticus]

I say the air defense failures (to focus in on one area of the multiple failings of 9/11) are beyond belief. I say they (NORAD, the Pentagon, the Bush cabal, etc) are lying to us. I say their evidence doesn't add and I demand answers to the same questions that have been asked by 9/11 family groups over and over again during the past 4+ years. I join others who call for a further independent investigation and for the full disclosure of vital evidence. I demand UK government discloses what it knew and when and to fully disclose the evidence it based its first dodgy dossier on, the dossier that supposed showed bin laden was responsible for 9/11 as justification for the afghan war

I say that if there is ONE piece of evidence that demonstrates prior knowledge of, collusion or authorship of the attacks or their coverup/investigation, this is grounds for far wider suspicions and that there are literally hundreds of smoking guns. I don't know all the answers but I know the people that can provide those answers starting with Bush and Cheney and working down. I know where the evidence leads and that is that 9/11 was an inside job and the whole war on terror is sham.

 

[brixtonvilla]

"...the result of some terrible navigation systems error"

A not unreasonable guess. Unless he was in on it too...

 

[mauvais]

Of course the war on terror is a sham; it's painfully obvious.

What's also painfully obvious is that you don't have any smoking guns, to regurgitate an awful phrase. They're more smoking ambiguities, smoking things you don't understand, or smoking things you don't want to believe.

If you think that the government and its associated, decoupled agencies were likely to act as a perfectly rational, robotic machine and deal with the events in a scientific and rational manner, you've a lot to learn about basic human characteristics. There could have been no perfect response for the same reason there can be no conspiracy.

 

[brixtonvilla]

"...if there is ONE piece of evidence that demonstrates prior knowledge of, collusion or authorship of the attacks or their coverup/investigation..."

But there isn't. Not by any meaningful standards. Unless you know what you want to find before you go looking & won't give up until you "uncover" it. Do you see?

 

[WouldBe]

A not unreasonable guess. Unless he was in on it too...

It's an illinformed guess.

While it may be possible for GPS or the flight controll computer to be in error to cause the aircraft to go off course it would be blatently obvious to the pilot if his altimeter was screwed up to result in him flying at less than 1000ft instead of 30,000 ft.

 

[mauvais]

Finally, I'll tell you of another basic human failing. It's called groupthink.

Here are the symptoms:

• realistic appraisal lost in favour of the group's agenda
• us versus the world attitude
• the more external pressure, the more cohesive the group becomes
• failure to re-examine in the face of new information
• preconceptions taint all information
• interested in supportive facts but not those that don't fit
• no time spent discussing alternatives
• rationalise away problems and conflicting evidence

Loosely borrowed from 'Managing Organizations, Wilson, 1990' - pretty good for explaining why shit happens

 

[brixtonvilla]

While it may be possible for GPS or the flight controll computer to be in error to cause the aircraft to go off course it would be blatently obvious to the pilot if his altimeter was screwed up to result in him flying at less than 1000ft instead of 30,000 ft.

All of which is immediately obvious to a non-specialist journalist, live on tv coping with the biggest story of the last 20 years unfolding before his/her eyes...

Don't wanna get snippy here, though. Having far too much fun watching the conspiraloons flounder...

 

[WouldBe]

Don't wanna get snippy here, though. Having far too much fun watching the conspiraloons flounder...

I'm just getting a sore head and a large dent in my desk

 

[editor]

I join others who call for a further independent investigation and for the full disclosure of vital evidence.

You mean all 219 registered members (max users ever online = 15) of that hopelessly obscure board?

I don't know all the answers but I know the people that can provide those answers starting with Bush and Cheney and working down. I know where the evidence leads and that is that 9/11 was an inside job and the whole war on terror is sham.

So your mind is already firmly made up, despite the complete lack of any credible evidence whatsoever?

My, there's an open-minded approach for a self-proclaimed truth-seeker!

 

[editor]

What's also painfully obvious is that you don't have any smoking guns, to regurgitate an awful phrase. They're more smoking ambiguities, smoking things you don't understand, or smoking things you don't want to believe.

100% correct!

But I'm sure that won't stop sparticus knowing he's still right.

I'm still waiting for Jazzz to explain his new theory by the way. That one promises to be a corker!

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Finally, I'll tell you of another basic human failing. It's called groupthink.

Here are the symptoms:

• realistic appraisal lost in favour of the group's agenda
• us versus the world attitude
• the more external pressure, the more cohesive the group becomes
• failure to re-examine in the face of new information
• preconceptions taint all information
• interested in supportive facts but not those that don't fit
• no time spent discussing alternatives
• rationalise away problems and conflicting evidence

Loosely borrowed from 'Managing Organizations, Wilson, 1990' - pretty good for explaining why shit happens

Yep, the Bushies down to a tee.

But while it is an interesting concept, it has no bearing on if things are true or not.

 

[editor]

Yep, the Bushies down to a tee.

You really don't see yourself in there?

Incredible!

 

[sparticus]

I'll give an example of groupthink: 30's germany herded into fascism by phony false flag terror

 

[editor]

I'll give an example of groupthink: 30's germany herded into fascism by phony false flag terror

What's that got to do with 9/11?



Nice site that. Lovely 'hair loss', 'Advanced Liquid EDTA' and 'Lower Your Blood Pressure, No Side Effects' adverts on the front page too.

 

[mauvais]

What on earth have either got to do with groupthink?

 

[mauvais]

Oh, and here's a more carefully constructed site: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y

I assume the conspiracy theorists amongst us will be able to debunk their facts - that's who the onus should of course be on...

 

[Jazzz]

mauvais manque, may I refer you to post #51.

 

[mauvais]

Ah, didn't realise it had been posted already, but I'm afraid your attempts at refuting it can only be described as poor.

 

[editor]

mauvais manque, may I refer you to post #51.

Still waiting for you to explain your fascinating new theory about Flight 93, Jazzz.