Evan Burton

It's nasty, isn't it? Just how much did he use without citation?

People have to learn that they are capable of original thought, to be creative. The alternative is to see nothing but cut & pastes from the internet ad infinitum.

I agree that removing it will not affect the outcome, but John might consider talking more to the person involved. See if he can elicit original thought from the person. They might be very capable, and just lazy. Then, if John considers that the circumstances warrant, he might choose to intercede on this person's behalf.

I think that whatever decision John makes, it will be the "right" one. It's his decision to make. In whatever outcome, just make sure that this person learns that actions have consequences; that to deceive takes a person down a dark path with many unexpected consequences, and that "... if you can't do the time, then don't do the crime..."!

I have issues with Mr Hordon's take on 9/11. Firstly, his knowledge of procedures used that day. He was last an ATCO in 1981 (if what I have read is correct). Twenty years had passed; perhaps his knowledge of procedures was dated? He may have kept up to date in some areas, but procedures for hijackings, etc, is very close hold. No-one except those who need to know are normally aware of the procedures. Perhaps his friends still in the ATC world kept him up to date, but if they did they were violating some important rules regarding security. I was last an ATCO in 1988, and I know things have changed markedly since then.

Another issue is his claim that the aircraft could have been tracked all the way. My understanding is that the US then (and still) relied on Secondary Surveillance Radar (SSR) for control, and that primary radar (an actual radar signal being reflected on an aircraft and being observed on the screen, sometimes called a 'skin paint') was not available in many area - including where coverage of the hijacked flights was lost.

I think Matt may be an expert in this, and he might comment on what I have said.

Lastly, why aren't floods of ATCOs coming out of the woodwork and supporting him? Professional organisations disagree with his assessment. Other ATCOs of similar experience and standing disagree with him. Where are the crowds of knowledgeable people, crying out that what has been portrayed as the 'official version' is wrong?

I think this blog entry sums up my feelings pretty well:

Another speaker at the Vancouver 9/11 Truth Conference, Robin Hordon, describes himsefl as a commendated air traffic controller, certified air, ground and facility instructor and designer of the Boston Center Descent and Metering Program. He has worked on numerous in-air emergencies, and two hijackings.

Hordon insists that he knew 9/11 was a "false flag" operation (an attack carried out under the guise of another country or group) hours after. He insists that "there is absolutely no way that four large commercial airliners could have flown off course for 30 to 60 minutes on 9/11 without being intercepted and shot out of the sky by our jet fighters unless very highly placed people in our government and our military wanted it to happen."

Despite the fact that no hijacked plane in the history of the United States has ever been shot down, Hordon does begin to make a persuasive case. He notes that a sophisticated system was in place, prior to June of 2001, that would enable fighter jets to intercept any suspicious airliner within 10-15 minutes of a potential problem.

Yet Hordon's claims over look two very serious issues: firstly, a number of war game exercises were being conducted on September 11, 2001, diverting figher jets that otherwise would have been available to intercept the jetliners. Secondly, the FAA was not dealing with one hijacking on 9/11. They were dealing with four largely simultaneous hijackings.

Hordon is actually much more revealling as to his true motivations for his claims when he begins to discuss his political views. "I see September 11th as being a symptom of a far bigger problem. A problem that Dwight David Eisenhower had brought to our attention as he left office in the 1950s when he he warned [the United States] about two significant elements of our economy looming above us: the Military Industrial Complex and the Military Industrial Congress. 9/11 served the goals of both those elements."

"That I can show how Rumsfeld's Military reshaped interceptor protocols so that 9/11 could happen without the airliners being shot from the sky, is but a small bit of evidence that is flooding past the Bush regime," Hordon insists.

Yet, Hordon is exaggerating the Pentagon's eagerness to shoot down hijacked airliners, particularly when full of civilians. Despite the 75-150 high-speed scrambles he notes were performed by military aircraft each year in the United States for ten years, not a single plane was ever shot down. Surely, at least one of these 1,500 scrambles would have been related to a plane off course for at least 30-60 minutes.

Finally, there is the matter of shooting down civilian airliners over populated areas, such as New York City. When examined on merely the basis of the procedures in place to deal with hijacked aircraft, Hordon's claims are very persuasive. When compared to the actual situation on 9/11, they don't hold water.

Furthermore, it isn't as if events such as those surrounding Hurricane Katrina don't demonstrate that the proper procedures can fail when human error causes them to be disregarded.

Like any good 9/11 conspiracy theorist, however, Hordon doesn't seem to let facts or even proper analysis get in the way of politics. While shooting down flights 11 and 175 could have prevented the World Trade Center disaster, it still would have resulted in thousands of casualties. The decision to shoot down the planes would have also had to have been made at a time when the applicable authorities couldn't have known the true goal of the hijackers.

Certainly, there is a degree of negligence in the FAA's handling of 9/11. But negligence doesn't demonstrate complicity, and certainly not in the conspiracy that Hordon and his cohorts allege.

In short, Hordon has traded his air traffic controller's hat for that of a base conspiracy theorist, and surrendered his credibility for activist cred. It isn't as good a fit as he'd like to think.

http://nexusofassholery.blogspot.com/2007/...couver-911.html

How the Towers Fell

Despite the Apologists for the Official Conspiracy Theory the general 911 Truth version fits - the official does not. Decide for yourself. The Borg [those who try to debunk and bebase those who would dare to question American, UK and Israeli Oligarchy and their Intelligence's Official Conspiracy Theories] don't want you to think for yourself - don't want you to decide for yourself - they want you to just swallow the Big Lie they developed [as so many times before] and shut up, consume and die. Die some of us have, and more of us will...but on our feet - not on our knees. Truth - and facing it unflinchingly - will set us all free - not groveling before the rich and powerful who invent these fictions as propaganda figleaves for their psychopathology of power, enrichment and control.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=142126

When is the next general election in the UK? Do you think there will be a change of government?

Blue capitalists may well replace pink capitalists at the next election.

Sorry, but what does that mean? I'm woefully ignorant of UK politics.

When is the next general election in the UK? Do you think there will be a change of government?

Secrecy can indeed be counterproductive, if not properly applied.

I remember when I was working for Coastwatch. We'd occasionally be tasked to support an Australian federal police operation... but they wouldn't give us any detail necessary to actually give them the necessary support.

"Look for a yacht"

"Okay - what type?"

.......

"Colour?"

........

"Distinguishing features?"

..........

These things help us determine what is, and what is not, a vessel of interest.

Sorry James,

You mentioned Hoagland and I lit up. He's been around for years, and he keeps on treading the same line: we went to the Moon but covered up that there were UFOs there or evidence of ancient civilisations, etc. I was demonstrating that what Hoagland claims has to be researched to determine its accuracy.

I do not find Hoagland in any way credible, so I don't believe what he says about Ed Mitchell.

We could ask Ed, but it would not convince anyone who believes he is a subject of mind control. If he denies that underwent hypnotherapy to be "deprogrammed", the believers simply point to that as evidence that he IS programmed. It's a no-win situation for him.

How do you know they were these mythical "chemtrails" when persistent contrails have all of the same characteristics and have been known about and observed since before WWII?

Since Mr. Lewis is on active duty with the air force, I think he should tell us what

active role he plays in the chemtrail spraying operation. The aircraft doing the

spraying are clearly military planes. Or is he sworn to secrecy? Why should we

believe someone who has a vested interest in maintaining the secrecy of the

operation?

Jack

Jack, that is clearly out of line. That post has been reported.

Did any skeptics even know this official document existed, before we made it public in 1996?

This about what is referred to as the Brookings Report. It was terribly secret... if you consider the NY Times in 1961 a classified publication..

Hoagland? Good Grief. Does anyone actually research the garbage he spews?

This is typical of him:

But contrary to common public and media perception that NASA is an open, strictly civilian scientific institution, is the legal fact that the Space Agency was quietly founded as a direct adjunct to the Department of Defense, tasked with specifically assisting the national security of the United States in the midst of a deepening Cold War with its major geopolitical adversary, the Soviet Union. It says so right in the original NASA Charter:

“Sec. 305... (i) The [National Aeronautics and Space] Administration shall be considered a defense agency of the United States for the purpose of Chapter 17, Title 35 of the United States Code...” [Emphasis added.]

In another section2 of the act, this seldom-discussed defense responsibility— the ultimate undercutting of NASA’s continuing public façade as a strictly civilian, scientific agency—is blatantly spelled out:

“Sec. 205... (d) No [NASA] information which has been classified for reasons of national security shall be included in any report made under this section [of the Act]...” [Emphasis added.]

Clearly, from this and the other security provisions3 incorporated in the Act, what the Congress, the press and the American taxpayers get to see of NASA’s ultimate activities—including untouched images and data regarding what’s really on the Moon, on Mars or anywhere else across the solar system— is totally dependent on whether the President of the United States (and/or his legal surrogates in the Department of Defense and the “intelligence community”) has already secretly classified that data. This is directly contrary to everything we’ve been led to believe regarding NASA for over 50 years now.

But does Hoagland explain what Chapter 17, Title 35 of the USC is? It's about patents. It means that patents can be protected under that provision, because for the purposes of the Act NASA is considered part of the DoD (the other agency was the AEC).

Let's see what else we can find...

Well, until I know otherwise, I am going to assume that Jack has never inspected any piece of Apollo hardware, specifically the LM and LRV (as they often are involved in his photographic studies).

You do have to be aware these days, don't you? Remember Sony and the malware on their CDs?

In their version they had no warnings....

Incorrect. There were warnings - they just weren't listened too, or they were not specific enough.

...and did everything they could via NORAD et al. to thwart this.

The shortcomings of NORAD - who were tasked for external defence - have been highlighted.

It is endlessly repeated in the Mainstream Propaganda Net and by the illegally elected talkingheads of the Administration and their hirelings.

Emotive rambling.

can't get documents, videos, access to much of the evidence...

ATC transcripts

Commisison evidence

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/survivors.html

...and growing, while those who believe the official conspiracy theory are dwindling.

I'd have to disagree. After being in the US for about a month now, and raising the subject with various people, I get the very strong impression that the "9/11 lies" people are a very small minority indeed. I've spoken to average people I have met, I have spoken to Defence contractors, I have spoken to USAF personnel, I have spoken to US Army personnel, and National Guard personnel (including people who were being sent to Iraq or Afghanistan).

NONE have expressed any doubt that aircraft hit the Pentagon, WTC, etc. Like me, some wonder if the instigators of the events were different than what we were told, almost all agree that the current administration took advantage of the events, but NONE have expressed any belief that things were 'set up'.

http://www.911exposed.org/index.htm

Boy, talk about your disinformation sites....

Do you mean Eglin AFB? That's where I am currently stationed. If so, I think the lights are simply aircraft; it is an extremely busy base.

David,

I asked a simple question and thought that it would get a reply - a simple YES or NO would have been fine.

And can I point out that Jack has still not replied. He has been here, he has received

my PM, but for whatever reason choses not to reply.

David,

I asked a simple question and thought that it would get a reply - a simple YES or NO would have been fine.

The Command Module from SKYLAB 2 is on display at Pensacola. It was an all-Navy crew, and commanded by Pete Conrad (Apollo 12). He got a Presidential Medal for that mission.

Yep, I definitely intend to get up to Huntsville, and probable Houston as well. I visited KSC in 2003 and yes - I climbed in the exhibits whenever it was allowed! I'm just a big kid with this stuff.

BTW - I find myself in the (perhaps) unique position of being around a number of USAF pilots over the next few months. F-15 / F-16 in particular (although heavies are there). Since these are the aircraft involved in 9/11, if you have any questions regarding the specifics of these aircraft, I will put it to them and post the replies.

Please understand that if any reply involves a classified matter, I will be unable post it.

Face it - Jack White does not like answering questions which may question his proclaimed integrity.

IMO - and Jack can prove me wrong if I am - Jack does not address questions which may demostrate that he is not all he claims to be.

My question is pretty simple (although in a number of parts): has Jack examined Apollo hardware? If he has (a YES / NO question), I would further ask - and this is up to him - WHAT hardware has he examined?

Quite a simple question really - unless you do not like the answer.

I was in the US Navy Aviation Museum at Pensacola today, and was looking at the Skylab CM. Photos are great, but there is nothing like seeing the real thing for yourself.

That prompted a question:

Jack, have you ever visited any of the Apollo hardware on display? There is a little bit on display in Texas, and I presume you have travelled around the country a fair bit.

Have you ever been to see the exhibits? Taken images of one of the unflown LMs or CMs? Looked at the EMUs?

Just curious.

Gee - and I thought it would be a simple question to answer.

Evan, you visited Jack White's profile today. Surely you saw that he hasn't posted anything here since March tenth.

It's only been two days since you queried him. Why the sarcasm and impatience?

Jack White is up there in years. Perhaps he hasn't been feeling well. Perhaps he is visiting family. Perhaps he is taking a break from posting on the Forum for a host of possible reasons.

I have to disagree with you Michael - Jack was here today. I also sent him a PM of my request, so he certainly knows of it. He simply chooses to ignore it. I can only speculate on his reasons for doin so, but IMO it is because he has not looked at any Apollo hardware. If he has, then I welcome him telling me that he has seen / photographed / etc Apollo hardware.

I was in the US Navy Aviation Museum at Pensacola today, and was looking at the Skylab CM. Photos are great, but there is nothing like seeing the real thing for yourself.

That prompted a question:

Jack, have you ever visited any of the Apollo hardware on display? There is a little bit on display in Texas, and I presume you have travelled around the country a fair bit.

Have you ever been to see the exhibits? Taken images of one of the unflown LMs or CMs? Looked at the EMUs?

Just curious.

Gee - and I thought it would be a simple question to answer.

Welcome back!

I'll download the file, and give it a listen when I get time.

I don't know, David. Something doesn't smell right to me...

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/...7-140-21497.jpg

I was in the US Navy Aviation Museum at Pensacola today, and was looking at the Skylab CM. Photos are great, but there is nothing like seeing the real thing for yourself.

That prompted a question:

Jack, have you ever visited any of the Apollo hardware on display? There is a little bit on display in Texas, and I presume you have travelled around the country a fair bit.

Have you ever been to see the exhibits? Taken images of one of the unflown LMs or CMs? Looked at the EMUs?

Just curious.