The Trouble with Conspiracy Theories

[Thomas H. Purvis]

We know the location of JFK's back wound without the jacket.

Yes, the witness statements and testimony consistently put

the back wound lower at T3.

But physical evidence trumps witness testimony.

One can look at the photos of the bullet hole in the jacket and the photos

that show the drop of the jacket in Dealey and see for oneself where

the bullet entered the back.

Why make a case that leaves out the best evidence?

Yes, the witness statements and testimony consistently put

the back wound lower at T3.

Well, yes! Provided that one accepts the word of a non-pathologist who had

absolutely nothing to do with examination of the wounds which JFK incurred.

Getting ahead of yourself here, aren't you, Tom?

In a previous post you cited un-named "qualified experts" who have

established that JFK's suit jacket and tucked-in custom-made dress

shirt were elevated in tandem over 3".

Please cite these "qualified experts" and their work, before we move on.

Also, before we get into the corroborative evidence, you have yet to

substantiate your claim that a 6.5mm FMJ round left a 3mm x 3mm defect

without touching the shirt.

Your Humes/Boswell testimony is moot if you can't defend what you've

already written.

But you have no actual argument for any of this, do you?

Actually! Anyone with the ability for word recognition and comprehension would have grasped the answers long ago when you last brought up this subject matter.

And what "answers" would those be? Since these "answers" are so readily

grasped, you should have no trouble reiterating them.

Along with all of the others who have expended considerable time and effort in thoroughly refuting your "non-bunch" concept of conspiracy.

Along with what "others"? To whom do you refer, and what was the

substance of their refutation?

This is not an idle point -- it goes straight to the heart of this thread.

As noted previously, the trouble with Feser's "The Trouble With Conspiracy

Theories" is it ignores the basic facts of both 9/11 and the JFK assassination.

Not for nothing do non-conspiracy theorists like Tom Purvis suffer rhetorical

meltdowns when confronted with irrefutable physical evidence.

So, please by my guest and go waste someone else's time with your vaccum cleaner sales pitch.

There is a sucking sound in this thread, all right.

So: tell us who these "qualified experts" are, and what is their argument?

I've given up on you actually defending your "two bullet holes in the jacket,

one bullet hole in the shirt" nonsense.

Apparently it has dawned upon even you that the assertion is absurd.

I've given up on you actually defending your "two bullet holes in the jacket,

one bullet hole in the shirt" nonsense.

Apparently it has dawned upon even you that the assertion is absurd.

It was not expected that you would understand the significance of that information when it was first posted, just as it is not expected that you will understand it now.

Fortunately, there are those here who now recognize that:

1. For the most part, I seldom make seemingly asinine statements without some evidence to support said statement.

2. It is absolutely no "coincidence" that the purported "control" sample hole which is located at the lower edge of JFK's coat collar is approximately 1 inch to the right of center, penetrates the coat as well as the coat liner on an oblique angle, and is also in direct alignment with the Scalp/EOP entry wound at the lower edge of JFK's hairline in which the wound was reported as being 2.5cm right of the EOP.

3. Henry Heiberger fully gave that information necessary to clearly demonstrate that:

a. The "control" sample which he took up at the coat collar came from UNDERNEATH the coat collar.

b. That he tested TWO SEPERATE and distinctive samples from TWO SEPERATE and distinctive holes/penetrations through the coat of JFK with copper residue being found in the fabric surrounding each of the TWO SEPERATE and distinct holes.

c. You/Cliff have never bothered to investigate anything relative to the forensic facts of the JFK assassination.

d. You/Cliff (along with quite a few others) appear to have never spoken with Henry Heiberger, or for that matter, any other

member(s) of the FBI who were associated with investigation of the JFK assassination.

e. You/Cliff (along with quite a few others) quite apparantly allowed the WC to again pull the wool over your eyes in regards to the spectrographic examination of JFK's coat.

Introduced into evidence during questioning of Dr. Humes:

Mr. SPECTER - Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Commission, I would like to have identified for the record three articles on which I have placed Commission Exhibits Nos. 393 being the coat worn by the President, 394 being the shirt, and 395 being the President's tie, and at this time move for their admission into evidence.

The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted.

(The articles of clothing referred to were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 393, 394 and 395 for identification, and received in evidence.)

Commander HUMES - Yes, sir. This exhibit is a grey suit coat stated to have been worn by the President on the day of his death. Situated to the right of the midline high in the back portion of the coat is a defect, one margin of which is semicircular.

Situated above it just below the collar is an additional defect. It is our opinion that the lower of these defects corresponds essentially with the point of entrance of the missile at Point C on Exhibit 385.

Mr. SPECTER - Would it be accurate to state that the hole which you have identified as being the point of entry is approximately 6 inches below the top of the collar, and 2 inches to the right of the middle seam of the coat?

Commander HUMES - That is approximately correct, sir. This defect, I might say, continues on through the material.

Attached to this garment is the memorandum which states that one half of the area around the hole which was presented had been removed by experts, I believe, at the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and also that a control area was taken from under the collar, so it is my interpretation that this defect at the top of this garment is the control area taken by the Bureau, and that the reason the lower defect is not more circle or oval in outline is because a portion of that defect has been removed apparently for physical examinations.

Mr. SPECTER - How about the upper one of the collar you have described, does that go all the way through?

Commander HUMES - Yes, sir; it goes all the way through. It is not--wait a minute, excuse me it is not so clearly a puncture wound as the one below.

Mr. SPECTER - Does the upper one go all the way through in the same course?

Commander HUMES - No.

Mr. SPECTER - Through the inner side as it went through the outer side?

Commander HUMES - No, in an irregular fashion.

================================================================================

Boy oh Boy will I ever be glad that my educational background is not so limited that I can not read and comprehend the difference between a "control" location which is under the collar as opposed to a penetration through the coat and liner at which the exterior hole begins just below the lower edge of the coat collar.

Not to mention that I was not sufficiently gullible that I allowed Arlen Specter to pull that one over my eyes.

Hey Cliff! Anyone ever explain to you the difference between a 1/2 inch hole and a 1/4 inch hole??????

If not, then perhaps you might make an attempt at reviewing the results of Henry Heiberger's laboratory/spectrographic test results as he received a high (+)/positive for copper at each of the two holes. (The 1/2 inch hole lower down/aka CE399 penetration, as well as the 1/4 inch hole located up at the collar/aka the third/last/final/James Altgens impact location bullet penetration which after exiting the coat on an acute/obtuse angle, struck JFK in the lower edge of the hairline.

Heh! Heh! Heh!

I do love it when those who know nothing of which they speak, insert foot into mouth.

Now! Kindly go bother someone who knows nothing and is sufficiently ignorant of the forensic; ballistic; pathological; and physical facts that they may actually fall for and believe something which you have to say on the subject matter.

(Hint) Most anyone who "fell" for Specter & Company's ever so slight/sleight-of-hand with admission of the coat into evidence should suffice.

[John Dolva]

"... ALL male citizens in Switzerland MUST serve two years in their armed forces. ..." Yes, and a good thing too. To be neutral and small, you must be strong. A defence that pauses any offence is essential. The same with Sweden. It means that there is a potential army in the millions very quickly mobilised. The inclusive grass roots format of the Swiss system creates a unity that is also essential. As well, after service, the discharged has the option to buy his top grade weapon. It's not unusual to see them strolling/cycling about on their way to the shooting range with a slung rifle. Yet they don't go around shooting each other all that much.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

"... ALL male citizens in Switzerland MUST serve two years in their armed forces. ..." Yes, and a good thing too. To be neutral and small, you must be strong. A defence that pauses any offence is essential. The same with Sweden. It means that there is a potential army in the millions very quickly mobilised. The inclusive grass roots format of the Swiss system creates a unity that is also essential. As well, after service, the discharged has the option to buy his top grade weapon. It's not unusual to see them strolling/cycling about on their way to the shooting range with a slung rifle. Yet they don't go around shooting each other all that much.

Actually!

According to my source of information relative to the Swiss Army (A Full Bird Colonel in the Swiss Army), upon discharge from their two-year military obligation, all members take home with them their entire contingent of military issue clothing; equipment; weapons and ammunition. (as of the 1970's)

Theoretically, the entire adult male population of Switzerland can be mobilized into an effective fighting force within 24 to 48 hours.

Of course, they are nowhere near as liberal minded as we are in regards to crimes committed with weapons, and they do have the advantage of an extremely homogenous population.

Tom

P.S. How was it that one would think that I could come up with Dr. Pierre Finck's home telephone number in Switzerland as well as the Hospital where he worked?

[Cliff Varnell]

I've given up on you actually defending your "two bullet holes in the jacket,

one bullet hole in the shirt" nonsense.

Apparently it has dawned upon even you that the assertion is absurd.

It was not expected that you would understand the significance of that information when it was first posted, just as it is not expected that you will understand it now.

Fortunately, there are those here who now recognize that:

1. For the most part, I seldom make seemingly asinine statements without some evidence to support said statement.

Looks like this is one of those times.

Your scenario is based on the notion that JFK's shirt and jacket were

elevated in near-tandem 3+" and that "qualified experts" have concurred.

And yet when I press you on the issue you cannot produce the names

of these "qualified experts" nor can you rebut the obvious evidence that

JFK's jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza, a fact which makes your scenario

physically impossible.

Also, in your fantasy scenario the shirt elevated in near-tandem with

the jacket 4 inches below the collar, up to the back of JFK's neck.

But then the shirt did not move in tandem with the jacket up into JFK's

hairline, as there is no corresponding defect right below the collar of the shirt.

Into what black hole did the shirt descend after it moved up to the back

of JFK's neck, Tom?

Not that it matters -- all the Dealey Plaza photos show the shirt and

jacket in a normal position on JFK's back.

The Dealey Plaza films/photos trump this nonsense you insist on slinging.

2. It is absolutely no "coincidence" that the purported "control" sample hole which is located at the lower edge of JFK's coat collar is approximately 1 inch to the right of center, penetrates the coat as well as the coat liner on an oblique angle, and is also in direct alignment with the Scalp/EOP entry wound at the lower edge of JFK's hairline in which the wound was reported as being 2.5cm right of the EOP.

And yet all the photos and film taken on Elm St. shows JFK's jacket

riding below the top of his shirt collar.

Your fantasy is trumped by the photographic evidence.

But thanks for playing and better luck next time.

3. Henry Heiberger fully gave that information necessary to clearly demonstrate that:

a. The "control" sample which he took up at the coat collar came from UNDERNEATH the coat collar.

b. That he tested TWO SEPERATE and distinctive samples from TWO SEPERATE and distinctive holes/penetrations through the coat of JFK with copper residue being found in the fabric surrounding each of the TWO SEPERATE and distinct holes.

c. You/Cliff have never bothered to investigate anything relative to the forensic facts of the JFK assassination.

d. You/Cliff (along with quite a few others) appear to have never spoken with Henry Heiberger, or for that matter, any other

member(s) of the FBI who were associated with investigation of the JFK assassination.

My sister attended college with one of Heiberger's daughters. Ms. Heiberger

related the deep concern SA Heiberger had for the safety of his family in regards

to his work on the Kennedy assassination.

Draw your own conclusions.

e. You/Cliff (along with quite a few others) quite apparantly allowed the WC to again pull the wool over your eyes in regards to the spectrographic examination of JFK's coat.

You evidently cannot look at the Dealey Plaza motorcade photos without

holding your hands over your eyes.

If you bothered to actually study the photographic evidence you'd see

that the jacket wasn't in the position required by your fantasy.

But then that would be the end of your fantasizing, and you can't do that,

can you?

Introduced into evidence during questioning of Dr. Humes:

Mr. SPECTER - Mr. Chief Justice, may it please the Commission, I would like to have identified for the record three articles on which I have placed Commission Exhibits Nos. 393 being the coat worn by the President, 394 being the shirt, and 395 being the President's tie, and at this time move for their admission into evidence.

The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted.

(The articles of clothing referred to were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 393, 394 and 395 for identification, and received in evidence.)

Commander HUMES - Yes, sir. This exhibit is a grey suit coat stated to have been worn by the President on the day of his death. Situated to the right of the midline high in the back portion of the coat is a defect, one margin of which is semicircular.

Situated above it just below the collar is an additional defect. It is our opinion that the lower of these defects corresponds essentially with the point of entrance of the missile at Point C on Exhibit 385.

Mr. SPECTER - Would it be accurate to state that the hole which you have identified as being the point of entry is approximately 6 inches below the top of the collar, and 2 inches to the right of the middle seam of the coat?

Commander HUMES - That is approximately correct, sir. This defect, I might say, continues on through the material.

Attached to this garment is the memorandum which states that one half of the area around the hole which was presented had been removed by experts, I believe, at the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and also that a control area was taken from under the collar, so it is my interpretation that this defect at the top of this garment is the control area taken by the Bureau, and that the reason the lower defect is not more circle or oval in outline is because a portion of that defect has been removed apparently for physical examinations.

Mr. SPECTER - How about the upper one of the collar you have described, does that go all the way through?

Commander HUMES - Yes, sir; it goes all the way through. It is not--wait a minute, excuse me it is not so clearly a puncture wound as the one below.

Mr. SPECTER - Does the upper one go all the way through in the same course?

Commander HUMES - No.

Mr. SPECTER - Through the inner side as it went through the outer side?

Commander HUMES - No, in an irregular fashion.

================================================================================

Boy oh Boy will I ever be glad that my educational background is not so limited that I can not read and comprehend the difference between a "control" location which is under the collar as opposed to a penetration through the coat and liner at which the exterior hole begins just below the lower edge of the coat collar.

Not to mention that I was not sufficiently gullible that I allowed Arlen Specter to pull that one over my eyes.

Hey Cliff! Anyone ever explain to you the difference between a 1/2 inch hole and a 1/4 inch hole??????

Hey Tom! Anyone ever explain to you the difference between a 1/2 inch hole

and a 1/8 inch hole?????? A 1/4 inch hole and a 1/8 inch hole??????

There is a ruler in this photo that allows one to measure both defects to a high

degree of accuracy.

http://subversivehistory.com/

The upper defect is 1/8" -- wholly incompatible with a strike by a 6.5mm round.

If not, then perhaps you might make an attempt at reviewing the results of Henry Heiberger's laboratory/spectrographic test results as he received a high (+)/positive for copper at each of the two holes. (The 1/2 inch hole lower down/aka CE399 penetration, as well as the 1/4 inch hole located up at the collar/aka the third/last/final/James Altgens impact location bullet penetration which after exiting the coat on an acute/obtuse angle, struck JFK in the lower edge of the hairline.

Heh! Heh! Heh!

You couldn't replicate the required movement of JFK's shirt, Tom, if you

used both hands to pull.

The photographic evidence trumps anything that came out of the FBI lab.

JFK's jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza. Period.

Now: who are those "qualified experts" to whom you referred, Tom?

Edited February 19, 2009 by Cliff Varnell

[Len Colby]

As to 9/11: it is not a theory, but a readily observed fact that the American air defense system failed to intercept the planes that struck the WTC and the Pentagon (for the sake of argument I'll set aside the questions surrounding the strike on the Pentagon.)

On the rare occasions when “truthers” get their facts straight they invariably misinterpret and/or overemphasize the importance of them. As has been pointed out ad infinium “the American air defense system” was primarily geared towards aircraft entering US and Canadian airspace. Intercepts of wayward flights originating in those countries were rare and tended to take extended periods of time (unless aircraft happened to be airborne on other missions). In 1999 it took 82 minutes for Payne Stewart’s plane to be intercepted by a fighter already in the air. In 1980 when there were a lot more fighters on scramble alert than in 2001 it took 2 ½ hours to intercept Bo Rein’s plane. The time frames on 9/11 were much shorter. Claims that pre 9/11 intercepts took 10 minutes are based on (no I'm NOT making this up) the instructions to a computer game.

The following suggests one man could have single-handedly disabled

the American air defense system: Vice President Dick Cheney.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/...MustTestify.pdf

Please cite the passage that suggests that. There were numerous people in the chains of command between the White House and those actually tasked with carrying out the nation’s air defense. The normal contingent of 14 fighters was on scramble alert that morning.

It did not take a wide array of conspirators to allow the terrorist attacks

to succeed, contrary to Feser, Colby, Burton et al.

I don’t imagine you’d be willing to spell out what you think happened that morning including everything that they made happen, not happen of happen differently and the approximate number of people necessary for each anomaly plus all the people involved in the cover-up. “Truthers” tend to be schizophrenic regarding the number of people to have executed the plot. On one hand they insist that “it did not take a wide array of conspirators” but normally believe in a plot so complex that it would by necessity require a large number of people in disparate locations, agencies, private companies.

[Cliff Varnell]

As to 9/11: it is not a theory, but a readily observed fact that the American air defense system failed to intercept the planes that struck the WTC and the Pentagon (for the sake of argument I'll set aside the questions surrounding the strike on the Pentagon.)

On the rare occasions when “truthers” get their facts straight they invariably

misinterpret and/or overemphasize the importance of them.

Like Tom Purvis, Len Colby's capacity for unintended irony is keen.

As has been pointed out ad infinium “the American air defense system”

was primarily geared towards aircraft entering US and Canadian airspace.

While that has been an important component of "the American air defense system,"

the PRIMARY defensive activity is outlined in the FAA Standard Intercept Procedure,

and, of course, in the airport screening procedures designed to defend against

domestic hijackings and sabotage.

http://www.standdown.net/FAAstandardinterceptprocedures.htm

Intercepts of wayward flights originating in those countries were rare

and tended to take extended periods of time (unless aircraft happened to be

airborne on other missions).

Which, of course, has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

In 1999 it took 82 minutes for Payne Stewart’s plane to be intercepted

by a fighter already in the air.

The issue isn't how long the military took to intercept the plane -- the issue

is how long it took to implement FAA Standard Intercept Procedures and

give the order to scramble.

On 9/11, radio contact with Flight 11 was lost at 8:14am. But the FAA didn't

implement Standard Intercept Procedure until 8:40am. NORAD issued the

scramble order at 8:46am, and the planes were in the air at 8:52am.

For Stewart's plane the response time was quicker.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/natio...t99/crash26.htm

In 1980 when there were a lot more fighters on scramble alert than in 2001

it took 2 ½ hours to intercept Bo Rein’s plane. The time frames on 9/11 were much

shorter. Claims that pre 9/11 intercepts took 10 minutes are based on (no I'm NOT

making this up) the instructions to a computer game.

As noted above, it took 12 minutes for NORAD to put planes in the air once

notified by the FAA.

Why the 26 minute delay between the loss of Flight 11 radio contact and the

implementation of FAA Standard Intercept Procedure?

Because of "confusion" caused by the five military training drills that Dick Cheney

happened to have scheduled for that day.

"It was initially pretty confusing," Air Force Gen. Richard Myers said to the

9/11 Commission.

This "confusion" infected the actions of everyone involved in America's air

defense.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/..._exercises.html

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/usaf_911.html

This "confusion" extended to the pilots of the jets that were eventually scrambled,

who flew at far under top speed, without any apparent urgency.

http://attackonamerica.net/ignorad.htm#ignorad

I wrote previously:

(quote on)

The following suggests one man could have single-handedly disabled

the American air defense system: Vice President Dick Cheney.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/...MustTestify.pdf

(quote off)

Please cite the passage that suggests that. There were numerous people

in the chains of command between the White House and those actually tasked

with carrying out the nation’s air defense. The normal contingent of 14 fighters

was on scramble alert that morning.

Did you bother to read Dr. Scott's article?

Dick Cheney on "Meet The Press" 9/16/01 re his role in the "secret bunker"

below the White House:

"I was in a position to be able to see all the stuff coming in, receive reports

and then makedecisions in terms of acting with it."

After this apparently indiscreet admission, Cheney consistently lied about his

actions that morning.

(See Dr. Scott's article above.)

FACT: on May 8, 2001, Dick Cheney was put in charge of all "training and

planning" of military exercises involved in "all federal programs dealing with

weapons of mass destruction consequence management within the Departments

of Defense, Health and Human Services, Justice, and Energy, the Environmental

Protection Agency, and other federal agencies…" with the goal of making the

American defense response "seamlessly integrated, harmonious and

comprehensive" and "maximize effectiveness."

By scheduling at least 5 war game/drills on one day, and then taking supreme

command of the American air defense response to the hijacking, Dick Cheney

was in a position to sow "confusion" among those involved at the FAA and NORAD.

I wrote previously:

(quote on)

It did not take a wide array of conspirators to allow the terrorist attacks

to succeed, contrary to Feser, Colby, Burton et al.

(quote off)

I don’t imagine you’d be willing to spell out what you think happened that

morning including everything that they made happen, not happen of happen

differently and the approximate number of people necessary for each anomaly

plus all the people involved in the cover-up.

You are apparently unfamiliar with the concept of "compartmentalization"

in regards to intelligence operations, wherein people operate on a strict

"need to know" basis, thereby unwittingly participating in a conspiracy they

know nothing about.

You are apparently unfamiliar with the concept of CYA, wherein people will

unwittingly participate in a cover-up if it means covering their own ass, as

in the case of Gen. Richard Myers and NORAD commander Gen. Ralph Eberhardt.

Within the US government it only took one man, Dick Cheney, to schedule

5 NORAD training exercises on one day.

It took only one other man to put the plot into motion -- the head of the Pakistani

intelligence agency ISI, Lt. Gen. Mahmoud Ahmed.

It was Ahmed who ordered $100,000 to be wired to Mohammed Atta.

http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Docum...eikhMahmood.htm

Was it by co-incidence that Ahmed was in Washington DC in the days prior to

and after 9/11/01?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO206A.html

All it took to pull off 9/11 was a two man conspiracy at the top -- Cheney and Ahmed.

Cheney and Ahmed had the opportunity to confer in DC, and then Ahmed had the

opportunity to give Atta the go order.

“Truthers” tend to be schizophrenic regarding the number of people to

have executed the plot. On one hand they insist that “it did not take a wide array

of conspirators” but normally believe in a plot so complex that it would by necessity

require a large number of people in disparate locations, agencies, private companies.

How utterly disingenuous.

This is the corrupt root flaw of Feser's analysis, which lumps into a stew every

single statement, observation, and citation by every single person who questions

the official story behind 9/11 and JFK -- and then attributes this stew to all.

And thus my statement -- "It did not take a wide array of conspirators" -- is

attributed to the millions of people who challenge the official story.

By lumping everything and everyone together, Feser, Colby et al ditch the need

to argue the facts of the case and indulge in their dismissive semantics.

If I'm a "truther" what does that make you, Colby?

A "lie repeater"?

Just as in the Kennedy assassination, the "lie repeaters" abound.

Edited February 20, 2009 by Cliff Varnell

[Charles Drago]

Cliff,

With every word you type in response to "Colby," you play into "his" hand.

You're on the side of the angels. You might want to stop to think about the pros and cons of doing the other side's work.

CD

Edited February 20, 2009 by Charles Drago

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

I can't imagaine why anyone would dabble in any of these silly conspiracy thoeries. Why the eternal vigilance of our media is everywhere; who could get away with anything these days! Why look at the former Governor of Illinois and the current Senator from that state! And look at how the media came down on Carolyn and her sweet millions! These folk are AT THE VERY CORE OF US POWER and our media's cameras never shuddered for an instance. No, conspiracy would never work here. Perhaps in Bengal maybe.

[Len Colby]

As has been pointed out ad infinium “the American air defense system” was primarily geared towards aircraft entering US and Canadian airspace.

While that has been an important component of "the American air defense system," the PRIMARY defensive activity is outlined in the FAA Standard Intercept Procedure, and, of course, in the airport screening procedures designed to defend against domestic hijackings and sabotage.

http://www.standdown.net/FAAstandardinterceptprocedures.htm

The linked page is basically just a collection of links to chapters of an FAA manual that have been dead for over 2 years but they still can be found on the Internet Archive. Obviously you didn’t even look into this and just took the page author’s word for it. I’ve looked at these chapters and could find what procedures were not followed. Please quote applicable passages and provide working links.

http://www.archive.org/index.php

Intercepts of wayward flights originating in those countries were rare and tended to take extended periods of time (unless aircraft happened to be airborne on other missions).

Which, of course, has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Of course it does. Contrary to claims by Griffin, Fetzer, Scott et al before 9/11 intercepts of domestic flights tended to take well over an hour from when controller first noted a problem. There was nothing unusual about response time that day.

In 1999 it took 82 minutes for Payne Stewart’s plane to be intercepted by a fighter already in the air.

The issue isn't how long the military took to intercept the plane -- the issue is how long it took to implement FAA Standard Intercept Procedures and give the order to scramble.

On 9/11, radio contact with Flight 11 was lost at 8:14am. But the FAA didn't implement Standard Intercept Procedure until 8:40am. NORAD issued the scramble order at 8:46am, and the planes were in the air at 8:52am.

About par with response times for the Stewart incident and much quicker than Bo Rein’s

For Stewart's plane the response time was quicker.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/natio...t99/crash26.htm

In 1980 when there were a lot more fighters on scramble alert than in 2001 it took 2 ½ hours to intercept Bo Rein’s plane. The time frames on 9/11 were much shorter. Claims that pre 9/11 intercepts took 10 minutes are based on (no I'm NOT making this up) the instructions to a computer game.

As noted above, it took 12 minutes for NORAD to put planes in the air once notified by the FAA.

I guess math and reading comprehension are not among your fortes. From the article you linked.

“The FAA said air traffic controllers lost radio contact with the plane at 9:44 a.m…. Pentagon officials said the military began its pursuit of the ghostly civilian aircraft at 10:08 a.m., when two Air Force F-16 fighters from Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida that were on a routine training mission were asked by the FAA to intercept it.”

Thus it took at least 24 minutes for jets already in the air to be diverted. The article did not make it clear when the FAA told the Air Force but it might have taken 24 minutes. It took 32 minutes from loss of radio contact to scramble order (8:14 – 8:46) in response to flight 11. It took 12 from FAA notification to scramble order (8:34 – 8:46), the same time you claimed for Payne Stewart. Response times were equal/roughly equal, both were much faster than in 1980. Diverting or scrambling is only one component of intercept time you have to add the time it takes to catch up with the target.

Why the 26 minute delay between the loss of Flight 11 radio contact and the implementation of FAA Standard Intercept Procedure?

It took 20 minutes (8:14 – 8:34) to notify NEADS about the same amount of time it took when Payne Stewart’s pilots didn’t respond and much less time than when Bo Rein’s pilot didn’t respond and started flying off course.

Because of "confusion" caused by the five military training drills that Dick Cheney happened to have scheduled for that day.

You think that “military training drills” confused the FAA? Please elaborate. Please provide a citation to support your claims that

1) there were “five military training drills…scheduled for that day.”

2) They were scheduled by Dick Cheney

3) They adversely affected response times

"It was initially pretty confusing," Air Force Gen. Richard Myers said to the

9/11 Commission.

He was referring to having four hijackings the same morning not the exercises. Nice try though. Also he said it in Oct. 2001 long before the commission came into existence.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=44621

This "confusion" infected the actions of everyone involved in America's air

defense.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/..._exercises.html

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/usaf_911.html

Since there hadn’t been a midair hijacking in the US for over a decade it’s not surprising that people might think at first it was an exercise. Show how the exercises delayed response times beyond the few seconds it would take for the question “is this real world or exercize?” to be asked and answered.

This "confusion" extended to the pilots of the jets that were eventually scrambled, who flew at far under top speed, without any apparent urgency.

http://attackonamerica.net/ignorad.htm#ignorad

Before 9/11 fighters were prohibited from flying at or over the speed of sound over populated areas and there was no reason for “urgency” in responding to a hijack. It takes time to reach supersonic speed and flying supersonic requires using the after burner which uses up tremendous amounts of fuel. Getting there quickly would not have done much good if they immediately had to land. Also the distance from Otis to the WTC is more like 180 miles.

http://911myths.com/html/fighter_speeds.html

See what I was saying about how you guys are “schizophrenic” on this issue. You originally claimed that “it did not take a wide array of conspirators” but you are already involving flight controllers from Boston Center and civilian ANG pilots and were only looking at a limited part of the alleged plot.

I wrote previously:

(quote on)

The following suggests

one man

could have single-handedly disabled

the American air defense system: Vice President Dick Cheney.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/...MustTestify.pdf

(quote off)

Please cite the passage that suggests that. There were numerous people in the chains of command between the White House and those actually tasked with carrying out the nation’s air defense. The normal contingent of 14 fighters was on scramble alert that morning.

Did you bother to read Dr. Scott's article?

Dick Cheney on "Meet The Press" 9/16/01 re his role in the "secret bunker"

below the White House:

"I was in a position to be able to see all the stuff coming in, receive reports and then makedecisions in terms of acting with it."

After this apparently indiscreet admission, Cheney consistently lied about his actions that morning. (See Dr. Scott's article above.)

Yes I read Scott’s POS, evasion of a straight answer to my question noted. “Making decisions” does not equal being able to “single-handedly disable the American air defense system” the Pentagon and both towers had been hit by the time he got to the command center.

FACT: on May 8, 2001, Dick Cheney was put in charge of all "training and

planning" of military exercises involved in "all federal programs dealing with

weapons of mass destruction consequence management within the Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, Justice, and Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and other federal agencies…" with the goal of making the American defense response "seamlessly integrated, harmonious and comprehensive" and "maximize effectiveness."

By scheduling at least 5 war game/drills on one day, and then taking supreme command of the American air defense response to the hijacking, Dick Cheney was in a position to sow "confusion" among those involved at the FAA and NORAD.

I don’t suppose citations for any of the claims above will be forthcoming. Before you do read this:

http://www.911myths.com/html/cheney_in_charge_of_norad.html

I wrote previously:

(quote on)

It did not take a wide array of conspirators to allow the terrorist attacks

to succeed, contrary to Feser, Colby, Burton et al.

(quote off)

I don’t imagine you’d be willing to spell out what you think happened that morning including everything that they made happen, not happen of happen differently and the approximate number of people necessary for each anomaly plus all the people involved in the cover-up.

You are apparently unfamiliar with the concept of "compartmentalization"

in regards to intelligence operations, wherein people operate on a strict

"need to know" basis, thereby unwittingly participating in a conspiracy they

know nothing about.

You are apparently unfamiliar with the concept of CYA, wherein people will

unwittingly participate in a cover-up if it means covering their own ass, as

in the case of Gen. Richard Myers and NORAD commander Gen. Ralph Eberhardt.

You really think Myers and Eberhardt are so dumb they could have been duped into somehow slowing down the response and not being able to figure it out? Or are you saying they figured out but covered up the murder of thousands of the fellow citizens to CTA? You really think out of all the dozens or hundreds or people necessary to carry out your elaborate fantasy that not a single one would have come forward even anonymously to denounce the conspiracy to kill thousands of their fellow citizens out right justify one war and help justify a second?

It is interesting to note the shift in your position it went from “it did not take a wide array of conspirators to allow the terrorist attacks to succeed,” to [roughly] ‘it took a wide array of conspirators to allow the terrorist attacks to succeed BUT they were compartmentalized’

Within the US government it only took one man, Dick Cheney, to schedule

5 NORAD training exercises on one day.

Get back to us when you can provide a citation for that.

It took only one other man to put the plot into motion -- the head of the Pakistani intelligence agency ISI, Lt. Gen. Mahmoud Ahmed.

It was Ahmed who ordered $100,000 to be wired to Mohammed Atta.

http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Docum...eikhMahmood.htm

Another dead link except for BT Internet customers, since you don’t live in Britain either I imagine you never looked at the page. I have not seen anything more substantial than anonymous Indian intelligence sources alleging this*. Given the known animosity between the Indian and Pakistani intelligence such claims are suspect. How much credence would you put in claims from anonymous CIA officials that that the head of the KGB was responsible for some notorious act? In any case such articles* normally say the US forced his dismissal over this which contradicts your theory they were in cahoots.

* This one of the most cited articles - http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll...t_id=1454238160

Was it by co-incidence that Ahmed was in Washington DC in the days prior to and after 9/11/01?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO206A.html

Funny if I knew a city was going to be the target of a massive terrorist attack it would be the last place I’d want to be.

All it took to pull off 9/11 was a two man conspiracy at the top -- Cheney and Ahmed. Cheney and Ahmed had the opportunity to confer in DC, and then Ahmed had the opportunity to give Atta the go order.

Pure speculation on your part. Since the whole plan had apparently been set up in advance why the need “to confer”? Do you have any evidence the men met? Minetta said he was meeting with the Belgian transport minister when the WTC was struck. Do you think she might have been involved as well?

“Truthers” tend to be schizophrenic regarding the number of people to have executed the plot. On one hand they insist that “it did not take a wide array of conspirators” but normally believe in a plot so complex that it would by necessity require a large number of people in disparate locations, agencies, private companies.

How utterly disingenuous.

This is the corrupt root flaw of Feser's analysis, which lumps into a stew every single statement, observation, and citation by every single person who questions the official story behind 9/11 and JFK -- and then attributes this stew to all.

And thus my statement -- "It did not take a wide array of conspirators" -- is attributed to the millions of people who challenge the official story.

By lumping everything and everyone together, Feser, Colby et al ditch the need to argue the facts of the case and indulge in their dismissive semantics.

• Perhaps you are unaware of the meaning of the verb “tend” if so various dictionaries can set you straight.
  
• While its true about 10% of the population believes what you do about 9/11, and that comes out to millions of individuals a much smaller number make videos, maintain sites/blogs or debate the issue on forums. Most I’ve encountered (including you) suffer from this dichotomal view of the ‘conspiracy’.
  
• I’m more than glad top debate the facts of 9/11.
  
• I did not apply my argument to the JFK assassination.
  

If I'm a "truther" what does that make you, Colby?

A "lie repeater"?

Normally those who debunk the theories of the truth movement are referred to as ‘debunkers’.

NOTE: Carnival starts tonight. Don’t expect any replies, except PERHAPS some brief ones, on this or any other thread till Wednesday.

[Len Colby]

Unfortunately it is quite literally raining on my parade.

Cliff,

With every word you type in response to "Colby," you play into "his" hand.

You're on the side of the angels. You might want to stop to think about the pros and cons of doing the other side's work.

CD

On the U-2 thread “Drago” wrote

“Unless those of us dedicated to attaining truth and justice about and for JFK confront these people [me and unspecified others] head-on, they win.”

I guess it’s a case of dammed if you do and dammed if you don’t and I can’t loose!

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff,

With every word you type in response to "Colby," you play into "his" hand.

You're on the side of the angels. You might want to stop to think about the pros and cons of doing the other side's work.

CD

Charles,

This is something I've given a great deal of thought to over the years.

A couple years back I wrote in this forum that obfuscation can be the

collateral damage of good research. In the process of developing an

argument and learning subjects in greater depth, we do run the risk

of "playing into the hand of the other side."

But if at the end of that process I stand as a better educated and more

forceful advocate for "the side of the angels," then it's a risk I'm willing to

take.

Besides, I need a bit of a break from my Harriman research.

[Ron Ecker]

You really think Myers and Eberhardt are so dumb they could have been duped into somehow slowing down the response and not being able to figure it out?

How could Myers slow down, speed up, or do anything else to the response when he was in hiding (holed up in a senator's office, incommunicado to the world and its events) while the response was taking place? And I'm sure Eberhardt knows that Myers later lied under oath about when Myers called him that morning.

Minetta said he was meeting with the Belgian transport minister when the WTC was struck.

Mineta's word isn't worth a plug nickel, of course, because his account of that morning contradicts Cheney's about what Cheney was doing in the bunker and when. We can all believe Cheney. The commissioners didn't know what to do with Mineta's account (they certainly couldn't believe it), so they ignored it completely in their report.

[Charles Drago]

While that has been an important component of "the American air defense system," the PRIMARY defensive activity is outlined in ...............................................................

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Light up another one, "Colby."

But just make sure you don't set fire to the sheets. I'd hate to conclude that tobacco is dangerous to our health.

[Charles Drago]

Cliff,

With every word you type in response to "Colby," you play into "his" hand.

You're on the side of the angels. You might want to stop to think about the pros and cons of doing the other side's work.

CD

Charles,

But if at the end of that process I stand as a better educated and more

forceful advocate for "the side of the angels," then it's a risk I'm willing to

take.

If you respond to them directly, by definition you endorse their bona fides as honorable, well-informed observers.

These people are doing the work of JFK's killers. They are the enemy. To engage them on their terms is to deliver victory to them.

That's all these charlatans want.

Don't do it. I'm beggin' ya.

CD

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff,

With every word you type in response to "Colby," you play into "his" hand.

You're on the side of the angels. You might want to stop to think about the pros and cons of doing the other side's work.

CD

Charles,

But if at the end of that process I stand as a better educated and more

forceful advocate for "the side of the angels," then it's a risk I'm willing to

take.

If you respond to them directly, by definition you endorse their bona fides as honorable, well-informed observers.

These people are doing the work of JFK's killers. They are the enemy. To engage them on their terms is to deliver victory to them.

That's all these charlatans want.

Don't do it. I'm beggin' ya.

CD

Charles,

Although my relish for point-by-point rhetorical combat is nearly Pattonesque

("God help me, I love it so!") I will take your good counsel.

Gentle reader, please read Michael Ruppert's Crossing The Rubicon,

specifically Chapter 19 -- "Wargames And High Tech: Paralyzing The System

To Pull Off The Attacks", pg. 333+.

Also, for information on ISI's Lt. Gen. Ahmed see CTR pg 118-120.

Detain Cheney!