Steven Gaal Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 (edited) in true CDs loud explosions and visible flashes precede initiation of collapse the numerous videos of the collapses didn't register either. END COLBY I heard explosions on the many ,many videos. ___________________ . Yawn, the lobby/elevator shaft explosions are old hat they were discussed in both the 9/11 Commission and NIST reports. // END COLBY +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ non-contiguous elevator shafts cannot transmit explosive force to lobby from any explosions above their tops where the exlposions occured (see just below red link) ################o################ As with so many of the official explanations for unexplained anomalies in the 9/11 narrative, this elevator shaft theory is ridiculous. And surely it is just idle, noise-filling fluff. Something to sound vaguely intelligible to the general public. Because five minutes of research will show that the WTC Towers' elevators and shafts were not stacked vertically one on top of the other. "Instead of building enough elevators to move everybody from the ground floor to their destination, (the designers) decided to split the trip to the upper floors between multiple elevators. If people wanted to get from the ground to the top floor, they would need to jump from elevator to elevator, in the same way you might switch cars on a subway system." http://science.howstuffworks.com/engineering/structural/wtc2.htm Underground Explosions One of the oft-repeated arguments against the intentional demolition hypothesis is that the buildings tumbled from the top down - not from the bottom first. Usually, in a classic demolition, a building is 'pulled' from the core with massive underground explosions and allowed to fall in on itself. Defenders of the 'official story' state that there were no underground explosions 'confirmed' in the lead up to the collapse of the Towers. This is a bizarre argument, and wholly untrue. Because any thorough review of the initial 9/11 reports and footage before the official story was consecrated detail much evidence and eyewitness reports specifically referring to massive underground explosions, secondary explosive devices, beams ejecting themselves from the tops of the buildings, etc. in the lead up to the collapse. All of which wholly support the controlled demolition hypothesis. The first 5 minutes of this clip show some examples of these initial reports. Watch VideoSeptember 11 revisited Here are 2 more compilations of early eye-witness testimony: First link Second link When presented with this evidence, Popular Mechanics, NIST, and other defenders of the 'official' story scramble to keep their narrative alive, stating that eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable, confused, and misrepresentative of what actually happened. Curiously, one could make the exact opposite argument; i.e. that initial eyewitness reports are clear, coherent, fresh accounts of what actually did happen before the witnesses were told how to re-interpret their memory to fit the neater narrative of the 'official' story. Moreover, and most significantly, eyewitness testimony and initial reports are what solve the vast majority of crimes committed in this country. And if eyewitness evidence is considered sound, tried, and tested in the court of law in other cases, then surely it is sound in the case of 9/11 as well. Besides, there are still photos and video evidence showing massive underground explosions and huge puffs of smoke ascending from the base of both towers before the start of collapse, supporting the volume of eyewitness testimony and the hypothesis of intentional demolition. Here is a still photo. And here is video evidence. Watch low at the base of the Tower for the smoke rising from the street just before collapse. And for in-depth footage and analysis, fast-forward to the 13:25 point of this clip. Perhaps the strongest evidence of pre-collapse underground explosions lay within the lobby of the North Tower itself, which sustained massive damage some 900 feet below the impact of the airplane. Much of the damage can be seen in this video clip. Ever persistent, the defenders of the 'official story' have blamed the towers' elevator shafts for the lobby's damage. The idea is that the explosion from the impact of the airplanes created huge fireballs of energy which funneled down through the buildings via the elevator shafts, eventually exploding out into the lobby and creating the visible damage and destruction. As with so many of the official explanations for unexplained anomalies in the 9/11 narrative, this elevator shaft theory is ridiculous. And surely it is just idle, noise-filling fluff. Something to sound vaguely intelligible to the general public. Because five minutes of research will show that the WTC Towers' elevators and shafts were not stacked vertically one on top of the other. "Instead of building enough elevators to move everybody from the ground floor to their destination, (the designers) decided to split the trip to the upper floors between multiple elevators. If people wanted to get from the ground to the top floor, they would need to jump from elevator to elevator, in the same way you might switch cars on a subway system." So this means that the fireballs from the impact of the airplanes, to account for the damage to the Towers' lobbies in the way the official story tells us, would have had to travel down the first elevator shaft that was connected to the impact floor, exit the doors at that shaft's terminus, amble down the hall, re-enter the next shaft, travel down to that shaft's terminus, exit the doors and repeat this leapfrogging pattern a number of times to find their way down to said lobby. An absurd narrative that defenders of the official story perhaps just throw out once again in an attempt to sound informed and intelligible, hoping that no one actually looks into the veracity of what they are saying. For it is clear that many of them have not spent even the most cursory time investigating the data, and considering their own logic. (Note: If you view the diagram of the elevator shafts on the above website, you will see that there is one shaft that goes from bottom to top. But surely no one is arguing that one single shaft could have caused the widespread destruction scattered throughout the whole lobby.) Further evidence that supports early eyewitness testimony and reports of massive underground explosions taking place before the onset of the Towers' collapse can also be found in the recorded seismic activity in and around Manhattan on the morning of 9/11. A comprehensive analysis of this seismic activity can be found in Volume 3 of this online scientific journal. Despite all this strong, compelling evidence of massive underground explosions that supports the theory of controlled demolition, there was no mention, nor discussion of these underground explosions in any of the 'official' reports or investigations. Why? There were eyewitness reports, seismic recordings, and unmistakable video evidence showing massive underground explosions and huge puffs of smoke ascending from the base of both the towers just before they started to collapse. Yet no official mention, nor investigation, was made of the evidence detailing these explosions and their possible relationship to the onset and behavior of the collapse of the Towers. Why? back to topcontinue reading » Edited October 2, 2012 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted October 3, 2012 Author Share Posted October 3, 2012 in true CDs loud explosions and visible flashes precede initiation of collapse the numerous videos of the collapses didn't register either. END COLBY I heard explosions on the many ,many videos. People's memories are faulty, and yours has been shown to have been so on several occasions, you have yet to post such videos. This should not prove difficult if your fantasies were true. The link below has the live feed from 20 TV networks on 9/11. All you have to do is cue them up to just before the collapses and watch. http://archive.org/d...11/day/20010911 ___________________. Yawn, the lobby/elevator shaft explosions are old hat they were discussed in both the 9/11 Commission and NIST reports. // END COLBY +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ non-contiguous elevator shafts cannot transmit explosive force to lobby from any explosions above their tops where the exlposions occured (see just below red link) ################o################ Yawn, a misinformed truther, what else is new? Several elevator shafts went top to bottom and flight 175 crashed into the 78th floor sky lobby which had many shafts down to the lower levels http://www.911myths....explosions.html One of the oft-repeated arguments against the intentional demolition hypothesis is that the buildings tumbled from the top down - not from the bottom first. Usually, in a classic demolition, a building is 'pulled' from the core with massive underground explosions and allowed to fall in on itself. Defenders of the 'official story' state that there were no underground explosions 'confirmed' in the lead up to the collapse of the Towers. This is a bizarre argument, and wholly untrue. Strawman as noted previously such explosions were mentioned in the official reports. But this babble is irelevant, the collapses progresed from the impact floors to ground level. there are still photos and video evidence showing massive underground explosions and huge puffs of smoke ascending from the base of both towers before the start of collapse, supporting the volume of eyewitness testimony and the hypothesis of intentional demolition. Here is a still photo. LOL this photo shows smoke or dust AFTER collapse initiation. And here is video evidence. Watch low at the base of the Tower for the smoke rising from the street just before collapse. Video does NOT run. "And for in-depth footage and analysis, fast-forward to the 13:25 point of this clip. " LOL - "This video has been removed because its content violated YouTube's Terms of Service. Sorry about that.” "Perhaps the strongest evidence of pre-collapse underground explosions lay within the lobby of the North Tower itself, which sustained massive damage some 900 feet below the impact of the airplane. Much of the damage can be seen in this video clip. " This one doesn't play either but this was of the already discussed lobby explosion and LOL the lobby was not "underground". "Further evidence that supports early eyewitness testimony and reports of massive underground explosions taking place before the onset of the Towers' collapse can also be found in the recorded seismic activity in and around Manhattan on the morning of 9/11. A comprehensive analysis of this seismic activity can be found in Volume 3 of this online scientific journal." The Journal of 9/11 Studies is NOT a “scientific journal” it's a truther website, Neither author is a seismologist or otherwise qualified to have written a paper on the subject. The paper did not undergo legitimate review. The resultant paper was deeply flawed. http://www.911myths....at_the_wtc.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 (edited) 911 NYPD Chopper NUMEROUS EXPLOSIONS - CONTINUOUS EXPLOSIONS Video revolutionarypolitics.tv 11th Sep 10 CENSORED VIDEO ?? ITS A TREND ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ One way around youtube censorship | WHAT REALLY HAPPENED just make a video about where your other video that got censored is on vimeo like this. Submitted by dawson on Mon, 09/24/2012 - 06:22. Tags: 911 ... www.whatreallyhappened.com/content/one-way-around-youtube-censorship - View by Ixquick Proxy - Highlight Home - WHAT REALLY HAPPENED | The History The US Government SCIENCE/HEALTH/CLIMATE/NATURE. This is the now-famous video that was censored by YouTube. It shows Whole Foods employees LYING about the GMOs ... www.whatreallyhappened.com/ja - View by Ixquick Proxy - Highlight ENTERTAINMENT | WHAT REALLY HAPPENED Since it first circulated a trailer on the web; it has been heavily censored and cyber attacked. You Tube has removed it at intermittent intervals and MTV (which is ... www.whatreallyhappened.com/category/entertainment - View by Ixquick Proxy - Highlight CONSUMER RIGHTS / PRODUCT REPORTS | WHAT REALLY ... KingCast asks: Is YouTube censoring the Civil Rights channel of a former state attorney? As noted in yesterday's journal entry showing how Michael Holman is ... www.whatreallyhappened.com/category/consumer_rights - View by Ixquick Proxy - Highlight ARTS | WHAT REALLY HAPPENED Since it first circulated a trailer on the web; it has been heavily censored and cyber attacked. You Tube has removed it at intermittent intervals and MTV (which is ... www.whatreallyhappened.com/category/arts - View by Ixquick Proxy - Highlight The Israeli Spy Ring | WHAT REALLY HAPPENED ... OF FOX NEWS. However, you can still view them at YouTube! .... clean off my desk." -- Unnamed reporter as quoted in American Media Censorship and Israel ... www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/spyring.php - View by Ixquick Proxy - Highlight CONSUMER RIGHTS / PRODUCT REPORTS | WHAT REALLY ... Open letter to YouTube lawyers: Censorship of Civil Rights channel? ... KingCast asks: Is YouTube censoring the Civil Rights channel of a former state attorney? www.whatreallyhappened.com/ru/category/consumer_rights - View by Ixquick Proxy - Highlight Home> USHackers, Possibly From Middle East, Block US Banks ... Open letter to YouTube lawyers: Censorship of Civil Rights channel? ... KingCast asks: Is YouTube censoring the Civil Rights channel of a former state attorney? www.whatreallyhappened.com/ko - View by Ixquick Proxy - Highlight WHAT REALLY HAPPENED | The History The US Government ... Fresh From World wide Blockage from the You tube Nazi's is ABC, CBS, FOX, ... The video footage, which was posted on the video-sharing website YouTube, ... www.whatreallyhappened.com - View by Ixquick Proxy - Highlight CLIMATEGATE | WHAT REALLY HAPPENED You Tube Now Banning Videos Critical Of Global Warming Alarmism ... YouTube has censored a video critical of a global warming alarmists, who says global ... www.whatreallyhappened.com/category/climategate - View by Ixquick Proxy - Highlight 911 | WHAT REALLY HAPPENED Fresh From World wide Blockage from the You tube Nazi's is ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC, ..... just make a video about where your other video that got censored is on ... www.whatreallyhappened.com/category/911 - View by Ixquick Proxy - Highlight American Racism, Kent State Cover-up, Israel Propaganda ... Sep 23, 2012 ... BTS talks to Mickey Huff, Director of Project Censored, about the ... Reality Check : Muslim Protests Have Nothing To Do With A Youtube Video? www.whatreallyhappened.com/ content/ american-racism-kent-state-cover-israel-propaganda-breaking-set - View by Ixquick Proxy - Highlight An American Coup d'État? An attempted coup d'etat censored out of our history books, courtesy of corporate America, but not supported by the military, so European fascism didn't happen ... www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/coup.html?q=coup.html - View by Ixquick Proxy - Highlight know - What Really Happened One way around youtube censorship. By: dawson. Tags: 911. just make a video about where your other video that got censored is on vimeo like this. Sep 24 06: ... www.whatreallyhappened.com/node?page=6 - View by Ixquick Proxy - Highlight Seekin' that Ol' 911 Truth ... http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=related&search_query= ..... film outlining many disturbing and heavily censored facts associated with the worst ... www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/seekin.php - View by Ixquick Proxy - Edited October 3, 2012 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted October 4, 2012 Author Share Posted October 4, 2012 (edited) 911 NYPD Chopper NUMEROUS EXPLOSIONS - CONTINUOUS EXPLOSIONS Video revolutionarypolitics.tv 11th Sep 10 My Anti-virus program identified the page as a “Trojan Horse...harmful webpage or file” and blocked me from opening it with Chrome, IE or Firefox, what is it with you and virus laced sites? I found the video on YouTube and sorry it doesn't prove anything, I asked you for actual video showing flashes and or explosive sounds preceding collapse as it a controlled demo. As I noted several posts ago “...when there are large fires in office buildings filled with flammable materials (including massive amounts of jet fuel) things can explode. Most of the reports that truthers point to came well before the buildings collapsed or even became visible unstable so they don't fit CD theories...” CENSORED VIDEO ?? ITS A TREND ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ If Google doesn't follow copyright law it can get sued, since it's a free service it's no surprise they'd pull things when they get complaints and two of the non-working videos are hosted on the blogger's site. Edited October 4, 2012 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 9/11 EyeWitnesses To WTC Lobby Explosion - NIST FOIA « on: October 18, 2010, 09:49:22 PM » POSTER Oh CANADA Witnesses from the 82nd floor talk about making their way down WTC 2 building to exit after the plane hit. Once they reach the 4th floor they experience a big explosion from the lobby. "Next thing we know we had to get out of the building. We were stuck on the stairs for a while, we finally got down to the lobby, then when we get to the lobby there was this big explosion." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 More 9/11 News Videos Reporting World Trade Center Explosions "At that point, a debate began to rage because. . . many people had felt that possibly explosives had taken out 2 World Trade, and officers were gathering companies together and the officers were debating whether or not to go immediately back in or to see what was going to happen with 1 World Trade at that point. The debate ended pretty quickly because 1 World Trade came down." [ Christopher Fenyo - Firefighter] "I said, ‘Chief, they're evacuating the other building; right?’ He said, ‘No.’ . . . I said, ‘Why not? They blew up the other one.’ I thought they blew it up with a bomb. I said, ‘If they blew up the one, you know they're gonna blow up the other one.’ He said, ‘No, they're not.’ I said, ‘Well, you gotta tell them to evacuate it, because it's gonna fall down and you gotta get the guys out.’ He said, ‘I'm just the Battalion Chief. I can't order that.’ . . . I said, ‘You got a xxxxing radio and you got a xxxxing mouth. Use the xxxxing things. Empty this xxxxing building.’ Again he said, ‘I'm just a Battalion Chief. I can't do that.’ . . . Eventually this other chief came back and said, ‘They are evacuating this tower.’ . . . And sometime after that . . . I watched the north tower fall." [William Reynolds - Firefighter] "We saw some kind of explosion ... a lot of smoke come out of the top of the tower and then it collapsed down onto the streets below, much like we saw the first tower about half hour ago." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfiUOlYYcRc&feature=player_embedded [Lieutenant Fireman and former Auxiliary Police Officer, Paul Isaac Jr.] explained to me that, “many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings, but they’re afraid for their jobs to admit it because the ‘higher-ups’ forbid discussion of this fact.” Paul further elaborated that former CIA director Robert Woolsey, as the Fire Department’s Anti-terrorism Consultant, is sending a gag order down the ranks. “There were definitely bombs in those buildings,” he told me. [ Prison Planet] WTC Firefighters Tape: Explosions and Aftermath "Tower two has had major explosion and what appears to be a complete collapse" ... "...those involved in the secondary explosion at tower 1, 'kay, I've got five patients..." ... "We have got numerous people covered in dust from the secondary explosion..." ... "We've got another explosion at the tower..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted October 5, 2012 Author Share Posted October 5, 2012 More 9/11 News Videos Reporting World Trade Center Explosions "At that point, a debate began to rage because. . . many people had felt that possibly explosives had taken out 2 World Trade, and officers were gathering companies together and the officers were debating whether or not to go immediately back in or to see what was going to happen with 1 World Trade at that point. The debate ended pretty quickly because 1 World Trade came down." [ Christopher Fenyo - Firefighter] This does nothing for your case "I said, ‘Chief, they're evacuating the other building; right?’ He said, ‘No.’ . . . I said, ‘Why not? They blew up the other one.’ I thought they blew it up with a bomb. I said, ‘If they blew up the one, you know they're gonna blow up the other one.’ He said, ‘No, they're not.’ I said, ‘Well, you gotta tell them to evacuate it, because it's gonna fall down and you gotta get the guys out.’ He said, ‘I'm just the Battalion Chief. I can't order that.’ . . . I said, ‘You got a xxxxing radio and you got a xxxxing mouth. Use the xxxxing things. Empty this xxxxing building.’ Again he said, ‘I'm just a Battalion Chief. I can't do that.’ . . . Eventually this other chief came back and said, ‘They are evacuating this tower.’ . . . And sometime after that . . . I watched the north tower fall." [William Reynolds - Firefighter] This does nothing for your case "We saw some kind of explosion ... a lot of smoke come out of the top of the tower and then it collapsed down onto the streets below, much like we saw the first tower about half hour ago." This does nothing for your case, as noted many thing could have exploded in the towers [Lieutenant Fireman and former Auxiliary Police Officer, Paul Isaac Jr.] explained to me that, “many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings, but they’re afraid for their jobs to admit it because the ‘higher-ups’ forbid discussion of this fact.” Paul further elaborated that former CIA director Robert Woolsey, as the Fire Department’s Anti-terrorism Consultant, is sending a gag order down the ranks. “There were definitely bombs in those buildings,” he told me. [ Prison Planet] LOL Paul Isaac?? he is a nut case he claimed to have been a Auxiliary Firefigther or Lieutenant, the problem is the FDNY disbanded the Aux. FD decades before 9/11 he was a "former" aux. cop because he was booted. He denied ever making such comments WTC Firefighters Tape: Explosions and Aftermath "Tower two has had major explosion and what appears to be a complete collapse" ... "...those involved in the secondary explosion at tower 1, 'kay, I've got five patients..." ... "We have got numerous people covered in dust from the secondary explosion..." ... "We've got another explosion at the tower..." Please provide a link to actual transcrips Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted October 5, 2012 Author Share Posted October 5, 2012 9/11 EyeWitnesses To WTC Lobby Explosion - NIST FOIA « on: October 18, 2010, 09:49:22 PM » POSTER Oh CANADA Witnesses from the 82nd floor talk about making their way down WTC 2 building to exit after the plane hit. Once they reach the 4th floor they experience a big explosion from the lobby. "Next thing we know we had to get out of the building. We were stuck on the stairs for a while, we finally got down to the lobby, then when we get to the lobby there was this big explosion." 9/11 EyeWitnesses To WTC Lobby Explosion - NIST FOIA « on: October 18, 2010, 09:49:22 PM » POSTER Oh CANADA Witnesses from the 82nd floor talk about making their way down WTC 2 building to exit after the plane hit. Once they reach the 4th floor they experience a big explosion from the lobby. "Next thing we know we had to get out of the building. We were stuck on the stairs for a while, we finally got down to the lobby, then when we get to the lobby there was this big explosion." The big explosion was the building coming down. I asked you for actual video footage in which we can hear explosions or see flashes just before collapse as in controlled demolition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted October 5, 2012 Share Posted October 5, 2012 (edited) [Lieutenant Fireman and former Auxiliary Police Officer, Paul Isaac Jr.] explained to me that, “many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings, but they’re afraid for their jobs to admit it because the ‘higher-ups’ forbid discussion of this fact.” Paul further elaborated that former CIA director Robert Woolsey, as the Fire Department’s Anti-terrorism Consultant, is sending a gag order down the ranks. “There were definitely bombs in those buildings,” he told me. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Witnesses from the 82nd floor talk about making their way down WTC 2 building to exit after the plane hit. Once they reach the 4th floor they experience a big explosion from the lobby. THIS MUST TAKE A LONG TIME,JUST ISNT FIREBALL FROM PLANE DOWN THE SHAFT. ########################################## WTC Firefighters Tape: Explosions and Aftermath Edited wma file of 9/11 firefighters' transmissions The above wma file is edited from the 9/11 radio transmissions of North Brunswick Volunteer Fire/Ladder Company #3. The file begins with the collapse of the WTC 2, @3:23 there are three beeps - this signifies a ~20 minute tape edit, and time has moved on to the collapse of WTC 1. Numerous explosions are reported by firefighters in the transmissions... "Tower two has had major explosion and what appears to be a complete collapse" "...those involved in the secondary explosion at tower 1, 'kay, I've got five patients..." "We have got numerous people covered in dust from the secondary explosion..." "We've got another explosion at the tower..." Video Evidence of an Explosion at the Base of WTC 1 ...maybe that's why the OEM issued a World Trade Center collapse warning. Why were only a select few warned? Listen to the firefighters transmissions and ask yourself that question. See also: 9/11 Firefighters: Bombs and Explosions in the WTCThe 9/11 WTC Collapses: An Audio-Video Analysis Edited October 5, 2012 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted October 7, 2012 Author Share Posted October 7, 2012 (edited) [Lieutenant Fireman and former Auxiliary Police Officer, Paul Isaac Jr.] explained to me that, “many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings, but they’re afraid for their jobs to admit it because the ‘higher-ups’ forbid discussion of this fact.” Paul further elaborated that former CIA director Robert Woolsey, as the Fire Department’s Anti-terrorism Consultant, is sending a gag order down the ranks. “There were definitely bombs in those buildings,” he told me. As previously explained “LOL Paul Isaac?? he is a nut case he claimed to have been a Auxiliary Firefighter or Lieutenant, the problem is the FDNY disbanded the Aux. FD decades before 9/11 he was a "former" aux. cop because he was booted. He denied ever making such comments.” That's what he claimed to be an “ AUXILIARY Firefighter” That's how he was described in the article your author cited as was as in a very similar article from by “Victorn Thorn” from “Wing-TV”. A later article by Thorn's wife Lisa Guliani reported that Isaac called both American Free Press and Thorn & Guliani to deny have made such comments. He also denied having said this to Mark “Gravy” Roberts. Guliani also claimed that the mother of Isaac's girl friend told her 'that her family has been having some “problems” with Isaac. She went so far as to use the words, “mental problems” and told me he’s been giving them “trouble”'. Besides having denied making such comments and being reported to have “mental problems” (which fits with his odd behavior) he claim to hold position which ceased to exist years ago, the have not been any FDNY Auxiliary Firefighters for decades. According to several posters on the NYCFIRE.NET forum it was disbanded in the 1970s it seems to have been used primarily to make up for manpower lost during the World Wars. This is further confirmed by the NYC government website which has two hits for “Auxiliary Firefighter”, “Auxiliary Firefighters”, “Auxiliary Fireman” or “Auxiliary Firemen”, they are to two photos from 1952. You will search in vain for reliable references “Auxiliary Firefighter” or “Auxiliary Firefighters” in the FDNY except for articles that mention Isaac (he coned the reporters) and one from the Daily News that mistakenly identified an NYFD Fire Patrolman as an “Auxiliary Firefighter” http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_lavello_050503_bombs.html http://www.wingtv.net/paulisaac.html http://www.wingtv.net/thornarticles/isaac2.html http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1838945#post1838945 http://nycfire.net/forums/index.php/topic,1558.0.html http://search1.nyc.gov/search?output=xml_no_dtd&site=default_collection&proxystylesheet=default_frontend&client=default_frontend&q=%22%93Auxiliary+Firefighter%94%22&submit222=Go Witnesses from the 82nd floor talk about making their way down WTC 2 building to exit after the plane hit. Once they reach the 4th floor they experience a big explosion from the lobby. THIS MUST TAKE A LONG TIME,JUST ISNT FIREBALL FROM PLANE DOWN THE SHAFT. ########################################## Listen again they said they were stuck for a while on the 4th floor but when they finally got to the lobby there was an explosion. They almost certainly were in the North Tower (WTC 1) the man said they saw the shadow of a plane just before impact which means they were on the impact side of the building and he was near a window. The 82nd floor the center of the impact zone of WTC 2. Only 20 people survived from the impact zone of WTC2, 12 of whom were in the 78th floor Sky Lobby, 9 of who were the north (far) side; so it is inconceivable they not only survived but would have been so unscathed if that's where they had been. He said he saw widows falling from floors above and neither was aware of a previous crash, flight 175 hit 26 minutes after flight 11, based on data from NIST and USA Today 90% of the people on floors 77 and up had left, were trying to leave or were helping others escape. So these 2 were in WTC1 the most likely source of the “explosion” was the WTC 2 crash. http://www.nist.gov/...m?pub_id=909017 table 3-2 http://usatoday30.us...loor-usat_x.htm WTC Firefighters Tape: Explosions and Aftermath Edited wma file of 9/11 firefighters' transmissions The above wma file is edited from the 9/11 radio transmissions of North Brunswick Volunteer Fire/Ladder Company #3. The file begins with the collapse of the WTC 2, @3:23 there are three beeps - this signifies a ~20 minute tape edit, and time has moved on to the collapse of WTC 1. Numerous explosions are reported by firefighters in the transmissions... "Tower two has had major explosion and what appears to be a complete collapse" "...those involved in the secondary explosion at tower 1, 'kay, I've got five patients..." "We have got numerous people covered in dust from the secondary explosion..." "We've got another explosion at the tower..." We're going in circles again, explosions don't necessarily = explosives. Video Evidence of an Explosion at the Base of WTC 1 Very weak, your holocaust denying hero said “The camera was not hand held, it was directly connected to the ground via a tripod, and this allowed the camera to visually capture a ground shake which occurred ~13 seconds before the building collapsed. “ but it the footage clearly came from a helicopter the angle is almost straight on to upper floors and we can even hear the rotors, what we don't hear is an explosion, you just debunked yourself another brilliant own goal. ...maybe that's why the OEM issued a World Trade Center collapse warning. Why were only a select few warned? We've been over this countless times, you're sending in circles again. "Listen to the firefighters transmissions and ask yourself that question. See also: 9/11 Firefighters: Bombs and Explosions in the WTC The 9/11 WTC Collapses: An Audio-Video Analysis" We're going in circles again, explosions don't necessarily = explosives. Cacchioli said he'd been misquoted. Edited October 7, 2012 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 (edited) #911Truth #WTFact No. 48: The NORAD Drills And What Happened To Our Fighter Jets July 26, 2012 +++++++++++++++ WTFact No. 48: The NORAD Drills And What Happened To Our Fighter Jets After reading about the farcical nature of the 9/11 Commission report in WTFact #49, it should be more apparent how disingenuous the effort of the commission was. No matter what your thoughts on the events of 9/11, one of the most notable unanswered questions centers around the massive military drills taking place prior to and on September 11th. The oft repeated theme during the benign investigation was whether the exercises impacted the ability to respond to the crisis. NORAD, North American Aerospace Defense Command, is a joint organization of Canada and the United States that provides aerospace warning, air sovereignty, and defense. The war games being conducted on the morning of 9/11 were using many of the fighter jets that would have otherwise been available at air bases throughout the Northeast. Some of the war games involved remarkably similar scenarios of airliners being flown into buildings. The odds that a real event should occur the exact same day of a similar drill or exercise are 1-in who knows how many zeros. This is a list of the exercises happening that day. Global Guardian — annual command-level exercise organized by United States Strategic Command in coöperation with Space Command and NORAD. Vigilant Guardian — semiannual NORAD exercise that had been running in conjunction with Global Guardian for several days and which postulated a bomber attack from the former Soviet Union. Crown Vigilance — Air Combat Command Apollo Guardian — Space Command Amalgam Warrior, also going on, was related to Vigilant Guardian but there no known specifics. Coincidentally, the Russian 37th Air Army was also conducting its own major bomber exercises across the Arctic and Atlantic. Operation Tripod, scheduled for Sept. 12, was set up to “test the plan to distribute antibiotics to the entire city population during a bioterrorism attack”. Richard Sheirer, director of the New York City mayor’s Office of Emergency Management (OEM), had hired “over 1,000 Police Academy cadets and Fire Department trainees to play terrified civilians afflicted with various medical conditions, allergies, and panic attacks.” Various individuals were invited to watch, including Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, the police and fire commissioners, and representatives of the FBI and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). This exercise didn’t necessarily detract from measures related to hijacked planes, but they didn’t have far to go to help out with the real emergency that happened. The Vigilant Guardian exercise definitely caused some confusion that day which was referenced most famously in chapter 1, footnote 116 of the 9/11 Commission Report. After initial FAA notification of the hijacked planes, the NEADS operator responded “Is this real world or exercise? FAA responds “No, this is not an exercise, not a test”. This is one of the more frequently heard clips of NORAD’s awareness. More curiously, the standard operating procedures for dealing with hijacked airliners that had protected this country’s airspace for decades, were not followed on September 11, 2001 because earlier in the year, on May 31, Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld made sweeping changes which, among other things, required his prior authorization before military fighter jets could be scrambled to intercept threats. In the first few days after 9/11, the military admitted that NORAD did not act until after the strike on the Pentagon at 9:38, although it was at 8:15 that morning that Flight 11 was known to be in trouble. Interceptions usually occur within 15 minutes, but on 9/11, 80+ minutes elapsed before any fighters were even airborne. The standard operating procedures on intercepting planes had worked flawlessly 100 or more times a year, why change them then? Subsequently, when the NORAD recordings were released and analyzed, NORAD, the 9/11 commission and the FAA were attempting was to divert attention from the high plausibility of a military stand down order, but the tapes confirmed the FAA did notify NORAD. This Infowars article highlights the deception that the 10 member commission said they received from the Pentagon originally reported by the Washington Post. In August 2006, the Washington Post reported, “Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon’s initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate.” The report revealed how the 10-member commission deeply suspected deception to the point where they considered referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation. From the same article, there’s quotes from Thomas Kean and James Farmer respectively, showing the panel was chasing it’s tail and they knew it. “We to this day don’t know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us,” said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. “It was just so far from the truth.… It’s one of those loose ends that never got tied.” Farmer himself is quoted in the Post article, stating, “I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The [Norad air defense] tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years…. This is not spin. This is not true.” If we’re to believe the 9/11 Report that the 19 fabled hijackers really pulled this off, they either got real lucky or had help to land on a day when most of the resources assigned to hijackings were unavailable. That has to make you wonder. Here is another prime example from 9/11 Blogger of how the committee wasted America’s time and hid the truth, in this case by placing a lot of blame on the FAA. The NORAD timeline indicated that during the crisis hours of 9/11, the FAA became increasingly slower in delivering alerts to NORAD. This seemed to shift the blame for the failed response to the FAA. As late as May 2003, General Arnold of NORAD, sitting alongside Gen. Myers, presented a slightly revised version of NORAD’s Sept. 2001 timeline, in testimony to the Kean Commission. He revealed for the first time that NORAD was alerted about the hijacking of Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania, at 9:16 a.m., a full 47 minutes before the claimed crash time at 10:03. But he stuck to the story about the other flights; in the case of AA77 which hit the Pentagon, the alert supposedly arrived at 9:24 am. The FAA disputed Gen. Arnold’s testimony with a statement of May 21, 2003. The FAA claimed that regardless of the official notification times claimed by NORAD, phone bridges were established immediately after the initial attack (at 8:46). NORAD was informed in real time throughout of all developments, including about the plane that ultimately hit the Pentagon, the FAA said. Thus for more than a year the FAA has been in open dispute with NORAD on the issue of who informed whom and when about the Sept. 11 hijackings; unfortunately, this has never become the major media story it deserves to be. The Kean Commission itself intervened in June 2004. In a staff statement delivered at its final set of hearings (“Improvising a Homeland Defense”), the Commission outlined a chronology that completely ditched the timeline that NORAD had upheld for two years. It also effectively placed almost all of the blame for delayed air defense response on the FAA. Gens. Arnold and Myers, who testified to the Commission that same morning, were not held to account for having presented an entirely wrong timeline a year earlier. Instead, they simply thanked the Kean Commission for clearing up the confusion. In return, one commissioner made a point of telling the generals they were not to blame; after all, it was all the FAA’s fault! A group of FAA officials who testified in the subsequent, final session stuck by their old defense that they had in fact provided adequate and timely information to NORAD via the phone bridges. As the hearings concluded, they still disputed both timelines: the old one from NORAD, and the new one from the Kean Commission. The discrepancies are readily apparent to anyone paying attention. With all these activities taking place, it’s easy to see that beyond the confusion, the sheer distance most of these aircraft were from their normal areas created large areas of unmanned airspace which is perfect if you don’t want any interference or witnesses to suspicious plane behavior and flight paths. The fact that these discrepancies did not raise more concern should put this in more context. To gain more clarity, watch any one of the videos below CBS News Keith Olbermann USA Today and other “mainstream” articles pointed out by Alex Jones The exercises explained by Loose Change The 47 min film “9/11 Intercepted“ Edited October 13, 2012 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 (edited) REPOSTED WORKING VIDEO LINK “9/11 Intercepted' Edited October 14, 2012 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted October 14, 2012 Author Share Posted October 14, 2012 LOL changing the subject once again Gaal, even John Simkin noted you have a habit of doing this. I imagine this is a sign you know you're loosing. #911Truth #WTFact No. 48: The NORAD Drills And What Happened To Our Fighter Jets July 26, 2012 +++++++++++++++ WTFact No. 48: The NORAD Drills And What Happened To Our Fighter Jets After reading about the farcical nature of the 9/11 Commission report in WTFact #49, it should be more apparent how disingenuous the effort of the commission was. No matter what your thoughts on the events of 9/11, one of the most notable unanswered questions centers around the massive military drills taking place prior to and on September 11th. The oft repeated theme during the benign investigation was whether the exercises impacted the ability to respond to the crisis. NORAD, North American Aerospace Defense Command, is a joint organization of Canada and the United States that provides aerospace warning, air sovereignty, and defense. The war games being conducted on the morning of 9/11 were using many of the fighter jets that would have otherwise been available at air bases throughout the Northeast. BS, after being cut in the wake of the Cold War the number of jets on scramble alert had been reduced to 14 in the 'Lower 48' only 4 were anywhere near the hijacked jets, 2 at Otis AFB in Cape Cod and 2 at Langley AFB which despite its name is in southern Virgina. Some of the war games involved remarkably similar scenarios of airliners being flown into buildings. The odds that a real event should occur the exact same day of a similar drill or exercise are 1-in who knows how many zeros. This is a list of the exercises happening that day. Global Guardian — annual command-level exercise organized by United States Strategic Command in coöperation with Space Command and NORAD. Vigilant Guardian — semiannual NORAD exercise that had been running in conjunction with Global Guardian for several days and which postulated a bomber attack from the former Soviet Union. Crown Vigilance — Air Combat Command Apollo Guardian — Space Command Amalgam Warrior, also going on, was related to Vigilant Guardian but there no known specifics. Zero citations, were all these exercises really going on on 9/11? If so what evidence is there they negatively impacted response times? Coincidentally, the Russian 37th Air Army was also conducting its own major bomber exercises across the Arctic and Atlantic. Operation Tripod, scheduled for Sept. 12, was set up to “test the plan to distribute antibiotics to the entire city population during a bioterrorism attack”. Richard Sheirer, director of the New York City mayor’s Office of Emergency Management (OEM), had hired “over 1,000 Police Academy cadets and Fire Department trainees to play terrified civilians afflicted with various medical conditions, allergies, and panic attacks.” Various individuals were invited to watch, including Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, the police and fire commissioners, and representatives of the FBI and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). This exercise didn’t necessarily detract from measures related to hijacked planes, but they didn’t have far to go to help out with the real emergency that happened. So exercises that supposedly retarded response are proof of an 'inside job' and one that apparently aided response is evidence of the same thing? The Vigilant Guardian exercise definitely caused some confusion that day which was referenced most famously in chapter 1, footnote 116 of the 9/11 Commission Report. After initial FAA notification of the hijacked planes, the NEADS operator responded “Is this real world or exercise? FAA responds “No, this is not an exercise, not a test”. This is one of the more frequently heard clips of NORAD’s awareness. And as can be seen on one of the posted videos (the CBS one IIRC) asking and answering such questions only took about 1 second. More curiously, the standard operating procedures for dealing with hijacked airliners that had protected this country’s airspace for decades, were not followed on September 11, 2001 because earlier in the year, on May 31, Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld made sweeping changes which, among other things, required his prior authorization before military fighter jets could be scrambled to intercept threats. More BS, typical truther confusion they conflated intercept orders, sending fighters into the air to accompany suspect aircraft with shootdown orders, jets were scrambled (order to intercept) but failed to reach any of the jets before they crashed, the order did not affect one or the other. In the first few days after 9/11, the military admitted that NORAD did not act until after the strike on the Pentagon at 9:38, Independent of what they may or may not have initially said multiple sources indicated planes scrambled well before this. although it was at 8:15 that morning that Flight 11 was known to be in trouble. Interceptions usually occur within 15 minutes, -According to the 9/11 Timeline it wasn't till 8:20 that ATC concluded the flight had been hijacked and wasn't till 8:30 – 8:40 that the military were notified. - The notion that “interceptions usually occur within 15 minutes” is truther fiction. It took well over an hour to intercept Payne Stewart's plane and that was the only NORAD intercept over the US mainland in the decade preceding 9/11. http://www.historyco...ay_of_9/11=aa11 http://911myths.com/.../Intercept_time but on 9/11, 80+ minutes elapsed before any fighters were even airborne. No it took about 25 minutes. The standard operating procedures on intercepting planes had worked flawlessly 100 or more times a year, why change them then? Another claim without documentation. Subsequently, when the NORAD recordings were released and analyzed, NORAD, the 9/11 commission and the FAA were attempting was to divert attention from the high plausibility of a military stand down order, but the tapes confirmed the FAA did notify NORAD. No one disputed that the FAA informed NORAD, the link provided nothing but speculation. This Infowars article highlights the deception that the 10 member commission said they received from the Pentagon originally reported by the Washington Post. In August 2006, the Washington Post reported, “Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon’s initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate.” The report revealed how the 10-member commission deeply suspected deception to the point where they considered referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation. From the same article, there’s quotes from Thomas Kean and James Farmer respectively, showing the panel was chasing it’s tail and they knew it. “We to this day don’t know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us,” said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. “It was just so far from the truth.… It’s one of those loose ends that never got tied.” Farmer himself is quoted in the Post article, stating, “I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The [Norad air defense] tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years…. This is not spin. This is not true.” But none of the sources above indicated there was stand down order. If we’re to believe the 9/11 Report that the 19 fabled hijackers really pulled this off, they either got real lucky or had help to land on a day when most of the resources assigned to hijackings were unavailable. That has to make you wonder. The bolded part above is a fallacious conclusion based on the underlined false premise. Here is another prime example from 9/11 Blogger of how the committee wasted America’s time and hid the truth, in this case by placing a lot of blame on the FAA. The NORAD timeline indicated that during the crisis hours of 9/11, the FAA became increasingly slower in delivering alerts to NORAD. This seemed to shift the blame for the failed response to the FAA. As late as May 2003, General Arnold of NORAD, sitting alongside Gen. Myers, presented a slightly revised version of NORAD’s Sept. 2001 timeline, in testimony to the Kean Commission. He revealed for the first time that NORAD was alerted about the hijacking of Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania, at 9:16 a.m., a full 47 minutes before the claimed crash time at 10:03. But he stuck to the story about the other flights; in the case of AA77 which hit the Pentagon, the alert supposedly arrived at 9:24 am. “ the alert [that AA 77 had been hijacked] SUPPOSEDLY arrived at 9:24 am.” Still not evidence of a stand down To gain more clarity, watch any one of the videos below CBS News Keith Olbermann Nothing in these videos supports the notion there was a stand down. USA Today and other “mainstream” articles pointed out by Alex Jones Despite all of Jones' hysterical (in both sense of the word) huffing and puffing he didn't provide evidence for a stand down. Oh and the exercise of a plane crashing into the Pentagon was first responders nor air defenses and the imagined scenario did not entail a hijacking, it's on the flight path for Washington National Airport. The exercises explained by Loose Change The 47 min film “9/11 Intercepted' Doesn't play Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 (edited) OF NOTE FOREKNOWLEDGE DISCREDITS AIA,CREDITS GAGE < ON TOPIC video reposted post # 102 above ############################## STAND DOWN WITHOUT SAYING STAND-DOWN The 'Stand-Down Order' The shocking failure of the air defense system to protect New York City and the capital would seem to require either an incredible series of failures or an order to stop intercepts -- a stand-down order. Yet apparently there have been no cases of military officials disciplined for gross negligence surrounding 9/11/01, nor have there been publicized reports of commanders admitting to having received stand-down orders. If the stand-down order were disguised as a procedural change, and enacted well in advance, it might be hidden in plain sight. CJCSI 3610.01, dated July 31, 1997, required that all requests for assistance in hijackings be approved by the Secretary of Defense. An update to that order, CJCSI 3610.01, dated June 1, 2001, had an exception for emergencies that would seem to give commanders in the field autonomy in ordering intercepts. However, that exception did not cover requests for "potentially lethal assistance", the kind required to respond to the attack: (DODD 2025.15, Feb. 18, 1997) 4.4 The Secretary of Defense retains approval authority for support to civil authorities involving: use of Commander in Chief (CINC)-assigned forces (personnel units, and equipment) when required under paragraph 4.5, below; DoD support that will result in a planned event with the potential for confrontation with specifically identified individuals and/or groups or will result in the use of lethal force. 1 Hence, this order may have been the long-sought stand-down order. If it is true that the standing orders would have required approval by the Secretary of Defense for intercepts on 9/11/01, then, in theory, a defacto stand-down could have been implemented by the secretary simply failing to act during the crisis. However, it is doubtful that insiders planning the attack would have relied on the orders alone to assure that there was no effective military response to the attack. It was likely one of a number of "fixes" that included multiple war games planned on the day of the attack. Thus, even if commanders violated standing orders and ordered intercepts of the commandeered jetliners, they would face depleted interceptor resources and corrupted flight data. The following post starts with the June 1st order and goes on about Rumsfeld. It fails to note Reference D, explained in Jerry Russell's stand-down post, and fails to note the order which JCSI 3610.01A supersedes, JCSI 3610.01. e x c e r p t title: Criminal Mastermind: Donald Rumsfeld From: *San Francisco IMC* ----------------------------------------------------------------- *Criminal Mastermind: Donald Rumsfeld* by D. Rumsfeld /Thursday July 17, 2003 at 06:52 PM/ Download the actual Joint Chiefs of Staff Document this article is based on (Adobe PDF): http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf Criminal Mastermind: Donald Rumsfeld (please help to disseminate this information) By Donald Rumsfeld's own admission, he was unaware of any threats to the Pentagon -- the building where he was located during the September 11th attacks -- until an aircraft crashed into the side of it, and he ran out "into the smoke" to see if it might be a "A bomb? I had no idea." (ABC News This Week, Interview 9/16/01). Well, that's a pretty tall tale by any standard. The New York Times reported that by 8:13am, the FAA was aware of the first hijacking out of Boston. The Pentagon explosion, which Donald Rumsfeld claimed he had "no idea," did not occur until approximately 9:37am, nearly an hour and a half later, this after two of the tallest buildings in the world were devastated. Note that a plane hijacked out of Boston can reach Washington D.C. as easily as it can reach New York City. It was widely reported that Pentagon personnel were indeed aware of the threats to their security, and they took security measures on that morning. But not the "Secretary of Defense." Why should the man charged with defending the United States of America concern himself with hijacked aircraft? There is a set of procedures for responding to hijackings. In particular, these procedures were changed on June 1, 2001 while Rumsfeld was in power as our Secretary of Defense, in a document called: "CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF INSTRUCTION, J-3 CJCSI 3610.01A" (http://www.dtic.mil/...si/3610_01a.pdf) "AIRCRAFT PIRACY (HIJACKING) AND DESTRUCTION OF DERELICT AIRBORNE OBJECTS" These are the standing orders to the military as to how to respond to hijackings over United States territory. The June 1 '01 document deliberately changed the existing policies. Previous directives were issued in 1997, 1986 and before. What is shocking about this entire sordid episode is the total disconnect between what Donald Rumsfeld's story alleges (ignorance of inbound hijacked aircraft), and what these Chief of Staff Instructions require of the Secretary of Defense: "b. Support. When notified that military assistance is needed in conjunction with an aircraft piracy (hijacking) emergency, the DDO, NMCC, will: (1) Determine whether or not the assistance needed is reasonably available from police or commercial sources. If not, the DDO, NMCC, will notify the appropriate unified command or NORAD to determine if suitable assets are available and will forward the request to the Secretary of Defense for approval in accordance with DODD 3025.15, paragraph D.7 (reference d)." "APPROVAL" The usage of the word "approval" is the major change here to the existing hijacking response procedures. While the text of the document tries to link this "approval" to the previous orders "DODD 3025.15," the approval is now required BEFORE providing any assistance at all. Previously, approval would be required to respond to a situation with lethal force. This June 1st update to the orders stopped all military assistance in its tracks UNTIL approval from Donald Rumsfeld (the "Secretary of Defense") could be granted -- which, by his own admission, it was not. Rumsfeld claimed total ignorance of the inbound aircraft that attacked the Pentagon (on the opposite side of the building complex, where a construction project had been underway) .* In this manner, fighter planes were held up from immediately responding to the hijacked commercial jets on September the 11th. The flight base commanders were ordered by the June 1st "Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction" to wait for "approval" from the Secretary of Defense before they could respond to hijackings, where they would have routinely responded in the past. It's inconceivable that New York City could be struck by two wayward jumbo jets, and still over 30 minutes later there remained no defenses over the skies of Washington D.C., easily one of the most heavily defended places in the world. This reality led Anatoli Kornukov, the commander-in-chief of the Russian Air Force to say: "Generally it is impossible to carry out an act of terror on the scenario which was used in the USA yesterday. (...) As soon as something like that happens here, I am reported about that right away and in a minute we are all up." The Plot Thickens Enter the patsy. Rumsfeld wouldn't be a mastermind if he hadn't thought of a fall guy to take the blame, if needed. This brings us to Tom White, the former Enron executive, appointed to be Secretary of the Army, and more importantly the "executive agent for the Department of Defense" on May 31, 2001 -- ONE DAY BEFORE THE NEW HIJACKING INSTRUCTIONS WERE ISSUED! The first public statement of Donald Rumsfeld on September 11th, 2001 makes an issue of Tom White's "responsibility" for the situation: "Secretary of the Army Tom White, who has a responsibility for incidents like this as executive agent for the Department of Defense, is also joining me." (The Pentagon, Arlington, Virginia, September 11, 2001 6:42 P.M., http://www.patriotre...l/0911/DoD.html) It should be noted that Rumsfeld eventually fired White, allegedly for disagreeing about a weapons system. But, what about the introduction cited above? This is clearly an attempt to divert blame and responsibility away from the Secretary of Defense, and over to the "executive agent" a position that the general public would have no knowledge. That way, if inquisitive reporters started asking questions about the procedures and failures, Rumsfeld would have an easy scapegoat as to who the *real* person in charge of the situation should have been. Amazingly, no mainstream reporters bothered to investigate these matters at this level, and so the patsy wound up being unnecessary. The Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction is explicit, however, and it mentions Rumsfeld's position and it requires his "approval." Just where was this "approval" on September 11th 2001? There is no mention of the Secretary of Defense approving anything related to the hijackings. The Vice-President (Cheney) is on record as approving the shooting down of the fourth plane over Pennsylvania. Whether or not the shoot-down occurred is not yet clear. But there is no connection whatsoever to the Secretary of Defense, whose "approval" is explicitly required before the military can respond to a hijacking incident over the USA, according to its own instructions. CHANGING THE RULES The 1997 procedures provided a clear way for the military to respond to an emergency such as a hijacking: "4.7.1. Immediate Response. Requests for an immediate response (i.e., any form of immediate action taken by a DoD Component or military commander to save lives, prevent human suffering, or mitigate great property damage under imminently serious conditions) may be made to any Component or Command. The DoD Components that receive verbal requests from civil authorities for support in an exigent emergency may initiate informal planning and, if required, immediately respond as authorized in DoD Directive 3025.1 (reference (g))." Rumsfeld went ahead and clouded the waters. The priority in the June 1st, 2001 directive is to place decision making power -- in the specific case of a hijacking -- into the hands of the Secretary of Defense. This is repeated in multiple paragraphs: "c. Military Escort Aircraft (1) When notified that military escort aircraft are needed in conjunction with an aircraft piracy (hijacking) emergency, the DDO, NMCC, will notify the appropriate unified command or USELEMNORAD to determine if suitable aircraft are available and forward the request to the Secretary of Defense for approval in accordance with DODD 3025.15, paragraph D.7 (reference d)." This creates the necessity for: 1) making a request to the Secretary of Defense, and 2) receiving approval before military aircraft may respond. The statement "to determine if suitable aircraft are available" is also suspicious. Can anyone imagine a situation where the United States of America does not have a "suitable aircraft" available to respond to a hijacked airliner? NORAD tried to spin such a story in the aftermath of September 11th. Supposedly, we just didn't have any fighter planes on the morning of September 11th. What were they all doing? Obviously we had planes available in Washington D.C., because press reports tell us about the "air cover" or "air cap" that went into effect just after the Pentagon was struck. Planes from Andrews Air Force base were in the sky "just minutes" after the Pentagon was struck. Why was no air cover available BEFORE the Pentagon was struck, Mr. Rumsfeld? After all, the "Secretary of Defense" is supposed to approve the launching of "Military Escort Aircraft." Did you? If not, why not? Also, if you take no interest in actually "defending" the people of America during an attack, why do you remain in your position as the Secretary of Defense? RUMSFELD SPINNING LIES Both Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice have maintained the fiction that: "RUMSFELD: (...) Never would have crossed anyone's mind that a commercial airline -- usually a hijacker who takes an airplane, of course, wants to get someplace or wants to make a statement or wants to go on television or wants to hold hostages, but this is a distinctly different behavior pattern than we've seen previously, and now, obviously, it's something we have to be attentive to." (NBC's Meet the Press, Washington, D.C., September30, 2001 http://www.patriotre...930/SoDNBC.html) This is a blatant lie, which can be disproved in numerous ways: 1) Threats of a suicide skyjacking were known at the Genoa G-8 summit in July of 2001. The Italian government ringed the city of Genoa and the airport with anti-aircraft guns and missiles because of a known Al Qaeda plot to assassinate George W. Bush and other world leaders. (LA TIMES, September 27, 2001) 2) The Pentagon had staged response exercises, "Mass Casualty Exercises" in the case of a crash by a jetliner, nearly a year before September 11th in October of 2000. 3) Since 1995, the FBI had been aware of "Project Bojinka" a plan by extremists to simultaneously seize and to crash multiple commercial jets as suicide weapons. This prompted investigations at US flight schools. 4) Numerous warnings from Britain, Egypt, Germany, Russia, Israel, Jordan and others alerted the US intelligence services that a plane would be used as a weapon to attack "prominent symbols of American power," including World Trade Center and the Pentagon, during the Summer of 2001. 5) A small Cessna plane actually did crash into the White House on September 12, 1994. 6) In 1994, suicidal Algerian hijackers plotted to use an Air France jetliner, loaded with fuel and dynamite as a deadly weapon and crash into the Eiffel Tower. 7) Another similar plan had Muslim militants hijack Pan Am Flight 76 in Pakistan in 1986 in order to attack Tel Aviv, Israel. The plane was stormed before take-off. 8) At the 1996 Atlanta Summer Olympics, "Black Hawk helicopters and US Customs Service jets were deployed to intercept suspicious aircraft in the skies over the Olympic venues," (LA Times). With the numerous reports that came out in May of 2002 of Bush Administration warnings prior to September 11th, it is the lack of action that is most telling. The American people were not warned. Instead lies were told that "no warnings" were ever received. When it became public knowledge that warnings were indeed received, the Bush Administration spin changed to "warnings weren't specific enough." This is also a lie. If US airport security screeners were given the type of information that was widely known in the intelligence community, then there is a good chance that thousands of lives could have been saved. But, in that case, we wouldn't have a "new Pearl Harbor." PRETEXT FOR AMERICAN AGGRESSION The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) is a Washington foreign policy "think tank" created in 1997 by Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, Jeb Bush and others. Their policy papers are available on the web. In a document called "Rebuilding America's Defenses" they spell out pretty straightforwardly what it is they seek. The "neo conservatives" want nothing short of total world domination though military and financial supremacy. It is about the time that the PNAC was founded when Rumsfeld and others began to pressure President Clinton to invade Iraq. A January 1998 letter demands a new strategy of Clinton: "That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power." Iraq, the second largest oil reserve in the world, is a major strategic prize. And it is the strategic advantage that drives the ideologues such as Rumsfeld, confident in the belief that whatever means employed are justified in the pursuit of American "primacy" or dominance over the entire world. The Project for the New American Century will accept no challenge to American supremacy around the globe, and the policies they are now implementing support this belief. They intend to raise military expenditures to absurd levels, in a world where the United States already outspends the rest of the earth combined on military. What the September 11th attacks are then is stated explicitly in "Rebuilding America's Defenses." It is the "new Pearl Harbor." According to Rumsfeld and company, the United States of America would slowly become the unchallenged power of the world. But this process would be speeded up satisfactorily if some new external attack, "some catastrophic and catalysing event, like a new Pearl Harbor" were to occur. This concept is also state explicitly in "THE GRAND CHESSBOARD - American Primacy And It's Geostrategic Imperatives," Zbigniew Brzezinski, Basic Books, 1997. Both Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz traveled around the media after September 11 repeating the phrase "Pearl Harbor," and cementing it in people's minds. The "Pearl Harbor effect" is what is sought. An America gung-ho for war, for payback, for militarism, for sacrifice, for tears, for aggression, for the kind of violence witnessed at Hiroshima or Nagasaki if need be, this is the intended effect of September the 11th and ultimately the reason that day came to pass. These are the true reasons that the September 11th attacks remain uninvestigated, covered-up and classified. Motive, opportunity and means -- the only thing needed here is justice. Much ado was made in the press about John Walker Lindh, the "American Taliban" who fought in Afghanistan. On September 11, 2001, there was another Al Qaeda operative, a man who did more to help the attacks succeed than anyone else. It was not Osama bin Laden, but Donald H. Rumsfeld who has earned his place in the history books as the "American Taliban 2." Don't forget that it was Donald Rumsfeld shaking the hand of Saddam Hussein in 1983, even while it was known that the dictator ("Hitler revisited") was using prohibited poison gas weapons. Rumsfeld assisted Saddam Hussein both financially and militarily, never once bringing up any qualms about helping a "ruthless dictator who gasses his own people." page: sf.indymedia.org/print.php?id=1628578 References 1. <a class="offsite" href="http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/d302515_021897/d302515p.pdf">Military Assistance to Civil Authorities, dtic.mil, 2/18/1997 Edited October 14, 2012 by Steven Gaal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted October 15, 2012 Author Share Posted October 15, 2012 (edited) OF NOTE FOREKNOWLEDGE DISCREDITS AIA,CREDITS GAGE < ON TOPIC Completely irrelevant to the collapses of the WTC towers, and thus completely irrelevant to this thread. John Simkin was critical of you tendency to hijack threads, are you saying he was wrong? video reposted post # 102 above I made it through over 15 minutes, over 1/3rd, they've yet to make a point, do they ever do so? ##############################STAND DOWN WITHOUT SAYING STAND-DOWN The 'Stand-Down Order' The shocking failure of the air defense system to protect New York City and the capital would seem to require either an incredible series of failures or an order to stop intercepts -- a stand-down order. Yet apparently there have been no cases of military officials disciplined for gross negligence surrounding 9/11/01, nor have there been publicized reports of commanders admitting to having received stand-down orders. If the stand-down order were disguised as a procedural change, and enacted well in advance, it might be hidden in plain sight. CJCSI 3610.01, dated July 31, 1997, required that all requests for assistance in hijackings be approved by the Secretary of Defense. An update to that order, CJCSI 3610.01, dated June 1, 2001, had an exception for emergencies that would seem to give commanders in the field autonomy in ordering intercepts. However, that exception did not cover requests for "potentially lethal assistance", the kind required to respond to the attack: (DODD 2025.15, Feb. 18, 1997) 4.4 The Secretary of Defense retains approval authority for support to civil authorities involving: use of Commander in Chief (CINC)-assigned forces (personnel units, and equipment) when required under paragraph 4.5, below; DoD support that will result in a planned event with the potential for confrontation with specifically identified individuals and/or groups or will result in the use of lethal force. 1 The failure to intercept was not especially schocking. It took 85 minutes for a fighter already in the air to intercept Payne Stewart's Learjet from the time of the 1st missed radio call. The Lear was flying in a straight line in uncrowded airspace with its transponder on. The hijacked planes by contrast were flying erratic paths in crowded airspace with their transponders turned off. 85 minutes after 8:15 was 9:40 by which time planes were already defending NY and DC. As for the change of orders it - as even your hapless author acknowledged - “had an exception for emergencies that would seem to give commanders in the field autonomy in ordering intercepts. However, that exception did not cover requests for "potentially lethal assistance", the kind required to respond to the attack:” But he conflated intercepts with shoot-downs, the latter is "potentially lethal” the former isn't. The fighters from Otis took off about 30 min after AA11's missed radio call, that's about how long it took to divert and launch planes in the Stewart incident. Edited October 15, 2012 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now