The Errors of my Ways

[Len Colby]

hilarious since you don't believe OBL's confession tape or the pilot's martyr videos or even acknowledgements from some of the hijacker's families they were involved. // END COLBY

###########################################

WHEN HAVE I DONE THAT ??? PLEASE NO WORDS IN MY MOUTH.

So you accept them?

[Steven Gaal]

How many times have we been over this krapola? OK highlight just the part which documents how the exercises delayed response times // end Colby

II. One would expect that having so many exercises would have caused some confusion, which might have slowed down the military response. Indeed, statements to this effect have been made:

• According to a summary of a 9/11 Commission interview with Canadian Lt. Gen. Rick Findley, who was at NORAD as the Battle Staff Director at Cheyenne Mountain Operations Center (CMOC) on September 11,2001, there was, following the second attack on the Twin Towers, “confusion as to how many, and which aircraft, were hijacked. There was no situational awareness that was directly credible, and CMOC was relying on the communications over the phone lines with its operations sectors. Findley opined that AA 11 was reported still airborne and headed towards Washington, D.C. because of the added confusion of many hijack reports.”³¹
  

• At Andrews Air Force Base outside Washington, DC, FAA Air Traffic Controller James Ampey, stationed at Andrews Tower, reported in a 9/11 Commission interview that there were an unusually high number of aircraft taking-off and landing at Andrews that morning because previously scheduled military exercises were underway. The radar screens were showing “emergencies all over the place.”³²
  

• General Larry Arnold, commander of NORAD’s Continental U.S. Region, said: “By the end of the day, we had 21 aircraft identified as possible hijackings.”³³
  

• Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke: “There were lots of false signals out there. There were false hijack squawks, and a great part of the challenge was sorting through what was a legitimate threat and what wasn’t.”³⁴
  

• FAA Deputy Administrator, Monte Belger, said:“Between 9:20-9:45 there were many confusing reports about various aircraft being unaccounted for.”³⁵
  

• An independent study in 2011 gave detailed accounts of nine falsely reported hijackings on 9/11, plus nine other reported aircraft emergencies.³⁶
  

Any new investigation should probe the fact that, taken together, this evidence suggests that:

(1) the Pentagon, after creating conditions that confused the military response to the attacks, sought to cover up its creation of these conditions, and that

(2) the 9/11 Commission facilitated this cover-up by not making public the information held in its records cited above.

[Len Colby]

How many times have we been over this krapola? OK highlight just the part which documents how the exercises delayed response times // end Colby

II. One would expect that having so many exercises would have caused some confusion, which might have slowed down the military response. Indeed, statements to this effect have been made:

• According to a summary of a 9/11 Commission interview with Canadian Lt. Gen. Rick Findley, who was at NORAD as the Battle Staff Director at Cheyenne Mountain Operations Center (CMOC) on September 11,2001, there was, following the second attack on the Twin Towers, “confusion as to how many, and which aircraft, were hijacked. There was no situational awareness that was directly credible, and CMOC was relying on the communications over the phone lines with its operations sectors. Findley opined that AA 11 was reported still airborne and headed towards Washington, D.C. because of the added confusion of many hijack reports.”³¹
  

Well then if anything it sped up response because the fighters from Langley were scrambled in response to the “phantom” AA11 not flight 77. I'll reply to rest tomorrow. See if you can post a link to the interview summary.

[Ron Ecker]

Bush claimed to have seen the 1^st crash on a TV at the school just before he went into the classroom.

It's possible that Bush did see the 1st crash, by closed circuit TV in his limo before entering the school. But that's assuming, of course, that Bush had foreknowledge, and I don't think that conspirators would let someone as stupid as Bush in on such a plot. It's more likely that the statement was just another example of his stupidity. Normal people have clear memories of 9/11, which would not include Bush.

Can you point to anyone who questioned this BEFORE he changed his story?

"The acting Joint Chief of staff on Sept 11th was on the morning of September 11th having a routine meeting . Acting Joint Chief of staff Myers stated that he saw a TV report about a plane hitting the WTC but thought it was a small plane or something like that. So, he went ahead with his meeting. 'Meanwhile the second World Trade Center was hit by another jet. Nobody informed us of that,' Myers said. By the time he came out of the meeting the Pentagon had been hit.

"Whose responsibility was it to relay this emergency to the Joint Chief of Staff? Have they been held accountable for their error? Surely this represents a breakdown of protocol."

First public hearing of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States

Statement of Mindy Kleinberg to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States

March 31, 2003

http://www.9-11commi...s_kleinberg.htm

Also note that 2 days after 9/11 he seemed to indicate he'd was made aware of the 2^nd crash shortly after it happened. When asked by Sen. Nelson about the air response to flight 77 he said “I spoke, after the second tower was hit, I spoke to the commander of NORAD, General Eberhart. And at that point, I think the decision was at that point to start launching aircraft.”

That's because Myers changed his story in the middle of his testimony, after being pressed by Nelson to give some kind of believable answer on the military response. Read the full transcript you've quoted.

Point to where any USG officials said they were sure no fighters were launched till after the Pentagon was hit.

"NORAD's Marine Corps Major Mike Snyder, in an interview with the Boston Globe that was published on September 15, stated, in the Globe's words, that fighters 'were not scrambled for more than an hour after the first hijacking was reported, by which time the three buildings were struck and a fourth hijacked plane was over Pennsylvania on a course toward Washington.' Needless to say, Snyder had a tough time explaining this. He said that a hijacked airliner had never before been steered into a skyscraper. 'This is an unprecedented event, unfortunately,' Snyder said, 'and we're just going to have to adjust accordingly.' He said that it was only after the Pentagon was hit that the military realized the scope of the attack, and finally ordered fighters aloft.

"Air Force General Richard B. Myers, the Vice Chairman (and Acting Chairman on 9/11), began with the same story at his Senate confirmation hearing (to succeed Shelton as Chairman) on September 13."

http://hobrad.angelf...com/united.html

Edited April 14, 2013 by Ron Ecker

[Len Colby]

OK I'd forgotten about the Snyder quote, if look more closely at Myers' testimony you'll see he was indicated he was unsure. Both were clearly wrong as there is no real dispute as to when the fighters from Otis were scrambled.An hour and fe w minutes elapsed between ATC Boston becoming aware of the hijack of AA11 and planes taking off from Langley.

[Ron Ecker]

OK I'd forgotten about the Snyder quote, if look more closely at Myers' testimony you'll see he was indicated he was unsure. Both were clearly wrong as there is no real dispute as to when the fighters from Otis were scrambled.An hour and fe w minutes elapsed between ATC Boston becoming aware of the hijack of AA11 and planes taking off from Langley.

No, they were not "clearly wrong," they were stating the military's original position, that no aircraft was launched till after the Pentagon was hit. Snyder stood by his story even after Dan Rather on CBS on September 14 first reported the story that "contrary to earlier reports" aircraft were launched before. You don't think Snyder, an official spokesman for NORAD, would check his facts or know what he was talking about before continuing to maintain after the CBS report that aircraft did not leave the ground till after the Pentagon was hit?

It was not until September 18 that NORAD came out with an official statement about launching aircraft before the Pentagon was hit. There is "no real dispute," you say, about this second story from the military? No, in your eyes, I guess, if the military says it, it must be true. Never mind all its documented lies about 9/11. IMO the original story, that no aircraft were launched till the attacks were over, is most likely the true one, because why in the world would the military make up such a self-damning story? When this story, the truth, proved unsatisfactory, that's when all the lies started.

Edited April 15, 2013 by Ron Ecker

[Len Colby]

It seems someone fed Snyder bad information, I can't fathom any reason to have done so intentionally. Besides the CBS News report, we have the testimony of the pilots from Otis, both of whom were ANG civilians, others at the base, various ATCs at Boston Center and other facilities and the radar returns. And there was confirmation from the civilian principle of the base school:

Wibel was preparing for a meeting with military commanders when he first heard about the first World Trade Center crash. That meeting was abruptly canceled.

"As I drove away, and was listening to the news on the radio, the 102nd was scrambling into duty," said Wibel, who could hear four more jets launching as he spoke later in the day

.

http://web.archive.org/web/20020913074052/http://www.capecodonline.com/special/terror/terrornews/102ndon12.htm

Even most truther authors (Griffin etc.) seem accept that the fighters were scrambled before the 2^nd crash.

[Ron Ecker]

It seems someone fed Snyder bad information

Someone fed Myers bad information too, since they were telling the same story, until someone fed Dan Rather at CBS "good" information. It would be interesting to find out who got nailed for feeding the Acting Chairman bad information. My guess is no one. My guess is that the story changed, from didn't launch to did launch, as soon as Myers changed it in the middle of his confirmation hearing testimony, shamelessly contradicting himself under pressure from Senator Nelson who couldn't believe what he had heard out of this general's mouth.

It stinks just like so much else about 9/11. There are unanswered questions that can only be answered by a real investigation, which will never happen in our lifetimes if ever. In the meantime we know where we stand. You are content with the official conspiracy theory, lock, stock, and barrel, and I am not.

[Len Colby]

Whatever there is no longer any serious dispute over the scramble times, not at least for Otis. I can't think of any reason it would have benefited the "plotters" to have said the planes were launched much latter than they were, can you?

[Ron Ecker]

Whatever there is no longer any serious dispute over the scramble times, not at least for Otis.

I'm not sure on what you base the statement. Let me ask you this. If you were a pilot, and your superiors announced that you took off at a certain time (several minutes before you actually did), would you publicly dispute the time, particularly if you were told by a superior that the time announced was the time you took off, "understand"?

I can't think of any reason it would have benefited the "plotters" to have said the planes were launched much latter than they were, can you?

Wrong question. It would benefit the "plotters" to have no planes launch till the attacks were over. Therefore no planes were launched till the attacks were over. They assumed, having the incredible power that they do and the unquestioning gullibility of the public, that they could get away with the naked truth, per Snyder's attempted explanation of it. But Senator Nelson, for one, wanted a believable explanation from Myers as to why planes weren't launched before the attacks were over, and that is the instant that the story changed. All of a sudden, with Myers' about-face in his testimony, planes had been launched before the attacks were over. All that was then needed was to come up with the "scramble times."

Edited April 16, 2013 by Ron Ecker

[Len Colby]

Rockin' Ron re-read my posts.

[Ron Ecker]

Rockin' Ron re-read my posts.

"Dodge noted" (Len Colby).

[Len Colby]

Rockin' Ron re-read my posts.

"Dodge noted" (Len Colby).

1. 
   the pilots were civilians
   
2. 
   there is a lot of other evidence confirming the scramble times.
   

Re-read my posts for more details.

[Ron Ecker]

1. the pilots were civilians
   

Why would a civilian be called Lt. Col. Duffy? And was Duffy telling the truth when (after the military's story changed from not launched to launched) he said he was flying "full blower all the way," when according to the timeline math he was flying at about cruise speed or less than 500 mph (less than one-third maximum speed)? It sounds like "civilian" lieutenant colonels can lie too, whether ordered to do so or not.

1. there is a lot of other evidence confirming the scramble times.
   

Yes, like the absurd statement of Lt. Col. Duffy. All this "evidence" again raises the question of why Snyder, an official NORAD spokesman, and General Myers, Acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, were given no evidence at all of any such scramble times as late as two days after the attacks, when Myers was testifying, and changing his story on the spot as needed, before a Senate committee? Myers apparently didn't take so much as a single note with him about the attacks to the hearing, since he kept saying he would have to check the record about this or that, as if he didn't expect any questions to be asked about the attack on America two days before.

To repeat myself, a lot about the 9/11 official stories (there was never one official story, rather a succession of them) stinks. But I can't help but get the feeling that you are nasally challenged.

[Len Colby]

1. the pilots were civilians
   

Why would a civilian be called Lt. Col. Duffy? And was Duffy telling the truth when (after the military's story changed from not launched to launched) he said he was flying "full blower all the way," when according to the timeline math he was flying at about cruise speed or less than 500 mph (less than one-third maximum speed)? It sounds like "civilian" lieutenant colonels can lie too, whether ordered to do so or not.

As explained above he was with the Air National Guard, i.e. he was only a LTC about 2 days a month. We went over “the timeline math” years ago.

there is a lot of other evidence confirming the scramble times.

Yes, like the absurd statement of Lt. Col. Duffy. All this "evidence" again raises the question of why Snyder, an official NORAD spokesman, and General Myers, Acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, were given no evidence at all of any such scramble times as late as two days after the attacks, when Myers was testifying, and changing his story on the spot as needed, before a Senate committee? Myers apparently didn't take so much as a single note with him about the attacks to the hearing, since he kept saying he would have to check the record about this or that, as if he didn't expect any questions to be asked about the attack on America two days before.

You’re beginning t sound like Fetzer, all the evidence contradicting you is lies. Do you think the various ATCs in the area, and the various people at Otis, several of whom were ANG or complete civilians like the school principle) were all “in on it”? All the radar returns faked as well?

Edited April 19, 2013 by Len Colby