FBI, the mob, and 9/11

[Evan Burton]

Peter,

Have you done a search through the Calgary Herald?

I have used their search facilities here:

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/index.html

and when I did a search for "Linda Slovodian" I came up with no results for that.

When I searched for "NORAD" I came up with various articles, but none of them referred to an OCT 2001 article regarding missile systems. The earliest article I can find through that website search was 23 JAN 2002 (Fighter jets scramble from Edmonton airport). I didn't examine the article for that search because it involves a fee.

I am probably not using the search facility correctly, so would appreciate it you could give me a link to the original article where these figures were quoted, and the source from which they were derived.

Thanks.

[Craig Lamson]

Peter,

Have you done a search through the Calgary Herald?

I have used their search facilities here:

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/index.html

and when I did a search for "Linda Slovodian" I came up with no results for that.

When I searched for "NORAD" I came up with various articles, but none of them referred to an OCT 2001 article regarding missile systems. The earliest article I can find through that website search was 23 JAN 2002 (Fighter jets scramble from Edmonton airport). I didn't examine the article for that search because it involves a fee.

I am probably not using the search facility correctly, so would appreciate it you could give me a link to the original article where these figures were quoted, and the source from which they were derived.

Thanks.

Here is the article in question Evan. I've decided how honest Peter was in his assesment and I'll keep that to myself. You can judge for yourself.

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/a...1_scrables.html

[Evan Burton]

Len, Charles...

I understand how you view each others assessment on things, and would really like to offer you a solution... but I can't. Charles, you'll discount material in the same way that Len and others (including myself) will discount other material. We're all probably confident our own assessments are correct, and that statements to the contrary are either incorrect or inflammatory. This is not always the case.

I disagree with a lot of people on a lot of matters on this forum. It doesn't mean I'm always right, or always wrong, or that the people who disagree with me are deliberately trying to deceive... or that I am guilty of the same charge.

We generally come to opinion based on experience, education, and research. Changing that opinion can be difficult - or unnecessary. What I have learnt to do is not try to convince your opponent they are wrong, but lay out the facts as you believe them to be... and to try to convince the lurkers that whatever opinion you hold is the more logical one.

And so I'll begin....

I totally agree with Matthew about the "anti-aircraft batteries" at the Pentagon. I have never seen any evidence of any such systems there. At certain times there may have been what we call MANPADS (Man Portable Air Defence Systems - that is, shoulder-launched missiles) but they do not have the ability to discriminate between targets using IFF (Identification - Friend or Foe). They generally use an IR source and home in on it. To me, such a claim is simply make a hypothesis without any supporting evidence. I might claim there is a secret underground airfield beneath my locale McDonalds... but I have no evidence for it at all.

I can understand your mistrust, but we have a pretty significant amount of witnesses who saw an airliner hit the Pentagon. Some military, but generally a large amount of people who just happen to be there during their normal activities.

This is not a small number of people who may have been coerced by government agencies, but a large number of people who reported what they saw almost immediately after it happened.

There is the Flight Data Recorder from the aircraft.

There is the aircraft debris around the Pentagon.

There is the damage to the building which is consistent with a large aircraft and not anomalous as some people claim, plus the remains of persons aboard the aircraft.

And much more. And I say this as someone who does have a reasonable amount of aviation experience.

I've have consistently maintained that although I do not believe it to be the case, it is possible that a group of persons unknown arranged for the 757 aircraft to be hijacked and flown into the Pentagon. That is consistent with the known facts.

Evan, My position is that 911 was an arrangement of some sort. Call it a new Pearl Harbour. As you quite rightly say, you and others view this position with distrust and tend towards favouring the "terrorists done it" storyline. And each of us tends towards harbouring and promulgating our own (now) instinctive views.

But sifting some of the more minor evidence post 911 is proving most difficult for someone not particularly intersted in the minutiae (me) of the event itself. I've taken a peek at the Pentagon anti aircraft batteries story and opinions are very divided about it. In the scheme of things it should be relatively simple to solve the puzzle and get to the truth. It's a small fact in and of itself.

Were there anti aircraft defences deployed at the Pentagon or not? Ordinarily, I would phone up the Pentagon and simply ask. Ordinarily. Sure, the Pentagon has said that it didn't have any "anti aircraft batteries" (I believe this is the exact term they used but am open to being corrected here) and all this proves, for those of us are cynically minded, is that there could have been, anti-aircraft missiles (not batteries mind), and even a free traversing Phalanx CIWS that is, as you know, specially adapted for closer in anti aircraft "work".

But who in a position of authority can we really trust these days? Everything has been politicised and we're left sorting through the ashes of what may well be purposeful disinformation - and getting clogged down in that rather, than focusing efforts on more important issues.

Me, I'm still scratching my head over the now mostly forgotten story of Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer of the highly classified Pentagon’s Special Operations Command (SOCOM) operation “Able Danger” that identified Mohammed Atta and three other terrorists as Al Queda operatives a year before 911 took place. Col. Shaffer further stated that when he informed the FBI of what he had learned about Atta and urged that he be arrested, Pentagon lawyers intervened “and protected Atta for reasons that remain unclear”.

See: http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context...p;articleId=867

And: http://www.abledangerblog.com/2006/02/lt-c...-testimony.html [Note the "blackouts" in Colonel Shelton's testimony about his confidence in ABLE DANGER liklihood of preventing 911...

The fact that a long serving, decorated officer with an impeccable record thereafter had his reputation trashed by his employers strikes me as being quite revealing.

The data ABLE DANGER collected was, thereafter, destroyed.

Any opportunity that might have allowed Col. Schaffer to further testify was scuppered by Donald Rumsfeld who "insisted that the Able Danger program is classified and information about it cannot be publicly disclosed"

See: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2005...ys-pentagon.php

And: http://qtmonster.typepad.com/qt_monsters_p...er_sources.html

Col. Shaffer is a CIA trained senior intelligence operations officer with over 22 years work in the intelligence community. He was a director of a DIA Task Force and was a recipient of the Bronze Star Medal.

Of course, one may ignore his experience, disregard all his achievements and mistrust his testimony and prefer, instead, to accept without question the report published by the Defense Department’s Inspector General that Col Shaffer’s “claims are without merit”. See: http://mediamatters.org/items/200609270011

That's the politicised world of the Pentagon for you.

Nice.

David

PS, my apologies for shifting the emphasis of this thread slightly away from the Pentagon air defences...but at least we're still focused on the Pentagon, ain't we.

David,

It's getting late here and I haven't read through the links you have provided; I'll do so tomorrow afternoon after work.

I think we can find common ground in what I have said; although I have no reason to believe it, I do not immediately discount the possibility that a person / group of people - either from within or without the US Government - arrange for / recruited personnel as a front for - people to hijack aircraft on 9/11 and carry out the attacks.

[Guest David Guyatt]

David,

It's getting late here and I haven't read through the links you have provided; I'll do so tomorrow afternoon after work.

I think we can find common ground in what I have said; although I have no reason to believe it, I do not immediately discount the possibility that a person / group of people - either from within or without the US Government - arrange for / recruited personnel as a front for - people to hijack aircraft on 9/11 and carry out the attacks.

Thanks Evan. I'm sure we can find common ground.

What you said earlier about each of us getting entrenched in our positions and then fighting from that foxhole no matter what, struck me asbeing very true. Once a position is taken it is very hard to step back from it, I know.

What we should be trying to do is sift the anomalous evidence to build a meaningful picture of what probably happened. I say "probably" because we are not in possession of all the facts (ony crumbs, in fact) and never will be.

This is the best we can do, I think.

David

[Len Colby]

Don’t you get it by now Mathew? Facts and reality aren’t important; Peter’s fantasy world is all that matters. Griffen said so it must be true.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=75728

Don't you get it by now, everyone. Facts and reality aren't important; Colby's fantasy world is all that matters.

The difference between your post(s) and mine is that I document my position and you have nothing to offer but insults.

His terrorist heroes/masters said so, so it must be true.

You take the low road right though the gutter but I’ve come to expect that from you.

Thank you Len. As I suspected, the claim that the plane should have been shot down by missile or anti-aircraft batteries is yet another claim made up without any evidence to support it and repeated verbatim around the internet with nobody bothering to check the facts.

Thanks/You're welcome

[Len Colby]

Between Sept. 2000 and June 2001 there were 129 fighter scambles in under ten minutes and 67 fighter interceptions of civilian aircraft

I don’t suppose a citation is forthcoming?

Exercise Tests D.C. Air Defense Capabilities

By Jim Garamone

American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Sept. 10, 2002 – Exercise Clear Skies II kicks off here today to test air defense systems in the region, DoD officials said.

[…]

Ground-based systems include Sentinel radars and Stinger and Avenger missile systems. These systems WILL BE BASED at metro Washington area military installations.

[…]

The Washington area historically has had air defense capabilities. During World War II, the Army set up an anti- aircraft battery atop the Treasury Building. It was dismantled in 1944. Anti-aircraft missile batteries ringed the area from the early 1950s TO THE MID-1970S.

Someone should thank Peter for providing information which strengthens the case against their being anti-aircraft missiles around the Pentagon or anywhere in Washington DC on 9/11/01, even a year after they had to be brought in. Did he real fail to understand the difference between present and future tense?

My note: All around important buildings [White House, Congress, Pentagon and at the local airforce bases] NOW and on 9/11/01 are anti-aircraft batteries and attendant radar. They only do NOT fire when there is an 'I'm friendly' signal [or a stand-down order which there is some evidence that Chaney might have so ordered]...wonder how old OBL got that....?!? Answer: He didn't, but the insiders who pulled off 9/11 had it easy as cake.]

Another claim Mr. Lemkin seems to “have made up of whole cloth”

[Charles Drago]

Len, Charles...

I understand how you view each others assessment on things, and would really like to offer you a solution... but I can't. Charles, you'll discount material in the same way that Len and others (including myself) will discount other material. We're all probably confident our own assessments are correct, and that statements to the contrary are either incorrect or inflammatory. This is not always the case.

Evan,

I must begin by noting that I find the moderate tone of our exchanges to be refreshing and highly productive.

Now!

(sorry)

Surely you will agree that not all arguments must extend to the vanishing point. Some arguments can be and are settled. Some even to the degree of metaphysical certitude -- beyoand all doubt.

Conspiracy in the murder of John F. Kennedy is one such case.

As for what hit the Pentagon, I cannot respond with similar certainty. From the evidence I have reviewed, damage to the building and immediately adjacent grounds is inconsistent with a 757 strike. Other evidence you reference comes from tainted sources. Even non-conspiratorial, superficially unbiased eyewitnesses differ as to the size and markings of the object that impacted the building. The chances that biological remains of scores of passengers sufficient to provide DNA identifications for one and all could have been recovered from a crash that consumed most of a jumbo jet and its contents are virtually nil. The refusal of the USG to release videos of the attack raises suspicions of cover-up.

And no one -- on this Forum or elsewhere -- has explained the fact that OBL chose to attack on the very day that multiple air defense security stripping exercises were scheduled as anything more than dumb luck.

We should take this guy to a casino post haste.

In regard to Lamby (the Lamson/Colby hybrid), you must excuse my disgust. We are at war, sir, and the enemy deserves all the tender mercies that were evident in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963.

No more, no less.

Charles

Edited November 8, 2007 by Charles Drago

[Len Colby]

Peter,

Have you done a search through the Calgary Herald?

I have used their search facilities here:

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/index.html

and when I did a search for "Linda Slovodian" I came up with no results for that.

When I searched for "NORAD" I came up with various articles, but none of them referred to an OCT 2001 article regarding missile systems. The earliest article I can find through that website search was 23 JAN 2002 (Fighter jets scramble from Edmonton airport). I didn't examine the article for that search because it involves a fee.

I am probably not using the search facility correctly, so would appreciate it you could give me a link to the original article where these figures were quoted, and the source from which they were derived.

Thanks.

Here is the article in question Evan. I've decided how honest Peter was in his assesment and I'll keep that to myself. You can judge for yourself.

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/a...1_scrables.html

LOL Obviously Peter misquoted Scott and/or Scott misquoted the article. Nothing about how many intercepts or where they ocured or how long they took

[Craig Lamson]

Peter,

Have you done a search through the Calgary Herald?

I have used their search facilities here:

http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/index.html

and when I did a search for "Linda Slovodian" I came up with no results for that.

When I searched for "NORAD" I came up with various articles, but none of them referred to an OCT 2001 article regarding missile systems. The earliest article I can find through that website search was 23 JAN 2002 (Fighter jets scramble from Edmonton airport). I didn't examine the article for that search because it involves a fee.

I am probably not using the search facility correctly, so would appreciate it you could give me a link to the original article where these figures were quoted, and the source from which they were derived.

Thanks.

Here is the article in question Evan. I've decided how honest Peter was in his assesment and I'll keep that to myself. You can judge for yourself.

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/a...1_scrables.html

LOL Obviously Peter misquoted Scott and/or Scott misquoted the article. Nothing about how many intercepts or where they ocured or how long they took

I'll refrain from any comment on Scott until I can read the text in question.

HOWEVER one point needs to be made and its so far one tha the half-truthers seem to want to forget. NORAD was tasked to patrol the airspace OUTSIDE of the USA for INBOUND threats. The linked article makes that very clear.

Lets assume for the sake of argument that Scott has somehow gotten the number of intercepts correct pre 9/11. The most IMPORTANT facts we would need to know about these intercepts is WHERE DID THEY TAKE PLACE and WHERE THE FLIGHTS OF DOMESTIC ORIGIN?

Without this context, Lemkins paranoid claims look to be exactly that....

Edited November 8, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Matthew Lewis]

Between Sept. 2000 and June 2001 there were 129 fighter scambles in under ten minutes and 67 fighter interceptions of civilian aircraft...

Every single one of those interceptions was outside of US airspace in the ADIZ (air defense identification zone) and quite rightly as before 911 NORAD was not looking inward. Their entire radar system looked outward. They were only tasked to look for inbound threats. It was a holdover from the cold war. Also of note is the scramble time of 10 minutes only refers to the time it takes to get a jet already on standby to take off, not the entire intercept time. The only intercept before 911 over the continental US was the intercept of Payne Stewart's plane. An intercept that took over an hour following a plane that was not maneuvering with its transponder on and that intercept was accomplished by a jet already airborne for another mission and diverted to the task. A jet dedicated to airborne defense arrived later.

Yes there were some exercises taking place that day. There are exercises taking place most days of the year. No, they did not decrease the number of planes dedicated to air defense. Those airplanes were at their same level before and during the exercises. They had been decreased over the years from the much larger numbers available during the Cold War but the exercises did not decrease them.

The Washington area historically has had air defense capabilities. During World War II, the Army set up an anti- aircraft battery atop the Treasury Building. It was dismantled in 1944. Anti-aircraft missile batteries ringed the area from the early 1950s to the mid-1970s.

My note: All around important buildings [White House, Congress, Pentagon and at the local airforce bases] NOW and on 9/11/01 are anti-aircraft batteries and attendant radar. They only do NOT fire when there is an 'I'm friendly' signal [or a stand-down order which there is some evidence that Chaney might have so ordered]...wonder how old OBL got that....?!? Answer: He didn't, but the insiders who pulled off 9/11 had it easy as cake.]

Again, I'll ask, since the Pentagon is directly in the flight path of a major airport which receives hundreds of flights every day and is not restricted airspace, how do they determine which planes to shoot down? Is it any one without a transponder? They wouldn't be military transponders anyway. What about the planes landing with a broken transponder or electrical problems?

[Len Colby]

The Washington area historically has had air defense capabilities. During World War II, the Army set up an anti- aircraft battery atop the Treasury Building. It was dismantled in 1944. Anti-aircraft missile batteries ringed the area from the early 1950s to the mid-1970s.

My note: All around important buildings [White House, Congress, Pentagon and at the local airforce bases] NOW and on 9/11/01 are anti-aircraft batteries and attendant radar. They only do NOT fire when there is an 'I'm friendly' signal [or a stand-down order which there is some evidence that Chaney might have so ordered]...wonder how old OBL got that....?!? Answer: He didn't, but the insiders who pulled off 9/11 had it easy as cake.]

Again, I'll ask, since the Pentagon is directly in the flight path of a major airport which receives hundreds of flights every day and is not restricted airspace, how do they determine which planes to shoot down? Is it any one without a transponder? They wouldn't be military transponders anyway. What about the planes landing with a broken transponder or electrical problems?

You weren't really expecting a rational answer from somone who posted an article that said...

-"Anti-aircraft missile batteries ringed the area from the early 1950s to the mid-1970s." and

- some were going to be brought in for an exercise in 2002

...as proof that such weapons were in place in 2001, were you?

Peter wrote: "Little private plane flies near White House...every one evacuatate and

public in the papers were that anti-aircraft batteries were ready to fire"

Does anybody know what he is talking about? He seems to make stuff up (in his own mind I imagine) as he goes along. Perhaps someone on "speaking terms" with him can ask him for a citation.

Edited November 8, 2007 by Len Colby

[Evan Burton]

I think the "anti-aircraft" defences which have been referred to were the Nike missile batteries that ringed the Washington area during the cold war. I can't find reference to other systems.

David - even the Phalanx / Goalkeeper / other CIWS or PDS have still suffered from the limitation that there is an engagement zone. If the CIWS is "weapons free" and you enter the zone, it doesn't care who you are. Everything is a threat and it deals with them on a priority basis. I couldn't see them being used on 9/11 or prior because they are a pretty specialised defence system. The radar system they employ (IIRC) is a CW Fire Control type system, which means it is pretty harmful to your health by itself. You wouldn't want that zapping passenger aircraft that strayed a little. The local airport is about 1600 yards away from the Pentagon, and aircraft would probably close to about 1400 yards during the approach. The start of the engagement zone for a CIWS is about 2000 yards, so you would be constantly risking it take out an aircraft doing absolutely nothing wrong. I just don't see it being used.

Peter - you did educate me. I didn't know that the Nike batteries were used until the early 1970s; I had always thought that any type of anti-air system would be regarded as an ABM system and therefore prohibited under the ABM treaty and that they were only used during the mid-1950s. Thanks also for giving the correct spelling of the name for the Calgary article. Reference the "I'm Friendly" signal - do a search on "IFF" and have a look where it is employed and its limitations; that might make my skepticism clearer for you. My doubting of anything other than a MANPAD system is also based on the interference that a fixed radar system would cause to the surrounding area.

[Evan Burton]

Firstly - oops! I didn't explain a bit of my previous post. CIWS - Close In Weapon System, otherwise known as a PDS - Point Defence System. Hey - I'm military and acronyms are just SOP (hehehehe).

Secondly - Len: please refer to other posters with more respect. You are getting pretty close to the line with some posts. That's a final warning before I increase your Warning Level by 10%. If you think someone is being blatantly wrong / deceptive / whatever and you think your rebuttal might breach our standards of etiquette... check with a Mod. Tell them what you want to say and - very importantly - WHY you want to say it. Thanks.

[Evan Burton]

Were there anti aircraft defences deployed at the Pentagon or not? Ordinarily, I would phone up the Pentagon and simply ask. Ordinarily. Sure, the Pentagon has said that it didn't have any "anti aircraft batteries" (I believe this is the exact term they used but am open to being corrected here) and all this proves, for those of us are cynically minded, is that there could have been, anti-aircraft missiles (not batteries mind), and even a free traversing Phalanx CIWS that is, as you know, specially adapted for closer in anti aircraft "work".

But who in a position of authority can we really trust these days? Everything has been politicised and we're left sorting through the ashes of what may well be purposeful disinformation - and getting clogged down in that rather, than focusing efforts on more important issues.

David,

I understand what you mean. Just because I can find no public statement of any such system does not mean there was no such system in place. After all, sometimes you will make your defence capability very close hold. Also, various agencies may decided that being economical with the truth - or even reshaping it - is the correct thing to do.

How do you tell what is real? You just have to base things on your research and best judgment.

[Evan Burton]

As for what hit the Pentagon, I cannot respond with similar certainty. From the evidence I have reviewed, damage to the building and immediately adjacent grounds is inconsistent with a 757 strike. Other evidence you reference comes from tainted sources. Even non-conspiratorial, superficially unbiased eyewitnesses differ as to the size and markings of the object that impacted the building. The chances that biological remains of scores of passengers sufficient to provide DNA identifications for one and all could have been recovered from a crash that consumed most of a jumbo jet and its contents are virtually nil. The refusal of the USG to release videos of the attack raises suspicions of cover-up.

Charles - likewise. Just because we disagree does not call for insult.

I can understand that you might doubt "official" sources for much of the data. In some cases, this would be perfectly acceptable; in other it might not be. In some cases, the sole source of data might be the government / agency / department in question. In those cases you probably have to either: 1) completely discount the data for either side of the argument; or 2) accept the data but place the onus on the detractors to prove it is incorrect. Neither is a really acceptable situation when you want to either prove or disprove a proposition... but what are we to do?

The DNA evidence actually came as a bit of a surprise to me. Do some Googling on DNA identification after fires and you might be surprised by what they can and cannot tell.

The release of videos - IMO - is actually a bit wrong. There was some video was was being withheld, but most (if not all) video has now been released. I'll see if I can find the website which deals specifically with the release of such material.