IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 11th July 2008, 05:28 PM   #161
Homeland Insurgency
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,705
Originally Posted by Cheap Shot View Post
Since it was the interview with me personally by the DOJ that was the cause of the new timeline being generated for the 9-11 Commission, I don't remember them water boarding me to get info out of me, or pulling out my finger nails, I beleive I was in a nice cozy room, with my Union Rep sitting near by. As far as Guatanomo Bay are we stretching here or what.
So you had a minder in the room?
Homeland Insurgency is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2008, 06:25 PM   #162
Cheap Shot
Critical Thinker
 
Cheap Shot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 386
Originally Posted by A-Train View Post
But it wouldn't really matter if you were leaning toward crash, or hijack, or some other emergency. You'd contact the military immediately.....
Hijack I would call the military immediatelly through a hotline if I have one, that would be NEADS. Crash works differnetlly and a different group of military, my supervisor would call the OMIC, who would start the Search and Rescue process through Scott AFB, NEADS wouldn't be involved at all.

As far as what went on at Indy I don't know how soon they knew about it. Even in there own Center some people may have known. Other's not.

Today a different story.
__________________
'Two things are infinite: The Universe and Human Stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.'
- Albert Einstein
Cheap Shot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2008, 07:37 PM   #163
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
Originally Posted by bio View Post
For me the memo of Laura Brown is clear enough to debunk the official account. Of course the Bush Administration has made things up and has been lying. Yes - I thing the made the norad-tapes up.
Originally Posted by Tbone View Post
This thread could also have been easier if you had just stated this at the start as well.

I agree. Bio, I'm disappointed. You've wasted a lot of my time. You obviously have no interest in reality. So I won't bother you with it.
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2008, 07:54 PM   #164
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
Originally Posted by A-Train View Post
There was no primary target because it was out of service; and as you know, the personnel at Indy Center would have been aware of that outtage. Therefore, the lack of a target does not equal "no plane."
This is incorrect. The reason AA77 did not appear on primary radar was because Indianapolis ARTCC's Radar Data Processor didn't display the primary data on AA77. By my estimations primary coverage would have been supplied by an ARSR-1E at London, Ohio and an ARSR-2 at Lynch, Kentucky, with maybe ARSR-1Es at Brecksville, Ohio and Indianapolis, Indiana and an ARSR-3 at Bedford, Virginia also giving coverage (they would have been at the very limit of their range).

The problem was that the Radar Data Processor only displays radar feeds from the site that's assigned to a given sort box, and the nearest site to where AA77 crashed was the beacon-only site at Harmony, West Virginia which has no primary radar and only an ATCBI-4/5 beacon.

When the controller turned on their primary coverage they would have received primary returns on their screen from aircraft flying in airspace assigned to radar sites with primary coverage. The controller has no way of knowing what parts of their display are assigned to which radar site (or even which radar sites are feeding their screen) therefore they would have assumed AA77 was no longer in the air.

The 9/11 Commission Report was able to confirm this - the FAA records all radar data - not just data that is displayed, so they were able to go back and track AA77's movements on primary radar even though it had not been displayed on the day.

I just want to reiterate, for the dense of understanding, that Indianapolis ARTCC were not informed about the events on the East Coast until about 0920, and that upon learning of what had been happening they immediately reassessed AA77 and decided it was a hijacking.
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2008, 07:58 PM   #165
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
Originally Posted by jhunter1163 View Post
Does anyone else see the willful blindness of two posters arguing about the events of that day with someone who was in the (rule10)ing room?

If anyone ever needed some evidence of how shameful the Truth Movement is...
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th July 2008, 11:27 PM   #166
bio
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 883
Originally Posted by A-Train View Post
(...)
Remember what you said about AAL11:
How does this scenario differ from AAL77? In other words, why didn't the person with your job also call immediately, as he observed pretty much the same circumstances as you did at Boston Center?

Meanwhile, the people at Indy Center, including the controllers who handled the plane as well as your counterpart at Indy working the military desk, remain anonymous, and we have yet to hear their stories first hand.

It is impossible to believe they never suspected a hijack, and didn't want to, or try to, contact the military directly, as you did. This aspect of the story stinks to high heaven. I don't believe a word of it, and I don't think Cheap Shot believes it either.
If it is true, then it is suspicious in fact. This day, it happened many strange things ...

Shortly before noon on 9/11, about sixteen people at the New York Air Route Traffic Control Center recorded their version of the response to the 9/11 attack. At least six are air traffic controllers who dealt with two of the hijacked airliners. But officials at the center never tell higher-ups about the tape. Around this time, a quality-assurance manager, whose name has not been released, crushes the cassette recording in his hand, shreds the tape, and drops the pieces into different trashcans. This manager later asserts that keeping the tape would have been a violation of union rules and accident procedures. When he destroyed the tape, he had already received an e-mail from the FAA instructing officials to safeguard all records.
Washington Post, 5/6/2004
bio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2008, 12:14 AM   #167
Jonnyclueless
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,546
Originally Posted by bio View Post
If it is true, then it is suspicious in fact. This day, it happened many strange things ...

Shortly before noon on 9/11, about sixteen people at the New York Air Route Traffic Control Center recorded their version of the response to the 9/11 attack. At least six are air traffic controllers who dealt with two of the hijacked airliners. But officials at the center never tell higher-ups about the tape. Around this time, a quality-assurance manager, whose name has not been released, crushes the cassette recording in his hand, shreds the tape, and drops the pieces into different trashcans. This manager later asserts that keeping the tape would have been a violation of union rules and accident procedures. When he destroyed the tape, he had already received an e-mail from the FAA instructing officials to safeguard all records.
Washington Post, 5/6/2004
Oh dear lord. How is it you guys manage to find the versions from the conspiracy tabloids, but you never ever ever bother to actually research these things beyond the conspiracy tabloids? If you DID, then you would find out the WHOLE story. one that has been discussed to death on here. Sure it does sound suspicious. Why? Because half the story has been edited out. The reason it was edited out is because if it wasn't, then it wouldn't appear like some kind of scandal, you wouldn't click on the links, and your conspiracy tabloids wouldn't get their banner ad sales.

Go read the whole article, not just that snippet. And remember, just because the conspiracy tabloid you got it from quotes it as being from a reliable source, it's not the part they include that matters, it's the parts they take out. But of course this is many years old and an outdated conspiracy theory anyways.
Jonnyclueless is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2008, 12:24 AM   #168
MikeW
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,910
Originally Posted by bio View Post
Around this time, a quality-assurance manager, whose name has not been released, crushes the cassette recording in his hand, shreds the tape, and drops the pieces into different trashcans.
Washington Post, 5/6/2004
Heh. The highlighted part implies some great secrecy, but here's what the Washington Post told us the very next day:

Quote:
The FAA yesterday said it had taken disciplinary action against the employee who destroyed the tape. That manager, identified by a source familiar with the investigation as Kevin Delaney, was last week given a 20-day suspension without pay. Delaney appealed that decision, the source said, confirming a report last night by Newsday.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true
MikeW is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2008, 12:32 AM   #169
Slayhamlet
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,423
Originally Posted by Homeland Insurgency View Post
So you had a minder in the room?
Add the National Air Traffic Controllers Association to the ever-expanding list of organizations who are "in on it". Impossibly vast conspiracy indeed.
Slayhamlet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2008, 01:05 AM   #170
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,279
Okay, so an FAA manager destroyed a tape that was not of the ATC radio communications, or anything real-time during the event, but was of post event interviews of ATCs. That was stupid, but how does it falsify anything about the events of 9/11? It's not like it was a live recording of anything they did that day; it's an after-action interview. And it's not like they don't have radar data. Or the NORAD tapes.

Oh, wait... supposedly those are faked... so now both the ATC's in the tower centers and the NEADs personnel involved that day are in on the plot... got it...

... and it's supposedly the government who's bending over backwards to make their story work...
__________________
"AND ZEPPELINS!!! We haven't even begun to talk about Zeppelins yet! Marauding inflatable Teutonic johnsons waggling their way across the sky! Indecent and flammable all at once."
ElMondoHummus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2008, 06:40 AM   #171
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
I like how Conspiracy Theorists skip out the fact that the controllers only agreed to making the tapes on the condition that they were destroyed after the controllers had completed their reports.

Oh yeah, they forget to mention that too - the purpose of the tapes was to capture the controllers recollections of events so they could play their own tape back later and use it as a reference tool for writing their reports.

The tapes might have been destroyed but their reports weren't.
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2008, 06:42 AM   #172
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
Originally Posted by bio View Post
If it is true, then it is suspicious in fact.
It's not true, any more than any of the other nonsense that dribbles off A-Train's fingertips is true.


Originally Posted by bio View Post
This day, it happened many strange things ...
That's an understatement.
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2008, 07:03 AM   #173
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
Originally Posted by A-Train View Post
Did he respond the way he had been trained, which is exactly the way Cheap Shot had been trained, which is to contact NEADS immediately?

I just want to jump on this...

Even assuming your ridiculous claim is true - that FAA facilities were required to notify their local ADS the moment they lost communication with an aircraft - why would Indianapolis ARTCC contact NEADS? The answer is they wouldn't. They would have contacted WADS, in Washington State, who could only call on fighters based in Oregon and California. These four fighters were about 2,400mi from the WTC.

Please, please, please stop making stupid, stupid comments about things you have not even the most basic understanding of. You are making yourself look like a... well... never mind. I think we all know.
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2008, 07:41 AM   #174
A-Train
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 432
Originally Posted by gumboot View Post
I just want to jump on this...

Even assuming your ridiculous claim is true - that FAA facilities were required to notify their local ADS the moment they lost communication with an aircraft - why would Indianapolis ARTCC contact NEADS?
I've never made such a claim. I am well aware that NORDOs occur every single day, and are no big deal. Usually its a couple of pilots who missed a digit on a frequency change, or are too deep into their Sports Illustrated to be bothered by ATC.

What we are dealing with here is a NORDO aircraft, which also lost its transponder and A)deviated drastically off course (AAL11 & UAL175), or, B)disappeared from radar altogether(AAL77). These are very unusual, disturbing events which would have prompted an immediate call to the military.

Originally Posted by gumboot View Post
The answer is they wouldn't. They would have contacted WADS, in Washington State, who could only call on fighters based in Oregon and California. These four fighters were about 2,400mi from the WTC.
You might be right that that it wouldn't be NEADS they call. I stand corrected. The point is they call the military, meaning some division of NORAD. Do you really think the various branches of NORAD wouldn't communicate with each other?

Originally Posted by gumboot View Post
Please, please, please stop making stupid, stupid comments about things you have not even the most basic understanding of. You are making yourself look like a... well... never mind. I think we all know.
Begging me to stop posting will do you no good. It is you that has no instinctual understanding of the ATC system or the military's intercept procedure. It is obvious to me that you have zero hands-on experience with the organizations that played a role in the failed response to the hijackings on 9/11.

To you, this whole series of events is nothing more than a mountain of words on printed pages and websites that you have spent too much time staring at. That's why much of your debating style is to throw out all sorts of obscure details and impressive-sounding acronyms-- to hide the fact that you are incapable of any truly independent analysis, and that your only real function is to parrot the official story.

Gumboot, I've been following your posts for a long time now, and I've noticed a change. You are becoming increasingly shrill and abusive toward anyone who disagrees with you. This is especially true as you are being challenged by posters who have had time to research the events, and who do not buy into the official story as you do. Gone is the old, confident Gumboot who used to wow the peanut gallery of fellow JREFers. The new Gumboot is a man on the edge. I'm worried about you, buddy.

I understand you are a film maker. Why don't you drop the whole 9/11 thing, and concentrate on something you understand?
A-Train is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2008, 08:23 AM   #175
Reheat
Illuminator
 
Reheat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In Space
Posts: 3,693
Originally Posted by A-Train View Post
Why don't you drop the whole 9/11 thing, and concentrate on something you understand?
Says the genius who thinks Israeli Commando's parachuted out of the inaccessible nose wheel well of a Boeing-757/767!

Reheat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2008, 08:34 AM   #176
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
Originally Posted by A-Train View Post
What we are dealing with here is a NORDO aircraft, which also lost its transponder and A)deviated drastically off course (AAL11 & UAL175), or, B)disappeared from radar altogether(AAL77). These are very unusual, disturbing events which would have prompted an immediate call to the military.
Why? The duty of the United States military is to protect the people of the United States and its territories from attack by foreign aggressors, and to project US power overseas for political benefit.

It is not their job to clean up after air crashes or criminal acts. Your consistent claim that in any sort of serious airborne incident the military would be the first port of call. This simply is not the case. In a military dictatorship like North Korea, sure, you're probably right. In the USA? No.



Originally Posted by A-Train View Post
You might be right that that it wouldn't be NEADS they call. I stand corrected. The point is they call the military, meaning some division of NORAD.
Why, why, why? Why would they call NORAD? You have not given a single logical reason why an ARTCC controlling a domestic en route flight would call NORAD immediately upon total loss of contact with that flight.


Originally Posted by A-Train View Post
Do you really think the various branches of NORAD wouldn't communicate with each other?
I can see it now.

Quote:
WADS: Hi, just letting you know, we're looking for a crashed airliner out here.
NEADS: Great, we're a bit busy right now, can you go away please

Originally Posted by A-Train View Post
Begging me to stop posting will do you no good.
I know, but I had to ask.


Originally Posted by A-Train View Post
It is you that has no instinctual understanding of the ATC system or the military's intercept procedure.
"Instinctual"? Right...

I can say with certainty that I understand more about Air Traffic Control and NORAD than every single member (formal or informal) of the 9/11 Truth Movement combined.

Your ignorance isn't exactly special in anyway - you all seem to be equally "factless", as Beachnut would put it.


Originally Posted by A-Train View Post
To you, this whole series of events is nothing more than a mountain of words on printed pages and websites that you have spent too much time staring at. That's why much of your debating style is to throw out all sorts of obscure details and impressive-sounding acronyms-- to hide the fact that you are incapable of any truly independent analysis, and that your only real function is to parrot the official story.

I came to my own conclusions, totally oblivious to what the "official story" was. Indeed, I can provide you far more details about what happened than any "official story" can.

Your claim that this series of events is nothing more than "words on printed pages" could not be further from the truth.

This series of events is about the cold blooded and unjustified murder of 2,998 human beings. It is about the baseless and unsupported accusation of guilt for those murders being laid against tens of thousands of decent ordinary (and utterly innocent) people. It is about lies, bad science, stupidity, political point-scoring, bigotry and paranoia being spread like a plague by complete pieces of human scum for no reason than their own ego masturbation.

It is about ensuring that the human race can know what actually happened on that horrific day, and not succumb to the palimpsest of stupid that comes from people like you.



Originally Posted by A-Train View Post
Gumboot, I've been following your posts for a long time now, and I've noticed a change. You are becoming increasingly shrill and abusive toward anyone who disagrees with you. This is especially true as you are being challenged by posters who have had time to research the events, and who do not buy into the official story as you do. Gone is the old, confident Gumboot who used to wow the peanut gallery of fellow JREFers. The new Gumboot is a man on the edge. I'm worried about you, buddy.

I think you're grossly misinterpreting my posts. I made a decision some time ago that it was not worth my time expending enormous amounts of effort arguing back and forward with blinded fools with no desire to learn. As a result of that I changed tack dramatically;

Now, I give every new arrival a chance to learn. Once they've revealed that they don't have the faintest interest in learning anything, I cease to waste my time, and instead revert to using them as my own personal stress relief, choosing when I'll post, limiting what I post to what I can be bothered putting in, and going more for entertainment value than education. (Bio just got downgraded into my "stress relief" pool, you've been in it for a while). I suppose most other rationalists would just put you on ignore, but I have a policy of never putting anyone on ignore, so this is my alternative.

It amuses me that you talk of people challenging me who have "researched" the events. Bio has quoted almost exclusively from the Complete 9/11 Timeline. Bio hasn't even bothered to trace it back to the original sources. I know they are doing this because I know the Complete 9/11 Timeline well - it's the first thing I came across in regards to 9/11 and my first act of 9/11 research involved reading the entire thing from beginning to end, and then following all of the source links (those that worked). That was about three years ago.

So people like Bio are three years behind me. I don't use jargon and acronyms to sound witty or clever, I use them because it's easier and faster - see above about wanting to save time. If I'm giving a detailed post I could refer to the Air Traffic Control System Command Center dozens of times. Why on earth would I want to type that out repeatedly?

I feel confidently that I have collected some unique knowledge about 9/11. I'm not a debunker, and I never approached this as someone wanting to disprove Conspiracy Theories. I was only ever interested in finding out what did happen, not proving what didn't. As such, my research has been approached at a much deeper level, it's about understanding the entire Air Traffic and Air Defense system. It all plays a part. How much do you know about radar? How much does Bio know? Not much, I am sure.

I've learned quite a bit about it. Specifically, I've learned exactly how AA77 managed to go missing. I didn't read this in some sort of official script. I worked it out myself by studying AA77s flightpath, understanding how long range surveillance works, and locating the radar sites.

And I've had consistent verification that I'm right, and that my findings are useful. Just a few days ago Cheap Shot thanked me for letting him know about a NORAD Regulation that explained something about 9/11 that he had always wondered about.

I've yet to come across a single Conspiracy Theorist who had even the most basic understanding of these matters. You certainly don't, and neither does Bio.


Originally Posted by A-Train View Post
I understand you are a film maker. Why don't you drop the whole 9/11 thing, and concentrate on something you understand?
I'm a storyteller, and what draws me to 9/11 is the human stories. And you'd be amazed at how useful studying 9/11 has been for my storytelling. My understanding of a thousand different things has increased exponentially. Have no fear for me, ChildlikeEmpress is way off base. The one and only reason I spend time looking at 9/11 is because I want to. It's fun, and it interests me. I'm certainly not doing it out of any sense of duty, or a need to "protect" anything - frankly I'm not much of a fan of the United States full stop.

It probably looks like I spend a lot of time here, but the reality is I don't. I'm a very fast typer, and I don't sleep a lot.

See why I don't put you people on ignore A-train? If I'd had you on ignore we couldn't have had this fun derail into my personality. Wouldn't that be a shame?
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th July 2008, 08:43 AM   #177
Reheat
Illuminator
 
Reheat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In Space
Posts: 3,693
Originally Posted by gumboot View Post
This series of events is about the cold blooded and unjustified murder of 2,998 human beings. It is about the baseless and unsupported accusation of guilt for those murders being laid against tens of thousands of decent ordinary (and utterly innocent) people. It is about lies, bad science, stupidity, political point-scoring, bigotry and paranoia being spread like a plague by complete pieces of human scum for no reason than their own ego masturbation.

It is about ensuring that the human race can know what actually happened on that horrific day, and not succumb to the palimpsest of stupid that comes from people like you.
Brilliant, absolutely brilliant!

This post nominated......
Reheat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th July 2008, 11:33 PM   #178
bio
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 883
Originally Posted by gumboot View Post
(...)

I think the above is also pertinent. This confirms direct notification between the military unit conducting the intercept and the FAA facility handling the airspace. And further in confirms that the FAA facility will initiate contact with the military unit (which on 9/11 was NEADS). However it's worth noting that this is after the escort service has been requested by the Hijack Coordinator, after the NMCC has obtained permission to scramble from the Secretary of Defense, and after the NMCC has notified the Hijack Coordinator which military unit will provide the escort.

So, here's option A, doing it "properly":

Boston ARTCC detects AA11 has been hijacked.
Boston ARTCC notifies ATCSCC.
ATCSCC notifies FAA HQ.
FAA HQ requests escort from NMCC.
NMCC requests confirmation of escort assets from NORAD.
NORAD requests confirmation of escort assets from CONR.
CONR requests confirmation of escort assets from NEADS.
NEADS confirms escort assets to CONR.
CONR confirms escort assets to NORAD.
NORAD confirms escort assets to NMCC.
NMCC approves escort.
NMCC seeks escort approval from Secretary of Defense.
Secretary of Defense approves escort.
NMCC orders NORAD to conduct escort.
NORAD orders NEADS to conduct escort.
NEADS scramble fighters.
NMCC notifies FAA HQ that NEADS will conduct escort.
FAA HQ notifies ATCSCC that NEADS will conduct escort.
ATCSCC notifies Boston ARTCC that NEADS will conduct escort.
Boston ARTCC notifies NEADS of hijack aircraft's position and guides NEADS aircraft into position.

And here's how it went on 9/11:

Boston ARTCC detects AA11 has been hijacked.
Boston ARTCC notifies NEADS of hijacking.
NEADS notifies CONR of hijacking.
CONR approves escort service.
NEADS scrambles aircraft.

Anyone who wants to claim that the first process would be quicker and more effective than the second process is smoking some serious drugs.
I think you are on the right track. I read a paper of Mister Robin Horden.
What Should Have Happened in the 9/11 Skies...

Quote:

"Finally, here is my smoking gun regarding the "effects" of the CJCSI change made in June, 2001.

During the summertime, usually the busiest aviation time of the year, there were NO REPORTED SCRAMBLES from June 2001, [after the CJCSI change was put in place], until the morning of 9/11/2001.

If the CJCSI change made in June had NOT made any difference in operational protocol use "priorities", then there should have been approximately 45 scrambles during this time period. It is fair to say that this frequency had been the summertime monthly average for the preceeding ten years where approximately 1500 scrambles had occurred. [ Note: estimated scrambles...3 months @ 15 scrambles per month = 45...]

In conclusion, that there are reports of 67 scrambles happening for the year up until June, 2001, and then there were NO scrambles reported after June, serves as my personal smoking gun!

Its my position that after June, all such requests for scrambles were dealt with by seeking Pentagon approval as the CJCSI "reorganizing" suggests. I further suggest that before the "delayed style" scramble releases were granted after June, 2001, the original "need" for the scramble had dissipated. I do remember that Rummy wanted to "save" some money and pare down? the military as he took office, and the hard truth is that very few such scrambles actually result in intercepts. Usually, the events calling for the scrambles in the first place, do come to a safe or secure end. "

The "Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction", CJCSI 3610.01A organizational was put in place in June, 2001 and should have sabotaged the process.

Last edited by bio; 14th July 2008 at 11:53 PM. Reason: edit for perfection
bio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2008, 01:29 AM   #179
Dog Town
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,862
Originally Posted by bio View Post

"finally, Here Is My smoking Gun....
How Embarrassed I Am, For You!

Last edited by Dog Town; 15th July 2008 at 01:31 AM.
Dog Town is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2008, 01:53 AM   #180
MikeW
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,910
Originally Posted by bio View Post
"Finally, here is my smoking gun regarding the "effects" of the CJCSI change made in June, 2001.

During the summertime, usually the busiest aviation time of the year, there were NO REPORTED SCRAMBLES from June 2001, [after the CJCSI change was put in place], until the morning of 9/11/2001.
Any references for that? Or by writing "no reported scrambles" rather than "no scrambles", is Hordon really just saying "I've not heard of any so I'll assume none happened", the classic truther argument from ignorance that they substitute for evidence just about everywhere?
MikeW is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2008, 02:02 AM   #181
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 32,433
Originally Posted by bio View Post
Its my position that after June, all such requests for scrambles were dealt with by seeking Pentagon approval as the CJCSI "reorganizing" suggests. I further suggest that before the "delayed style" scramble releases were granted after June, 2001, the original "need" for the scramble had dissipated. I do remember that Rummy wanted to "save" some money and pare down? the military as he took office, and the hard truth is that very few such scrambles actually result in intercepts. Usually, the events calling for the scrambles in the first place, do come to a safe or secure end. "

The "Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction", CJCSI 3610.01A organizational was put in place in June, 2001 and should have sabotaged the process.
Have you read CJCSI 3610.01, the instruction from July 1997 that CJCSI 3610.01A superceded? You'll find liks to both on http://www.911myths.com/html/hijack_..._approval.html

CJCSI 3610.01 states:

Quote:
In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will monitor the situation and forward all requests or proposals for DOD military assistance for aircraft piracy (hijacking) to the Secretary of Defense for approval.
CJCSI 3610.01A modifies this to:

Quote:
In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate responses as authorized by reference D, forward requests for DOD assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval.
(My bolding). Reference D is DoD directive 3025.15,
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/c...df/302515p.pdf
which states that:

Quote:
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)).

The only possible interpretation of this, therefore, is that CJCSI 3610.01A did not restrict the freedom of action of NORAD to respond to 9-11, but quite the reverse; it provided a specific framework for NORAD to respond to 9-11 without authorisation from the Secretary of Defense, that did not exist before June 2001.


CJCSI 3610.01A is a very good example of a piece of evidence that points in exactly the opposite way to the way conspiracy theorists like to claim.

Dave
__________________
There is truth and there are lies.

- President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021

Last edited by Dave Rogers; 15th July 2008 at 02:05 AM.
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2008, 09:45 AM   #182
bio
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 883
Originally Posted by MikeW View Post
Any references for that? Or by writing "no reported scrambles" rather than "no scrambles", is Hordon really just saying "I've not heard of any so I'll assume none happened", the classic truther argument from ignorance that they substitute for evidence just about everywhere?
If you want to say, that there were scrambles after June 2001 - 9/11. Then, I ask you, why they were not reported in contrast to the scrambles, which happened before June 2001.

Last edited by bio; 15th July 2008 at 09:52 AM. Reason: misspelling
bio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2008, 10:19 AM   #183
MikeW
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,910
Originally Posted by bio View Post
If you want to say, that there were scrambles after June 2001 - 9/11. Then, I ask you, why they were not reported in contrast to the scrambles, which happened before June 2001.
I've no idea, but that's okay, you've answered my question: there's no reference to support this "smoking gun", it's just another assumption.
MikeW is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2008, 10:41 AM   #184
bio
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 883
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post

The "Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction", CJCSI 3610.01A organizational was put in place in June, 2001 and should have sabotaged the process.
Have you read CJCSI 3610.01, the instruction from July 1997 that CJCSI 3610.01A superceded? You'll find liks to both on http://www.911myths.com/html/hijack_..._approval.html

CJCSI 3610.01 states:

Quote:
In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will monitor the situation and forward all requests or proposals for DOD military assistance for aircraft piracy (hijacking) to the Secretary of Defense for approval.
CJCSI 3610.01A modifies this to:

Quote:
In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate responses as authorized by reference D, forward requests for DOD assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval.
(My bolding). Reference D is DoD directive 3025.15,
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/c...df/302515p.pdf
which states that:
(...)
Answer from Robin Hordon from above link:

"An important fact...the FAA serves as the "first responder" or "initiator" of scrambles that are required...for aircraft suffering IN FLIGHT EMERGENCIES...for aircraft violating critical airspaces...for aircraft that do not follow certain procedures...or for aircraft being hijacked IF the FAA air traffic controllers are the first ones to conclude that there is a hijacking underway.


As we have always known, under normal protocols, scrambles for intercepting hijackings require Pentagon approval before launch unless the situation is determined to be very critical, and then the launch can be considered an IN FLIGHT EMERGENCY and made without such approvals. Should there be a need for NORAD to launch interceptors strictly for a National Air Defense reasons, then NORAD tells the FAA that they are launching, and the FAA has standard operating procedures for this and the FAA clears the required airspace for that scramble activity. The FAA is a full partner in the National Air Defense System.

As a reminder, each of the airliners on 9/11 showed uncontestable signs of aircraft suffereing IN FLIGHT EMERGENCIES well before there were any indications of any hijackings[?]. For many decades prior to June, 2001, responding to AN IN FLIGHT EMERGENCY would have called for an immediate scramble to assist the aircraft from the nearest "hot base" in hopes of helping or saving the aircraft under duress.

In addition to both public and my own "insider evidence" that the controllers at Boston Center indeed were taking such IN FLIGHT EMERGENCY steps early on in the attacks, actually, some 15-20 minutes later, it is admitted in the NORAD tapes that, in fact, the Boston Center made a DIRECT request to NEADS for assistance and asked directly for some interceptors to be launched to help out the situation. This direct request was not acted upon by NEADS, and this is another point that the US Military has had to cover up."


A statement of cheap shot would be interesting ...
bio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2008, 10:45 AM   #185
Cheap Shot
Critical Thinker
 
Cheap Shot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 386
Originally Posted by bio View Post
If the CJCSI change made in June had NOT made any difference in operational protocol use "priorities", then there should have been approximately 45 scrambles during this time period. It is fair to say that this frequency had been the summertime monthly average for the preceeding ten years where approximately 1500 scrambles had occurred. [ Note: estimated scrambles...3 months @ 15 scrambles per month = 45...]

In conclusion, that there are reports of 67 scrambles happening for the year up until June, 2001, and then there were NO scrambles reported after June, serves as my personal smoking gun!
I have read some of the report, I don't know where Robin got this info, and in the 24 years I have been at Boston Center, it would be hard for me to count 45 total intercepts from 1982 up to 9/11/2001. And as far as requesting intercepts for emergencies other than Payne Stewart, I can't remember any. Intercepts almost came to a hault after the Korean Air Incident, don't know why, but I think the rules for games changed after that incident. The 1500 or so scrambles that he talks about on that blog, unless they are down around Miami and the west coast, is so far off. Calling the Coast Guard out to a plane having problems over the ocean is not an intercept, and it is something we do, as well as when informed of a boat sinking by a pilot over the water and we call the Coast Guard for that, its not an intercept either. We didn't call scrambles for inflight emergencies at all prior to 9/11 period. I have worked numerous inlfight emergencies, and never once thought of calling NEADS about it unless it was a plane they were working.
__________________
'Two things are infinite: The Universe and Human Stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.'
- Albert Einstein
Cheap Shot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2008, 10:49 AM   #186
Tbone
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,448
Originally Posted by bio View Post

As a reminder, each of the airliners on 9/11 showed uncontestable signs of aircraft suffereing IN FLIGHT EMERGENCIES well before there were any indications of any hijackings[?].
What are these uncontestable signs?
Tbone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2008, 11:07 AM   #187
bio
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 883
Originally Posted by Tbone View Post
What are these uncontestable signs?
"Dr. Robert Bowman, retired USAF pilot, notes that anytime an aircraft goes off course, or loses radio communication, or loses it's transponder signal, anytime any ONE of those things happen, the aircraft is supposed to be intercepted. On 9/11, all three of those things happened and still there was no intercept. The planes flew around from 20 minutes to an hour and a half without ever being intercepted."

http://www.911blogger.com/node/16623#comment-192061
bio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2008, 11:12 AM   #188
Grizzly Bear
このマスクによっ
 
Grizzly Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,863
Originally Posted by bio View Post
"Dr. Robert Bowman, retired USAF pilot, notes that anytime an aircraft goes off course, or loses radio communication, or loses it's transponder signal, anytime any ONE of those things happen, the aircraft is supposed to be intercepted. On 9/11, all three of those things happened and still there was no intercept. The planes flew around from 20 minutes to an hour and a half without ever being intercepted."

http://www.911blogger.com/node/16623#comment-192061
How long has that been a policy?

September 11th was far from the first hijacking, the only thing that distinguished it from others is that it ultimately turned out to be a suicide mission. I don't recall any previous hijacking over US soil, which resulted in a military intervention.
__________________
Grizzly Bear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2008, 11:41 AM   #189
Cheap Shot
Critical Thinker
 
Cheap Shot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 386
Originally Posted by bio View Post
"Dr. Robert Bowman, retired USAF pilot, notes that anytime an aircraft goes off course, or loses radio communication, or loses it's transponder signal, anytime any ONE of those things happen, the aircraft is supposed to be intercepted.
Then there wouldn't be enough planes to intercept them all. We have planes go NORDO all of the time, normally we get them back in several minutes, but at what time is the controller supposed to call for the intercept. Inflight emergenices don't last very long, if it is a seroius emergency then they are landing at the closest field possible. Why would I call up a scramble to intercept someone who just lost an engine or a fire on board, when the quickest thing we are trying to do is get them down. Makes no sense at all. Most of the emergencies I have worked were over in 10 to 15 minutes.
__________________
'Two things are infinite: The Universe and Human Stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.'
- Albert Einstein
Cheap Shot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2008, 01:31 PM   #190
Tbone
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,448
Originally Posted by bio View Post
"Dr. Robert Bowman, retired USAF pilot, notes that anytime an aircraft goes off course, or loses radio communication, or loses it's transponder signal, anytime any ONE of those things happen, the aircraft is supposed to be intercepted. On 9/11, all three of those things happened and still there was no intercept. The planes flew around from 20 minutes to an hour and a half without ever being intercepted."

http://www.911blogger.com/node/16623#comment-192061
See, I was looking for evidence and proof, not someone posting something in the comment section of a blog.

Though I can see how someone in your position might mistake between the two.
Tbone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2008, 01:33 PM   #191
Reheat
Illuminator
 
Reheat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In Space
Posts: 3,693
Originally Posted by bio View Post
"Dr. Robert Bowman, retired USAF pilot, notes that anytime an aircraft goes off course, or loses radio communication, or loses it's transponder signal, anytime any ONE of those things happen, the aircraft is supposed to be intercepted. On 9/11, all three of those things happened and still there was no intercept. The planes flew around from 20 minutes to an hour and a half without ever being intercepted."

http://www.911blogger.com/node/16623#comment-192061
This is total unadulterated malarkey. Nothing else needs to be said as it's FALSE information. In fact, it's very stupid for someone of his background to say this as if it were fact. He's obviously lost his marbles.
Reheat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2008, 02:22 PM   #192
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
Originally Posted by bio View Post
I think you are on the right track. I read a paper of Mister Robin Horden.
What Should Have Happened in the 9/11 Skies...

Quote:

"Finally, here is my smoking gun regarding the "effects" of the CJCSI change made in June, 2001.

During the summertime, usually the busiest aviation time of the year, there were NO REPORTED SCRAMBLES from June 2001, [after the CJCSI change was put in place], until the morning of 9/11/2001.

If the CJCSI change made in June had NOT made any difference in operational protocol use "priorities", then there should have been approximately 45 scrambles during this time period. It is fair to say that this frequency had been the summertime monthly average for the preceeding ten years where approximately 1500 scrambles had occurred. [ Note: estimated scrambles...3 months @ 15 scrambles per month = 45...]

In conclusion, that there are reports of 67 scrambles happening for the year up until June, 2001, and then there were NO scrambles reported after June, serves as my personal smoking gun!

Its my position that after June, all such requests for scrambles were dealt with by seeking Pentagon approval as the CJCSI "reorganizing" suggests. I further suggest that before the "delayed style" scramble releases were granted after June, 2001, the original "need" for the scramble had dissipated. I do remember that Rummy wanted to "save" some money and pare down? the military as he took office, and the hard truth is that very few such scrambles actually result in intercepts. Usually, the events calling for the scrambles in the first place, do come to a safe or secure end. "

The "Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction", CJCSI 3610.01A organizational was put in place in June, 2001 and should have sabotaged the process.


CJCSI 3610.01A applies specifically to escorts for hijacked aircraft and does not influence drug interdiction or Active Air Defense scrambles. In the ten years prior to 9/11 Alert Fighters were only scrambled once to escort a hijacked aircraft - Lufthansa Flight 592 in February 1993.

As such the regulation in question would have had no impact on the number of scrambles that occurred, as they were all drug interdiction or Active Air Defense scrambles which are not covered by the regulation.
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2008, 02:35 PM   #193
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
Originally Posted by bio View Post
"Dr. Robert Bowman, retired USAF pilot, notes that anytime an aircraft goes off course, or loses radio communication, or loses it's transponder signal, anytime any ONE of those things happen, the aircraft is supposed to be intercepted. On 9/11, all three of those things happened and still there was no intercept. The planes flew around from 20 minutes to an hour and a half without ever being intercepted."

http://www.911blogger.com/node/16623#comment-192061


Dr Robert Bowman was a combat pilot from 1969-70 in Vietnam flying F4 Phantoms, almost certainly flying strike missions.

He has never conducted air defense over the USA, and has no idea what he is talking about.

His claim is beyond ridiculous.
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th July 2008, 11:30 PM   #194
bio
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 883
Originally Posted by gumboot View Post
CJCSI 3610.01A applies specifically to escorts for hijacked aircraft and does not influence drug interdiction or Active Air Defense scrambles. In the ten years prior to 9/11 Alert Fighters were only scrambled once to escort a hijacked aircraft - Lufthansa Flight 592 in February 1993.

As such the regulation in question would have had no impact on the number of scrambles that occurred, as they were all drug interdiction or Active Air Defense scrambles which are not covered by the regulation.
what do you say to his "smoking gun"? Can you report of any scrambling after June 01?
bio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2008, 12:06 AM   #195
ref
Master Poster
 
ref's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,685
Originally Posted by gumboot View Post
I think it was taken off line on account of the book "Touching History" which contains interviews with Cheapshot (by his real name, obviously).

Ref can, no doubt, clarify.
It was taken offline, because of the book, yes. The interview contained information that was released too early considering the content of the upcoming book.

However, now since the book is out, I might be able to put the interview back online soon. I'll inform on the updates.
__________________
9/11 Guide homepage

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit. - Chief Daniel Nigro

Last edited by ref; 16th July 2008 at 12:22 AM.
ref is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2008, 12:41 AM   #196
Tbone
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,448
Originally Posted by bio View Post
what do you say to his "smoking gun"? Can you report of any scrambling after June 01?
Out of curiosity, are you suggesting that scrambles weren't undertaken because the people involved in executing them were... out of practice? That's about the only explanation I can think of in bringing up a point like that, true or not.
Tbone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2008, 01:30 AM   #197
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
Originally Posted by bio View Post
what do you say to his "smoking gun"? Can you report of any scrambling after June 01?

He doesn't have one.
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2008, 05:55 AM   #198
ElMondoHummus
0.25 short of being half-witted
 
ElMondoHummus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,279
Originally Posted by bio View Post
I think you are on the right track. I read a paper of Mister Robin Horden.
What Should Have Happened in the 9/11 Skies...

Quote:

"Finally, here is my smoking gun regarding the "effects" of the CJCSI change made in June, 2001.

During the summertime, usually the busiest aviation time of the year, there were NO REPORTED SCRAMBLES from June 2001, [after the CJCSI change was put in place], until the morning of 9/11/2001.

If the CJCSI change made in June had NOT made any difference in operational protocol use "priorities", then there should have been approximately 45 scrambles during this time period. It is fair to say that this frequency had been the summertime monthly average for the preceeding ten years where approximately 1500 scrambles had occurred. [ Note: estimated scrambles...3 months @ 15 scrambles per month = 45...]

In conclusion, that there are reports of 67 scrambles happening for the year up until June, 2001, and then there were NO scrambles reported after June, serves as my personal smoking gun!

Its my position that after June, all such requests for scrambles were dealt with by seeking Pentagon approval as the CJCSI "reorganizing" suggests. I further suggest that before the "delayed style" scramble releases were granted after June, 2001, the original "need" for the scramble had dissipated. I do remember that Rummy wanted to "save" some money and pare down? the military as he took office, and the hard truth is that very few such scrambles actually result in intercepts. Usually, the events calling for the scrambles in the first place, do come to a safe or secure end. "

The "Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction", CJCSI 3610.01A organizational was put in place in June, 2001 and should have sabotaged the process.
Where there's smoke, there's misfire. Let me single out the one, key element in that whole misrepresentation:

"Its my position that after June, all such requests for scrambles were dealt with by seeking Pentagon approval as the CJCSI "reorganizing" suggests"

Dave Rodgers said it best:
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Comparing the wording of these orders, you should be able to see that the June 2001 order actually introduced an exception in which requests did not need to be forwarded to the Secretary of Defense. Far from removing powers from local commanders, the June 2001 order in fact specifically gave them the authority to respond to an immediate emergency without going via Rumsfeld's office; a rather strange move if those issuing the order were trying to prevent any response to the 9/11 hijacks.
And Mike W. laid out what was really changed in the new CJCSI:

Originally Posted by 9/11 Myths
#1, the statement that the NMCC “will monitor the situation” has been dropped. Seems odd, as it’s hard to believe they would do anything else, but in any event, as long as they deal with requests as they arrive then there’s no issue here.

#2, there’s a new exception of “immediate responses as authorized by reference D” (see the 911research quote) to this rule, therefore under some circumstances the new regulations require less approval than the old.

#3, Previously both “requests and proposals” for assistance required approval, now it’s “requests” only. Doesn’t seem to be a significant change.

#4, “DOD military assistance for aircraft piracy (hijacking)” is replaced by “DOD assistance”. This appears to do no more than remove a little redundancy, in that we already know from the beginning of the paragraph that this is about assistance for a hijacking.

And, ah, that’s it, at least with this paragraph: no evidence here that the new regulations affected the 9/11 response, at all.
So, given that the new CJCSI was actually a tweak to give local commanders more flexibility, how can Horden's claim that ".. after June, all such requests for scrambles were dealt with by seeking Pentagon approval as the CJCSI "reorganizing" suggests" stand up? It's one thing to say that there were no scrambles during that time period (I'd like to see some verification of that claim before I buy into it). But it's a whole other thing to attribute that to the CJCSI change. Even if there were no scrambles, attributing that to any changes in procedure only stand up if you do not understand (or choose to misrepresent) what those procedural changes were to begin with.
__________________
"AND ZEPPELINS!!! We haven't even begun to talk about Zeppelins yet! Marauding inflatable Teutonic johnsons waggling their way across the sky! Indecent and flammable all at once."
ElMondoHummus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2008, 10:49 AM   #199
bio
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 883
Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus View Post
So, given that the new CJCSI was actually a tweak to give local commanders more flexibility, how can Horden's claim that ".. after June, all such requests for scrambles were dealt with by seeking Pentagon approval as the CJCSI "reorganizing" suggests" stand up? It's one thing to say that there were no scrambles during that time period (I'd like to see some verification of that claim before I buy into it). But it's a whole other thing to attribute that to the CJCSI change. Even if there were no scrambles, attributing that to any changes in procedure only stand up if you do not understand (or choose to misrepresent) what those procedural changes were to begin with.
sure it was just a coincidence.

Last edited by bio; 16th July 2008 at 10:56 AM. Reason: completion
bio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th July 2008, 11:01 AM   #200
Corsair 115
Penultimate Amazing
 
Corsair 115's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 14,519
Originally Posted by bio View Post
sure it was just a coincidence.
Fact: coincidences happen. Look up the Battle of Midway in June of 1942 for a couple of examples of amazing coincidences (which arguably had a direct effect on the outcome of the battle).
__________________
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Because that goal will serve
to organize and measure the best of our abilities and skills, because that challenge is one we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and
one which we intend to win."
Corsair 115 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:18 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.