For Eots and Other 'Truthers'

[eots]

I belive my previous posts indicate that I have made no conclusions other than you aren't being objective about this. All the links(which don't work by the way)/quotes are from those that support the conspiracy theory. My main point was that if you were objective you would be examining ALL of the evidence including that which claims the conspiracy theory is bogus. You aren't doing that. You are spending 100% of your effort trying to prove the conpiracy correct by focusing soley on evidence that supports it and non that is critical of it.

I don't think I'm wrong in guessing that everyone who supports this particular conspiracy theory had one thing in common before 9/11 took place and that is revultion of the current administration which is quite revealing in terms of agenda.

There really is not context to the snippets you posted, but none of the links work for me. There was absolutley no substance to any of the parts you did post along with one gigantic leap of logic. I realize you are basically ignoring the source but I have read the Popular Mechanics article. I am not a structural engineer, but I have no reason to believe the material supplied was falsified or shotty science. All of the above is refuted by it including the airplane parts were found at the pentagon.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=1

they are not snippets they are very powerfully and direct statements from
people with vastly more knowledge and credentials than the researchers of popular mechanics go to the site for links to all full articles and bios

Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 ...This website provides responsible criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report by senior military, intelligence and government officials.
www.patriotsquestion911.com/ - 227k - Cached - Similar pages

these men and women have served in multiple administrations
and include several bronze and silver star vets

 

[Annie]

I belive my previous posts indicate that I have made no conclusions other than you aren't being objective about this. All the links(which don't work by the way)/quotes are from those that support the conspiracy theory. My main point was that if you were objective you would be examining ALL of the evidence including that which claims the conspiracy theory is bogus. You aren't doing that. You are spending 100% of your effort trying to prove the conpiracy correct by focusing soley on evidence that supports it and non that is critical of it.

I don't think I'm wrong in guessing that everyone who supports this particular conspiracy theory had one thing in common before 9/11 took place and that is revultion of the current administration which is quite revealing in terms of agenda.

There really is not context to the snippets you posted, but none of the links work for me. There was absolutley no substance to any of the parts you did post along with one gigantic leap of logic. I realize you are basically ignoring the source but I have read the Popular Mechanics article. I am not a structural engineer, but I have no reason to believe the material supplied was falsified or shotty science. All of the above is refuted by it including the airplane parts were found at the pentagon.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=1

they are not snippets they are very powerfully and direct statements from
people with vastly more knowledge and credentials than the researchers of popular mechanics go to the site for links to all full articles and bios

Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 ...This website provides responsible criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report by senior military, intelligence and government officials.
www.patriotsquestion911.com/ - 227k - Cached - Similar pages

these men and women have served in multiple administrations
and include several bronze and silver star vets

Whether they be patriots or not, heroes or not, none of that means a hill of beans regarding science and engineering. What part of this are you having trouble with?

PS Do you need help in using 'quotes'?

 

[eots]

CLAIM: Two holes were visible in the Pentagon immediately after the attack: a 75-ft.-wide entry hole in the building's exterior wall, and a 16-ft.-wide hole in Ring C, the Pentagon's middle ring. Conspiracy theorists claim both holes are far too small to have been made by a Boeing 757. "How does a plane 125 ft. wide and 155 ft. long fit into a hole which is only 16 ft. across?" asks reopen911.org, a Web site "dedicated to discovering the bottom line truth to what really occurred on September 11, 2001."

The truth is of even less importance to French author Thierry Meyssan, whose baseless assertions are fodder for even mainstream European and Middle Eastern media. In his book The Big Lie, Meyssan concludes that the Pentagon was struck by a satellite-guided missile--part of an elaborate U.S. military coup. "This attack," he writes, "could only be committed by United States military personnel against other U.S. military personnel."

notice how pm makes it seem like one source supplies that opinion and he is French and maxes no mention of high ranking American military and Intel agents that conclude the same some that where at the pentagon when it was hit





CLAIM: Conspiracy theorists insist there was no plane wreckage at the Pentagon. "In reality, a Boeing 757 was never found," claims pentagonstrike.co.uk, which asks the question, "What hit the Pentagon on 9/11?"

FACT: Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"


somehow pm found quotes like these however not worth a mention



Major General Albert Stubblebine
Major General Albert Stubblebine, U.S. Army (ret) – Former Commanding General of U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command, 1981 - 1984. Also commanded the U.S. Army’s Electronic Research and Development Command and the U.S. Army’s Intelligence School and Center. Former head of Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and Technical Intelligence. 32-year Army career.

Video 7/11/06: "One of my experiences in the Army was being in charge of the Army’s Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and Technical Intelligence during the Cold War. I measured pieces of Soviet equipment from photographs. It was my job. I look at the hole in the Pentagon and I look at the size of an airplane that was supposed to have hit the Pentagon. And I said, ‘The plane does not fit in that hole’. So what did hit the Pentagon? What hit it? Where is it? What's going on?" http://www.und


Bio: http://www.canadiansub.com/Board



Major Douglas Rokke
Major Douglas Rokke, PhD, U.S. Army (ret) – Former Director U.S. Army Depleted Uranium Project. 30-year Army career.

Article 8/19/05: Regarding the impact at the Pentagon on 9/11/2001 "When you look at the whole thing, especially the crash site void of airplane parts, the size of the hole left in the building and the fact the projectile's impact penetrated numerous concrete walls, it looks like the work of a missile. And when you look at the damage, it was obviously a missile." http://www.rense.com/general67/radfdf


or this eyewittness

Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Former Political-Military Affairs Officer in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Also served on the staff of the Director of the National Security Agency. 20-year Air Force veteran.

Contributor to 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out 8/23/06: Account of Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, Pentagon employee and eyewitness to the events at the Pentagon on 9/11. "I believe the Commission failed to deeply examine the topic at hand, failed to apply scientific rigor to its assessment of events leading up to and including 9/11, failed to produce a believable and unbiased summary of what happened, failed to fully examine why it happened, and even failed to include a set of unanswered questions for future research. ...

It is as a scientist that I have the most trouble with the official government conspiracy theory, mainly because it does not satisfy the rules of probability or physics. The collapses of the World Trade Center buildings clearly violate the laws of probability and physics. ...

There was a dearth of visible debris on the relatively unmarked [Pentagon] lawn, where I stood only minutes after the impact. Beyond this strange absence of airliner debris, there was no sign of the kind of damage to the Pentagon structure one would expect from the impact of a large airliner. This visible evidence or lack thereof may also have been apparent to the secretary of defense [Donald Rumsfeld], who in an unfortunate slip of the tongue referred to the aircraft that slammed into the Pentagon as a "missile".

... I saw nothing of significance at the point of impact - no airplane metal or cargo debris was blowing on the lawn in front of the damaged building as smoke billowed from within the Pentagon. ... all of us staring at the Pentagon that morning were indeed looking for such debris, but what we expected to see was not evident.

The same is true with regard to the kind of damage we expected. ... But I did not see this kind of damage. Rather, the facade had a rather small hole, no larger than 20 feet in diameter. Although this facade later collapsed, it remained standing for 30 or 40 minutes, with the roof line remaining relatively straight.

The scene, in short, was not what I would have expected from a strike by a large jetliner. It was, however, exactly what one would expect if a missile had struck the Pentagon.

... More information is certainly needed regarding the events of 9/11 and the events leading up to that terrible day."

Bio: http://militaryweek.com



are you getting my point here i know how hard it is to belive..but how hard do you think it was for these people to say what they have said







CLAIM: "It has been standard operating procedures for decades to immediately intercept off-course planes that do not respond to communications from air traffic controllers," says the Web site oilempire.us. "When the Air Force 'scrambles' a fighter plane to intercept, they usually reach the plane in question in minutes."

FACT: In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999. With passengers and crew unconscious from cabin decompression, the plane lost radio contact but remained in transponder contact until it crashed. Even so, it took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach the stricken jet. Rules in effect back then, and on 9/11, prohibited supersonic flight on intercepts. Prior to 9/11, all other NORAD interceptions were limited to offshore Air Defense Identification Zones (ADIZ). "Until 9/11 there was no domestic ADIZ," FAA spokesman Bill Schumann tells PM. After 9/11, NORAD and the FAA increased cooperation, setting up hotlines between ATCs and NORAD command centers, according to officials from both agencies. NORAD has also increased its fighter coverage and has installed radar to monitor airspace over the continent


NORAD Stand-Down
The Prevention of Interceptions of the Commandeered Planes
It is standard operating procedure (SOP) to scramble jet fighters whenever a jetliner goes off course or radio contact with it is lost. Between September 2000 and June 2001, interceptors were scrambled 67 times. 1 In the year 2000 jets were scrambled 129 times. 2

There are several elements involved in domestic air defense. The air traffic control system continuously monitors air traffic and notifies NORAD of any deviations of any aircraft from their flight-paths or loss of radio contact. NORAD monitors air and space traffic continuously and is prepared to react immediately to threats and emergencies. It has the authority to order units from the Air National Guard, the Air Force, or other armed services to scramble fighters in pursuit of jetliners in trouble.

Routine interception procedures were not followed on September 11th, 2001.

Layered Failures
The air defense network had, on September 11th, predictable and effective procedures for dealing with just such an attack. Yet it failed to respond in a timely manner until after the attack was over, more than an hour and a half after it had started. The official timeline describes a series of events and mode of response in which the delays are spread out into a number of areas. There are failures upon failures, in what might be described as a strategy of layered failures, or failure in depth. The failures can be divided into four types.

Failures to report: Based on the official timeline, the FAA response times for reporting the deviating aircraft were many times longer than the prescribed times.
Failures to scramble: NORAD, once notified of the off-course aircraft, failed to scramble jets from the nearest bases.
Failures to intercept: Once airborne, interceptors failed to reach their targets because they flew at small fractions of their top speeds.
Failures to redeploy: Fighters that were airborne and within interception range of the deviating aircraft were not redeployed to pursue them.
Had not there been multiple failures of each type, one or more parts of the attack could have been thwarted. NORAD had time to protect the World Trade Center even given the unbelievably late time, 8:40, when it claims to have first been notified. It had time to protect the South Tower and Washington even given its bizarre choice of bases to scramble. And it still had ample opportunity to protect both New York City and Washington even if it insisted that all interceptors fly subsonic, simply by redeploying airborne fighters.

Failures to Report
Comparing NORAD's timeline to reports from air traffic control reveals inexplicable delays in the times the FAA took to report deviating aircraft. The delays include an 18-minute delay in reporting Flight 11 and a 39-minute delay in reporting Flight 77. The delays are made all the more suspicious given that, in each case, the plane failed to respond to communications, was off-course, and had stopped emitting its IFF signal.

Failures to Scramble
No plausible explanation has been provided for failing to scramble interceptors in a timely fashion from bases within easy range to protect the September 11th targets. Fighters that were dispatched were scrambled from distant bases. Early in the attack, when Flight 11 had turned directly south toward New York City, it was obvious that New York City and the World Trade Center, and Washington D.C. would be likely targets. Yet fighters were not scrambled from the bases near the targets. They were only scrambled from distant bases. Moreover there were no redundant or backup scrambles.

New York City
Flight 11 had been flying south toward New York City from about 8:30 AM. Yet no interceptors were scrambled from nearby Atlantic City, or La Guardia, or from Langley, Virginia. Numerous other bases were not ordered to scramble fighters.

Washington D.C.
No interceptors were scrambled from Andrews Air Force Base to protect the capital, at least not before the Pentagon was hit. Andrews Air Force Base had two squadrons of fighters on alert, and is only 10 miles from the Pentagon.

Failures to Intercept
Even though the interceptors were not dispatched from the most logical bases, the ones that were scrambled still had adequate time to reach their assigned planes. Why didn't they? Because they were only flying at a small fraction of their top speed. That is the conclusion implicit in NORAD's timeline.

Otis to the WTC
The first base to finally scramble interceptors was Otis in Falmouth, Massachusetts, at 8:52, about a half-hour after Flight 11 was taken over. This was already eight minutes after Flight 11 hit the North Tower, and just 9 minutes before Flight 175 hit the South Tower.

According to NORAD, at the time of the South Tower Impact the two F-15s from Otis were still 71 miles away. Otis is 153 miles east-northeast of the WTC. That means the F-15s were flying at: (153 miles - 71 miles)/(9:03 - 8:52) = 447 mph
That is around 23.8% of their top speed of 1875 mph.
At 9:11 the F-15s finally reached the World Trade Center. Their average speed for the trip was: 153/(9:11 - 8:52) = 483 mph
That is around 25.8% of their top speed.

Langley to the Pentagon
The F-16s from Langley reached the Pentagon at 9:49. It took them 19 minutes to reach Washington D.C. from Langley AFB, which is about 130 miles to the south. That means the F-16s were flying at: 130 miles/(9:49 - 9:30) = 410.5 mph
That is around 27.4% of their top speed of 1500 mph.

Andrews to the Pentagon
Andrews Air Force Base, located on the outskirts of the capital, is just over 10 miles from the Pentagon. One would have expected interceptors to be scrambled to protect the capital within a few minutes of the 8:15 loss of contact with Flight 11. Instead, no fighters from Andrews reached the Pentagon until 9:49, several minutes after the assault.

Failures to Redeploy
Fighters that were in the air when the attack started were not redeployed to intercept the deviating planes. When fighters scrambled to protect Manhattan arrived there too late, they were not redeployed to protect the capital even though they had plenty of time to reach it before the Pentagon was hit.

Long Island to Manhattan
Two F-15s flying off the coast of Long Island were not redeployed to Manhattan until after the second tower was hit. 3

WTC to the Pentagon
By the time the two F-15s from Otis reached Manhattan, the only jetliner still flying with its IFF transponder off had just made a 180-degree turn over southern Ohio and had been headed for Washington D.C. for 12 minutes. It was still 34 minutes before the Pentagon was hit. Had the fighters been sent to protect the capital, they could have traveled the approximately 300 miles in: 300 miles/1875 mph = 9.6 minutes
They even could have made it to the capital in time to protect the Pentagon if they had continued to fly at only 500 mph.

Col. Ronald D. Ray

Col. Ronald D. Ray, U.S. Marine Corps (ret) – Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense during the Reagan Administration and a highly decorated Vietnam veteran (two Silver Stars, a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart). Appointed by President George H.W. Bush to serve on the American Battle Monuments Commission (1990 - 1994), and on the 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces. Military Historian and Deputy Director of Field Operations for the U.S. Marine Corps Historical Center, Washington, D.C. 1990 - 1994.

Article 7/10/06: "The former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under the Reagan Administration and a highly decorated Vietnam veteran and Colonel has gone on the record to voice his doubts about the official story of 9/11 - calling it ‘the dog that doesn't hunt.’ ‘I'm astounded that the conspiracy theory advanced by the administration could in fact be true and the evidence does not seem to suggest that's accurate,’ he said." http://www.knowledgedriven





Testimony before the House Armed Services Committee 2/15/06: Regarding the Able Danger project - “... basic law enforcement investigative techniques, with 21st Century data mining and analytical tools ... resulted in the establishment of a new form of intelligence collection – and the identification of Mohammed Atta and several other of the 9-11 terrorists as having links to Al Qaeda leadership a full year in advance of the attacks. ...

After contact by two separate members of the ABLE DANGER team, … the 9-11 [Commission] staff refused to perform any in-depth review or investigation of the issues that were identified to them. … It was their job to do a thorough investigation of these claims – to not simply dismiss them based on what many now believe was a “preconceived” conclusion to the 9-11 story they wished to tell. … I consider this a failure of the 9-11 staff – a failure that the 9-11 Commissioners themselves were victimized by – and continue to have perpetrated on them by the staff as is evidenced by their recent, groundless conclusion that ABLE DANGER’s findings were “urban legend”. http://www.abledan







David L. Griscom, PhD – Research physicist, retired in 2001 from Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) in Washington, DC, after 33 years service. Fellow of the American Physical Society. Fulbright-García Robles Fellow at Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México in Mexico City (1997). Visiting professorships of research at the Universities of Paris and Saint-Etienne, France, and Tokyo Institute of Technology (2000 - 2003). Adjunct Professor of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Arizona (2004 - 2005). Winner of the 1993 N.F. Mott Award sponsored by the Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids, the 1995 Otto Schott Award offered by the Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung (Germany), a 1996 Outstanding Graduate School Alumnus Award at Brown University, and the 1997 Sigma Xi Pure Science Award at NRL. Principal author of 109 of his 185 published works, a body of work which is highly cited by his peers. Officially credited with largest number of papers (5) by any author on list of 100 most cited articles authored at NRL between 1973 and 1988.
Personal blog 1/5/07: "David Ray Griffin has web-published a splendid, highly footnoted account of The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True: This scholarly work, rich in eyewitness accounts, includes 11 separate pieces of evidence that the World Trade Center towers 1, 2, and 7 were brought down by explosives.

... I implore my fellow physicists and engineers who may have the time, expertise, and (ideally) supercomputer access to get to work on the physics of the World Trade Center collapses and publish their findings in refereed journals like, say, the Journal of Applied Physics.

The issue of knowing who was really behind the 9/11 attacks is of paramount importance to the future of our country, because the “official” assumption that it was the work of 19 Arab amateurs (1) does not match the available facts and (2) has led directly to the deplorable Patriot Act, the illegal Iraq war, NSA spying on ordinary Americans, repudiation of the Geneva Conventions, and the repeal of habeas corpus (a fundamental point of law that has been with us since the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215).

Surely these Orwellian consequences of public ignorance constitute more than sufficient motivation for any patriotic American physicist or engineer to join the search for 9/11 Truth!" http://impactglassman


Member: Scholars for 9/11 Truth Association Statement: "Research proves the current administration has been dishonest about what happened in New York and Washington, D.C. The World Trade Center was almost certainly brought down by controlled demolitions and that the available relevant evidence casts grave doubt on the government's official story about the attack on the Pentagon."


Bio: http://impactglassman.blogspot

 

[Annie]

Where's the Danny B story? Please don't tell me it's the video I posted awhile back!

 

[eots]

From: EOTS
Date: Feb 8, 2007 11:55 PM


Gretchen Danny its me again wondering if you check out any 911 truth yet and what you think
if you have any feelings that it is somehow unpatriotic
i would urge you to view this site it features top level
military brass ,intelligence agents ,military pilots and crash experts ,that served in multiple administration
several bronze and silver star recipients in short true hero's patriots and men of courage



Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 ...This website provides responsible criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report by senior military, intelligence and government officials.
www.patriotsquestion911.com/ - 227k

and on a lighter note did you check out this j.cash
vid its worth it just for shots of Priscilla Presley
looks a bit like you gretch...anyway i don't want to harass you with this but i don't want to give up on you either so if you don't appreciate it just let me know
i just have a gut feeling that john conner didn't stumble
and bumble into you that day for a reason bigger than either of your egos , i hope you know he means well
if you look at the site i posted ,you might at least understand his urgency to get the word out ,hes a good man



dude, we are never going to agree, but my wife says youre ok. danny

We of course care about America. Will check out your suggestion as we like to now all info. Thanks Gretchen B

----------------- Original Message -----------------

 

[NuclearWinter]

As far as what I would have done if I had been in charge on 9-11, and relating to whether or not I would have sent the Air Force to check things out, I just have one thing to say about that:

EVERYONE DIED ANYWAYS!!!!

Everyone in the planes died. Everyone in the towers dies. The Terrorists died. Men, Women, Children, they all died! Thousands of them! Jumping to their death in burning flames.

You think I wouldn't have given an order for the Air Force to check things out? Your damn right I would have! And if it came down to it in the end and shooting down the planes was the only option, I would have given the order for that too!

 

[NuclearWinter]

Here's a video clip that provides evidence to the fact that Dick Cheney is the one who gave the Air Force the orders to 'Stand Down' on September 11.

I really recommend that everyone at least watch it before coming to a final conclusion.

3 minutes and something long. Not too much time out of your lives.

All you have to do is click on the link below to watch the video.


[ame]http://youtube.com/watch?v=I687jvb2uf8[/ame]

 

[Annie]

eots, you are married, right? Otherwise you and NW would make such a great couple!

 

[eots]

hey you never graded my poem !

 

[Annie]

hey you never graded my poem !

I never could get by the conventions. I should have asked, is English your second language?

 

[Bern80]

CLAIM: Two holes were visible in the Pentagon immediately after the attack: a 75-ft.-wide entry hole in the building's exterior wall, and a 16-ft.-wide hole in Ring C, the Pentagon's middle ring. Conspiracy theorists claim both holes are far too small to have been made by a Boeing 757. "How does a plane 125 ft. wide and 155 ft. long fit into a hole which is only 16 ft. across?" asks reopen911.org, a Web site "dedicated to discovering the bottom line truth to what really occurred on September 11, 2001."

The truth is of even less importance to French author Thierry Meyssan, whose baseless assertions are fodder for even mainstream European and Middle Eastern media. In his book The Big Lie, Meyssan concludes that the Pentagon was struck by a satellite-guided missile--part of an elaborate U.S. military coup. "This attack," he writes, "could only be committed by United States military personnel against other U.S. military personnel."

notice how pm makes it seem like one source supplies that opinion and he is French and maxes no mention of high ranking American military and Intel agents that conclude the same some that where at the pentagon when it was hit

The commentary on the Frenchman is not what interests me. It is the conclusions the expert came up with listed below

FACT: When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings.

Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."

The tidy hole in Ring C was 12 ft. wide--not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it was made by the jet's landing gear, not by the fuselage.

somehow pm found quotes like these however not worth a mention

And someone else claims they did see it and that they picked up wreckage. What reason do you have to believe one over the other? This particular point is not a scientific one. Either there was wreckage or there wasn't. PM claims there are pictures of it and even appears to have posted one in the article.

Major General Albert Stubblebine
Major General Albert Stubblebine, U.S. Army (ret) – Former Commanding General of U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command, 1981 - 1984. Also commanded the U.S. Army’s Electronic Research and Development Command and the U.S. Army’s Intelligence School and Center. Former head of Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and Technical Intelligence. 32-year Army career.

Video 7/11/06: "One of my experiences in the Army was being in charge of the Army’s Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and Technical Intelligence during the Cold War. I measured pieces of Soviet equipment from photographs. It was my job. I look at the hole in the Pentagon and I look at the size of an airplane that was supposed to have hit the Pentagon. And I said, ‘The plane does not fit in that hole’. So what did hit the Pentagon? What hit it? Where is it? What's going on?" http://www.und


Bio: http://www.canadiansub.com/Board



Major Douglas Rokke
Major Douglas Rokke, PhD, U.S. Army (ret) – Former Director U.S. Army Depleted Uranium Project. 30-year Army career.

Article 8/19/05: Regarding the impact at the Pentagon on 9/11/2001 "When you look at the whole thing, especially the crash site void of airplane parts, the size of the hole left in the building and the fact the projectile's impact penetrated numerous concrete walls, it looks like the work of a missile. And when you look at the damage, it was obviously a missile." http://www.rense.com/general67/radfdf

You have already posted the above several times. I read it, so you can stop.

or this eyewittness

Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Former Political-Military Affairs Officer in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Also served on the staff of the Director of the National Security Agency. 20-year Air Force veteran.

Contributor to 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out 8/23/06: Account of Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, Pentagon employee and eyewitness to the events at the Pentagon on 9/11. "I believe the Commission failed to deeply examine the topic at hand, failed to apply scientific rigor to its assessment of events leading up to and including 9/11, failed to produce a believable and unbiased summary of what happened, failed to fully examine why it happened, and even failed to include a set of unanswered questions for future research. ...

It is as a scientist that I have the most trouble with the official government conspiracy theory, mainly because it does not satisfy the rules of probability or physics. The collapses of the World Trade Center buildings clearly violate the laws of probability and physics. ...

There was a dearth of visible debris on the relatively unmarked [Pentagon] lawn, where I stood only minutes after the impact. Beyond this strange absence of airliner debris, there was no sign of the kind of damage to the Pentagon structure one would expect from the impact of a large airliner. This visible evidence or lack thereof may also have been apparent to the secretary of defense [Donald Rumsfeld], who in an unfortunate slip of the tongue referred to the aircraft that slammed into the Pentagon as a "missile".

... I saw nothing of significance at the point of impact - no airplane metal or cargo debris was blowing on the lawn in front of the damaged building as smoke billowed from within the Pentagon. ... all of us staring at the Pentagon that morning were indeed looking for such debris, but what we expected to see was not evident.

The same is true with regard to the kind of damage we expected. ... But I did not see this kind of damage. Rather, the facade had a rather small hole, no larger than 20 feet in diameter. Although this facade later collapsed, it remained standing for 30 or 40 minutes, with the roof line remaining relatively straight.

The scene, in short, was not what I would have expected from a strike by a large jetliner. It was, however, exactly what one would expect if a missile had struck the Pentagon.

... More information is certainly needed regarding the events of 9/11 and the events leading up to that terrible day."

Bio: http://militaryweek.com

She claims to be a scientist but no mention of being one is listed in her credtentials. Also all this really says is that she didn't see what she thought she would. Why she didn't is explained above.

are you getting my point here i know how hard it is to belive..but how hard do you think it was for these people to say what they have said

Not hard at all. Alll any of the above are stating is that they didn't see what they thought they would

CLAIM: "It has been standard operating procedures for decades to immediately intercept off-course planes that do not respond to communications from air traffic controllers," says the Web site oilempire.us. "When the Air Force 'scrambles' a fighter plane to intercept, they usually reach the plane in question in minutes."

FACT: In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999. With passengers and crew unconscious from cabin decompression, the plane lost radio contact but remained in transponder contact until it crashed. Even so, it took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach the stricken jet. Rules in effect back then, and on 9/11, prohibited supersonic flight on intercepts. Prior to 9/11, all other NORAD interceptions were limited to offshore Air Defense Identification Zones (ADIZ). "Until 9/11 there was no domestic ADIZ," FAA spokesman Bill Schumann tells PM. After 9/11, NORAD and the FAA increased cooperation, setting up hotlines between ATCs and NORAD command centers, according to officials from both agencies. NORAD has also increased its fighter coverage and has installed radar to monitor airspace over the continent


NORAD Stand-Down
The Prevention of Interceptions of the Commandeered Planes
It is standard operating procedure (SOP) to scramble jet fighters whenever a jetliner goes off course or radio contact with it is lost. Between September 2000 and June 2001, interceptors were scrambled 67 times. 1 In the year 2000 jets were scrambled 129 times. 2

There are several elements involved in domestic air defense. The air traffic control system continuously monitors air traffic and notifies NORAD of any deviations of any aircraft from their flight-paths or loss of radio contact. NORAD monitors air and space traffic continuously and is prepared to react immediately to threats and emergencies. It has the authority to order units from the Air National Guard, the Air Force, or other armed services to scramble fighters in pursuit of jetliners in trouble.

Routine interception procedures were not followed on September 11th, 2001.

This presupposes that not only had the hijackings been confirmed but that the targets were know as well. They weren't. As far as I am aware non of the targets were know until they were hit. The US military isn't going to blow a civilian airline out of the sky unless it absolutely has to. They didn't know that until it was too late.

Layered Failures
The air defense network had, on September 11th, predictable and effective procedures for dealing with just such an attack. Yet it failed to respond in a timely manner until after the attack was over, more than an hour and a half after it had started. The official timeline describes a series of events and mode of response in which the delays are spread out into a number of areas. There are failures upon failures, in what might be described as a strategy of layered failures, or failure in depth. The failures can be divided into four types.

Failures to report: Based on the official timeline, the FAA response times for reporting the deviating aircraft were many times longer than the prescribed times.
Failures to scramble: NORAD, once notified of the off-course aircraft, failed to scramble jets from the nearest bases.
Failures to intercept: Once airborne, interceptors failed to reach their targets because they flew at small fractions of their top speeds.
Failures to redeploy: Fighters that were airborne and within interception range of the deviating aircraft were not redeployed to pursue them.
Had not there been multiple failures of each type, one or more parts of the attack could have been thwarted. NORAD had time to protect the World Trade Center even given the unbelievably late time, 8:40, when it claims to have first been notified. It had time to protect the South Tower and Washington even given its bizarre choice of bases to scramble. And it still had ample opportunity to protect both New York City and Washington even if it insisted that all interceptors fly subsonic, simply by redeploying airborne fighters.

Failures to Report
Comparing NORAD's timeline to reports from air traffic control reveals inexplicable delays in the times the FAA took to report deviating aircraft. The delays include an 18-minute delay in reporting Flight 11 and a 39-minute delay in reporting Flight 77. The delays are made all the more suspicious given that, in each case, the plane failed to respond to communications, was off-course, and had stopped emitting its IFF signal.

Failures to Scramble
No plausible explanation has been provided for failing to scramble interceptors in a timely fashion from bases within easy range to protect the September 11th targets. Fighters that were dispatched were scrambled from distant bases. Early in the attack, when Flight 11 had turned directly south toward New York City, it was obvious that New York City and the World Trade Center, and Washington D.C. would be likely targets. Yet fighters were not scrambled from the bases near the targets. They were only scrambled from distant bases. Moreover there were no redundant or backup scrambles.

New York City
Flight 11 had been flying south toward New York City from about 8:30 AM. Yet no interceptors were scrambled from nearby Atlantic City, or La Guardia, or from Langley, Virginia. Numerous other bases were not ordered to scramble fighters.

Washington D.C.
No interceptors were scrambled from Andrews Air Force Base to protect the capital, at least not before the Pentagon was hit. Andrews Air Force Base had two squadrons of fighters on alert, and is only 10 miles from the Pentagon.

Failures to Intercept
Even though the interceptors were not dispatched from the most logical bases, the ones that were scrambled still had adequate time to reach their assigned planes. Why didn't they? Because they were only flying at a small fraction of their top speed. That is the conclusion implicit in NORAD's timeline.

Otis to the WTC
The first base to finally scramble interceptors was Otis in Falmouth, Massachusetts, at 8:52, about a half-hour after Flight 11 was taken over. This was already eight minutes after Flight 11 hit the North Tower, and just 9 minutes before Flight 175 hit the South Tower.

According to NORAD, at the time of the South Tower Impact the two F-15s from Otis were still 71 miles away. Otis is 153 miles east-northeast of the WTC. That means the F-15s were flying at: (153 miles - 71 miles)/(9:03 - 8:52) = 447 mph
That is around 23.8% of their top speed of 1875 mph.
At 9:11 the F-15s finally reached the World Trade Center. Their average speed for the trip was: 153/(9:11 - 8:52) = 483 mph
That is around 25.8% of their top speed.

Langley to the Pentagon
The F-16s from Langley reached the Pentagon at 9:49. It took them 19 minutes to reach Washington D.C. from Langley AFB, which is about 130 miles to the south. That means the F-16s were flying at: 130 miles/(9:49 - 9:30) = 410.5 mph
That is around 27.4% of their top speed of 1500 mph.

Andrews to the Pentagon
Andrews Air Force Base, located on the outskirts of the capital, is just over 10 miles from the Pentagon. One would have expected interceptors to be scrambled to protect the capital within a few minutes of the 8:15 loss of contact with Flight 11. Instead, no fighters from Andrews reached the Pentagon until 9:49, several minutes after the assault.

Failures to Redeploy
Fighters that were in the air when the attack started were not redeployed to intercept the deviating planes. When fighters scrambled to protect Manhattan arrived there too late, they were not redeployed to protect the capital even though they had plenty of time to reach it before the Pentagon was hit.

Long Island to Manhattan
Two F-15s flying off the coast of Long Island were not redeployed to Manhattan until after the second tower was hit. 3

WTC to the Pentagon
By the time the two F-15s from Otis reached Manhattan, the only jetliner still flying with its IFF transponder off had just made a 180-degree turn over southern Ohio and had been headed for Washington D.C. for 12 minutes. It was still 34 minutes before the Pentagon was hit. Had the fighters been sent to protect the capital, they could have traveled the approximately 300 miles in: 300 miles/1875 mph = 9.6 minutes
They even could have made it to the capital in time to protect the Pentagon if they had continued to fly at only 500 mph.

Col. Ronald D. Ray

Col. Ronald D. Ray, U.S. Marine Corps (ret) – Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense during the Reagan Administration and a highly decorated Vietnam veteran (two Silver Stars, a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart). Appointed by President George H.W. Bush to serve on the American Battle Monuments Commission (1990 - 1994), and on the 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces. Military Historian and Deputy Director of Field Operations for the U.S. Marine Corps Historical Center, Washington, D.C. 1990 - 1994.

Article 7/10/06: "The former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under the Reagan Administration and a highly decorated Vietnam veteran and Colonel has gone on the record to voice his doubts about the official story of 9/11 - calling it ‘the dog that doesn't hunt.’ ‘I'm astounded that the conspiracy theory advanced by the administration could in fact be true and the evidence does not seem to suggest that's accurate,’ he said." http://www.knowledgedriven

Again one explanation of why what happened, happened. Instead of what the 'experts' claim should have happened(in there infinite hindsight wisdom).

FACT: On 9/11 there were only 14 fighter jets on alert in the contiguous 48 states. No computer network or alarm automatically alerted the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) of missing planes. "They [civilian Air Traffic Control, or ATC] had to pick up the phone and literally dial us," says Maj. Douglas Martin, public affairs officer for NORAD. Boston Center, one of 22 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regional ATC facilities, called NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) three times: at 8:37 am EST to inform NEADS that Flight 11 was hijacked; at 9:21 am to inform the agency, mistakenly, that Flight 11 was headed for Washington (the plane had hit the North Tower 35 minutes earlier); and at 9:41 am to (erroneously) identify Delta Air Lines Flight 1989 from Boston as a possible hijacking. The New York ATC called NEADS at 9:03 am to report that United Flight 175 had been hijacked--the same time the plane slammed into the South Tower. Within minutes of that first call from Boston Center, NEADS scrambled two F-15s from Otis Air Force Base in Falmouth, Mass., and three F-16s from Langley Air National Guard Base in Hampton, Va. None of the fighters got anywhere near the pirated planes.

Why couldn't ATC find the hijacked flights? When the hijackers turned off the planes' transponders, which broadcast identifying signals, ATC had to search 4500 identical radar blips crisscrossing some of the country's busiest air corridors. And NORAD's sophisticated radar? It ringed the continent, looking outward for threats, not inward. "It was like a doughnut," Martin says. "There was no coverage in the middle." Pre-9/11, flights originating in the States were not seen as threats and NORAD wasn't prepared to track them.

 

[Bern80]

Here's a video clip that provides evidence to the fact that Dick Cheney is the one who gave the Air Force the orders to 'Stand Down' on September 11.

I really recommend that everyone at least watch it before coming to a final conclusion.

3 minutes and something long. Not too much time out of your lives.

All you have to do is click on the link below to watch the video.


http://youtube.com/watch?v=I687jvb2uf8

Interesting. The basic presumption is that at the very least the gov't could have done more but didn't or at worst was an inside job. Taking the later here is what really doesn't make sense: bin Laden and al queada claimed responsibility. Why would he do that if it were an inside job? We paid him off, even though we're trying like hell to kill him?

 

[Little-Acorn]

When there's nothing better to do, it's sometimes fun to watch these "The real truth behind XXXXX disaster" threads continue endlessly, as they invariably do.

They accomplish one useful thing, at least. They keep the conspiracy/coverup fruitcakes busy enough, to keep them from hurting themselves or bothering others.

Kudoes.

 

[NuclearWinter]

The US military isn't going to blow a civilian airline out of the sky unless it absolutely has to. They didn't know that until it was too late.

How about getting off their asses and up in the air to check out the situation? Rather than watching it all unfold on television!

Is that too much to ask from our Air Force? Oh wait, I forgot, the Air Force didn't have a choice, Cheney told them to stay on the ground during the entire process!

Well, let me give them some credit, they did manage to get up in the air eventually. After everyone was dead.

 

[Bern80]

How about getting off their asses and up in the air to check out the situation? Rather than watching it all unfold on television!

Is that too much to ask from our Air Force? Oh wait, I forgot, the Air Force didn't have a choice, Cheney told them to stay on the ground during the entire process!

Well, let me give them some credit, they did manage to get up in the air eventually. After everyone was dead.

Again there is one answer at least posted above. Explain to me why it is not a legitimate one.

 

[NuclearWinter]

Interesting. The basic presumption is that at the very least the gov't could have done more but didn't or at worst was an inside job. Taking the later here is what really doesn't make sense: bin Laden and al queada claimed responsibility. Why would he do that if it were an inside job? We paid him off, even though we're trying like hell to kill him?

lol. Alright I'll humor you I guess.

Osama bin Laden? Of the Bin Laden family?

You mean Daddy Bush's oldtime business partners?

You want to talk about best and worst case scenarios?

9-11 was a "Worst case scenario".

Why?

Because nothing was done to prevent it. Hell, nothing was even ATTEMPTED.

The clock kept ticking and there was time to react. Eventually, the clock stopped.

 

[eots]

Again the one answer at least posted above. Explain to me why it is not a legitimate one.

your ridiculous 911 commission members denounce their own investigation
but you defend it still ,a air force fighter pilot and PhD at the pentagon on sept 11 a you question what kind of scientist she is ,why wonder her bio is on the site or do you just prefer to wonder. popular mechanics took there 911 commission report a fit the science to the story even tho the commission no longer supports its own findings , and the nist report concludes that the science they fit to the story has a low probability of occurrence which i a understatement the computer simulations where adjusted and tweaked until it fit the story stretching the laws of probability to its outer limits

Karen Kwiatkowski, Lt. Col. USAF (ret.)



Karen Kwiatkowski recently retired from the active duty USAF as a Lieutenant Colonel. Her final assignment was as a political-military affairs officer in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Under Secretary for Policy, in the Sub-Saharan Africa and Near East South Asia (NESA) Policy directorates.

During Col. Kwiatkowski's time at NESA, she worked the North Africa desk, in the sister office to the Office of Special Plans. Prior to the Office of Secretary of Defense assignment, she served on the Air Force Staff, Operations Directorate at the Pentagon, the staff of the Director of the National Security Agency (NSA) at Fort Meade, Maryland, and served tours in Alaska, Massachusetts, Spain and Italy.

Col. Kwiatkowski has an MA in Government from Harvard, and MS in Science Management from the University of Alaska, and has completed both Air Command and Staff College and the Naval War College seminar programs. She also holds a Ph.D. in World Politics from Catholic University of America, with a dissertation on Overt/Covert War in Angola: A Case Study of the Implementation of the Reagan Doctrine.

Col. Kwiatkowski has authored two recent books on African issues, African Crisis Response Initiative: Past Present and Future (US Army Peacekeeping Institute, 2000) and Expeditionary Air Operations in Africa: Challenges and Solutions (Air University Press, 2001) and several papers.

She teaches online classes with the University of Maryland University College and American Public University System, and is an adjunct faculty in Political Science with James Madison University.

Col. Kwiatkowski lives on a small farm in western Virginia with the husband and four children, ages 12, 15, 17 and 19. She is a regular contributor to LewRockwell.com, and has had articles about her work with the Department of Defense published recently in the American Conservative


When NIST initiated the WTC investigation, it made a decision not to hire new staff to support the investigation. After the June 2004 progress report on the WTC investigation was issued, the NIST investigation team stopped working on WTC 7 and was assigned full-time through the fall of 2005 to complete the investigation of the WTC towers. With the release and dissemination of the report on the WTC towers in October 2005, the investigation of the WTC 7 collapse resumed. Considerable progress has been made since that time, including the review of nearly 80 boxes of new documents related to WTC 7, the development of detailed technical approaches for modeling and analyzing various collapse hypotheses, and the selection of a contractor to assist NIST staff in carrying out the analyses. It is anticipated that a draft report will be released by early 2007.

The current NIST working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 is described in the June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (Volume 1, page 17, as well as Appendix L), as follows

The current NIST working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 is described in the June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (Volume 1, page 17, as well as Appendix L), as follows:

An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;

Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up to the east penthouse, and as the large floor bays became unable to redistribute the loads, it brought down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and

Triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7 that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors) resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.

This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios


NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab;


man will somebody get these loser a copy of popular mechanics already....jjeeez

 

[Bern80]

your ridiculous 911 commission members denounce their own investigation but you defend it still

Never once have I have mentioned the 9/11 commissin report let alone defended it.

,a air force fighter pilot and PhD at the pentagon on sept 11 a you question what kind of scientist she is ,why wonder her bio is on the site or do you just prefer to wonder. popular mechanics took there 911 commission report a fit the science to the story even tho the commission no longer supports its own findings , and the nist report concludes that the science they fit to the story has a low probability of occurrence which i a understatement the computer simulations where adjusted and tweaked until it fit the story stretching the laws of probability to its outer limits
Karen Kwiatkowski, Lt. Col. USAF (ret.)

Haveing a PhD doesn't mean she knows what she's talking about. By the way the PhD is in World Politics. Kind far removed from any type of expertise in structural engineering much less the hard sciences.

An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;

Being objective I would like to know what is the believed cause of the above

This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios

Would seem to refute for now the notion that plane crashes were accompanied by bombings, which remains a conspiracy theory argument. Again look at this objectively. What are must of these studies trying to do? As any good science does it is trying to eliminate possibilities. You are jumping to conclusions that have not been proven scientifically or factually one way or the other yet.

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab;

So at the very least the jury is still out. I can accept that

 

[Bern80]

lol. Alright I'll humor you I guess.

Osama bin Laden? Of the Bin Laden family?

You mean Daddy Bush's oldtime business partners?

You want to talk about best and worst case scenarios?

9-11 was a "Worst case scenario".

Why?

Because nothing was done to prevent it. Hell, nothing was even ATTEMPTED.

The clock kept ticking and there was time to react. Eventually, the clock stopped.

Are you for real?! I hope your last name isn't Dahmer/Kacinzky/Bundy cause that would just automatically make you a bad person too.

 

[eots]

Never once have I have mentioned the 9/11 commissin report let alone defended it.



Haveing a PhD doesn't mean she knows what she's talking about. By the way the PhD is in World Politics. Kind far removed from any type of expertise in structural engineering much less the hard sciences.





Being objective I would like to know what is the believed cause of the above



Would seem to refute for now the notion that plane crashes were accompanied by bombings, which remains a conspiracy theory argument. Again look at this objectively. What are must of these studies trying to do? As any good science does it is trying to eliminate possibilities. You are jumping to conclusions that have not been proven scientifically or factually one way or the other yet.



So at the very least the jury is still out. I can accept that

Thats a good place to start