Double Tree Video Released?

[Gravy]

Hierosis:

At this point I have to say something. Up until now, for the most part you have seemed civil, and certainly not confrontational.

I do not know Mark Roberts well, but I have gotten to know his mannerisms in debate here, as well as his views, and his dedication to this topic. This man has spent more time researching 9/11 and the events around it than anyone I know. I would venture to say more than any of the "truthers".

Thanks, TAM, but I'm still brand new at this stuff, and I don't expect to be doing it for much longer. Mike Williams, on the other hand, has been quietly knocking the myths off for years. So much of what I've learned I owe to his work. There's little chance that I would have had the patience for this stuff without the head start he provided.

 

[Gravy]

Ahh, the difficulties of a message board. How to read the tone of someone's post.

The guy came here after finding out his picture was posted (something we've griped about the LC boards doing), and he tried to laugh it off and received demands that he clarify his views and the evidence to support them...

And while, Mark, I'm sure that your intentions were honorable and genuinely welcoming here:

I think that we can understand how that would be taken as a demand.

This will be the last time I defend anyone connected with the 9/11 truth mov't, I swear. If I have to give up my nunchucks, I'm gonna be very upset.

It wasn't a demand, but an honest question, spurred by the thread topic: people who were supporting the protest at Ground Zero on 9/11. It's my hope that people who do have questions about 9/11 but who don't agree with Alex Jones and Dylan Avery will speak up about the negative light those people cast on the movement. I have no power to make that happen, but I think it's a valid question for someone who attends a protest organized by ignorant extremists in order to attract media attention during a memorial.

 

[gumboot]

Gumboot, you make some very good points and present them very well. While I do disagree and I guess I fall into a "LIHOP" stance (I HATE these acronyms as much as I hate liberal and conservative), the problem I have is that the more you dig, the more you find that the government was well aware of most of these guys for some time before 9/11. This was mostly done by the FBI, and they don't usually track people unless they have a good reason (or they post on the Loose Change board...just kidding).

Are you aware of the definition of "Actionable Intelligence"?

It is easy, in hindsight, to identify the clues that led to the plot. But at the time those clues are not so obvious, vague, inconclusive, and hidden in a multitude of false clues.

Even so, if our government is so...disorderly... Ive always wondered how it was that they were unable to stop the attacks once they were underway, but had almost all commercial aircraft was grounded or heading for ground by mid-morning. That's thousands of flights the FAA would have to redirect, and it was done in a very quick fashion, so they clearly can coordinate. It's also something that had NEVER been done in the history of air travel in America. So they seemed quite capable of working on the fly in this case.

I'm very familiar with the NORAD response on 9/11, so if you have any specific questions I can probably help. But for now, let me just say this:

Once the hijackers were onboard the aircraft, nothing could be done to stop the attack.

Grounding aircraft and intercepting aircraft are not comparable actions, so I don't know why you bring that up.

However, I will not dispute claims of American arrogance, as they are plentiful. But I think you're also forgetting that certain protocols exist for dealing with one hijacked jet, much less four over an almost 2 hour period.

Indeed, protocols did exist. Do you know what they were? They were for the ATC Centre to notify the FBI. Fortunately only ONE of the ATC Centres on 9/11 actually followed correct proceedure, otherwise NORAD would have been oblivious until after it had happened.

This isnt necessarily directed at you, but no one has answered my post form earlier. So, IS ANYONE FAMILIAR WITH THE BOJINKA PLOT?

Yes I am familiar with Oplan Bojinka.

-Gumboot

 

[StoneWT]

Another CT ego-stroker...

Hierosis' game should be evident to all by now. He is trying to get Gravy and others to argue for the faulty positions in his statements disguised as questions.

Gravy Train!!! I was wondering when I would be cited by you.

Well, why don't you tell me. You're the one who feels that the incompetence theory is all there is to it.

He is here to impress his CT buddies with his debating chess skills. If he was sincere, he wouldn't consistently treat straightforward questions from Gravy and others like personal attacks. Since Hierosis uses tricky statements disguised as questions, he assumes everyone else does. If he was sincere, he wouldn't consistently respond with questions when Gravy and others respond to his initial statement/question. Honest people are thankful for an answer. They don't pretend to be blind and deaf by rewording the original question that was ALREADY answered or explained to be faulty.

Hierosis, please take your disrespectful chess game elsewhere. 3,000 dead Americans deserve better.

 

[Pardalis]

Hierosis' game should be evident to all by now. He is trying to get Gravy and others to argue for the faulty positions in his statements disguised as questions.

I really think you should give him a chance.

Even though Russell Pickering started posting here with a nice and polite demeanor, my BS-O-Meter was going wild.

With Hierosis, it's not moving at all.

 

[gumboot]

who was at fault when the most sophisticated air defense system in the history of the world simply failed for two hours.

The US does not have "the most sophisticated defense system in the history of the world". Not by a long shot. The ONLY thing protecting US airspace was 14 fighter aircraft and several government agencies operating on obsolete computer systems and equipment.

Despite all this, despite the impossibility of the task, these few defenders did incredible work on 9/11.

-Gumboot

 

[~enigma~]

I really think you should give him a chance.

Even though Russell Pickering started posting here with a nice and polite demeanor, my BS-O-Meter was going wild.

With Hierosis, it's not moving at all.

I think it might be time for your BS-O-Meter to have it's yearly maintenance. I thought he was harmlessly asking questions (sounds like the LC bunch) until he brought up operation Bojinka yesterday. First he leaves out a few sailent points of the operation then when Im bring it to his attention, he ignores my post so he can say Kate is telling half a story. He is pure BS. Oil your meter and tap it on the side and watch his BS take your meter off scale.

 

[StoneWT]

I really think you should give him a chance.

Even though Russell Pickering started posting here with a nice and polite demeanor, my BS-O-Meter was going wild.

With Hierosis, it's not moving at all.

Eh, he has had several pages worth of chances. Look at his responses and the way he phrases his questions.

 

[Pardalis]

Maybe he's just unfamiliar with message boards and critical thinking.

 

[Kent1]

That's his face:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/888645734e66db0a7.jpg[/qimg]

As a matter of fact, Mr. what's-his-face's hearing is coming up this month.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2471269

 

[~enigma~]

Maybe he's just unfamiliar with message boards and critical thinking.

Aren't the woowoos unfamiliar with critical thinking?

 

[Brainster]

Hierosis is missing that not many around here argue that incompetence led to 9-11. This argument is perhaps natural from those who believe in CTs because it's an alternative reason why the ominipotent powers of NORAD were not brought to bear on the supposed hijackers.

What we don't believe in, Hierosis, are those omnipotent powers. We believe that the men and women of NORAD and the ATC centers were doing the best they could while operating under what we now understand to have been tragically mistaken assumptions. Were mistakes made? Yep. Were they honest mistakes? Yep.

 

[~enigma~]

Before bringing up NORAD and opening the door to our resident twoofer woowoos so they can bring up the stand down crap again, can someone please tell me ONE civilian flight that was intercepted in the 5 years prior to 2001. I do not want to hear there were 67 in the year before 9/11 (I heard that from the woowoos about 1000 times). I want one flight mentioned by name so we can verify. NORAD didn't stand down it is just that certain people do not comprehend the difference between scramble and intercept. Nor do they understand the difference between combat ready and alert.

 

[Pardalis]

Were mistakes made? Yep. Were they honest mistakes? Yep.

I beg to differ here. I agree most of the pre-9/11 mistakes were honest mistakes, but alot of them were avoidable and were caused by stupid politics and bad management. These are the things that should have been dealt with head on in the Commission so that they wouldn't happen again. I agree with the critics of the Commission this way.

 

[gumboot]

Before bringing up NORAD and opening the door to our resident twoofer woowoos so they can bring up the stand down crap again, can someone please tell me ONE civilian flight that was intercepted in the 5 years prior to 2001. I do not want to hear there were 67 in the year before 9/11 (I heard that from the woowoos about 1000 times). I want one flight mentioned by name so we can verify. NORAD didn't stand down it is just that certain people do not comprehend the difference between scramble and intercept. Nor do they understand the difference between combat ready and alert.

The "scramble Vs intercept" is often brought up in response to the "many intercepts" figure, but it is a very misleading response.

The 67 in the months prior to 9/11 (I think it was 6 months, not a year) should be considered intercepts, giving CTers the benefit of the doubt.

However...

NORAD's area of responsibility is the Air Defence Identification Zone - or ADIZ. This is a "buffer" zone located over water at the edges of the USA.

You can see the Continental US ADIZ here.

It is defined by Federal Aviation Regulation Part 99 section 43:

Sec. 99.43
Continguous U.S. ADIZ.

The area bounded by a line from 43°15'N, 65°55'W; 44°21'N; 67°16'W; 43°10'N; 69°40'W; 41°05'N; 69°40'W; 40°32'N; 72°15'W; 39°55'N; 73°00'W; 39°38'N; 73°00'W; 39°36'N; 73°40'W; 37°00'N; 75°30'W; 36°10'N; 75°10'W; 35°10'N; 75°10'W; 32°00'N; 80°30'W; 30°30'N; 81°00'W; 26°40'N; 79°40'W; 25°00'N; 80°05'W; 24°25'N; 81°15'W; 24°20'N; 81°45'W; 24°30'N; 82°06'W; 24°41'N; 82°06'W; 24°43'N; 82°00'W; 25°00'N; 81°30'W; 25°10'N; 81°23'W; 25°35'N; 81°30'W; 26°15'N 82°20'W; 27°50'N; 83°05'W; 28°55'N; 83°30'W; 29°42'N; 84°00'W; 29°20'N; 85°00'W; 30°00'N; 87°10'W; 30°00'N; 88°30'W; 28°45'N; 88°55'W; 28°45'N; 90°00'W; 29°25'N; 94°00'W; 28°20'N; 96°00'W; 27°30'N; 97°00'W; 26°00'N; 97°00'W; 25°58'N; 97°07'W; westward along the U.S./Mexico border to 32°32'03"N, 117°07'25"W; 32°30'N; 117°25'W; 32°35'N; 118°30'W; 33°05'N; 119°45'W; 33°55'N; 120°40'W; 34°50'N; 121°10'W; 38°50'N; 124°00'W; 40°00'N; 124°35'W; 40°25'N; 124°40'W; 42°50'N; 124°50'W; 46°15'N; 124°30'W; 48°30'N; 125°00'W; 48°20'N; 128°00'W; 48°20'N; 132°00'W; 37°42'N; 130°40'W; 29°00'N; 124°00'W; 30°45'N; 120°50'W; 32°00'N; 118°24'W; 32°30'N; 117°20'W; 32°32'03"N; 117°07'25"W; eastward along the U.S./Mexico border to 25°58'N, 97°07'W; 26°00'N; 97°00'W; 26°00'N; 95°00'W; 26°30'N; 95°00'W; then via 26°30'N; parallel to 26°30'N; 84°00'W; 24°00'N; 83°00'W; then Via 24°00'N; parallel to 24°00'N; 79°25'W; 25°40'N; 79°25'W; 27°30'N; 78°50'W; 30°45'N; 74°00'W; 39°30'N; 63°45'W; 43°00'N; 65°48'W; to point of beginning.

Intercepts inside the ADIZ are, and always have been, routine. There is standard proceedure for these intercepts.

However, the 9/11 attacks did not involve aircraft operating inside the ADIZ. They were domestic flights over CONUS (Continential United States) airspace. Prior to 9/11 there was NO standard intercept proceedure for flights inside CONUS. Standard hijacking proceedure was to notify the FAA and hand over control to the FBI. As a domestic crime, only the FBI had the authority to request military support.

So the question that should be asked is:

Did NORAD perform any successful intercepts inside CONUS Airspace prior to 9/11?

The answer is yes. In the decade prior to 9/11 NORAD was involved in ONE intercept.

This was October 25th, 1999. The aircraft was N47BA - a Learjet35 owned by Payne Stewart.

The NTSB report on this incident is here.

So how well did NORAD do on this occasion?

Well, first off, some basic comparisons:

1) N47BA did not deviate from its intended flightplan.
2) The transponder onboard N47BA remained on at all times throughout the intercept.

Neither of the above is true of the 9/11 flights. This make intercept many magnitudes more difficult.

So then, how well did NORAD do?

The first intercept aircraft - a test pilot from the 40th Flight Test Squadron at Eglin AFB, Florida, reached N47BA 81 minutes after communication was lost.

So let's compare that to the flights of 9/11, and total flight duration of those aircraft:

FLIGHT HIJACKING CRASH DURATION
AA11 0813 0846 33 minutes
UA175 0847 0903 16 minutes
AA77 0856 0937 41 minutes
UA93 0928 1003 35 minutes

So the intercept of N47BA - an aircraft with transponder functioning and in straight level flight - took almost TWICE AS LONG as the longest flight duration on 9/11 - that of AA77.

The facts speak for themselves. A successful intercept of any of the 9/11 flights was impossible.

-Gumboot

ETA.

It is worth noting that the times I gave are from the moment of hijacking. Of more relevance is the "window of opportunity" - the time between when NORAD were notified of a hijacking and when that flight crashed. On 9/11 the longest window of opportunity that NORAD would receive was 9 minutes for AA11. The N47BA intercept took 9 times as long.

 

[boloboffin]

The "scramble Vs intercept" is often brought up in response to the "many intercepts" figure, but it is a very misleading response.

The 67 in the months prior to 9/11 (I think it was 6 months, not a year) should be considered intercepts, giving CTers the benefit of the doubt.

However...

NORAD's area of responsibility is the Air Defence Identification Zone - or ADIZ. This is a "buffer" zone located over water at the edges of the USA.

You can see the Continental US ADIZ here.

It is defined by Federal Aviation Regulation Part 99 section 43:



Intercepts inside the ADIZ are, and always have been, routine. There is standard proceedure for these intercepts.

However, the 9/11 attacks did not involve aircraft operating inside the ADIZ. They were domestic flights over CONUS (Continential United States) airspace. Prior to 9/11 there was NO standard intercept proceedure for flights inside CONUS. Standard hijacking proceedure was to notify the FAA and hand over control to the FBI. As a domestic crime, only the FBI had the authority to request military support.

So the question that should be asked is:

Did NORAD perform any successful intercepts inside CONUS Airspace prior to 9/11?

The answer is yes. In the decade prior to 9/11 NORAD was involved in ONE intercept.

This was October 25th, 1999. The aircraft was N47BA - a Learjet35 owned by Payne Stewart.

The NTSB report on this incident is here.

So how well did NORAD do on this occasion?

Well, first off, some basic comparisons:

1) N47BA did not deviate from its intended flightplan.
2) The transponder onboard N47BA remained on at all times throughout the intercept.

Neither of the above is true of the 9/11 flights. This make intercept many magnitudes more difficult.

So then, how well did NORAD do?

The first intercept aircraft - a test pilot from the 40th Flight Test Squadron at Eglin AFB, Florida, reached N47BA 81 minutes after communication was lost.

So let's compare that to the flights of 9/11, and total flight duration of those aircraft:

FLIGHT HIJACKING CRASH DURATION
AA11 0813 0846 33 minutes
UA175 0847 0903 16 minutes
AA77 0856 0937 41 minutes
UA93 0928 1003 35 minutes

So the intercept of N47BA - an aircraft with transponder functioning and in straight level flight - took almost TWICE AS LONG as the longest flight duration on 9/11 - that of AA77.

The facts speak for themselves. A successful intercept of any of the 9/11 flights was impossible.

-Gumboot

The discerning reader will note that Gumboot has generously contrasted the actual flight times (from takeoff to crash) of the 9/11 planes with the Payne Stewart intercept time. Had Gumboot given an exact apple-to-apple comparison of times (from loss of communication/transponder information to crashing), the contrast would be even more startling.

 

[~enigma~]

Did NORAD perform any successful intercepts inside CONUS Airspace prior to 9/11?

The answer is yes. In the decade prior to 9/11 NORAD was involved in ONE intercept.

This was October 25th, 1999. The aircraft was N47BA - a Learjet35 owned by Payne Stewart.

Thank you for verifying what I knew in regards to one intercept and thanks for explaining the difference between CONUS and ADIZ. I guess now any woowoos that actually read and understood your post can give up their ridiculous stand down theory.

You deserve a round of applause for your post so...

 

[Abbyas]

It wasn't a demand, but an honest question, spurred by the thread topic: people who were supporting the protest at Ground Zero on 9/11. It's my hope that people who do have questions about 9/11 but who don't agree with Alex Jones and Dylan Avery will speak up about the negative light those people cast on the movement. I have no power to make that happen, but I think it's a valid question for someone who attends a protest organized by ignorant extremists in order to attract media attention during a memorial.

I know him well. And he does. However it's not necessarily his responsiblilty to prove himself here.

Mark, I want to iterate here that I appreciate your work with this to no end, however... "Good cop! Good cop!"

 

[Bell]

Thank you for verifying what I knew in regards to one intercept and thanks for explaining the difference between CONUS and ADIZ. I guess now any woowoos that actually read and understood your post can give up their ridiculous stand down theory.

You deserve a round of applause for your post so...

That is assuming the deniers are actually capable of learning. I still haven't witnessed that

 

[gumboot]

The discerning reader will note that Gumboot has generously contrasted the actual flight times (from takeoff to crash) of the 9/11 planes with the Payne Stewart intercept time. Had Gumboot given an exact apple-to-apple comparison of times (from loss of communication/transponder information to crashing), the contrast would be even more startling.

Actually I gave the times from moment of hijacking, not take off. For UA175 and UA93 there is a further delay until FIRST SIGNS OF HIJACKING (5 minutes for UA175 and 11 minutes for UA93), but more telling is the contrast if the times are given from when NORAD were notified of the hijacking in each case. That gives you an intercept window of 9 minutes (AA11), 0 minutes (UA175), 2 minutes (AA77) and -4 minutes (UA93).

Given that on 9/11 NORAD Alert aircraft were on 15 minute standby, all four flights would have been down before the interceptors even got into the air, assuming they were scrambled the moment NORAD was notified.

-Gumboot