Why did a Civilian Air Traffic Controller do a better job of Defending the skies on 9/11 than NORAD?

Why did a Civilian Air Traffic Controller do a Better Job of Defending the Skies on 9/11 than NORAD?

By Arabesque

Was the Pentagon or NORAD "unaware" of the plane flying towards the Pentagon on 9/11? There is no compelling evidence to support such an assertion. In fact, there is very strong evidence that the plane was being observed as it flew towards the Pentagon. In testimony to the 9/11 commission, it was reported that:

“During the time that the airplane [alleged flight 77] was coming [towards] the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President...the plane is 50 miles out...the plane is 30 miles out....and when it got down to the plane is 10 miles out, the young man also said to the vice president ‘do the orders still stand?’ And the Vice President [Dick Cheney] turned and whipped his neck around and said ‘Of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary!??’”

Dick Cheney also admitted on a live TV interview that, "The Secret Service has an arrangement with the F.A.A. They had open lines after the World Trade Center was… [struck]”

This was also confirmed by an FAA spokesperson who also revealed to the 9/11 Commission (but completely omitted from the final report):

“Within minutes after the first aircraft hit the World Trade Center, the FAA immediately established several phone bridges that included FAA field facilities, the FAA Command Center, FAA headquarters, DOD [meaning the NMCC in the Department of Defense], the Secret Service… The US Air Force liaison to the FAA immediately joined the FAA headquarters phone bridge and established contact with NORAD… The FAA shared real-time information on the phone bridges about the unfolding events, including information about loss of communication with aircraft, loss of transponder signals, unauthorized changes in course, and other actions being taken by all the flights of interest.”

Based on these and other facts, all on the record and irrefutable, there was clear knowledge and awareness of the plane incoming to the Pentagon. In fact, there is additional evidence strongly suggesting knowledge of this incoming plane. During the time of the plane incoming to the Pentagon, a C-130 Pilot was ordered to intercept the plane incoming to the Pentagon:

The C130 encountered flight 77 west of the Pentagon and literally followed it as it crashed into the pentagon. This is the first we learned of this aircraft (Norad did not mention it at the hearing). It raises a number of questions..."

One of these important questions raised is overlooked by many, including by members of the 9/11 truth movement. How was a C-130 pilot able to intercept the plane incoming to the Pentagon while NORAD was not? Significantly, we know from established reports that it was not NORAD who requested the C-130 to intercept the plane incoming to the Pentagon. In fact, it was a civilian air traffic controller from Reagan National Airport who asked the C-130 to intercept the incoming plane:

“When air traffic control asked me if we had him [Flight 77] in sight, I told him that was an understatement—by then, he had pretty much filled our windscreen. Then he made a pretty aggressive turn so he was moving right in front of us, a mile and a half, two miles away. I said we had him in sight, then the controller asked me what kind of plane it was. That caught us up, because normally they have all that information. The controller didn’t seem to know anything.”

The controller "seemed to know" that there was a plane coming into the Pentagon. That's not an insignificant detail. This begs an obvious question overlooked by many: How could a civilian air traffic controller do a better job of intercepting aircraft on 9/11 than NORAD? Oddly enough (or perhaps not), the C-130 pilot was also 17 miles away from flight 93 when it crashed.

Also relevant to this mystery is that key officials were in fact promoted while none received demotions following the 9/11 attacks and that NORAD gave three contradictory explanations for its actions on 9/11. There are widespread reports of the plane being observed as it flew towards the Pentagon so it cannot be reasonably claimed that NORAD was "unaware" of the plane incoming to the Pentagon. In light of these and other facts, it is even more puzzling that a civilian air traffic controller was able to do what NORAD could not on 9/11.

Robert Fisk: Even I question the 'truth' about 9/11

Respected journalist Robert Fisk comes out and questions 9/11 in a leading UK newspaper:

My final argument – a clincher, in my view – is that the Bush administration has screwed up everything – militarily, politically diplomatically – it has tried to do in the Middle East; so how on earth could it successfully bring off the international crimes against humanity in the United States on 11 September 2001?...

I am increasingly troubled at the inconsistencies in the official narrative of 9/11...

Let me repeat. I am not a conspiracy theorist. Spare me the ravers. Spare me the plots. But like everyone else, I would like to know the full story of 9/11, not least because it was the trigger for the whole lunatic, meretricious "war on terror" which has led us to disaster in Iraq and Afghanistan and in much of the Middle East. Bush's happily departed adviser Karl Rove once said that "we're an empire now – we create our own reality". True? At least tell us. It would stop people kicking over chairs.

read more | digg story

I have some comments:

The "Incompetence theory" is really a defensive excuse not to look at the evidence.

What about the (incompetent) hijackers who never even flew the real planes before?

What about the ROUTINE intercept procedures?

“The task that the FAA allegedly failed to perform repeatedly that day—notifying the military when an airplane shows any of the standard signs of being in trouble—is one that the FAA had long been carrying out regularly, over 100 times a year. Can we really believe that virtually everyone—from the flight controllers to their managers to the personnel in Herndon and FAA headquarters—suddenly became ridiculously incompetent to perform this task? This allegation becomes even more unbelievable when we reflect on the fact that the FAA successfully carried out an unprecedented operation that day: grounding all the aircraft in the country. The Commission itself says that the FAA ‘[executed] that unprecedented order flawlessly.’ Is it plausible that FAA personnel, on the same day that they carried out an unprecedented task so flawlessly, would have failed so miserably with a task that they, decade after decade, had been performing routinely?”

David Ray Griffin

“Consider that an aircraft emergency exists ... when: ...There is unexpected loss of radar contact and radio communications with any ...aircraft.” —FAA Order 7110.65M 10-2-5 (6)

“If ... you are in doubt that a situation constitutes an emergency or potential emergency, handle it as though it were an emergency.” —FAA Order 7110.65M 10-1-1-c (7)

What about NORAD?

“Suspicion of [Pentagon] wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member [9/11] commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation.”

Senator Mark Dayton Claimed that NORAD officials “lied to the American people, they lied to Congress and they lied to your 9/11 commission to create a false impression of competence, communication and protection of the American people.”

What about the 35 airbases that the planes flew by?

What about Building 7, and the Insider Trading?

No Speculation Required: 9/11 Was an Inside Job

“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about answers.” - Thomas Pynchon, Jr.

By Arabesque

Speculation is one of the favorite pastimes among those who like to play “armchair conspiracy theorists”.  This is especially true when it comes to 9/11.

As seen in the Scientific Method, speculation is indispensable,[1] and is always valuable when used in the right context.  Indeed, theory would be impossible.  

If Dr. Steven Jones had never speculated about the use of thermate in the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers he would never have found the incriminating evidence of thermate proving beyond any reasonable doubt that 9/11 was an inside job.[2]

Here’s how speculation should work, as it does in the Scientific Method:

·        Observation: Molten Metal for months at Ground Zero

·        Speculation/Hypothesis: This is characteristic of a Thermite reaction—not Jet Fuel Fires

·        Validation: Samples from ground zero tested for thermite—a variant called thermate is found.[3]

If there is no way to validate speculation it is impossible to get definitive answers. 

Truthmod, an activist/moderator on the website TruthMove.org sums it up:

“Speculation gets us nowhere. Go with the sourced and confirmed facts and we can't be denied. Plane swapping, DEW, pods, no-planes, etc. all put us into the category of speculators and theorists while established facts give us credibility as true researchers and journalists.”[4]

Speculating about what happened on 9/11, examining the credible facts that show 9/11 was an inside job,[5] and examining the contradictory facts that demonstrate that the 9/11 official story is false[6] are all completely different things.

There are situations where speculation is the only option when evidence is being deliberately withheld. In such situations we can’t finalize or jump to conclusions—we can only speculate.  When forced into this situation we should instead call for the release of more evidence and ultimately, a new investigation.

The withholding of 9/11 evidence serves two functions:

1. To hide the truth
2. To encourage speculation and distract attention away from verifiable facts

Encouraging speculation is part of an intentional diversion that plays on the psychological understanding that humans crave mysteries, and not what they know.  The government is smart enough to understand that speculation frequently occurs when there is a lack of evidence, and that "conspiracy facts" are consequently ignored in favor of "conspiracy theories". 

There are 9/11 “researchers” who make speculation the entire basis of their existence, and they are among the least credible “activists” within the 9/11 truth movement.  ‘Truthmover’ at truthmove.org observes:

“This is one important reason to reject the 'big tent' mentality. The core of this movement, its facts and priorities have not changed. We have established probable cause to suspect government complicity. Anything detracting from this case or its promotion is not a part of the truth movement. In other words, the movement hasn't ever really split. There is another movement, adopting our themes, that has no particular dedication to the truth. I'll call them the ‘9/11 speculation movement.’”[7]

Why stick to what we know when we can guess about what we don't?

Similarly, Dr. Steven Jones suggests that a weak approach to examining evidence can turn people off from seriously examining the real anomalies of 9/11:

“Watching the ‘In Plane Site’ video turned me (and many others) away from 9-11 "theories" initially—until I found serious researchers, scientists looking at hard evidences, and avoiding tenuous speculations.”[8]

Anyone even slightly paying attention to the Mainstream media in relation to criticism of the official 9/11 narrative would notice that there is a deliberate focus on only the 9/11 theories that are supported by “tenuous speculations” or even deliberate disinformation—mostly under the propagandist and wearily clichéd banner of "conspiracy theory"; completely ignoring the confirmed and embarrassing “conspiracy” facts.[9] Dan Abrahamson asks of those who speculate at the expense of the confirmed facts:

“Does their speculation get us any closer toward building a nationwide political movement and arresting the 9-11 plotters? Or is it a divisive strawman that will isolate us from the mainstream media and average Americans? …Suddenly it appears the controlled demolition, WTC 7, NORAD stand down, hijacking drills, war games, ‘Angel is Next’ call to Bush, living hijackers, double-agent hijackers, CIA insider put options, and ‘al-Qaeda’ links to Anglo-American intelligence are not enough.  Now every researcher has their own pet theory about no planes, no hijackers, no phone calls, no Pentagon Boeing, and no flight 93 crash (they claim it landed it Cleveland and the wreckage in Shanksville was, you guessed it, planted).”[10]

9/11 Commission: Insider Stock Trading had “No Conceivable ties to Al Qaeda”.  Michael Ruppert agrees: he investigated and found ties to the CIA.[11]

As Abrahamson says, our speculations are highlighted and our facts are ignored by the Media.  This is exactly how speculation is used as a weapon against the cause of 9/11 Truth.  

Alex Jones similarily asks:

“Why no discussion of Building 7 and the comments of Larry Silverstein? Why no discussion of the hijackers being trained by the US government? Lt. Colonel Steve Butler of the Monterey Defense Language Institute was suspended from duty after he accused Bush of allowing 9/11 to happen. Why no discussion of the NORAD stand down? Because none of these issues are honey pots, none of them are speculation because the cards are laid out on the table for everyone to see and the evidence is clear.”[12]

Given the fact that there is no real debate or speculation about the fact that 9/11 was an inside job, what is the purpose of the 9/11 Truth Movement?  Endless debates over tenuous speculation or justice over the many proven facts?[13]

As Jon Gold has said, “the time for debate is over.”[14]

How does unsubstantiatable and never-ending speculation bring us closer to Justice?  How will it force another investigation?   

In the information war, we are never going to be victorious or have a powerful effect by debating weak arguments that can’t be proven endlessly.  It is self-defeating if we support true (or even false) conclusions with false, misleading, uncertain, unconvincing, or biased arguments.  Unverified speculation is the entire basis of a Trojan Horse Straw-man exploited unmercifully by Popular Mechanics, the Mainstream Media, the left gatekeepers, and many others.

While the facts speak for themselves, they are sometimes not enough to convince everyone, which is why the best evidence must be consistently presented.  As Oilempire says:

“If there is any hope for the ‘9/11 truth’ movement, it will involve refocusing on the evidence that has the strongest proof, and excluding the hoaxes and those who push the hoaxes.”[15] 

While at first glance the conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job is unthinkable, those who believe any government is incapable of killing its own citizens have not seen the Northwoods document,[16] paid attention to the fact that the government lied about the air quality at ground zero which will outrageously result in more deaths than 9/11,[17] or observed historically documented “false-flags” resulting in the deaths of civilians to justify wars.[18]

There are many who believe that corrupt elements within the US administration could unload the next 9/11 at any time to justify war with Iran, further destroy civil liberties, and even enable a dictatorship.[19]

Speculating while proving nothing when we have real evidence to prove an inside job and show that the 9/11 official story is ludicrously false is a diversion that suits the perpetrators just fine:

"Speculate, while we continue our wars of aggression planned long before 9/11, kill innocent civilians indiscriminately, steal oil, plan additional synthetic terror attacks under the guise of war-game exercises, make billions for war profiteers, destroy the constitution because the ‘terrorists’ hate our freedoms, terrorize the world with blatantly and stunningly fake propaganda,[20] commit impeachable offenses including treason, engage in other illegal/unethical activities, illegal wars, and our neo-conservative ‘project for a new American Century’."

The sooner that the many fighting for the truth about 9/11  figure this out the better:

The time for speculation is over—9/11 has been proven to be an inside job.  The time for justice is at hand.

---

[1] The Scientific Method, http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html

[2] Steven Jones, Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse? http://www.journalof911studies.com/ See also:

Steven Jones, Revisiting 9/11/2001—Applying the Scientific Method

[3] Ibid.

[4] Truthmod, TruthMod Forum, Sudden rise in "TV Fakery" topics... http://www.truthmove.org/

[5] http://www.911proof.com/ “9/11 Proof… See the Facts for Yourself”

[6] Dvaid Ray Griffin, The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie, http://www.911truth.org/

[7] Truthmover, Two movements: The 9/11truth vs. 9/11speculation movements, http://www.truthmove.org/forum  

[8] Jim Hoffman, Hoax-Promoting Videos: In Plane Site, http://www.911review.com/ 

[9] Joseph P. Firmage, Intersecting Facts and Theories on 9/11

Dr. Frank Legge, 9/11 - Evidence Suggests Complicity: Inferences from Actions

Dr. Frank Legge, NIST Data Disproves Collapse Theories Based on Fire

[10] Dan. L. Abrahamson, 9-11 Truth Movement: Focus or Die, http://falseflagnews.com/

[11] Michael Ruppert, Suppressed Details of Criminal Insider Trading Lead Directly into the CIA’s Highest Ranks, http://www.globalresearch.ca/    

[12] Alex Jones, and Paul Watson, Pentagon Video Is Giant Psy-Op: Intended to create circus of interest around 'no plane' theories, later debunk them, http://www.infowars.com/

[13] Steven Jones, "What are the Goals in the 9/11 Truth Community?" (Updated Mar 7, 2007)

[14] Jon Gold, The Time For Debate Is Over, http://visibility911.com/ 

[15] Oilempire.com, the rise and fall of 9/11 truth, http://www.oilempire.us/

[16] What Really Happened, US PLANNED FAKE TERROR ATTACKS ON CITIZENS TO CREATE SUPPORT FOR CUBAN WAR, http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ 

[17] Laurie Garrett, EPA Misled Public on 9/11 Pollution: White House ordered false assurances on air quality, report says, http://www.commondreams.org/ 

[18] Alex Jones, TerrorStorm Deluxe High Quality (Alex Jones), Google Video, http://video.google.com/

[19] Arabesque, The Next 9/11? Predictions, Propaganda, Motive, and After the Attack, http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/

[20] YouTube, How to Create an Angry American, http://www.youtube.com/ 

Keith Olberman, Keith Olbermann Updates The Nexus Of Terror And Politics - Creating Terror, http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/

Michael Moore Has Serious Questions About 9/11

Michael Moore went on record this week to tell infowars/WeAreChange reporters that three years after the release of his film Fahrenheit 9/11 he now has many more questions about 9/11 and does not believe the public have been told half the truth about what really happened.



read more | digg story