Support 911Blogger


Final sift of World Trade Center rubble yields 72 bone fragments

Jun 23rd 2010:

Washington - Remains of victims have been discovered in the rubble of the World Trade Center nearly nine years after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks:

Seventy-two bone fragments were found in about two dump trucks of debris that had yet to be sifted by forensics experts, US television's ABC News reported Tuesday, citing the New York Medical Examiner's Office.

The office said DNA testing was likely to identify some of the remains, given the size and condition of the bone fragments. About 1,000 people of the nearly 3,000 victims of the suicide plane hijackings that brought down the two towers of the World Trade Center have yet to be identified.The experts sifted through 645 cubic metres of debris over three months to find the remains. The debris was the last from the World Trade Center that had yet to combed.

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/news/330854,yields-72-bone-fragments.html

Realted:

Only 289 intact bodies were recovered. May-30-2002 - cnn.com

...more...

Some World Trade Center victims were 'vaporized' 01/15/2002 USA Today
NEW YORK (AP) — Three months after the World Trade Center attack, victims' families are being forced to face the ghastly possibility that many of the dead were "vaporized," as the medical examiner put it, and may never be identified. So far, fewer than 500 victims have been positively identified out of the roughly 3,000 feared dead. Sixty were identified solely through DNA. Jan-15-2002 - fdiai.org

They don't even know how many people were in the buildings and stuff. I don't think they'll ever know. I've just been like working in sectors, on overtime in the past weeks, just seeing very few whole bodies going out, pieces of people, shoes and clothing with some bones inside. I never saw anything like that. -Lieutenant Gregg Hadala FDNY EMS Battalion 50 nytimes.com

At the World Trade Center, many of the victims recovered were horribly mangled, and in many cases only parts of bodies were recovered....The number of injured who required extrication, triage, and treatment was relatively small: “Either you were dead or you walked away from it. There was very little in between,” rand.org

I also know that we didn't see large numbers of patients. I think by the end of the day, we had only seen 100 or so patients -James Martin FDNY EMS Division Chief nytimes.com

I was in the military as an Army combat medic, not war time, but I had training in that. It reminded me, everything was perfect man. It was like a MASH unit set up in there, in like a warehouse. We had ambulances lined up in rows and we were all waiting for that call to go down there to save some lives and that call never came. That was the most saddest thing about it, that with a job this size, this magnitude, I was saying to myself there is going to be numerous injured and we are going to have to really depend on our skills. Not a call..... waiting and waiting and waiting for patients. No show. It was like I think that was the toughest thing, is that a job that magnitude you would expect thousands and thousands of patients. After the first wave, nothing. There were no survivors. -Michael Mejias FDNY EMT nytimes.com

 

 

 

 

Cremation Requires 1600 F Temp

Not sure if that is the same as vaporizing. 1600F is still hotter than what a fire of office furnishings and jet fuel would cause.

To say nothing . . .

. . . of the energy required to shoot bone fragments out and land them on the rooftop of the Deutsche Bank building. Amazing what gravity can do!

www.nytimes.com/2006/04/06/nyregion/06remains.html

However, in this latest report it isn't clear where these "debris" were collected from.

PREDICTION...no nanothermite will be discovered in the dust...

Seems to me that the 9/11 Truth Community is getting whacked in a variety of ways lately, most likely at the hand of Cass Sunstein's initiatives...and I suspect that somewhere down the road the HI PERPS will begin to assemble evidence? or examples of WTC dust that does NOT contain either iron spheres or red-gray chips of nanothermitic materials. Just a guess.

Pilots for 9/11 Truth has chosen to use the headline: IMPOSSIBLE SPEEDS as their attention getter for some work that they cannot substantiate IE: that B767s cannot fly at the high speeds established by radar tracking and videos. Since they cannot prove this and only Boeing could do so, its clear that there has been a deliberate attempt to mis-inform the public with the use of this BOLD DEFINITIVE headline.

Next up for Pilots is their analysis and testimony about NORAD ops and how and why NEADS interceptors failed to perform within normal protocols on 9/11. Expect a Vanity Fair/Bronner misguiding repeat here. My guess at the title: NORAD NOT SLOW ON 9/11

The Deep Politics event just completed in Santa Cruz has spurred an interesting response to Peter Dale Scott's concerns about the continuance of COG and his call upon congress to undo the COG headlock on our governemnt. And from my view, its come in the form of a "street stage puppet show" starring McCrystal-OBomBya-Patreus-Gates where OBomBya has been placed into position of making it appear that he is in charge of the military, when in fact, the Pentagon set him up with ONLY THAT option in Afghanistan ...McCrystal out-Patreus IN...and the war goes on as usual. This street theater will be effective in making the public "think" that OBomBya is in charge of the Pentagon...IE: COG-what? Interesting indeed!

And David Ray Griffin, along with the likes of Robert Greenwald who created "Rethink Afghanistan, have been making some very big ripples with their brilliant work about the LACK OF justification for our involvement in Afghanistan. And as a response we have been hearing nothing from the White House and Pentagon but affirmations of our effective warmongering policies regarding that drug riddled forlorn rock of a country and the horriffic war that we are waging upon it.

However, there are a few cracks here and there in the media regarding both the wars and 9/11...and more and more citizens will be questioning our involvement in Afghanistan. This will provide the 9/11 TRUTH COMMUNITY with many wonderful opportiunities to publically make the point that we should not have gone into Afghanistan in the first place...and that we did so as a result of the 9/11 False-Flag-Op...and that we know A LOT ABOUT that attack!

BTW...the approach of tying in: 9/11, False-Flag-Ops, OIL, and WAR [and green energy jobs] is going very, very well for me in the streets. Its really pissing off the few white male military types who seem to have a need to kill SOME human with non-white skin...but its really meeting with greater and greater acceptance from an all ages female base and most youth. These are good signs of progress.

My points here are to remain skeptical and not to be surprised if we get "set-up" in a variety of ways as we should remain super vigilent and more aware than usual. And also to make sure that we take advantage of what openings we do get when we get them.

9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA

Question for Mr. Hordon on intercept protocols

Peter Dale Scott in his speech also referenced the June 1, 2001 order that many claim changed SOP with regard to intercepting errant airliners. Prof. Griffin has clarified this several times--with good help from yourself in Debunking 9/11 Debunking, where you specified that "the fastest protocol would be utilized."

However, in the documentary Zero, you seemed to indicate that previously, any situation involving a hijacked airliner required approval from higher up to scramble fighters. The quote used also seemed to suggest that the June 1 order did have a practical relevance on 9/11, after which it was scrapped.

I wonder if you could clarify these few points? In particular, if the June 1 order did not preclude immediate scrambles for hijacked airliners, what exactly did the new order pertain to? What type of situation other than what we saw on 9/11 would fall under this order—and thereby require higher-level authorization for a scramble? Does the in-flight emergency protocol effectively render the hijacking protocol irrelevant? Or are there otherwise situations contemplated where a flight is known to be hijacked but is not considered an emergency?

A lot of confusion on these questions remains, (as discussed recently here) and any further light you could shed on this would be much appreciated. And thanks for all you've done for 9/11 Truth!

I would like clarification on

I would like clarification on these matters as well, if possible. Thanks in advance.

Scarmbling protocols are intermixed and complex...

Fundamentaly, "The June Change" really changed very litte in precise wording and context.

And please note: It would have been foolish for the HI PERPS to leave an easily readible and tracable set of written modifications that would easily lead any investigation right to their door. So, with that thought, its important to look at the June Change in a different light.

In having been involved in writing, commenting upon, briefing and affecting many "changes" to procedures and protocols, and knowing how many different elements that would be affected by any changes, and being involved in such coordinations and publicizing of such changes over my years in the FAA...what stood out to me right away is WHY was the June Change proposed in the first place? After all, the FAA and NORAD had been operating scramble activities for the 50 years prior...and at the world's most efficient and fast paced beat.

Additionally, for the previous 10 years there were approximately 1500 scrambles...averaging 150 per year...and NONE of them were for hijaclking!

So...why change something that isn't broken?
So...why change anything to do with hijacking?
So...why the June Change?

This made me very suspicious and after a while I was able to figure out how they were able to make the CHANGE that ended up with the following numbers...its important.

In the months before June, 2001, there were 67 scrambles reported...none for hijacking and therefore, all for in-flight-emergencies OR aircraft straying into forbidden airspace...AKA...high speed scramble protocols NOT NEEDING any Penatgon approvals. [BTW...from what I know all the DEA "intercepts" were using an entirely different pursuit activity and are NOT included in this list.]

Then, during the very busiest time of the aviation year...with aircraft flown by the lesser experienced pilots as they "take to the skies" for the summer...and all in volatile weather conditions that routinely challenges even experienced pilots...there were NO SCRAMBLES reported in those busy summer months...the busiest aviation months?

Well, none of that passed the smell test for me and has led me to conclude that the NET GOALS of the June Change had been accomplished...and the results were that there were no scrambles until it was too late on 9/11?

The facts are that most of the scrambles that happen are usually called off before any intercepts because the "NEED" for the scramble goes away because the aircraft gets out of restricted or prohibited airspace, or the pilot's finally answering the calls by the FAA's controllers...or for a variety of other reasons.

However, this process of "scrambling" was thoroughly appreciated by the Military because it simulated reality, provided flight time, and put an end to boring days waiting at the "hot bases". NORAD and everyone involved LOVED to scramble...for whatever reason. All of this happened without having to engage in a War Game Excercise.

Additionally, in a speech that I gave in Vancouver, BC in 07' I made the point that the problem that the HI PERPS had was controlling or affecting the CIVILIANS involved in aviation security...meaning the security apparatus at the airports and the FAA air traffic controllers's skills and reflexes at scrambling interceptors at a moments notice...usually because of something that the FAA ATCs saw in their daily duties.

In other words, IF the FAA's ATCs and the NEADS personnell were not somehow shifted out of what was normal ops, and the airport screeners had been given updated "don't fly lists", the hijackers??? would have been identified at the airports and a national airport security alert would have been called stopping some of the hijackers???...and if that didn't work, then when the airliners eventually went astray, they would have been intercepted as a routine task...just like every other year...just another "daily op". This "civilian issue" was a HUGE problem for the Pentagon...and they couldn't come right out and make a blatant change to FAA/civilian ops. So, they needed an opportunity to make a change without getting caught...and THIS is the June Change...aka...no real wording change...only that Special Military Operations that had been in more of a "stand-alone" position between the FAA and NORAD for decades, suddenly found itself underneath, or somehow subserviant to, the Pentagon's umbrella. This happened by Order 7610.4-Special Military Operations, becoming formerly associated with the Joint Chiefs of Staff Orders...for the first time EVER!

WHY under the Joint Chief's of Staff?...for what reasons?...to affect a stand-down on 9/11 I so claim!

So, in reviewing HOW "operational changes" are implemented, I remembered that all such changes reach the various "players" in the game...aka...air traffic controllers, air traffic facilities and user/pilot groups via announcements, procedural-protocol changes to be read...and finally, via BRIEDFINGS to ATC and affected personnel and users.

The June Change may have never made it all the way down to the air traffic controllers who "worked the floor" and indeed, may have stopped at their immediate supervisors. The modification of protocols and responsibilities in how to deal with situations that called for "scrambles" may have only been understood to have been changed by supervisory personnel...and NOT line personnel working the air traffic control sectors.

And here is an amazingly sad reality...IF the scene came down the way that I think that it did...there would be no more than a very quick briefing to the controllers...and only being a small part of "other stuff" in a larger briefing covering all sorts of other updates and the like. So here is the picture at the briefings...the suprevisor says the following: "If there is a need for scrambling, just let me know and I'll take it from there...the Pentagon is doing some internal house cleaning [The June Change] to save some money."

That's right...NORAD was most likely "stood down" due to 45 second "briefings" that shifted OUT 50 years of scramble protocol and shifted IN three months of the "concept" that scrambles were now under the auspices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon.

THIS is why I think that Zalewski was so damned mad...he could not get his supervisor, or anybody else, to help him out with the emerging "in-flight-emergenc"y situation with AA11 at a pace and seriousness that he and others had always been used to. OLD RULE in my tour of duty..."troubles in the sky-GET MOVING". Pretty damn simple...just do it!

Well, Scippanni, Zalewski's supervisor, was very slow to the draw in helping Zalewski...and the rest is history.

The HI PERPS only had to create about a 15-20minute delay to normal interceptor ops and the airliners would be free to their targets without getting intercepted. And of all ironies in an air traffic controller's point of view, UA93's 40 minute departure delay is THE PRIMARY REASON that this entire attack plan completely unfolded and came apart. This is because it made the Pentagon have to try and find an excuse for NOT intercepting airliners for almost an hour and a half...a TOTALLY unacceptable set of behaviors by NORAD.

However, its my view that the NET EFFECT of the June Change was to have seduced the FAA's air traffic control system to ask for Pentagon approvals BEFORE scrambling interceptors...and that when such requests for scrambles were pushed up the ladder to the Penatgon using the NEW protocols during that three month time period, the LACK of Pentagon approvals held the interceptors on the ground until the "aviation situation" deflated enough so as to NOT require a scramble. However, there is no way that I can prove this thesis because the FAA records may have all been impounded...and certainly so for all Military records.

Anyway, back to your questions:

In ZERO I simplified everything that I wanted to say and made a firetruck metaphor so that the concept would connect with uninformed people. I felt that we would have these very discussions at some time in the future.

Its important to note that in the eyes of the FAA's ATCs, EACH airliner showed signs of an aircraft suffering an "in-flight-emergency" well before they were considered as hijackings. Handled as in-flight-emergencies, and handled under the "PRE June Change" period, this aviation situation would have called for immediate scrambles coordinated ONLY...statede again...ONLY between NEADS, Otis Air Base and ZBW [Boston ARTCC].

The decision making about what "type" of in-flight problem was happening is the issue here...and clearly, and for the specific reasons we are trying to establish...and even considering that ZBW had made over 40 phone calls between them-ZBW and Otis-NEADS and others starting at approximately 08:27-28 or so, interceptors were not released in time to intercept...and this includes those from Langley...which of course should have been scrambled IMMEDIATELY along with the Otis birds also. Please remember that NEADS has eyes, ears and and jurisdiction down there too.

So, regarding the above, its my opinion that the fastest scramble protocol should have been used...aka...a scramble activity solely between ZBW, Otis and NEADS...and the Pentagon need not be involved in this immediate action...and its really that simple.

Now, in the more standard hijacking protocols where Pentagon approvals are required before releaseing the interceptors, and IF nothing was presenting itself as an urgent or dangerous, or emergency situation, then the slowest of all scramble protocols would be used...the standradr hijacking scramble protocol...a deliberative activity.

However, and this is DRG' well articulated point...IF...during a normaal hijacking scramble protocol, the situation devolved into an in-flight-emergency...the possibility of the aircraft doing damage to persons or property on the ground...if the pilot indicated that there were serious and violent troubles on board...or if anything else was happening that indicated the need for an immediate scramble, then the local commanders have the authority to release the interceptors WITHOUT Pentagon approval...and then get approvals later.

The problem in THIS scramble scenario is that the aviation event had to have already been CONSIDERED a hijacking...and thusly, that takes a good amount of time to establish...and therefore, this leads to a slower scramble process. So, in the end, all of this deeper explanation makes it clear that this unique situation of an "in-flight-emergency-hijacking" results in a scramble protocol that sits right in between the fastest "in-flight-emergency/inbound enemy aircraft scrambles" and the normal "hijacking scramble protocols".

THIS...is why the HI PERPS have been trying so hard to get everyone to think the following:

HIJACK-HIJACK-HIJACK-HIJACK...

...and also for all of us to FORGET that these airliners were showing all the signs of suffering an "in-flight-emergency"...EARLY IN THE GAME. The HI PERPS want us to start thinking AFTER UA93 went missing...because if we do that, we look PAST their criminal behaviors.

Hopefully you can now see that the June Change placed another slight "hestitation and or subtle STEEERAGE" of the aviation events INTO a hijacking event requiring a standard and slow hijacking scramble protocol.

And a critical answer to your good question that might make more sense of all of this:

Without any doubts whatsoever...an "in-flight-emergency" takes precident over ALL aviation activities other than a REAL INVASION at which time the US Military declares SCATANA and takes control of everything to protect the USofA.

When there is no such national defense emergency, and there is a "in-flight-emergency", ALL appropriate military aviation assets are under the control of the FAA for its use to solve the in-flight-emergency...and IMMEDIATELY SO!

Again, THIS is why we constantly hear one of the primary "psy-ops" goals of the entire event...its

...HIJACK-HIJACK-HIJACK-HIAJCK...

...because as soon as the events were considered a HIJACK...the FAA and NOARD was effectively "stood down" for Pentagon approvals...which never came...and did so in a very clever sort of way.

Turns out that the HI PERPS had a "stand down order" in place all along...they only needed to get it into play...and the June Change allowed them to get the FAA to think: HIJACK-HIJACK-HIJACK-HIJACK...if not consciously, certainly procedurally with the NEW FOCUS upon the NEW role that the Joint Chief's of Staff would now play...as established by the NEWLY COINED...June Change.

As I said before...its all very complicated...and it was very, very clever planning by the HI PERPS. But we have caught them in their schemes...

9/11 Truth or World Peace and Justice

Robin Hordon
KIngston, WA

PS: If its not clear...please try to reframe or refine your questions...its a complicated layer of stuff...and it took me many years of working deeply inside of it for ME to sorta "get it"...rdh

Thanks

Seems clear enough to me.