Loren Hanks, Air Force Maj. Reserve and Congressional Candidate, Asked About Lack of 9/11 Air Defense

At one of Bill Clintons stops during the run up to the November Elections I ran into Congressional Rep. Mike Thompsons opponent, Loren Hanks.

Loren is a Major in the Air Force Reserves. I asked him about our air defense on 9/11 and he kindly gave me the time I asked for.

He seems to leave our discussion interested in learning more.

As I am posting this on Nov 3rd, I am finding out that Loren Hanks did not win the Congressional Seat for the 1st District of California.


They didn't have defenses then

But they've got defenses now...lots of them. Incompetence, underfunding, air defenses atrophied, yada yada yada.

You did a great job. Nice tone, great, civil approach, the best way to get us all on the record information we can work with. However, it is indeed important to get the facts correct when you approach people, because they're going to want to verify if you're credible, and they're going to measure your credibility by checking your facts. We all make mistakes though, I make plenty, and I admire your courage going in.

As for WTC 7, the collapse time is irrelevant compared to the acceleration. This is key. You could read this for clarification. (ETA: I've corrected a dead link, since David Chandler moved his videos, wait for it to appear again)

Note also that Shyam Sunder said, in a technical briefing, 26 August 2008:

“[A] free fall time would be [the fall time of] an object that has no structural components below it. . . . [T]he . . . time that it took . . . for those 17 floors to disappear [was roughly 40 percent longer than free fall]. And that is not at all unusual, because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous.”

This is significant because this was before NIST was forced to admit a 2.25 second period of freefall, or approximately 7-8 floors, in their final report on WTC 7.

Also, I hear about the intercepts before 9/11 a lot, but I've never seen these intercepts laid out in some kind of incident report, where the individual incidents, their location, the circumstances and the actual performance of the interceptors is evaluated. I would like to see such a report.

Thanks for doing this, it's much appreciated.

And then . . . "negligible support"

NIST's Final Report three months later would then claim:

"In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face." (p. 45, emphasis added.)

Amazing isn't it, how within three months they went from, "…there was structural resistance provided in this particular case" to, "negligible support."

When have we seen that before? Well, one example would be the Pancake Theory, which held that the connections between the floors and the supports came loose. But when NIST discarded that theory in August 2006 (which many still don't realize), they decided that those connections didn't break after all. Indeed, they were so strong that they held together even as the weight of the sagging floors led to the "inward bowing" of the columns!

Isn't this one of the indicators of fallacious reasoning? One set of premises fails, so they move to another—even completely contradictory premises as necessary to save the conclusion.

Looks like

the logical fallacy of moving the goalposts.

That said, I don't recall NIST ever explaining this sudden 'negligible' resistance across the height and width of seven to eight floors, just asserting it, which could be construed as a bare assertion fallacy.

I appears that from both video evidence and NIST's collapse simulation, their were significant portions of the building's structural integrity still intact. How this reconciles with 'negligible' resistance, in fact, ZERO resistance for 2.25 seconds, I don't know. They just dodged the whole conundrum.

Emphasizing defense over in-flight emergencies

The emphasis placed by Hanks on "defense" almost parallels that placed on "hijacking" as Robin Hordon has pointed out.

But these flights had already shown signs of a major in-flight emergency even before they were known to be hijacked. Intercepts should have already been underway for that reason, wholly aside from the concern over "defense." Why had scramble orders not already been issued?

THAT question needs to be asked first. The question of why the country was not defended after it was KNOWN that an attack was underway is the next question in order, specifically, why was there no air cover over the Federal Capital for 50 minutes after the North Tower was hit?

Dead giveaway.

I've always found it striking

that there was a news helicopter filming the South Tower impact, yet no jet fighter. The chopper I'm referring to is chopper 5 from WNYW, carrying reporter Kai Simonsen which was clearly still miles away when UA 175 struck.

Perhaps the USAF should consider arming news helicopters with air-to-air missiles?

Excellent replies, SnowCrash!

To both of mine. :-)

Thank you

I appreciate the help and suggestions.

Accuracy is very important.

Key Sunder quote

That one quote should be enough for anyone to realize that the NIST report is an illogical, ridiculous sham:

“[A] free fall time would be [the fall time of] an object that has no structural components below it. . . . [T]he . . . time that it took . . . for those 17 floors to disappear [was roughly 40 percent longer than free fall]. And that is not at all unusual, because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place. Everything was not instantaneous.”

No more "facts" are needed ---- simply an understanding of what Sunder said above.

SPIN - How much more obvious can this get?

It's amazing what happens after carefully studying interviews with Dr. Robert Bowman and Robin Hordon, along with books like Prof. Griffin's Debunking 9/11 Debunking (esp. Ch.1), and then listening to things like this impromptu interview. You don't know whether to laugh or cry, but you do know this:

1. This man is lying.
2. He knows he's lying.
3. He knows we know he's lying.

Just listen to the tone of his voice, and how he tries to shift the emphasis around the actual points—he's clearly uncomfortable with what he's having to do.

It's like David Chandler has pointed out about the video of NIST's technical briefing where he asked his $1,000,000 question about WTC7 and free fall. Just study the body language of Sunder and Gross. They know they're participating in a cover-up, and they are clearly not comfortable with what they're doing.

The veil is disintegrating. Every time the other side open their mouths, the veil lets in more light.

Very well conducted interview.

Well Done!

Good approach

It seems that he really somehow hasn't looked into the air defense standdown of 9/11. Based on what I hear in the recording, I'd give him the benefit of the doubt. Let's hope he familiarizes himself with the material.

Forward him some information...

Campaign Email Address:

Yet, another tool

This guy is either in complete denial, brainwashed by the military, or dumber than a box.

or all three


He's not dumb,

you don't get to fly million dollar jets in the military if you are dumb.

Denial based in absolute faith in the U.S. system is what is at play here.

GREAT JOB Brian !!!

Can you tell us about Loren Hanks body language and facial expressions?

We should also make sure he sees Norman Mineta's testimony and see what he thinks of that.

For those who don't know, Brian organizes the annual Bohemian Grove presence for 9/11 truth and actually got a great photo in the online version of the NY Times this year. Brian is always great to work with, one of the thousands of wonderful people I have met through the movement.


The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Well his body language

His body language seemed to be genuine.

He looked me in the eye more than most career politicians when talking about 9/11.

For me that is a good thing. I feel like he was interested and he did indeed take information, actually he asked for it as you can hear. He is young and I don't know anything about his history. Maybe he has his doubts, but can't admit it yet...

But he's an "Intel" guy.. So it's hard to say.

'The cleverness of the enemy'

The significance of what he's hearing about the non-intercepts just doesn't seem to penetrate at all. Without any inkling of a doubt in the role assigned to Al Qaeda in the official story, he says, 'I think we underestimate the cleverness of the enemy.' Just how would Al Qaeda 'cleverness' have been able to keep U.S. fighter jets on the ground all that time?

He may just be pretending to be ignorant, or maybe he's just been sheltered from 9/11 skepticism, and this information is new to him (or at least, presented to him in a way that is un-spun by official dogma for the first time). In the latter case, we can hope that this may get him started at questioning more.


You set a new standard Sir.

Great job!

Your conversation with him was casual, non-combative, and he seems to be very interested in investigating more.

Opportunity to push Michael Moore..


push him gently :)