What Should Have Happened in the 9/11 Skies...

The following is a rewrite of a short piece that I was asked to present for the June 2007 Vancouver Truth Conference. It was to be included in my presentation named:

"ITS THE CIVILIANS STUPID: An Air Traffic Controller's View of the 'Institutional Stand Down of NORAD Interceptors on 9/11/2001'.

But, due to time restraints I was not able to include it at that time.

Some background:

Most of us have heard Dr. Bob Bowman when he made the point that had the governement done nothing, the airliners would have been intercepted, the buildings would not have been struck, and thousands of people would stll be alive. In Bob's statement he points out that existing NORAD scramble protocol "preferences" that were in place BEFORE the subtle "reference and reorganizational" change made in the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction CJCSI 3610.01A organizational made in June, 2001, would have served to have the airliners intercepted and shot down BEFORE they reached their targets.

Dr. Bowman makes this point because he is fully aware about scramble protocols from the pilot's point of view, and I fully agree with him, but from an air traffic controller's point of view. In fact, I have worked with the Military in writing air traffic control procedures, have worked one "hijacking" personally, assisted with another, and have scrambled military assets to "intercept" an aircraft suffering an IN FLIGHT EMERGENCY in which we worked the lost aircraft to a safe landing in bad weather. For this I, along with the entire team of FAA and Military personnel involved, received a commondation.

The only exception that I am compelled to hold open is the flight of AA77. AA77 was the only airliner lost to positive radar contact, and it was never positively re-identified by anyone, anywhere, at anytime afterwards. At the moment, the HI PERPS are attempting to prove that it WAS AA77 using the physical evidence at the Pentagon. Evidence which is in deep question and thusly, does NOT serve as proof positive.

From this fact, from other evidence regarding the study of RADES radar data, from some analysis of the "alleged" FDR from AA77, from many eyewitnesses, and from testimony leading to the conclusion that there was a separate radar system tracking AA77 from a great distance out of WDC, it is possible that AA77 was the "False-Flag-Flight"...aka...a modernized "Operation Northwoods" style operation. Operation Northwoods calls for the "swapping" of aircraft, and it is possible that there could have been a swap made after AA77 was lost to radar contact while at low altitudes within the valleys of the Appalachian Mountains west of Dulles. AA77 was detected initiating a descent in its left turn just before being lost to positive radar contact.

All other primary targets on display, or "discovered", or presumed as being AA77, have not been proven to be such as of this writing. Consequently, I will agree with Dr. Bowman that three of the four airliners would have been shot down. I must hold open the story about AA77 because of the substantial evidence that the American Airlines B757 operating as AA77, did not hit the Pentagon.

In any event, I find complete harmony with Dr. Bowman in his understandings about NORAD interceptor scramble protocols. So, we have a highly decorated military pilot of an interceptor who actually has flown such intercept missions, and an experienced air traffic controller who has called for, and performed, the ATC side of such scrambles and intercepts, BOTH in solid agreement about NORAD's "stand down" on 9/11/2001. This makes a strong position on the subject because neither of us have anything to hide, nor do we have anything to lie about. This puts us in a vastly diffrent position from the United States Military under Donald Rumsfeld and General Meyers.

An important fact...the FAA serves as the "first responder" or "initiator" of scrambles that are required...for aircraft suffering IN FLIGHT EMERGENCIES...for aircraft violating critical airspaces...for aircraft that do not follow certain procedures...or for aircraft being hijacked IF the FAA air traffic controllers are the first ones to conclude that there is a hijacking underway.

As we have always known, under normal protocols, scrambles for intercepting hijackings require Pentagon approval before launch unless the situation is determined to be very critical, and then the launch can be considered an IN FLIGHT EMERGENCY and made without such approvals. Should there be a need for NORAD to launch interceptors strictly for a National Air Defense reasons, then NORAD tells the FAA that they are launching, and the FAA has standard operating procedures for this and the FAA clears the required airspace for that scramble activity. The FAA is a full partner in the National Air Defense System.

As a reminder, each of the airliners on 9/11 showed uncontestable signs of aircraft suffereing IN FLIGHT EMERGENCIES well before there were any indications of any hijackings[?]. For many decades prior to June, 2001, responding to AN IN FLIGHT EMERGENCY would have called for an immediate scramble to assist the aircraft from the nearest "hot base" in hopes of helping or saving the aircraft under duress. In addition to both public and my own "insider evidence" that the controllers at Boston Center indeed were taking such IN FLIGHT EMERGENCY steps early on in the attacks, actually, some 15-20 minutes later, it is admitted in the NORAD tapes that, in fact, the Boston Center made a DIRECT request to NEADS for assistance and asked directly for some interceptors to be launched to help out the situation. This direct request was not acted upon by NEADS, and this is another point that the US Military has had to cover up.

Finally, here is my smoking gun regarding the "effects" of the CJCSI change made in June, 2001.

During the summertime, usually the busiest aviation time of the year, there were NO REPORTED SCRAMBLES from June 2001, [after the CJCSI change was put in place], until the morning of 9/11/2001.

If the CJCSI change made in June had NOT made any difference in operational protocol use "priorities", then there should have been approximately 45 scrambles during this time period. It is fair to say that this frequency had been the summertime monthly average for the preceeding ten years where approximately 1500 scrambles had occurred. [ Note: estimated scrambles...3 months @ 15 scrambles per month = 45...]

In conclusion, that there are reports of 67 scrambles happening for the year up until June, 2001, and then there were NO scrambles reported after June, serves as my personal smoking gun!

Its my position that after June, all such requests for scrambles were dealt with by seeking Pentagon approval as the CJCSI "reorganizing" suggests. I further suggest that before the "delayed style" scramble releases were granted after June, 2001, the original "need" for the scramble had dissipated. I do remember that Rummy wanted to "save" some money and pare down? the military as he took office, and the hard truth is that very few such scrambles actually result in intercepts. Usually, the events calling for the scrambles in the first place, do come to a safe or secure end.

The Pentagon is not releasing any information about any of this, and cannot do so without being exposed. If there HAD been requests for intercepts after June, scramble requests that got bogged down in the "new scramble protocol priority" the hijacking style, the Pentagon would be found guilty of deliberately changing the scramble protocols to allow the 9/11 attacks to happen. [Which is my position.] And if they DID have 45 scramble requests, and indeed had records of them, these records would then show that they either, were incompetent at executing these new communications links and that the new "red tape" was a factor in the slow responses to the 9/11 attacks, or, that they deliberately failed to respond thinking that the "need" for scrambles would simply go away before the interceptors got airbourne. In either event, this June change to the CJCSI will have had the end result of creating an "Instiutuional Stand Down" of NORAD because the emphasis became NOT TO SCRAMBLE. And thusly, they would be found guilty of standing down NORAD before 9/11 either way.

A fact: Interceptor pilots and the military LOVED to scramble on ANYTHING because it was the very best "real world" training they could get next to an actual attack. And pilots got critical, and very enjoyable, flight time. This is why the Otis pilots were "straining at the bits" to get off the ground...they wanted some action and knew how to do it...PRECISELY...but were held back by the hijacking protocol. Penatgon approvals NEVER came for the Otis birds.

Prior to June, 2001, and after September 11, 2001 such "hold backs" simply didn't happen. There had been no reported scrambles for hijacks in the previous ten years, and therefore, ALL of the 1500 scrambles during the previous ten years had to have been the "high speed" type...the type which do NOT require Pentagon approvals.

Even a quick look through FAA's Special Military Operations Order 7610.4, [the very SUBJECT of the June reorganization in the CJCSI order modification in the first place...], will go along way in understanding that the hijacking scenario DID NOT have handling priorities except during take-off, and at that, only when requested. This explains why the Otis interceptors took off six minutes after being released...even though the pilots and aircraft were ready and able.

Reading through 7610.4 also catches Bronner, Vanity Fair and some statements by the military in yet another blatant lie. David Ray Griffin debunks this in his writings, but here you can read it for yourself. There were statements that the interceptors were not released because the military did not have exact coordinates or locations of the suspect aircraft. Yet, paragraph 7610.4 7-2-1. Facility Notification, makes the point that the FAA facility in charge would file a flight plan with the "remommended flight plan to intercept the hijacked aircraft". In "real world" terms, this means "gettum headed in the right direction...NOW", which both pilots and air traffic controllers fully understand. And, as we all know regarding the Langley fighters, flying in the proper direction did not happen either. ALL of this is all because everything was switched into: "hijack-hijack-hijack" instead of being looked at as "in flight emergency" activities.

And why do you think that there is a protocol for checking armament?

Anyway, here is my piece:
[please note that SOME of these steps and actions did happen...but not enough of them...]


Its now 08:14AM...

Once AA11 was considered a NORDO [no radio] the air traffic controller should have begun NORDO procedures which calls for attempting to contact he aircraft via various protocols and by usual means...

Its now 08:18AM...

When AA11 was seen to be out of control and when the transponder was lost, the air traffic controller should have given first alert to his supervisor about the possibility of an IN FLIGHT EMERGENCY happening. Losing radio contact, losing the transponder, and observing the aircraft heading way off course without a specific ATC clearance should have led the controller to believe that the aircraft INDEED, was suffering an IN FLIGHT EMERGENCY. Most likely it would be a massive electrical failure....

Its now 08:20AM...

After being unable to raise the aircraft on the radio, and still seeing it wanderring all over the sky, the air traffic controller should have then declared an IN FLIGHT EMERGENCY, and immediately told his supervisor about this declaration. Air traffic controllers have the responsibility to declare an IN FLIGHT EMERGENCY in situations such as this.

At this point, the supervisor should have IMMEDIATELY notified the "watch desk" about the IN FLIGHT EMERGENCY, and the watch desk personnel in turn would have begun to notify various "search and rescue" or other related organizations that might be called upon to help out in the emergency situation. For example: If the IN FLIGHT EMERGENCY were happening over the ocean, then the Coast Guard would have been immediately notified so as to prepare their assets. Simultaneously, or if not done earlier, the controller, the supervisor and the watch desk personnel would immediately reach out to their respective contacts at NEADS or, to any other appropriate control positions and facilities. The air traffic controller would reach out to the NEADS radar tech who was in charge of monitoring that particular airspace using readily available communications links readily available at a touch of a figertip in order to find out if the NEADS tech saw anything unusual...the supervisor would reach out to the NEADS supervisor via other land lines in preparation for a mutual set of activities...and the watch desk would reach out to the top levels of the NEADS facility using yet another set of land lines to make sure that these top levels could fulfill their roles in helping with the IN FLIGHT EMERGENCY.

Please note: NORAD, the Pentagon and the FAA headquarters would NOT have been informed about their field facilities, such as Boston Center and NEADS, scrambling assets to solve an IN FLIGHT EMERGENCY. These higher-ups each get "after-action reports" because time is so precious during the emergency situation. Hijackings are different.

Its now 08:21AM...

The FAA air traffic controller and his supervisor should have been in the process of assigning as many extra controllers as were available to "plug in", to "get the picture", and to help coordinate with adjacent air traffic control sectors and bordering air traffic control facilities that might be affected by the emergency flight. This is because AA11 could have been at ANY altitude, and it could have been headed anywhere as it was presumed to have lost all control.

Upon getting notification from Boston Center about the IN FLIGHT EMERGENCY, NEADS personnel should have IMMEDIATELY called Otis air base supervisory personnel who then would have had the scramble crews get ready, or into "battle" stations as it is commonly known. Simultaneously, NEADS or the supervisory personnel should have informed the Otis tower that a scramble was initiated so that they could clear away any preceeding or arriving air traffic. Then, as soon as the interceptor crew and aircraft were ready, the two interceptors whould have been ready to pull out of the hanger under their own power while preparing for an immediate rolling take-off.

Its now 08:24AM...

As AA11 began its turn southward towards NYC, Boston, the air traffic controller team at Boston Center would reach out to the New York Center and other faciities along the projected route of flight to inform them of the building problem, to clear all their "known aircraft" out of the way, and to give them time to get more personnel plugged in and watching-listening.

Everybody involved would now be focused and working upon their assigned duties in handling this IN FLIGHT EMERGENCY being suffered by a US AIR CARRIER. An airliner that may have had hundreds of passengers on board. The interceptor pilots and ground crew should have been completing their "engine start" responsibilites, and the interceptors should be taxiing faster and faster to the departure end of the runway. Lacking any "hold" order, the two interceptors should have continued to the end of the departure runway and should have taken off without any delay. Scrambles are a GO mentality until they are stopped...and NOT vice-versa.

Around this time, the first of several radio transmissions [see note just below] are made indicating the possibility that AA11 is being hijacked, but there is no confirmation of this. This information does not stop the handling of AA11 as an IN FLIGHT EMERGENCY.

Regarding the establishment of a "real" hijacking...it is impossible to initiate the ATC radio communications protocols for establishing that AA11 is being hijacked because there is no radio communications with AA11. Therefore, establishing the fact that it IS a hijacking has to be accomplished by other means, so the IN FLIGHT EMERGENCY scramble continues...

Note: The radio transmissions that are claimed to be from "the hijackers" could have come from ANY aircraft operating within a few hundred miles of the location of the FAA antennae used for that specific frequency. I suspect that the antennae location is somewhere in the middle of Connecticut.

Its now 08:25AM...

The interceptors are in full afterburner headed down the runway, all air traffic in the vicinity should have been already cleared out of the way as soon as the "scramble alert" was sounded, and within three minutes the interceptors should have been...gear-up..."full blower"...accelerating to supersonic...and headed westbound ROUGHLY in the direction of NYC...

...they were already fully armed.

It is now 08:27AM...

As the interceptors headed west accelerating to supersonic, all the FAA controllers and FAA supervisors should have been on their "land lines" talking to every facility, every control sector and every management level associated with the routes of flight regarding both AA11 and the interceptors ...conversations should have been furious and continuous, yet coolheaded and professional.

Because this was an IN FLIGHT EMERGENCY, all the air traffic controllers responsible for all the airspace ahead of both AA11 and the interceptors should have been AUTOMATICALLY clearing out the skies ahead of these two flights even if it meant...holding departures on the ground...turning back aircraft set up in a landing sequence...or reversing course for "through flights" in their airspace.

IN FLIGHT EMERGENCIES, or ANY applicable emergency situation gives air traffic controllers the authority to change the "first-come-first-served" principals of civilian airspace use. Hijacking procedures only call for priority upon departure and only IF requested.

This is because a declaration of an EMERGENCY SITUATION calls for HIGHEST PRIORITY HANDLING. Obviosuly the first responder aircraft need "first priority in handling" when responding to emergencies. Just like fire trucks need priority on our roadways when they are responding to fires.

Its now 08:29AM...

American Airlines confirms that AA11 is being hijacked and now the FAA headquarters, the Pentagon and NORAD should all be notified that AA11 is a confirmed hijacking and all phone banks and multiple facility communications should be on the way to be established. These steps are accomplished by initiating another set of protocols that call for a different routing of information and the inclusion of the State Department and the Pentagon...IE: the hijack protocols.

AA11, now in the vicinity of Albany, NY had made a HUGE unauthorized left turn and was now headed southbound towards NYC at about 600 mph [10 miles per minute] with about 140 miles to go to Manhattan...

The Otis interceptors, now west-northwest of Martha's Vineyard, are headed westbound towards NYC at about 1800 mph [30 miles per minute] with 170 miles to go...

AA11's ETA [estimated time of arrival] over NYC...08:43AM...

The interceptor's ETA over NYC...08:36AM...

Its now 08:30AM

Ground holds would have been issued for all departures from the New York Metro area...all adjacent air traffic control sectors would have been alerted about the locations and tracks of AA11 and the Otis supersonic birds...arrivals into the New York Metro area would have been rerouted well clear of the two incoming flights..."known" aircraft operating in these airspaces would have been shuffled out of the way...and the skies would have been cleared in front of these two flights. The FAA air traffic controller teams would have been giving the location AA11 to NEADS personnel so that NEADS could BOTH locate AA11, and to give the lats-longs to the Otis interceptors in order to program their onboard navigations sytems...to program their onboard radar tracking systems...and to program their onboard armament systems. This would have been EASILY accomplished because handing aircraft off, or pointing aircraft out to other facilities happens each and every day all across the country.

Once the interceptor's navigation systems had a more specific intercept location for AA11 [a lat-long or a confirned primary target], they would have turned slightly to the right and headed for an intercept in the vicinity of Poughkeepsie, NY, or, approximately 80 miles north of Manhattan. Even IF the interceptors nav systems weren't programmed, the FAA air traffic controllers would have a big enough "picture" to create their own intercept routing for the Otis interceptors and instructed the Otis birds to fly an intercept course.

This would be simple because air traffic controllers get paid to vector aircraft wherever they need vectoring...its their job....and they are very good at it.

Its now 08:32AM...

The Otis birds are supersonic and flying over the Long Island Sound having already turned towards Poughkeepsie for the intercept. AA11 has slowed down slightly, perhaps because the onboard flight director called for this in a descent and there is a continuous communications flow between all FAA air traffic facilities along the routes of flight. There are contstant updates between the FAA and NEADS....there are constant communications between the interceptor pilots and both the FAA and NEADS radar techs and weapons folks.

The Otis birds now have their "prey" locked into their onboard radar tracking programs...now the interceptor's flight director takes charge of navigation...now these highly skilled pilots do what they have been trained to do over years and years of service to this country...now they will be INTERCEPTING AN AIRCRAFT!

As the intercept nears, the Otis birds slow down and circle to approach from behind. Then, one pulls CLOSE alongside the cockpit of AA11 and tries to establish visual contact with the pilot. The other Otis bird either takes the other side, or remains behind the B767. They remain in this configuration trying every which way they can to get the attention of the pilot of this American Airlines B767 which, to the Otis pilots, is only suffering an IN FLIGHT EMERGENCY. The Otis pilots want to know what is wrong.

Right around this time, with the hijacking being confirmed somewhere in the communications links between the FAA Command Center, FAA headquarters, the Pentagon, NORAD and all the affected FAA air traffic control facilities, the interceptor pilots should have become informed about the hijacking. This would change nothing, because with no contact with the pilot of AA11 being acknowledged, and with this status being shared with the FAA and the Military, the only issues left for the interceptor pilots are to: ...consider the "controllability" of AA11, IE: are the pilots going to follow the lead or "instructions" of the interceptor pilots...or to follow closely behind the hijacked airliner...and to prepare for a shoot down if need be.

And if the pilots of AA11 did not respond to the presence of the Otis interceptors, this would mean very, very SERIOUS business...whether a hijacking or an IN FLIGHT EMERGENCY.

Its now 08:38AM...

The Otis interceptors are now in trail and alongside AA11, and flying in tight formation right down the Hudson River headed to the world's largest city. As AA11 begins a descent, one interceptor pilot remains alongside attempting to get the attention of the pilot. And, because he is flying so closely to AA11, he easily can see inside the cockpit and thusly, would be able to see IF the pilot indeed DID see the interceptor pilot as to follow his instructions. The Otis pilot also could see if the pilot WAS NOT following the interceptor's instructions, or attempting to, and also if the pilot was dressed and appeared like an American Airlines pilot. The other interceptor pilot would have now fallen in behind AA11 in typical "escort" position.

Without clear "agreement" by the pilot of AA11, the interceptor pilots would have to conclude that AA11 was NOT going to follow their instructions, that the B767 was now a DANGEROUS flight whether controlled or uncontrolled, and that it was a threat to people and/or property within the USofA.

The Manhattan skyline was beginning to poke its head up less than 60 miles ahead, and the flights were descending...and it was painfully clear that AA11 was NOT headed towards Cuba.

Interceptor pilots are highly skilled, very well refined, incredibly disciplined, and highly patriotic defenders of this country who have had training in air-to-air combat. These folks are the top of the top. Perhaps some have had actual experiences in dog fights in the first Gulf War. They are professional killers who who have received training about when to shoot, and when not to shoot. As this treacherous formation flight was headed straight towards NYC, and continued its descent to unreasonably low altitudes as the formation approached Manhattan, the interceptor pilots KNEW what may be in store for them. A possile shootdown of an airliner was in the cards...whether or not they had approvals from higher authorities.

Whether its a hijack, an IN FLIGHT EMERGENCY, a lost or disoriented aircraft, or for an aircraft with ANY other reason for NOT following the orders of a US interceptor flying alongside the cockpit, the interceptor pilots have one basic responsibility...to protect the persons, property and security of the USofA. Please do not be fooled by any other rhetoric or cover-up.

Just as a policeman has bullets and strict protocols as when and why to pull the trigger WITHOUT immediate and direct consultation and approval from higher authorities, so do the interceptor pilots have missles and strict protocols as to when and why to fire those missles WITHOUT immediate and direct approval from higher authorities. When the US Military tells you otherwise, they are lying to cover up their failures. An interceptor pilot knows what to do...a policeman knows what to do...its their chosen professions.

Its now 08:42AM...

Manhattan's skyline is fully visible at this time to the interceptor pilots, and AA11 has continued its descent down to altitudes nearing the heights of the Empire State Building, WTC1 and WTC2 as they all speed directly towards the city. There is no stopping the descent of AA11 and the trajectory is unmistakeable to the Otis pilots. Tensions have grown, the interceptor pilots are hoping for instructions from a higher authority, and if they came, they would obviously be to "shoot down" before AA11 can cause major harm to this city...and if the instructions didn't come, the captains of the interceptors would have to make a hard and monstorous decision. A decision perhaps never before made by interceptor pilots trained in the art of killing. A decision made with steely and cool temperments, with a deadly final result...and that was to fire the missles before AA11 had a chance to crash into Manhattan. But this decision would have been made!

And if they DID NOT shoot down, and stood by as thousands of innocent citizens were murdered right in front of their eyes because they DIDN'T SHOOT DOWN, well, what then? I know what I would do, and I'm a man of peace. Its simple math that's really, really hard to calculate. But interceptor pilots understand about death, and the numbers, and they would know that someone was going to die! Which is the best option? THAT is the discipline that an interceptor pilot is trained for...if not, why give them missles?

These interceptor pilots do not live in a bubble, they remember the WTC bombings in the early 90s, they are fully briefed as to their missions on a daily basis, and they keep abreast the threats facing this country [from the military perspective of course.. ] because its just part of their JOB! They are not in their fighters delivering bread.

Interceptor pilots...

They KNOW...they are AWARE...they are VERY INTELLIGENT...they FIGURE STUFF OUT...they wear a uniform FOR A REASON...they know WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE...and they would SHOOT DOWN an airliner that was going to crash into a major city.

Do not be fooled by your own emotions about these choices or responsibilities because chances are that you would NEVER be an interceptor pilot! These are well trained warriors.

Its now 08:44...

The missle guidance systems have been locked onto AA11 for many minutes now...the cold water has been willed into, and is now running through the interceptor pilot's veins and arteries...the towers on Manhattan are less than 20 miles away and growing in height...the decision to shoot if need be has already been made...and if AA11 does not accept the final attempts at giving up command to the interceptor pilots...AA11 would be shot down. Period!

More and more of the ground beneath the formation flight is filling up with homes, and businesses, and busy highways...the earth below was filling up with innocent people...and off to the east just a few miles was a nuclear plant...the question now is WHEN to fire...because that will control WHERE the debris will fall...

The interceptor pilots are listening intently for some good news over the rdaio...it does not come...maybe the shoot down should be well north over the Hudson River if at all possible...up near Yonkers...its NOT going to be over the GW Bridge...its NOT going to be over Central Park...its NOT going to be anywhere over Manhattan...but it IS gonna happen...

The front interceptor peels off rapidly so as to not confuse the missle guidance system if the missle is a heat seeker...and once clear, the trailing interceptor fires its missle[s]...

Many lives are lost, all in the air, some on the ground...and some damage is suffered...

Its now 08:45AM...

AA11 has been destroyed...and two minutes earlier at 08:43, the entire system learned that UA175 has been announced that UA175 had also been hijacked. This makes the fatal decision at 08:44 more palatable but the Otis pilots were in another zone when these radio transmissions came over the air. And it STILL would not have made any difference. The lead interceptor that had peeled off away from the front of AA11 now knows of another PREY that it must respond to...UA175...and that's right...its just another PREY...because this game has defined itself very clearly, the enemy is in the sky.

The Otis bird continues in its turn behind his wingmate and once westbound, the interceptor blasts into full blower climbing to "greet" UA175. It takes vectors from the FAA controllers toward yet another intercept point and simultaneously inserts the positional and target information about the wayward UA175 into its navigational and missle guidance systems...this time its a transponder code because UA175 did not have its transponder turned off.

The fully armed Otis bird locks on to UA175 which is still west of NYC and still southwestbound...but again, out of FAA control...and the fighter speeds to the intercept. This time, there are no doubts....but the procedure is the same. Pull alongside...attempt to take command of UA175...try to establish contact with the pilot...get ready for another shoot down...the usual drill.

Everyone, and especially the Otis pilots NOW KNOW the dimension of the attack. And the Otis pilots also KNOW that it is THEY who are the ONLY two frontline players in our national defense at that very moment in time...they fully understand the NORAD system...and they KNOW what to do...because they had just done it...just as they had always practiced it...less the trigger.

The Otis interceptor that shot down AA11 remains behind and circles overhead Manhattan checking out the KILL, awaiting any word from anyone about another "prey" for its deathly power, and preparing for anything to happen at a moment's notice. He is ready...they are ALWAYS READY...

Its now 09:00AM...

This time the debris field falls between Ellis, Liberty and Governors Islands hopefully all over New York Harbor...

It is now fully accepted by ALL the players...that the United States is under full attack from the air...

All War Game activities are terminated...every military aviation asset is INSTANTLY made available for defending the nation...every airbourne asset is directed into a defensive posture...a lethal posture if the situation requires it...a weaponized asset or not...

All our major cities are covered with military assets. Every "suspicious" aircraft is immediately scrambled upon and intercepted for a first hand judgement...

UA93 is disposed of as were AA11 and UA175...UNLESS...there had been a successful takeover by the passengers...and then it would have happily rocked its wings in delight to see a fighter beside it trying to help out. UA93 would have been escorted to an airport that could risk the rough landing executed by an inexperienced civilian pilot...

Its now 10:00AM...

...the skies are now fully under control...

...actually, they have been fully under control for an hour...

...actually, they have ALWAYS been fully under control...

...even beginning at 08:14AM on 9/11/2001...


AA77 is another story for another day...a very, very interesting story indeed...

However, this country STILL would have invaded Afghanistan...

And this country STILL would have invaded and occupied Iraq...

This is because that is what this country is "tricked into supporting"...ie:

...whenever the military industrial complex and the multinational corporations feel the need for more profits, they conjure up another reason to start another war...

Puts a different light on Bush's statement: "Mission accomplished doesn't it?

Love, Peace and Progress with:


Robin Hordon


"I must hold open the story about AA77 because of the substantial evidence that the American Airlines B757 operating as AA77, did not hit the Pentagon."

Other than making a left turn, beginning a descent and being lost to positive radar contact, what's the evidence it was not 77 that hit?

Do you think something other than a silver 757-looking jumbo jet with an AA logo was what hit the Pentagon?

9/11 Family Steering Committee Review of the 9/11 Commission Report:

Complete 9/11 Timeline

AA77 Pentagon strike...

I must remain open regarding AA77, or any air vehicle striking the pentagon. Here are a few points that simply do not sit well in my mind.

1. After loosing positive radar contact, nobody ever positively re-radar identified ANY target any where as being AA77...and this includes Danielle O'brien who, along with her fellow controllers at Dulles, acually thought the air vehicle was a military asset.

2. There are enough eye witnesses to provide "observations" about almost anything happening at the Pentagon from...an American Airlines "painted" aircraft...to a missle...to a commuter plane...to a drone...to a rocket powered groundbourne sled makingstreks in the Pentagon lawn [my current position], to an overflight.

3. I took and opportunity when visiting a female friend who was working in the DC area, to visit and check out the flight path into the Pentagon from both the south and the north approach tracks...BOTH of which had to contend with either the Naval Annex up on the hill, or the lower hill at Arlington Cemetary. Having 1600 hours flown in smaller aircraft, I don't think that I could get one of those over the hill and highway, and down to several feet above the lawn, and on into the Pentagon.

4. I do trust the many airline pilots who think that this turning and descending manuever was beyond the skill sets of even a highly skilled pilot who was both certified in "type", and had accumulated thousands of hours flying those giant rigs.

5. Although the FDR and animation retrieved through a FOIA to a British? connection are most likely manipulated data from the HI PERPS, I do find it interesting, and possible, that some of that FDR data show an overflight of the Pentagon. However, the animation provided was proven faulty and "hacked" because it did not show the beginning of a descent during AA77's left turn just before it was totally lost to radar contact in eastern Ohio. This discrepancy occurred about 30+ minutes before all the aerobatics took place at the Pentagon, so, you can throw that animated puppy out as simplistic propaganda. Additionally, some eyewitnesses report such an overflight, OR, at least some large aircraft flying at low altiudes all around WDC when there should NOT have been such activity. This aviation activity does NOT show up on RADES radar data and it should have?.

6. Little positive "history" or "trail" of identifiable parts that were connected with that specific American Airlines B757 has been established at the crash scene.

7. The concept that the B757's wings folding back like a bird's and sliding into the smallish hole in the Pentagon is flat out preposterous.

I am VERY well aware of the probems with, and the SIZE and COMPLEXITY of the mechanisims needed to have wings fold back, as postlated, because I was an active ATC when the FB111 was commissioned, and its wings folded back...sometimes....etc. the wings did NOT fold back alongside the fuselage of the B757 and slide into the pentagon...period!

8. In knowing and respecting Barabara Honegger's work, I am impressed with the body of evidence that she has developed which establishes that the FIRST explosion at the Pentagon may have occurred at 09:32, some four to six minutes BEFORE the "final adjusted time" of the arrival of an "air vehicle" at the Pentagon at 09:36-7-8. This is a very, very big body of evidence and if true, changes alotta postulations.

9. And perhps the best thing that P4T has contributed so far, relates to the light poles...which still mysify me.

First, regarding the speeds noted for AA77? striking these thin and hollow poles, I trust my instincts that instruct me to conclude that had such a high speed impact with such a "knife-like" leding edge of a B757's wing should shear the aluminum right off without any major bending ofthe remaining light poles, or the "yanking" of the poles from the light pole bases. I see that this action as creating similar resukts as would a weed-whacker cutting through vegitation structures that are surprisingly thick and strong...yet the weed whacker shears the vegetation off with ease with a fairly clean "shearing" action.

Second, and focusing upon the most powerful application of mathematics and aircraft design, if my memory serves me correctly, the math simply does NOT work out regarding the rate of descent needed AFTER AA77? sheared off the light poles and its further desent to the surface of the Pentagon's lawn as seen in the FAB FIVE FRAMES. As it works out, the rate of decent required to get from the height at which the light poles were struck, and the ground speed that the B757 allegedy had, creates a rate of descent from the light poles to the lawn that is ASTRONOMICAL in that short distance. And THEN, for the B757 to STOP that rate od desent just above the lawn as seen in the FAB FIVE FRAMES, calls for G forces WAY BEYOND the airframe''s capabilities. it would have broken apart.

Many look confidently at Steve Jones', and Richard Gage's work regarding the laws of physics surrounding the building collapses. But far too few people take a look at this "G-force" data brought forward by P4T. This may be because Boeing employees get paid by the US Military...but, through a military money launderer... Boeing Corp...and they are NOT speaking out.

10. The rather symmetrical hole in the C ring and the lack of traceable B757 parts are curious, as are the "DNA" body part discoveries.

11. However, I deeply respect the work of Jim Hoffman...

Consequently, I must remain open about the saga of AA77...the yet to be told story of 9/11/2001.

Robin Hordon

What eyewitnesses to flyover/missile, etc.?

i didn't say i knew or even believed it was 77 or that Hanjour was flying (i don't believe he was; homing beacon and remote control or autopilot, maybe)- Aidan Monaghan has documented some discrepancies in the official records and investigations of the black boxes; i don't know if it was 77, but the Hoffman and many others debunked the "no 757" claim years ago; LooseChange Final Cut presents compelling info a 757 hit

The Pentagon Attack: What the Physical Evidence Shows by Jim Hoffman
(there's a 90-100' gash along the first floor; the "hole" is right in the middle, and there's space for the engines)

9/11 researchers who've debunked/don't support the "no 757" claim, compiled by oilempire.us

A Plane Identified in the 9/11 Pentagon Security Video

See this compilation by Arabesque of the eyewitnesses; at least 100 saw a jet hit- no one definitively claimed they saw a missile; rather they said it sounded or acted like a missile

So, why don't they release video and end the "conspiracy theories"? The Pentagon Honey Pot

The Pentagon No-757-Crash Theory: Booby Trap for 9/11 Skeptics by Jim Hoffman


9/11 Family Steering Committee Review of the 9/11 Commission Report:

Complete 9/11 Timeline

Just want to say....

Thanks Robin in your efforts for seeking the truth. All of here at 911 blogger search the web in hopes to find more facts on 911, and share them with those you might be able to help connect the dots further.
I would like to say it is those like you, Gage , Jones, Ryan, Griffin, Gold and more that go further in our quest for the truth that will eventually make the difference. Thank all of you for what it's worth.
And i want to thank Reprehensor for his efforts for maintaining this site.
Let us all hope the truth comes soon.

if someone's seeking the truth

why would they vote down my reasonable question and my links to credible researchers?

Sorry, i missed the eyewitnesses to the flyover/missile; please post links.

I never vote up my own comments, unless someone votes it down- i just took it back up to zero; any other "truthers" want to vote my question/links, and this reply down?

I have not insulted or accused anyone of anything.

PS, i have not read all of Robin Hordon's comments or articles, but i generally agree with his ideas about "Civil Informationing", non-violence, and not being obnoxious when confronting media/"persons of interest", etc.

9/11 Family Steering Committee Review of the 9/11 Commission Report:

Complete 9/11 Timeline

Loose nuke is right

"There are enough eye witnesses to provide "observations" about almost anything happening at the Pentagon from...an American Airlines "painted" aircraft...to a missle...to a commuter plane...to a drone...to a rocket powered groundbourne sled makingstreks in the Pentagon lawn [my current position], to an overflight."

Haven taken the time to actually read every single available eyewitness statement about the Pentagon and organizing them as loose nuke linked to above, I can tell you that this statement is not accurate. Of the few witness statements that use the term "missile" in their descriptions, NONE of these witnesses actually describe SEEING a missle, and second of all, most of the people who used the descriptive phrase "it was like a missile" specifically mention that they saw the PLANE and described the PLANE as sounding like a missile.


“An airplane roared into view…it sounded like a missile.”

“We heard a sound like a missile and the plane flew in front of us.”

“A huge jet plane clearly with American airlines written on it… it looked like a deadly missile on the final phase of its mission into the building.”

"I saw an American airlines jet… It was so eerily similar to another experience during the Gulf War—a missile strike that killed a Marine in my unit—that when I jumped out of my SUV, I felt like I’d jumped into my past and was in combat once again.”

“At that point I didn’t know it was a plane… I thought it was a missile strike - how dangerous things were. Pulling away from the Pentagon there was tons of stuff on the ground, big pieces of metal, concrete, everything. We got up to a certain point and there was this huge piece of something—I mean it was big, it looked like a piece of an engine or something—in the road.”

“The large plane… almost like a heat-seeking missile was locked onto its target and staying dead on course…”

“I saw this plane, this jet, an American airlines jet, coming. And I thought, ‘This doesn’t add up, it’s really low.’ “And I saw it. I mean it was like a cruise missile with wings… [years later:] I said it was like a cruise missile with wings. I never imagined for a moment that a statement like that would come back to haunt me over and over again. A French author would come out with a book describing in detail the conspiracy theory and he would use that quote out of context to help promote his conclusions. I was very angry about all of this, and I remain angry about it today.”

Taken as a whole, the eyewitness statements are completely unambiguous about what happened.

I encourage people to actually take the time to read the statements before making inaccurate generalizations. And the whole flight path nonsense is a complete diversion, probably an intentional one in my opinion since the people who "champion" this evidence leave out the fact that these same witnesses all claimed the plane hit the Pentagon and did not fly over. All of a sudden there are hundreds of witness who managed to spot the plane and not one actually claiming it flew over the Pentagon? Sorry, but some in the 9/11 truth movement have to be a little more critical about evaluating evidence. Others will continue to push fallacies like the "16 inch hole" even after you show them a picture of the actual size of the whole. That's just the way it is.

Regardless of what you think happened at the Pentagon, the fact is that the eyewitness testimony is very clear about what happened.
Arabesque: 911 Truth

Everything is still ambiguous...

Nobody has all the answers about 9/11, and therefore, everything is still ambiguous with Steve Jones' and Richard Gage's work being the closest to unambiguous.

To think differently is presumptive.

We have many "miles to go before we sleep"...to be a bit corny.

My mind remains open.

Robin Hordon

Who are these people giving statements??? How hard would

it be to plant gov't spooks around the Pentagon of all places??? Or to not have even been there but gave false statements???

Eyewitness testimony of a 757 @ 500 mph flying feet above the ground seems cherry-picked at best.

It's a 16-foot hole in diameter, not 16 inches.

Everyone should continue doing his/her own research regarding AA-77 & the Pentagon!

Consider mass emailing truth messages. More info here: http://www.911blogger.com/node/13321

A Boeing 757 disappeared into the first floor of the Pentagon?

250 seats, luggage, 2 huge steel/titanium engines, etc.???

Ah, I don't think so!!!

Consider mass emailing truth messages. More info here: http://www.911blogger.com/node/13321

Sure, a Boeing 757 slipped through a gash in the first floor

of the Pentagon!? Then the 250 seats, engines, & luggage vanished!? Poof!?

Consider mass emailing truth messages. More info here: http://www.911blogger.com/node/13321

I can't believe people still think AA-77 is what blew-up the


· Hani Hanjour could not have flown back 250 miles from Ohio to find & hit the Pentagon, (let alone the small, renovated wedge).

· Hanjour could not have made incredible maneuvers in a Boeing 757& fly 2 feet above the ground.

· A Boeing 757 can NOT make/disappear through a 16-foot initial impact hole. The airliner has a 125-foot wingspan & two huge steel/titanium engines that "disappeared" as did the 250 seats & the luggage.

· There is no way they could ID a planeload of people that slammed the Pentagon @ 530 mph, while the plane itself was supposedly obliterated. The fictitious DNA results were fabricated to bolster the official lie.

· 80 videos of whatever hit or blew-up the Pentagon are being withheld by the gov't for no reason. (The only videos released look like an A3 SkyWarrior!)

Consider mass emailing truth messages. More info here: http://www.911blogger.com/node/13321

Just more proof

This is just more proof of an inside job. How much proof does a person need? My God what is it going to take? A confession from Cheney? ....Forget 9/11 for a moment. It is my understanding that Rove refuses to answer a subpoena from congress. He will probably get away with it. This tells me that this country no longer has any government at all. What a nightmare we live in.


.........Libby pardon? Hell it wouldn't suprise me to see Dick confess,and Bush pardon him. Where the hell is our country headed?
Washington needs an enima ! Wake the hell up America ! I would also add people seem brain dead when it comes keeping tabs on government, and one huge problem we have in our country today is a bought and paid for media.

Pres can not pardon crimes he was involved in....

If Bush is ever tied to the events of 9/11, then any pardon he issues can not cover the those crimes. That very senerio was brought up at the Constitutional convention and was answered by George Mason to the effect that the President can not pardon crimes he himself was a party to or benefited from.

That isnt to say that the 4 wack jobs on the Supreme Court wouldnt ignore the writings on the Constitution. If they would do so, I would think a ground swell of Impeach the Fascist on the Court would lead to their ouster. Remember, the power in the government lies with Congress's power to impeach any member of another branch of government. Please, remove the Quislings, suckups and sell-outs that now occupy the halls of Congress. Save this Country!!!! Vote for anyone other that the incumbant (with a hand full of VERY NOTABLE EXCEPTIONS - and we know who they are).

Now is the time to come to the defense of our liberities, well-being and the rights of man. Your most important vote is the vote to replace the Neo-con trash and sympathisers!!!

Robin, this is all great information.

Even more great info on this subject is in the new 9/11 Documentary called "Zero: An Investigation Into 9/11". Here's some info that was included in that new movie about this topic:

According to Robin Hordon, flight controller at Boston Center, and John Judge, 9/11 researcher for Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, DC has a restricted airspace around it known as P-56. It has a separate radar system and a separate response system. It has an air defense identification zone of 50 mile radius around DC, a protected zone of 17 miles around the Washington Monument, and an inner protected zone of 3 miles around the Capitol. That airspace is unbreachable. F-16 and F-18 jets at Andrews AFB about 10 miles south of DC, and the 113th National Guard Air Wing at Anacosta Naval Air Station are on standby and can send jets up in case of a breach of the airspace around DC. Both were in place on 9/11, neither responded until after the Pentagon is hit.

In addition to those measures, the Pentagon has it's own defenses in the form of anti-aircraft missiles. The Pentagon is the most heavily protected building on the planet. The craft had to have been a military craft. Only military craft put out a certain signal called an "Identify Friend or Foe" signal, also known as an IFF signal. A military craft is the only craft that would be allowed to approach the Pentagon and not set off the anti-aircraft batteries. The radar system protecting the capitol reads two types of aircraft responders: a civilian transponder and a military responder. Civilian aircraft do not have a military or IFF transponder. Because the 757 that allegedly hit the Pentagon was a civilian aircraft and did not have an IFF transponder, it would have and should have been shot down by either the fighter jets on duty to protect the capitol, or finally by the anti-aircraft missile batteries protecting the Pentagon.

There had to have been a break-down in standard operating procedure by FAA, NORAD, P-56 and the Pentagon, all on the same day after what was already known to be a "terrorist attack" after two planes had already hit in New York City.

Dr. Robert Bowman, retired USAF pilot, notes that anytime an aircraft goes off course, or loses radio communication, or loses it's transponder signal, anytime any ONE of those things happen, the aircraft is supposed to be intercepted. On 9/11, all three of those things happened and still there was no intercept. The planes flew around from 20 minutes to an hour and a half without ever being intercepted.

Before 1970, there was one protocol for scrambling fighters and that was "immediate". After 1970, a second protocol was added for hijacked airplanes which was called "slow". "Slow" meaning that there had to be Pentagon approval for the release of fighters in cases of hijacked airplanes. Those two types of protocols lasted until June 2001, three months before 9/11. In June 2001, Rumsfeld, the Pentagon and the military changed the protocol to "slow" intercept only. Had the "immediate" protocol still been in place, the aircraft would have never reached their targets. On 9/12/01, the intercept protocol was changed again back to the original two protocols that were in effect before June 2001. It would seem that the protocols were deliberately changed just for 9/11, and then changed back after 9/11.

When the U.S. was attacked at Pearl Harbor, after eight inquiries, General Walter Short, Commander of the Army for the defense of Hawaii, and Admiral Husband Kimmel, Commander of the Pacific Fleet, were both charged with negligence and dismissed. After 9/11, neither the Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, nor the head of Civil Aviation, nor the head of Air Defense was punished or removed from office.

On September 10, 2001, U.S. Army Brigadier General W. Montague Winfield asked junior officer Captain Charles Leidig to temporarily replace him as Director of Operations at the Pentagon's National Military Command Center (NMCC) from 8:30am on 9/11. After the last plane had crashed, Winfield resumed control. After 9/11, Winfield was promoted to Major General.

Captain Charles Leidig had only just completed a course qualifying him to run the command center. After 9/11, he was promoted to Rear Admiral, Director of Operations of the Sixth Fleet Naval Forces in Europe.

On 9/11/01, Brigadier General David F. Wherley Jr. was Commander of Andrews Air Force Base (the nearest base to the Pentagon). After 9/11, he was promoted to Major General, Commanding General of the National Guard, District of Columbia.

On 9/11/01, Richard B. Myers, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was the temporary head of all U.S. armed forces in the absence of Chairman Shelton who was out of the country. On October 1, 2001, Myers was promoted to Chairman.

Very powerful

Thank you for ALL your efforts, Robin!

Reddit it

fantastic piece. The

fantastic piece. The question is...What is the only way to make this plausibly deniable? It is to insist HIJACKing protocols were followed and that was the delay. Why would they assume HIJACK when it is not a natural assumption given the applicable scenario? Who made the HIJACK determination and when? If it was actually ever determined.

A very clever "change"...

This was a very, very clever operation that the HI PERPS pulled off, and I think that Cheney headed it secretly during the times that it was noted that his "terrorism Group" WAS NOT meeting. Of course that would mean that Cheney wasn't telling the truth...OH, yeah, its Cheney being Cheney. He IS the REAL EMPEROR here.

Of all ironies, its the delayed departure of UA93 that threw the biggest wrench into the entire scheme that I now call: "The 9/11 Attack War Game Scenario". UA93 created a situation where the HI PERPS needed to create a HUGE STORY about why that airliner was NOT intercepted for an hour AFTER the second tower was struck, and after there already was a launch of interceptors with other aviation assets, armed and unarmed airbourne and only a few minutes away.

In other words, the 9/11 attack is a War Game inside a host WaR Game, and thusly, it's existence is shielded from all but a very few "insiders". Such "inside" War Games HAVE to be secretive because that's what the entire concept of War Games is all about...to TEST the various components of the National Defense System. One cannot have a reliable test if someone already knows about aspects of the upcoming "War Game" that is designed specifically to test their componenet.

Its a perfect place for undetectable nefarious activity, and as so many reasearchers and scholars have dilligently pointed out, 9/11 certainly was NOT the first time that "actions" were hidden inside of other "actions" so as to obfuscate the real criminality.

So, plausible deniability...a GREAT perspective and very important understanding as we move ahead. And a discipline that I feel I have uncovered with my interpretation of the June change.

Here is the biggest point that many researchers look right past although its right in front of their eyes.

As the plans for this attack were moving forward, the ONE point that the HI PERPS would OBVIOUSLY insist upon, is to NOT leave any definitive traces or leads back to the 9/11 attack scenario itself...especially in rewriting words. Therefore, IF there were any documents, procedures or protocol changes made, they would have to NOT be able to be used against them as proof of their complicity.

It is THIS very point that frames my perceptions about the June change. There were NO REAL WORDING CHANGES...but there was a change in organizational positioning...and that is enough to stimulate some briefings and conversations that could then emphasize that there were a few minor changes in scramble protocols but they were really only "housekeeping" types of changes in the Pentagon.

IE: "If you need to scrammble, just ask your supervisor, and he will get the "new ball rolling"...no need for you to really know the housekeeping details."

Its important to remember that the hijacking protocol required the approvals of the Pentagon before departure. Now, if YOU were looking for a way to "hide" the required delay in scramble activities which would allow ALL the well schedued airliners to reach their targets with 40 minutes from departure, and within minutes of each other at the pre-selected crash sites, would it not be prudent to get "the system" to look at its existing operational procedures and thusly conclude:

"If we can only get the FAA-NEADS to get into a "hijack protocol" from the outset, then we only have to ignore the scramble request phone call made to the Pentagon for just a few minutes and PRESTO, we have the 15-30 minute delay in scramble departures that are required. And further, since there are no specific "word trails" that will indicate that there were any REAL changes made to any scramble protocols, we have plausible deniability and plenty of cover for our involvement this action."

THIS...is the plausible deniability from my view.

And certainly a very clever "slight of hand". But there were a few crumb trails left behind.

In "The 9/1 Attacks War Game Scenario", one of the aspects that is now being more fully understood goes beyond the confusion between "real world" and "War Games" that we know about. The BIGGER issue here is that the upcoming War Games that WERE known about, included some hijacking activities.

Well, a good commander of a unit that would be tested in the upcoming onslaught of War Games will make sure that all the info about NORAD-NEAD's understandings and roles that their personnel would play WHEN AIRCRAFT ARE HIJACKED, would be briefed, discussed and tested BEFORE the War Games excercises actually took place. Stating it diffrently, hijacking scenarios were placed into the minds of NEADS personnel BEFORE 9/11. So, as innocently noted all throughout the Vanity Fair cover-up, its easy to see that there was a hijack-hijack-hijack mentality from the onset.

However, as noted by me in the piece, Scoggins made a direct request for help in the skies and it was not honored. NEADS did not comply with the civilian organization who has command superiority...its the Posse Comatatus thing...and its very important.

Another one...
Soon, the possibility that the radio transmissions that were used to "steer" the FAA into thinking that there were hijackings taking place actually may have come from a source OTHER THAN the airliners, will sneak its way into the prejudiced mindsets of current researchers who are readily accepting that the radio transmissions DID come from the airliners, because that's what the HI PERP's 'psy-ops" have told them.

This is a very, very big issue here. The radio transmissions could have come from an "airbourne command platform" that was ALSO operating undercover inside one of the many War Games scenarios operating in the skies. There was an ALTRV [Altitude Reservation] over parts of the northeast on 9/11., and inside that reserved airspace, ANY military air vehicle could operate undetected.

AND...there is absolutely NO WAY to identify the source of these "arab-hijack insinuating" radio transmissions, again, they could come from any aircraft anywhere in the region.

Besides, if the cockpits had been secured, and the airliners had been taken command of, why would there be a need for the "hijackers" to calm down the passengers FROM THE COCKPIT?

If the story being foisted is true, weren't there a few hijacker types NOT inside the cockpits...and couldn't THEY get such messaging directly to the smallish number of passengers and crew? Makes one think about the amazing UA93 "storming the cockpit thing" a bit differently too...perhaps a fully planted story?

And BTW...the two air traffic controllers who are active in the 9/11TM BOTH agree that the likelyhood of such "mistaken transmissions" are very low for even ONE aircraft, but for TWO aircraft...again, simply astronomical odds against this happening.

Plausible Deniability...interesting stuff AYE?

If I were planning "The 9/11 Attacks War Game Scenario", I would CERTAINLY put a person in charge of overseeing that plausible deniability were in place within each and every aspect of the entire event planning for 9/11/2001.

Its good to remember that the "plausible deniability" discipline has been in use for years ever since Watergate, and the Intel Agencies getting caught at malfeasances causing for the original FISA and the like. When Ollie North testified in front of congress and "took one for the Gipper", was he not sacrificing himself because the Iran-Contra scandals HAD NOT insured quite enough plausible deniability and therefore, North had to absorb the mistake? I think so.

Consequently, in the ensuing years, the HI PERPS have become much more dilligent at insuring Plausible Deniability in all of their activities.

And, this truth will soon unfold even moreso as "we the people" try to "catch" the Bush Crime Family in their illegal activities. The HI PERPS will have acted in ways, and created written information and instructions that has plausible [or legal] deniability included. No doubts about it!

Robin Hordon

It's A Bird! It's A Plane! No...It's A Cargo Tanker!

The aircraft that flew into the South Tower, supposedly Flight 175, was no commercial airliner. It was a Boeing 767 Tanker.

On the underside of the stern of the aircraft one can see a large round void that is called a "bubble window". There is also another smaller round void next to the bubble window. That is where the refueling boom extends from. Also one can easily detect on the underside, running fom midship towards the rear, the long, triangular shaped fuel tank. See link below:


Now compare the above picture with this picture (scroll down the page to the picture just above where the caption "Carmen Taylors CNN Photograph" is):


The two holes can be seen clearly under the tail as can the long, triangular shaped fuel tank in relief, where the tanker stores its refueling gas. From this proof, I'm assuming the other three aircraft were also switched.

By the way, the bubble window is where the refueling operator looks out of as he is lying on the floor, manually refueling aircraft below.

Dean Jackson
Washington, DC

Show "9/11 Ripple Effect is a great video in which experts testify to" by Colombo

Oh, come on...

... the pods have been conclusively debunked a long time ago.

Because you are dealing with a basically cylindrical object, you can see the reflection of sun from any angle under the plane. Besides, "the pod" happens to be exactly in the position of a flare. All known photos of military planes show pods way forward towards the nose where it does not interfere with the operation of a landing gear (makes sense, doesn't it?)...

It was a reflection of sunlight from a flare... Besides the airplane being cylindrical, the spherical surface of the rounded edge of the flare would actually reflect the light in every direction. It would be hard to find a spot on the ground where you would not be able to see the flash of sunlight reflected from there...

Who Said Anything About A Pod?

Who said anything about a pod? I didn't. You might want to go back and re-read my comment. Me thinks you protest too much!

As far as the pod goes, the pod is reflecting sunlight itself, just as the engines reflect sunlight, and one can see (see first picture in link below) the longer outline of the wing root under the pod. So whatever that pod object is, it isn't a wing root.


Oh, there's a lot more than sunlight in your eyes regarding the

so-called "pod" on the likely drone that struck the south tower.

Consider mass emailing truth messages. More info here: http://www.911blogger.com/node/13321

A retried amry general & seasoned commercial pilot testify

to the extra equipment in 9/11 Ripple Effect, as video of said anomaly clearly plays in the background.

Consider mass emailing truth messages. More info here: http://www.911blogger.com/node/13321

Yes. Pod has been debunked for years

Show "That link didn't debunk anything! Watch 9/11 Ripple Effect free" by Colombo

Been there, seen it.

There is nothing new in that movie about the "pod" that hasn't been rehashed again and again over the years.

Who Said Anything About A Pod?

Who said anything about a pod? I didn't. You might want to go back and re-read my comment. Me thinks you protest too much!

As far as the pod goes, the pod is reflecting sunlight itself AND casts a long shadow on the fuselage, just as the engines reflect sunlight and cast a long shadow on the wings, and one can see (see first picture in link below) the longer outline of the wing root under the pod. So whatever that pod object is, it isn't a wing root.

The fact that eyewitnesses on the ground were saying it was a cargo plane they saw that hit the south tower (e.g. Mark Burnback of Fox News) confirms the conclusive photographic evidence that a Boeing KC-767 Cargo Tanker hit the south tower, despite what disinformation entities such as Popular Mechanics and questionsquestions have to say on the subject. The fact that Popular Mechanics never had a digital contour analysis performed of the underside of Flight 175 proves that whatever hit the south tower was not a commercial Boeing 767.



Consider mass emailing truth messages. More info here: http://www.911blogger.com/node/13321

Let people watch 9/11 Ripple Effect & decide for themselves

The rest of video is excellent as well! http://www.911rippleeffect.com/

Featuring: Fred Fox, Glen Stanish, Russ Wittenberg, Gen. Albert Stubblebine, Col. George Nelson, Maj. Glen MacDonald, Maj. Doug Rokke, Kevin Barrett, Jim Fetzer, Phil Jayhan, Jim Marrs, William Rodriguez, and people like you... the citizens of this country

Written & Produced by William Lewis & Dave vonKleist
Directed & Edited by William Lewis
Soundtrack Score: William Lewis

Consider mass emailing truth messages. More info here: http://www.911blogger.com/node/13321

Thanks Colombo

..........I thought i seen them all. It was good . Thanks.

I viewed the video...very interesting..

More questions that need to be answered. Very possible that the planes were modded or switched. That would make sense - cant have a passenger cabin charging the cockpit!!! Box cutters - really, that wouldnt stop me from charging the cockpit and I doubt that it would prevent many other people.

Swaps for AA11 and UA175 very unlikely...

It is my firm position that it is very unlikely and probably impossible to have swapped other aircraft for AA11 and/or UA175. Swapping aircraft is a very difficult activity as the new aircraft has to get very close to the original aircraft, and this action would be easily seen by the FAA air traffic controllers. The air traffic controllers involved were watching these aircraft quite closely, including watching some primary radar targets, and had there been a "strange target" flying at the higher speeds neccessary to "join-up" in the skies, they would have seen these targets. But none were seen.

In the swap scenario that I have postulated regarding AA77, there are TWO "no radar zones" in which the swap could have happened. But, I have no provable answers as to WHERE AA77 went IF it was swapped out. So, this very same problem that exists with the "swapping" of AA11 and/or UA175...IE: Where did the original flights go after the swap?

Had the FAA ATCs seen any such "duplicate targets" first joining with the original flight, and then the original aircraft heading away after the swap, there is absolutely no doubt that this would have been brought out immediately. This did not happen, and the FAA ATCs were looking really hard except one ZNY controller who apparently lost his focus and watched AA11 to closely.

Anyone who still thinks that AA11 and/or UA175 were swapped out in mid-air over New England as the FAA looked on is incorrect. This activity is virtually IMPOSSIBLE to accomplish.

Please STOP this craziness...its NOT the way it was.

And for those who think that these airliners were "swapped out" at Boston Logan airport, or at the other airports, you are vastly underinformed about airport and FAR operational rules and procedures. ALL operations of ALL vehicles on the ground and taxiways at such airports are COMPLETLY controlled and approved by FAA ATC ground controllers. You cannot "slip in a random B757" in the taxi and departure queue without existing flight plans and conforming ATC instructions for EACH aircraft on the airport surface. IF the B757s were somehow "modified" before departure, hundreds of aviation personnel would have seen these "POD-MISSLE abnormalities" and would have reported them. Airports are full of highly trained professionals who try to see everything that is going on around them at all times because its their JOB to operate safely, and to keep themselves alive. Trying to sneak a B757 through a busy international airport is VASTLY different than slipping in an unknown yellow cab amidst the gaggle of yellow cabs that drive up to, and away from hotels in downtown Manhattan. It CANNOT BE DONE with a B757!

Anyone thinking that such swaps occurred at these major airports is delusional. Please stop your insanity.

Finally, and again having flown 1600 hours in all sorts of weather and unusual atmospheric conditions, its my position that ALL the reflections, images and bright flashes and the like are explainable due to atmospherics, the extremely high voltages and RF signals emitting from the nose cones of airliners which are associated with weather radar antennae IN the nose cones, the "static electricity" generated at such high speeds of flight of these aircraft, and with ALL of this happening in a LOW early morning and highly REFLECTIVE sun, are easily explainable outside of any "pod"theories.

I have seen sun reflections from aircraft "skin" that seem so bright that you would swear that they are one mile away, only then to see that they are ten miles away after the reflective bright spot has lost its reflective angle. And there are many, many more amazing "sights" that occur in aviation and this was the case on 9/11 Its time to get past all of this stuff...

There are no aircraft swaps at the WTCs...
There are no pods on any of these airliners...
There are no missles on the airliners...
There is no video fakery involved...
The airliners are NOT made from butter...
The airliners are NOT as weak as beer cans...
The entry wounds in the WTCs AND in the ground in PA are profile specific and are thus, appropriate...
The entry wounds at the Pentagon are NOT profile specific...
Dave Von Kleist is legitimate in most all of his conclusions and observations, but is "off" on the pods...
Reynolds is a cointelpro agent who is tasked to both diminish our credibility and to explain away the minor entry wound at the Pentagon...YOU can figure this all out yourself if you think things through...
Reynolds is baby sitting Judy Woods who is talking about advanced military weaponry, a BIG NO-NO...

And the ONLY thing that needs to be considered regarding AA11 + UA175...

They were NOT being flown by their assigned professional pilots...NUFF SAID!

People who stand firm in opposition to the above mentioned points are COUNTER-productive to the validity of the 9/11 Truth Movement, and YES, you can read between these lines.

Robin Hordon

The Zero film

In the Italian Zero film there is the witness testimony of Brian Clark where he describes hearing a BOOMBOOM when the 2nd plane hit, he called it two explosions. I know a survivor from the first building and she too heard a boomboom when the first plane hit but she insists it was hijackers and fire and no inside job. Could there have been a missile enter instantaneously before each plane to make the building open and take the plane without having pieces fall down that would be ID'd as not the plane in question?.

A long while ago I saw a picture of the 2nd plane from the street below taken by an Australian. It was on an australian website and now I can't find it anywhere. I'm sorry I didn't grab it but I didn't know it would become such an issue. That same "shadow" was on the plane taken from directly under it.

So I remain open too.

I appreciate you very much Robin and your statements on the Zero film too. http://zero911movie.com/site/

911 Truth Ends 911 Wars

How can you expect the FAA to do anything about swapped drones

when FAA management blatantly destroyed audiotape evidence made by air traffic controllers re: 9/11???


Consider mass emailing truth messages. More info here: http://www.911blogger.com/node/13321

destroyed audio tapes...

I do not trust the FAA above the ATC levels as they ALWAYS cover their asses all the time. They are frightened X air traffic controllers who have to hide these truths about themselves. I DO trust the professional habits, instincts, determination and competency of the ATCs when they loose aircraft, especially airliners. When such emergencies happen, they REALLY GET CRANKED UP. Please remember, as the situiation unfolded, MANY MORE ATCs were plugged in and began to watch and listen to the action with these flights. There is NO CHANCE that had any ATC actually observed any "swapping" targets, either coming or going, for them to not say something especially early on in the first few days of testimaony etc. There were no swaps except the "possible swap" of AA77.

The "tapes" that were destroyed by an FAA supervisor were NOT operational tapes, in other words, these tapes were not the ones recording communications between controllers and controllers, and pilots and controllers, and between ATC or military facilities.

The tapes that were destroyed were UNOFFICIAL TAPES made at a post-event briefing in a meeting in the New York Center in which all the controllers involved shared ALL their stories and tried to "get a big picture of the events of the day". Surely, some controllers did not perform well, and I can only "guess" what happened in that briefing room...and here is that guess:

As the picture unfolded, and the controllers discovered that ZNY managemnent and controllers had held interceptors out of ZNY airspace for ANY reason, in this case because the "hijack protocol" did not demand first priority handling, they became very, very, very angry at their management and let them know their feelings. Controllers make order out of chaos, do it well, and NEEDED THOSE INTERCEPTORS. But management, [those who could no longer make order out of chaos], allowed their "new" chaos to rule over the needs of the ATCs who were plugged in and trying to solve some problems.

ATCs are very, very bright and they figure stuff out REALLY QUICKLY. We controllers KNOW that if we followed the exact rule of ATC operations, the system would come to a crawl and we would always be blamed for conducting a slowdown [which we occasionally did]. Then, if we were making the system work in spite of its stiff structures, and then something happened where an aircraft came too close to another, then all the supervisors and managers all the way up would come running down pointing fingers at the controllers. Its a "catch22" so, there is NO trust between controllers and management because controllers are the ONLY ones who ever got banged around. All their supervisors and management were well practiced in CYA and "plausible deniability" for themselves.

Consequently, there is absolutely NO DOUBT in my mind that within a few minutes, the ATCs KNEW that they would end up being blamed for everything that failed in this event...so they ALL shut up, the tapes were destroyed, and they all began to duck. And of course, we now know that this is EXACTLY what the Pentagon, and high levels of FAA management, and the 9/11 Commisssion have ended up attempting to accomplish. See, controllers "get it"...

The reason that nobody got fired anywhere in the government is because such adverse actions enable the firee to legally "discover" information about the events of the day. This is something that the HI PERPS had already planned for...firing nobody and promoting those in the "hot spots". BOTH actions designed to keep mouths shut, and to keep evidence under FBI wraps.

Having watched these types of actions over the last 40 years allows me to feel confident that the HI PERPS covered as many bases as they possibly could BEFORE "The 9/11 War Game Attack Scenario" got under way. Its all predictable, and as soon as researchers take this position of "discovery and analysis" we will slowly step ahead in reassembling "The 9/11 Attack War Game Scenario". We have quite a bit of it right now.

The FBI is the main culprit in this affair because they were in the right place at the right time...IMMEDIATELY ...both during and AFTER the attacks began. They have collected as much damning evidence as they possibly could, and remain suppressing it. This evidence is either being held away from the public, or, as in the case of theAA77's FDR and certainly the animation released through a FOIA [to someone in BRITTAIN?, DUHHH?]...they "hack the data" to their favor. This just creates another layer of cover-ups that investigaters and researchers have to penetrate through in order to get to the truth.

Most of the evidence backing up most of the work done on the WTC collapses comes from evidence available to the public, or from the public. And what ever government agencies, read: "tools", do make some reports or disclosures, they obfuscate as much as possible, or refuse to answer direct questions. Again, this is NOT a new behavior, has many precedent examples of such obfuscation, and is very predictable.

Hope that this helps, and for sure, KEEP ON DISCOVERY. Someday, all our efforts will pay off, including wringing out all the bizarre or fringe elements and theories because they will need to be debunked, and when that happens, we usually discover evidence that otherwise would not have been discovered.

However, when we reach out to the public with our information, we should go with our strongest stuff and NOT our strangest stuff.

And sadly, most of the 9/11 "strangeness" still surrounds pods, and missles, and video fakery, and tin can airplanes, and airplanes made from butter, and tankers, and other stuff. I believe that this is constantly repeating itself because our friendly "cointelpros" know that the imagery of the towers falling is the single most well remembered element in the attacks of 9/11, if not in a person's lifetime.

So, since cointelpro are so good at what they do, why would they NOT go right at the biggest rememberance and continue to use it against the 9/11 Truth Movement by creating ways to keep slipping this "hokey-pokey" into our discussions? I would if I were doing cointelpro against the 9/11TM! Some things are really, really simple to see.

But, this is soooo very basic to me because I was in the 60s and 70s, and have been involved with civil actions since where cointelpro was and IS A GIVEN. And "liberal" groups or movements are penetrated with cointelpro more than any other set of groups.

Its good to step back and accept that the size of the 9/11 Attacks is the biggest event ever, and therefore, the efforts of the cointelpro community will match this size. Its like, DUHHHH!...obviously.

As an example, I see completely through The Ron Paul Experiment as being totally hacked from the top "unidentifieds" being fed by "military money" for his campaign. The planned result is that hundreds of thousands of people, including many naive We Are Changers, are being manipulated to bring out the "worst" sides of the fine people in the 9/11 Truth Movement. Again...DUHHHH!...this is so obvious...check out "Truth Rising"...and you will get the big picture here. How does the following work?

9/11 Truthers/Ron Paul-ites are rampant supporters of a guy who states publically and on corporate media that 9/11 Truthers, themselves, are nutcases and absurdists...and STILL those very 9/11 Truthers-Ron Paul-ites believe that Ron Paul is a supporter of the 9/11 Truth Movement. How can this be?

Anyway, almost every other aspect of the events on 9/11 have settled out fairly well...with the noted exception of AA77 and the Pentagon...and I find that to be a very healthy discussion.

I admit prejudice with AA77 because I have long thought that "The Flight of AA77 is the HI PERPS' Achilles Heel"...and this is because I do feel that Burlingame was the captain of THE "false-flag-flight" that was included in "The 9/11 Attack War Game Scenario". A scenario was buried deep and well hidden within other War Games going on during that September, 2001 time period. Burlingame's daughter died an early and untimely death just a few years ago...never know?...never forget!

Hope this helps...

Robin Hordon

I don't think so

RH: "As an example, I see completely through The Ron Paul Experiment as being totally hacked from the top "unidentifieds" being fed by "military money" for his campaign. The planned result is that hundreds of thousands of people, including many naive We Are Changers, are being manipulated to bring out the "worst" sides of the fine people in the 9/11 Truth Movement. Again...DUHHHH!...this is so obvious...check out "Truth Rising"...and you will get the big picture here. How does the following work?

"9/11 Truthers/Ron Paul-ites are rampant supporters of a guy who states publically and on corporate media that 9/11 Truthers, themselves, are nutcases and absurdists...and STILL those very 9/11 Truthers-Ron Paul-ites believe that Ron Paul is a supporter of the 9/11 Truth Movement. How can this be?"

me: I don't think so. Do you have any direct quotes that Ron Paul has called 9/11 Truthers nutcases and absurdists?

What exactly do you want from Ron Paul? Do you want him to explicitly endorse 9/11 Truth with "you're completely for us or against us" attitude? (And I'm curious, how many people that are quoted approvingly on 9/11 Blogger completely support 9/11 Truth) He says he doesn't believe the government was behind it, but supports a new investigation. At this point in history, I don't have a problem with that from a congressman in office who has faced continual and repeated smear campaigns, and has a long history of being focused more on monetary issues than ones involving foreign policy, terrorism, and so forth.

Ron Paul politicized or re-politicized a lot of people who went on to get into 9/11 Truth. His success actually made me excited about politics again. And that is what led me to discover the 9/11 Truth movement (amusingly, I was cued into it by watching how upset it made Bill O'Reilly and Michelle Malkin. I feel and felt that anything they had to put down so disparagingly probably had something going for it. :-) True story.)

To go away..

It would be best for the 9/11 Truth Movement for those who think that Ron Paul is supportive of the 9/11 TM to pack up and go away. Take your full time and energy to support that fringe player, and leave the 9/11 Truth Movement up to credible professionals who are doing superb work SOLELY towards the 9/11 Truth Movement.

The Ron Paul Experiment is a cointelpro op that has fooled a great number of otherwise solid 9/11 Truthers.

It is instructive to note that the We Are Change organizations ...aka...Ron Paul political strore fronts, were NOT in existence before 2006 which is well AFTER a majority of growth in the 9/11TM had already occurred.

Just take a look at "Truth Rising", and you will "get it".

The Ron Paul Experiment is cointelpro op all the way...and it is hurting the 9/11TM...do your own thing on your own time.

Just go away.

Robin Hordon


You really didn't answer anything I said, except to imply that I don't get it, and I should "just go away." I assume that was directed at me, unless I misread it.

I don't think you're cointelpro, I think you're genuine and sincere, and I do value your contributions (look at my earlier post in this thread). At the same time, it is one of the rudest and most negative posts I have yet seen on 9/11 Blogger.

In anarchist circles, your attitude is generally criticized as vanguardism. It is known time and again for wrecking movements.

Anyway, when you actually come up with something of substance on this issue, maybe there'll be more to discuss.

Last one to leave...

When the party is over, and everyone else has gone home, its not easy to make the point to "clingers" that its time to leave .

I am glad that the libertarian voice is involved in politics but its a significant problem that there is any relationship between Ron Paul and the 9/11 Truth Movement at all. Again, check out "Truth Rising"...its very, very instructive and the film exposes a lot.

The 9/11TM is VASTLY greater than Ron Paul, or whatever it is that you think he stands for, or whom and what he will ever be.

I'm not an anarchist, I don't wear black, I'm not interested in who is called what in whatever movements that have analyzed and dissected themselves for the benefit of others to try and understand. Cointelpro comes in every shape, size and color...and hidden in fringe movements such as The Ron Paul Experiment...which is funded by "military money".

The Ron Paul Experiment is significantly divisive to the 9/11TM, it should operate all by itself as the Ron Paul Experiment and thusly, it will give the 9/11TM more room to grow to where it can grow without fringe movements attached to it and pulling it down.

WACs should make some decisions about who and how they want "to be" in their futures. It sounds like a great idea on paper.

Chemtrails, HAARP and any other "issues" should set their own sails, stay clear of the 9/11TM and again, stand completely on their own. If they are solid enough on their own, they can stand on their own.

Its time for the 9/11TM to stand up and to get over its apparent "need" to continue its "fringitis". 9/11 Truth not a fringe movement except when it attracts fringe movements and hangers on, and refuses to ask them to leave.

The party is over, the 9/11TM has some very important things to do in the morning.

Please do the "Ron Paul Thing" on your own time.

Robin Hordon


There is absolutely nothing of substance in your statements. Your assertions that Ron Paul is cointelpro is an unsubstantiated smear on your part.

RH: I'm not an anarchist, I don't wear black, I'm not interested in who is called what in whatever movements that have analyzed and dissected themselves for the benefit of others to try and understand.

me: Your lack of knowledge of political history doesn't change the problem of vanguardism. So far I have found this community to be very open and friendly towards many different viewpoints, aside from things that are obviously damaging, like "no-planes theory." And luckily, the movment has not become politicized. People can pursue it while having widely disparate viewpoints.

RH: The Ron Paul Experiment is significantly divisive to the 9/11TM,

me: Again, another unsubstantiated claim from someone who is acting as divisive as anyone I've seen in 9/11 Truth. I have yet to witness anyone else tell somebody to get out of the movement because they defended Ron Paul, in this case from your earlier smear that Ron Paul called 9/11 Truthers "nutcases and absurdists." Please reference your claim, or accept the fact that you've been exposed as engaging in a smear.

What is amusing is that you are the one who is constantly bringing up Ron Paul across this site. You are the one who brought up mention of him in this thread. You can't substantiate anything other than to tell people to watch a film by another big Ron Paul supporter, Alex Jones. If you have anything of substance to share, spill it out, because I am not going to guess what you are trying to refer to in Truth Rising.

I have to add I honestly don't want to be rude, even to someone who is telling me to "go away." I genuinely respect your expert contributions as an ATC, and I feel you offer a great deal of value in that regard. The problem is that if your peculiar attitude were widespread, we wouldn't have a chance.

Honestly, you would be better off writing a full and referenced essay on this issue and posting it rather than engaging in what I at least perceive as petty jibes on these forums. If you want to make a claim that Ron Paul is cointelpro, then show us how you came to that conclusion.

I hope you get it figured out, dude.

its no use with him,

its no use with him, bearcat. hes got it aallll figured out :)

9/18 was an inside job! So maybe 9/11 was too...

Ron Paul is a major catalyst for restoring our Constitution &

abolishing the criminal regime we're under. He has a national platform and must be prudent about blurting out things like, "9/11 was an inside job!" for the time being.

Consider mass emailing truth messages. More info here: http://www.911blogger.com/node/13321

want to add

Have to mention that it is obscene that Robin is being given negative votes for this informative post. I'm open minded, but I will take his expert knowledge over some pictures seen on a website.

While I don't regard the different types of pod theory or airplane switch ideas to be nearly as ridiculous or as destructive to 9/11 Truth as the "no-planes" theory, it at the very least introduces a lot needless complexity based on some very slim and questionable evidence.

Back around 2004 or so, my first exposure to 9/11 Truth was some pod site that showed the video with what purported to be a missile attachment on the plane make a flash as it hit the WTC. I thought to myself at the time, "this is too stupid. I don't have time to dig around on this and find out the video source is questionable, or there was some other explanation about the impact."

I didn't come back to 9/11 Truth until late 2007, when Steven Jones's paper, the Scholars for 9/11 Truth, and videos of WTC7 convinced me that there was something going on here.

If the pod theorists or plane switchers are right, we will find out when we get the investigations underway. For now, it does nothing to help 9/11 Truth.

Yes. And let's not forget Operation Northwoods in which they

were prepared to swap a drone painted-up as a commercial airliner and even have mock funerals for fake passengers, etc. That was 45 years ago, btw. I suppose they refined their methods by the time 9/11/2001 came around.

Consider mass emailing truth messages. More info here: http://www.911blogger.com/node/13321

atco on 9/11

Mr Hordon someone of your readers posted your "ATC view" in a jref topic and colin scoggins made a comment on it:

"I have read some of the report, I don't know where Robin got this info, and in the 24 years I have been at Boston Center, it would be hard for me to count 45 total intercepts from 1982 up to 9/11/2001. And as far as requesting intercepts for emergencies other than Payne Stewart, I can't remember any. Intercepts almost came to a hault after the Korean Air Incident, don't know why, but I think the rules for games changed after that incident. The 1500 or so scrambles that he talks about on that blog, unless they are down around Miami and the west coast, is so far off. Calling the Coast Guard out to a plane having problems over the ocean is not an intercept, and it is something we do, as well as when informed of a boat sinking by a pilot over the water and we call the Coast Guard for that, its not an intercept either. We didn't call scrambles for inflight emergencies at all prior to 9/11 period. I have worked numerous inlfight emergencies, and never once thought of calling NEADS about it unless it was a plane they were working. "


"Then there wouldn't be enough planes to intercept them all. We have planes go NORDO all of the time, normally we get them back in several minutes, but at what time is the controller supposed to call for the intercept. Inflight emergenices don't last very long, if it is a seroius emergency then they are landing at the closest field possible. Why would I call up a scramble to intercept someone who just lost an engine or a fire on board, when the quickest thing we are trying to do is get them down. Makes no sense at all. Most of the emergencies I have worked were over in 10 to 15 minutes."

any comment?

best regards

Not neccessary to criticize...

I do not find it neccessary to critique Scoggin's claims because he does so all by himself. He also substantiates my position about scrambles vs intercepts.

I will say this, the pilot of the "in flight emergency" that I and other members of our "scramble-intercept team" actually came into the Boston ARTCC after he was safely escorted, IN CLOUD, to a safe landing at an airport about 60 miles west of Nashua, NH [where ZBW ARTCC is located]. The pilot was VERY thankful that we had declared an in flight emergency for him, scrambled appropriate military assets to chase him down, led him to a safe landing, and that he was still alive.

This fellow may have another view of Scoggins irresponsible statements about "scrambles, intercepts and the responsibilities" held by the air traffic control system.

Further, this is what Scoggins can do...

It woud be very helpful if Scoggins offered more exacting information about the ALTRV, [Military altitude reservation] that was in place over portions of the northeast on 9/11/2001 that he has already noted as being in place. I have asked P4T and various authors, including Dvaid Ray Griffin and Mark Gaffney [two new books due out in September], to ask him about the ALTRV. Such an answer would be good to have.

BTW...Scoggins was due for, or usually arrived for his shift at 08:00AM [or earlier] on 9/11/2001, but didn't make it into the fray until just before 08:30AM. He first stated in emails that he got to "the floor" at 08:34 or later, and we had to draw it out of him and PROVE that his first statements were incorrect, and that he was there being briefed around 08:27-29AM. These times are critical in exposing the Vanity Fair-NORAD tapes falsities about when the military was first notified. The beat goes on...

Also, in having the chance to read some of his emails, it was quite clear when the spelling, syntax, and careful wording was used, or when it was NOT used in the dialogue. It was very clear that he had some "help" every now and then.

However, its my overall view that Scoggins was most likely the prime FAA "patsie" set up by the HI PERPS. The HI PERPS knew that because they had it all set up to be a "hijacking event", that most of the "early response" actions would go through the ZBW Military Liason position, they knew how to overload it and slow it down by not answering calls and the like, and they did a clever job of doing so. Scoggins and his duty position were set up to fail.

I only do Ron Paul, Chemtrails, HAARP, Tarpley and Reynolds free events...and I do not do JREF anything . Its just the way it is...

P4T has enough trouble with all the cointelpros buried within its group, and thusly, they have chosen to communicate with the JREF gang in hopes of rufutting them only to become dragged down into their gutter. Some work from P4T seems very credible otherwise. Especially the "lightpole strike height versus the lawn flying" math. Its exacting math, it speaks clearly to design and airframe capacities...and its irrefutable from my view. So, the FAB FIVE FRAMES are hacked, or the light poles are planted evidence, or both.

There is simply no need to go to these JREF-type sites because we have so much excellent information that is still being developed by reputable scientists, scholars, researchers, whistleblowers and authors. So, JREF who? No thanks...you can end this thread here.

I suggest that you spend more time being CIVIL and presenting our good INFORMATION to the public on a frequent basis at busy locations out in public in your own home area.

9/11 Truth will speak for itself to the millions of "middle grounders" that ARE actually swayed by facts and information. This radically separates the good citizenry from the various 9/11disinfo sites, cointelpro organizations and people who have followed Alex Jones' and Webster tarpley's leads into confrontationalism with the public...you know: "the sheeple".

Speaking with JREF-types is a waste of time and it should be very obvious as to their goals and who is behind them. Move on...I have.

Robin Hordon

Scoggins in Griffin's books...

I forgot,

Scoggins also admits in Griffin's "Debunking" that he too would have reached out to call somebody about the same time that I would have..about 08:21AM or so. None of this is easy and we have to keep on trucking.

So, its REALLY important to remember that those working have careers and retirements to consider.

Scoggins is really in a hot seat...the hottest seat in the Governement. I suggest that this is why he has occasionally needed some "writing help"...

Robin Hordon