Sunday, February 27, 2011

VIRAL EMAIL LETTER: The Laws of Physics and the Collapse of the 3 World Trade Centre Buildings on 911.

Dear People at [Insert Media Name here],

I've included a link to a You Tube video that I think everyone at your [Newspaper/TV Station/Radio Station] should watch. The video explains why our troops should not be in Afghanistan:

Our troops must be withdrawn as soon as possible.

And note, there is no dishonour to our soldiers who have engaged in operations fully believing their missions were of vital defence importance to our country. Our forces have done the best they can under the circumstances and now it's time to disengage from this unnecessary fight.

The material in this clip is known to millions of people online in various other forms.

Thanks for you attention.

[Insert Name here]

Media Contact List

Write an E-Mail Message to Congress, the President and the Media!

A note to letter senders. The key value of this video is the experimental data cited that proves the official story is a lie. No matter what one says about other details of the murder the forensic material highlighted here shows the destruction of these buildings involved explosives.

Action Alert: Send This Letter to Any Architects and Engineers You Can Find!

The latest action alert from Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth asks that you "Put AE911Truth DVDs in the Hands of Every A/E in Your Community." But they point out that they, "...Are very grateful for any effort that you might wish to engage in. The important thing is that all of us do our part." So for those who cannot afford to distribute DVDs right now please send this letter I have put together out to any architectural and engineering firms you can find. As AE911Truth has stated before, "Its easy! Just look them up in the phone book or on the Internet and send them an email (like the one below)." Just type "architectural firms" or "engineering firms" followed by any state or country and you will find plenty of results. Make sure to check their site for the latest number as it is perpetually growing much to the chagrin of the so-called debunkers.


1,450 architectural and engineering professionals calling for a new 9/11 investigation



As a credentialed building professional you can assist in putting an end to the War on Terror by signing a petition that calls for a new investigation into the attacks of September 11. Already the war has killed many thousands of innocent civilians and US military personnel. With no end in sight it is imperative that people with expertise stand up and question the physics defying official explanation into the collapse of the 3 World Trade Centre Buildings on 9/11. Please visit http//, but first take a look at some of the individuals you will find amongst their ranks.

Dwain Deets appointed as NASA Dryden Aerospace Projects Director

February 28, 1996
Release: 96-10

...In 1986 Deets received the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics Award. Among his other awards are the NASA Exceptional Service Award, presented in 1988. He was included in "Who's Who in America" for 1990-91 and "Who's Who in Science and Engineering" from 1993 to the present.

He was the 1988-90 chairman of the Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers. He has also been a member of the AIAA technical committee on Society and Aerospace Technology from 1990 to 1995. He is a 1961 graduate of Occidental College, Los Angeles. He earned a master of science degree in physics from San Diego State College in 1962 and then a master of science degree in engineering, as part of the Engineering Executive Program, at UCLA in 1978.


Excellent radio interview with former NASA Engineering Executive and AE911Truth active member Dwain Deets

Here is an article from AE911Truth showcasing 60 of their aerospace engineers.

You will also find people like Alfred Lee Lopez, who is "a structural engineer with 48 years of experience in all types of buildings."


Robert F. Marceau, who:

Worked for 30 years as a structural engineer in New Jersey, Colorado, and Nevada. Designed as project engineer a variety of structures including Bridges, High-rise office commercial buildings, parking structures, Project Manager Mirage hotel (Las Vegas) , Part of team on Bank One Ballpark Pheonix, Arizona, and many other structural related projects


And Ron Brookman, who:

Received his M.S. in Structural Engineering (1986) from the University of California at Davis, following a B.S. in Civil Engineering from the same school in 1984. He has over 23 years experience in structural analysis, design, evaluation and rehabilitation of buildings in northern California.

Here is an article by Brookman which "Dismantles the NIST Analysis of WTC 7."

And although they are not signatories at AE911Truth "two professors of structural engineering at a prestigious Swiss university (Dr. Joerg Schneider and Dr. Hugo Bachmann) said that, on 9/11, World Trade Center 7 was brought down by controlled demolition."


Prominent Structural Engineers Say Official Version of 9/11 "Impossible" "Defies Common Logic" "Violates the Law of Physics"

Here is an article from an Englewood Florida paper about the experiments of AE911Truth civil engineer Jonathan Cole, he states, "I am looking for someone to prove me wrong. I would love for someone to prove me wrong."

Here is an article from AE911Truth showcasing 29 of their structural/civil engineers.

Here is AE911Truth mechanical engineer Tony Szamboti on the show "Geraldo At Large" on FOX News.

Then of course there are the architects where you will find people like 40-year Architect Stephen Barasch:

High-Rise Architect with Transamerica Building Design Experience Signs AE911Truth Petition

Here is a video interview with Mr. Barasch.

And Robert E. McCoy:

Project Architect-Director for many high and low rise steel structures including the 34 story 1.7 Million SF Headquarters Building for Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Francisco, 44 story Citicorp Building San Francisco, 44 story 575 Market street Building, San Francisco (A Standard Oil Company Headquarters Building), St. Mary's Hospital and Medical Center, San Francisco, and the 1 Million SF Tom Bradley International Terminal at LAX.


Here is a video interview with Mr. McCoy.

It must also be pointed out that among the other signatories of the AE911Truth petition are many highly credentialed people in other fields equally as relevant to the issue. Petition signers include physicists, firefighters, metallurgists, explosives experts, and controlled demolition technicians.

One of the controlled demolition technicians is Tom Sullivan. He is a former photographer and explosive-charge placement technician for Controlled Demolition, Inc.; a company that was a major player in the removal and recycling of the steel at Ground Zero. While working with CDI Sullivan personally placed hundreds of explosive charges at the Kingdome demolition site in Seattle Washington, which set a world record for the largest structural implosion by volume. He also held a FDNY issued Powder Carrier licence; a position that is just one step down from being "the most highly qualified person at the blasting site."

Please give the information presented by these individuals careful consideration before making a decision and make sure not to miss this video interview with AE911Truth chemical engineer Mark Basile regarding the forensic evidence.

Here is their entire membership list.

For refutations of so-called debunkers visit this site.


Friday, February 25, 2011

The Sheen comments that matter

While the mainstream media is having a field day over Charlie Sheen's supposedly alcohol and coke-free ramblings on AJ's show yesterday, and having fun debating whether or not him emphasizing the real name of the Jewish creator of his now cancelled TV show constitutes anti-Semitism, Paul Joesph Watson has highlighted the quotes that really matter:

Sheen On Obama: “A Coward In a Cheap Suit”
In September 2009, Sheen produced a special video message in which he addressed Obama, along with a list of questions pertaining to contradictions in the official story of 9/11. Sheen’s argument was centered around the fact that six of the ten 9/11 commissioners have publicly stated that the government agreed not to tell the truth about 9/11 and that the Pentagon was engaged in deliberate deception about their response to the attack.

“It’s still topical, it’s a timeless message, it’s still right there in the fold,” said Sheen of his 20 Minutes With the President campaign.

The actor then unloaded on Obama for failing to acknowledge or respond to Sheen’s questions.

“I would say to B.O. – how much faith can I possibly have in you to run this entire country when 20 questions from a high school drop out sitcom actor appears to be too much to handle for you and your staff,” said Sheen, adding that Obama had failed to respond in nearly two years since the actor produced his video message.

“You sir are obviously a coward in a cheap suit….quit hiding, it’s embarrassing,” added Sheen.

Charlie Sheen Unleashes On TSA
Actor Charlie Sheen unleashed on the TSA during a wild radio interview on The Alex Jones Show today, raging that he would eat the hands of any TSA worker who tried to touch his children, in response to the story that TSA agents harassed travelers and groped children in Savannah train station earlier this month after the passengers had left the train.

Comparing the TSA to a Gestapo-like occupying force, Sheen stated, “Anyone who wants to ignore it deserves to have their privates fondled by some clown who worked at Wal-Mart seven minutes before that….losers and clowns and trolls all of them.”

“Touch my children and I would eat your hands off your frikkin’ arms,” Sheen raged.

Funny how not one single gossip site has mentioned either of these statements. Not surprisingly, the interview has been met with mixed reactions. I enjoyed it for what it was, a celebrity train wreck. Plus, how else is Alex Jones gonna get a mention in a front page Daily Mirror article?! Hollywood is the ultimate psyop, and AJ's show is about exposing psyops, so I see nothing wrong with him talking about it once in a while. It's akin to him interviewing some MK-ULTRA victim about all the shit they've been through. And some may argue that's literally what it was.

And also ... "Scientology ... the church of the Martian idiot!" - HAHA!

Related Info:

Charlie Sheen and Some Facts About 9/11 for President Obama to "Deal With"

Scootle's "Twenty Minutes With The President" Contest Entry

Debunking dsglop's ridiculous answers to Charlie Sheen's 20 points to Obama

Charlie Sheen Faces Down "Debunkers" on Larry King Live

U.S. Army Deploys Psy-Ops on U.S. Senators

Rolling Stone report
Hey, if the U.S. Military is willing to use psy-ops on Senators, maybe they're also willing to use psy-ops on ordinary citizens... like on 9/11/2001 for example?

This is in-your-face treason and fascism.

Thursday, February 24, 2011

Yes, You Are Shameful

 Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog posted a response to an article by 9/11 activist Jon Gold yesterday. Pat quotes the following from Gold which he says is intended to shame him:
Would you admit you were wrong? Would you apologize to all of the families you have disrespected? Would you apologize to all of the first responders you have disrespected? Would you apologize to all of the sincere members of the 9/11 Truth Movement you have slandered, harassed, and/or threatened? Either by directly taking part in these acts, or by promoting them? Would you apologize to the 9/11 Truth Movement for trying to paint us all as crazies by focusing on the fringiest of the fringe?
Gold sums up Pat's response in a comment:

So Pat basically did what I said he does, and he also showed how dishonest he is. He focused "on the fringiest of the fringe," and tried "to paint us all as crazies." I never promoted half of what he said, and in every instance of what he said, I made a comment of disapproval long before he ever wrote this piece. He showed how dishonest he is by claiming that Patty Casazza and Bob McIlvaine are considered "fringe." First of all, they both lost someone that day. They're family members, not fringe. Secondly, both of them attended every 9/11 Commission Hearing, and Patty was partly responsible for its creation, as well as working with the staffers, and providing 100's of well researched questions for them to answer. She is anything but "fringe," and her story is about a whistleblower. One of MANY the 9/11 Commission ignored or censored.
Although Pat asserts that truthers are the ones who have disrespected family members and first responders he ridicules many of them with his browbeating of anyone who fail to believe incompetence can adequately explain away red flag 9/11 issues such as foreknowledge of the attacks. Accordingly, those that disagree with Pat, people who have considered some level of conspiracy, reside in "conspiracy cuckoo land" and believe in something "every bit as crazy as TV fakery and voice-morphing." For Pat there is no middle ground, you either fully accept that 9/11 occurred due to mistakes and incompetence, a postulate that is not supported by evidence, or you are a nutter.

Being that Bill Doyle estimated in 2006 that half of the 7,000 members of his email communication network for 9/11 families thought the government was complicit in the attacks, anytime Pat makes such statements (and he makes them a lot) he is disrespecting a large amount of 9/11 family members.

He could just say he disagrees and present his case as to why without throwing around insults.

As I have recently pointed out, there is much corroborating evidence for the whistleblower's statment to Casazza that "the government knew the exact day, the type of attack, and the targets," whereas Pat is just brushing it aside based on his world view which dictates it had to be "some con man" she was speaking to.

Let's look further into this outrageous claim: Whom could she have meant by "the government?"

David Schippers, former Chief Investigative Counsel for the US House Judiciary Committee and head prosecutor responsible for conducting the impeachment against former president Bill Clinton, stated that at the behest of several FBI agents he had attempted multiple times to warn US Attorney John Ashcroft, along with other federal officials, of the impending attacks weeks before they occurred, only to be stalled and rebuffed in each attempt.

As summarized in the books The War on Freedom and The War on Truth by Nafeez Ahmed, who personally corresponded with Schippers, "According to Schippers, these agents knew, months before the 11th September attacks, the names of the hijackers, the targets of their attacks, the proposed dates, and the sources of their funding, along with other information."

The FBI command, however, cut short their investigations threatening the agents with prosecution under the National Security Act if they publicized this information.

Ahmed has stated, "In The War on Freedom, I merely laid out facts and lines of inquiry for an official investigation. The book was the first read by the Jersey Girls, informing their work with the 9/11 Family Steering Committee, and is part of the 9/11 Commission Collection at the US National Archives (a collection of 99 books, copies of which were provided to each Commissioner)."

Despite this fact, the account of David Shippers is nowhere to be found in The 9/11 Commission Report.

Jesse Ventura's book American Conspiracies recounts another similar warning passed along to John Ashcroft, Ventura writes:
Dr. Parke Godfrey, an associate professor of computer science at Toronto's York University, said under oath in a New York courtroom that a longtime associate of his, Susan Lindauer, warned him several times and as late as August 2001 "that we expected a major attack on the southern part of Manhattan, and that the attack would encompass the World Trade Center," an attack "that would involve airplanes and possibly a nuclear weapon." Lindauer, who says she was a CIA asset, claimed to have made an attemp to inform John Ashcroft at the Justice Department, who referred her to the Office of Counter-Terrorism.
FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, in an open letter to the 9/11 Commission, reported that there was "specific information regarding a terrorist attack being planned by Osama bin Laden," that mentioned major cities, airplanes, approximate timeframe, and operatives already in place in the US. This was reported by FBI agents to Special Agent in Charge of Counterterrorism Thomas Frields at the FBI Washington Field Office, but was subsequently ignored.

Edmonds has recently reaffirmed these points as factual and provided the testimony of the agent who first raised them. As Debunking the Debunkers blog contributor Scootle Royale wrote, "Pat Curley is confident that if we were to ever see the unredacted testimony, it will bear no resemblance to what Sibel posted. Well, how about supporting the truth movement in a quest for a new investigation so we can maybe see it unredacted then? No? Didn't think so."

Back to the topic of disrespect, it is clear that Pat is feigning ignorance of the disrespect on his side of the debate. I don't think it gets anymore disrespectful than Troy Sexton telling Bob McIlvaine to put a bullet in his head. Did Troy making the first comment on your response to Gold where he said "Fuck Bob McIlvaine" not jog your memory on that one, Pat?

I know you decried this kind of tripe from Troy, but you know damn well this is the type of thing Gold was talking about and yet you divert the attention on members of the truth movement.

When Debunking the Debunkers blog contributor Stewart Bradley compiled various videos made by "debunkers" in an attempt to showcase their lack of eloquence, venomous nature, dependence on a priori objections and employment of other fallacious arguments, you hilariously didn't get it, stating that, "The best part is that the guy who put it together is a Troofer!" Of course "troofer," or "twoofer" is a derogatory term akin to calling someone a conspiracy nut, so right off the bat you had proven Stewart's point! But most importantly this was over a month after you had proclaimed that you didn't support Troy's calls for truthers to commit suicide, but yet the calls in the video for people to "put a bullet to their head" and "just kill yourself please" were not denounced. Instead, these people were apparently considered brethren of the highest order.

After being shown that his video had been posted on the Screw Loose Change blog Bradley noted that, "They don't even get that the video is mocking them! One guy even posted that I don't understand irony. Don't that beat all!"

So don't get all uppity about Jason Bermas supposedly taking back an apology for saying that the firefighters were paid off because, even if you are right, you are no better. That being said, it looks to me that he was clarifying in both instances that he didn't think they were paid off as in being involved, but rather some could not take legal action after accepting the victims' compensation fund. I don't think this is accurate because it doesn't seem to me that it would apply to them unless they lost a family member, but the bottom line is I think his apology and latter statement are consistent in that he was making clear that he did not think the firefighters were involved in the plot. And don't you think it would be pertinent to mention that Dylan Avery has also apologized for the statement you quoted him on and that you said you would "move on" from talking about it? Troy most obviously has not apologized and I see no clarion call that he does.

And by the way, you suggesting that the health problems of the first responders might just be another "Gulf War Syndrome" is probably perceived as pretty damn disrespectful to them and to the vets suffering from that illness, which has not been debunked.

None of this is to say that members of the 9/11 truth movement, or this blog, always conduct themselves in the most saintly of ways, but for anything we are guilty of you are guilty of at least tenfold.

Where does that leave us? With you having to debunk the debunkers! That means us buddy. We are not a misnamed blog. We are the ones taking back the title of skeptic. Go ahead, prove me wrong!

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

How Pseudoskeptics hijack "Skepticism" to mean its opposite: Disinformation, Mind Control and Suppression

New article from
"Just look at us. Everything is backwards. Everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, governments destroy freedom, the major media destroy information, and religion destroys spirituality." - Michael Ellner
Pseudoskeptics are not just wrong and fallacious in their reasoning and approach to investigating the paranormal with outright rejection of anything that doesn't fit into a materialist orthodox paradigm. They've also, knowingly or unknowingly, engaged in deceptive mind control by hijacking critical terms to mean their OPPOSITE, including the very term "skeptic" itself. And they've hid what they truly are (suppressors of new ideas) by pretending to be the opposite of what they are. Let me explain.

As mentioned earlier, a skeptic doubts, inquires, questions, ponders, etc. But these pseudoskeptics do anything but. They attack, ridicule, discredit and suppress anything and everything that challenges the materialist reductionist paradigm. But don't take my word for it. Just look at any article by James Randi, Michael Shermer, or Skeptical Inquirer, for example, and you will see that there is no questioning of what they are told, doubt or pondering of possibilities at all. All they do is ridicule and attack anything related to paranormal and psychic phenomena, holistic medicine, and conspiracies. That's not what skepticism is. The founder of the term itself meant this:
In classical philosophy, skepticism refers to the teachings and the traits of the 'Skeptikoi', a school of philosophers of whom it was said that they 'asserted nothing but only opined.' (Liddell and Scott) In this sense, philosophical skepticism, or Pyrrhonism, is the philosophical position that one should suspend judgment in investigations.[1]
And according to Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, a skeptic is:
"One who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons."
Now, take Michael Shermer for example. He is a professional skeptic who runs a Skeptic magazine, which makes him a prominent skeptic in the movement. But does he do any of the above? Does he doubt or question authority or orthodoxy? Does he ponder possibilities and the mysteries and wonders of life? Does he engage in a nonjudgmental open search for truth? No. All he does is try to debunk and discredit anything related to the paranormal. Just look at EVERY article he writes and you will see that. Yet he is one of the "big name skeptics!" What does that tell you?!

So you see, these pseudoskeptics hijack the term "skeptic" so that it can't be used against them. By calling themselves "skeptics", they cast themselves as THE "skeptics" who question everything with critical thinking and doubt. And if you are a skeptic or critical thinker, then you will agree with them, so they hope.

Similarly, they've done the same with the terms "reason, rationality, logic, critical thinking, scientific" as well by hijacking them to fit their agenda, so that they support their agenda of discrediting anything related to paranormal, holistic or conspiratorial evidence.

In essence, what they've done is put themselves in a position of "ultimate authority" on reason, rationality, logic, critical thinking, etc. so that if you call yourself those things, then you must agree with them and their position. As such, being "reasonable and rational" means to AGREE with them. And "critical thinking" can only be used to reject what they reject, never to critique the pseudoskeptics themselves, according to their paradigm, for they are "the critiquers".

Thus, they've made it so that "critical thinking" and "skepticism" can't be used against them, because they are THE "critical thinkers and skeptics". It's a very sly form of mind control that obfuscates the terms and attempts to shield them from "criticism" by putting them in the highest position of criticism.

As such, the term "skeptic" now refers to the one who suppresses and attacks the questioner, rather than the questioner himself. In other words, the new "skeptic" is someone who debunks a "skeptic" by wearing the hat of the person they are out to debunk, in effect impersonating them! It's a highly deceptive form of role reversal that is sneaky and deceptive.

Fortunately though, the true skeptics, critical thinkers and freethinkers see through this BS and call them on it. And that's the purpose of this page, to expose this mind control and hijacking of terms to mean their opposite.

Now, I may be speculating here, but this whole movement of hijacking important words to mean their opposite, and militant suppression of new ideas, seems way too calculated and organized to be due to simple sheer human ignorance and narrow mindedness alone. Instead, it's more indicative of an agenda, such as a disinformation or mind control campaign. This isn't to say that all pseudoskeptics are disinfo agents. But some might be, either knowingly or unknowingly. You have to remember that we are all mind controlled to some degree, one way or another. Even if these pseudoskeptics are not knowingly involved in a disinfo campaign, they are likely to be mind controlled themselves by a disinfo/thought suppression campaign.

It's a definite possibility, since after all, this world has more dark secrets than one can imagine, and most things are not what they appear to be. I don't want to jump to any far out conspiratorial conclusions here. I'm just asserting the possibilities, like a true skeptic does. Either way, there is no question that they have hijacked terms and pretended to be the opposite of what they are.

By hiding behind the mask of critical rational thinkers and skeptics, they've hidden the fact that they are suppressors of new ideas that challenge old paradigms, thus making themselves look forward and progressive, rather than backwards and suppressive.

Now, this form of hiding what you are by pretending to be the opposite of what you are is nothing new. It's a classic form of mind control. MIT professor of linguistics and media critic Noam Chomsky talks here in this video about how the mainstream media in America hides its conservativism for big business interests (which own them) by pretending to be a "liberal voice" for the people.

This forum poster hit the nail on the head about how and why the mainstream media trick us into thinking it is the opposite of what it is:
"The mainstream media often are "liberal" on the "wedge" or "social" issues, such as gay rights, abortion, school prayer, etc. This gives them cover to be absolute reactionaries when it comes to the important issues of preserving vested corporate and governmental interests. The great triumph of the oligarchy in the U.S. is to have used the media that they own to convince voters to vote almost exclusively on these wedge issues, and never to vote their own financial interests because the media prevent them from discerning those interests."
Now this is not suprising given the state of affairs in this world, which this quote eloquently sums up:

"Just look at us. Everything is backwards. Everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy knowledge, governments destroy freedom, the major media destroy information, and religion destroys spirituality." - Michael Ellner

The lesson here is that we all need to wake up and stop believing what people SAY, and start judging them by their ACTIONS. After all, actions speak louder than words, and talk is cheap. We've been lied to and deceived too often in the past. It's time we stop believing everything we are told, even by those in established positions of authority, and start thinking for ourselves. Seek the truth, and you will be closer to finding it.

It is my hope that many more will join us in this journey of truth and liberation from fear mongering, mind control, thought suppression, and limited thinking. Not only is it more liberating, but it is far more exciting and interesting as well. If you are accustomed to living in fear and conformity, then try the opposite for once. Try living in truth, and you will see that it is much more exciting and soul fulfilling. Once you've tasted that, you will never want to go back. Once you go up in consciousness, you will not want to come down.

It is my hope, therefore, that someday you will look back on this article and say "Hey you know, what I read there was right all along!"

Related Info:

Debunking PseudoSkeptics - CSICOP, James Randi, Michael Shermer, etc

Why James Randi, Michael Shermer and other Pseudoskeptics are NOT real skeptics!

Skeptical Inquirer Attacks 9/11 Truth Movement, Avoids Vast Body of Scientific Evidence

They Are the Ones Who Are Not Skeptics

I have seen the light! [Satire]

Circular Rationalism

JREF Forum posts: "Comprehensive characteristics of the pseudoskeptic"

911 Truth: Michael Shermer's Amateur Disinformation Attempt Fails (again!)

Debunking Myths on Conspiracy Theories

Three Responses to Bill Moyers Attack on 9/11 Truth

Response to Bill Moyers on 9/11 Truth

February 16, 2011
Author: Jon Gold
Source: 9/11 Truth News
Category: HIT PIECES

I’d first like to say that I respect both Bill Moyers and Robert Parry, even though I thoroughly disagree with them about their stance on the cover-up of 9/11. Bill Moyers documentary entitled “The Secret Government: The Constitution In Crisis,” and Robert Parry’s work on the Iran Contra Affair are excellent.

I have little doubt that over the years, Bill Moyers and Robert Parry have received a multitude of emails from people demanding they give attention to the cover-up of 9/11. I have little doubt that a large majority of those emails talked about “crazy” theories, or made accusations of them for not covering certain issues. Unfortunately, there are people in the 9/11 Truth Movement who do these things. I, myself, have been known to write a nastygram on occasion.

However, it is well known and said by many that after the 9/11 attacks, the media in this country did not do it’s job. Dan Rather said on May 17, 2002, “there was a time in South Africa that people would put flaming tires around people’s necks if they dissented. And in some ways the fear is that you will be necklaced here, you will have a flaming tire of lack of patriotism put around your neck. Now it is that fear that keeps journalists from asking the toughest of the tough questions.” On April 25, 2007, Dan Rather told Bill Moyers that “there’s no question that we didn’t do a good job. We weren’t smart enough, we weren’t alert enough, we didn’t dig enough, and, we shouldn’t have been fooled in this way.” Helen Thomas was adamant about the media’s failure after 9/11. “They (the media) rolled over and played dead.”

Here is just one example of too many to mention of the media not doing it’s job.

On January 31st, two acts of civil disobedience for 9/11 Justice were committed in front of the White House and 10 Downing Street respectively. Not one news outlet reported on it. Even a news outlet that promised me they would report on it, did not. The excuse given to me was that Egypt’s revolution was more important.

On that same day, the September Eleventh Advocates released a statement pertaining to 9/11 Whistleblower Berhrooz Sarshar. This statement asked, “that the transcript of Mr. Sarshar’s interview be immediately declassified,” and that they respectfully request, “that the former Chairman, Governor Thomas Kean, Vice-Chairman, Mr. Lee Hamilton and the Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission, Mr. Philip Zelikow, promptly answer the questions herein.”

Neither Thomas Kean, Lee Hamilton, or Philip Zelikow responded. As a result of their refusal to respond, 9/11 Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds released a transcript of one of the times Berhrooz Sarshar testified. This transcript speaks of foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks, and an order from above to disregard any knowledge of it. Not one news outlet reported on it.

9/11 was the event that created the “Post-9/11 World.” If any information comes out that says we were lied to about that day, then that is essential, newsworthy information. Period. For some reason, our media doesn’t agree with me.

It is the media’s job to make sure citizens’ are aware of what’s going on in their country, and in the world. It is absolutely essential that we are an informed citizenry because if we aren’t, then we pay a huge price.

With that in mind, can you blame advocates for 9/11 Justice for getting angry with the media for not covering the obvious problems with the “official account” of 9/11? Bill Moyers says the facts still matter. I agree, and that’s why I wrote an article entitled The Facts Speak For Themselves. You may agree or disagree with some of the content in that article. However, I challenge you to tell me after reading it that it isn’t absolutely imperative to have a real investigation into the 9/11 attacks, the event that created the “Post-9/11 World.”

Click Here To Read Bill Moyers Attack Against Advocates For 9/11 Justice.

Response from Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog:


Response from Jon Gold:

Pat Curley, the "debunker" is trying to say that I think one man chaining himself to the White House fence for 9/11 Justice is more important than the revolution in Egypt because in my response to Bill Moyers, I mentioned that "even a news outlet that promised me they would report on it, did not. The excuse given to me was that Egypt’s revolution was more important." No Pat, I do not think that. I do think though, as I said in my response to Moyers that, "9/11 was the event that created the "Post-9/11 World." If any information comes out that says we were lied to about that day, then that is essential, newsworthy information." I have little doubt that the news outlet in question did report on less important information than the lies about 9/11 at the same time the Revolution in Egypt was happening.

Bill Moyers’ Attack on 9/11 Truth Exposes Defense Mechanisms in Full Force

Written by Gregg Roberts

Denial, Projection, and Reaction Formation Taint Otherwise Perceptive Remarks by Johnson Administration Press Secretary

On January 27, respected journalist Bill Moyers made a keynote speech to History Makers, described as “an organization of broadcasters and producers from around the world concerned with the challenges and opportunities faced by factual broadcasting.” Moyers made many comments with which we can all agree. Yes, “the struggle against power ‘is the struggle of memory against forgetting.’” Yes, we would all like to see more “television ‘that dignifies instead of debases’.” Yes, we would all like to see less demagoguery. And like Moyers we are discouraged by the new research findings indicating that people whose minds are made up harden their positions even further in the face of contrary information, “twist[ing] facts so they fit better with our preconceived notions.”.

However, anyone acquainted with the vast body of evidence indicating that the three World Trade Center skyscrapers were demolished by explosive controlled demolition on 9/11 would be dismayed by some of Moyers’ comments about that historic event. Rather than honoring the efforts of 9/11 researchers and activists to get our government and media to acknowledge well-documented facts about 9/11, Moyers engaged in what can easily be described as an uninformed diatribe.

Moyers’ dismissive and exaggerated way of framing the issue shows that he has zero awareness of the factual problems and internal contradictions in the official story. He falsely associates questioning 9/11 or believing it was an inside job with being on the political Left. In fact, on the contrary, an honest awareness of the problems in the official account of 9/11 unites people fairly equally from all across the political spectrum, from atheistic democratic socialists to Christian libertarians.

Moyers offers a superficial laundry list of alleged flaws in the case against the official account of 9/11, a list which he admits was taken from a recent single opinion column by journalist Robert Parry, whose criticisms have been responded to by Kevin Ryan (among other things, a member of the AE911Truth board of directors) Following are several examples of the purest projection. Each of these criticisms by Moyers are either false or misleading. The first two apply not to the 9/11 truth movement but to the official account:

Moyers’ Accusation Against 9/11 Truth Activists

‘“The truthers” threw out all the evidence of al-Qaeda’s involvement’

What the Evidence Actually Shows

The FBI does not list even bin Laden as “wanted” for 9/11, and has explained that this is because there is “no hard evidence” connecting him or any of the hijackers to the attacks

Moyers’ Accusation Against 9/11 Truth Activists

‘Using long lists of supposed evidence to overcome the lack of any real evidence’

What the Evidence Actually Shows

The NIST Reports on the destruction of towers 1, 2, and 7 take up approximately 11,500 pages, while avoiding even discussing most of the evidence for explosive controlled demolition

David Ray Griffin has identified more than 100 omissions and distortions in the 9/11 Commission report, calling it “a 571-page lie”

More than half of the Commissioners themselves have expressed serious doubts about the veracity and completeness of their own report, and the Commission’s own general counsel wrote a book outlining various flaws, including the existence of a secret document that expressed the Commission’s predetermined conclusions

Moyers’ Accusation Against 9/11 Truth Activists

‘These truthers [are] on the left’

What the Evidence Actually Shows

A number of prominent people on the political right or what might be termed the enlightened center have joined in the call for a new, legitimate investigation, such as economist Paul Craig Roberts (Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under President Reagan), Vietnam fighter pilot and presidential candidate LtCol Bob Bowman (former Director of Advanced Space Programs Development for the U.S. Air Force in the Ford and Carter administrations), and many others

As AE911Truth and others have been documenting for years, the official story ignores dozens of damning facts which have persuaded more than 1,400 architects and engineers and more than 11,000 other citizens to sign their real names to a public petition calling for an investigation of the total near free-fall destruction of all three skyscrapers on 9/11, risking public ridicule and harm to their careers. These facts are summarized in the right-hand column of our home page at They boil down further as follows:

•The energy expended in the destruction far exceeded what was available in the gravitational potential of the three WTC skyscrapers

•The destruction was too symmetrical to have been unassisted by explosives

•The destruction involved extremely high temperatures that produced molten iron or steel; this cannot be accounted for by office fires or jet fuel

•WTC 7’ freefall collapse, acknowledged by NIST, required explosives

•There is forensic evidence of unignited engineered energetic materials left over throughout the WTC dust

In his speech, Moyers also said:

“Many people inhabit a closed belief system on whose door they have hung the “Do Not Disturb” sign, that they pick and choose only those facts that will serve as building blocks for walling them off from uncomfortable truths.”
We could hardly have said it better ourselves.

Bill Moyers Bashes 9/11 Truth, Yet Still Says That Facts Matter

By Saman Mohammadi

Former PBS broadcaster Bill Moyers, with all his influence and prestige, publicly derided 9/11 truth activists, and supported the official myth in a speech he gave in New York on January 27, 2011.

Of all people, Moyers should know the power of myths in human society, and that a myth is not the truth. “Myths are public dreams,” said Joseph Campbell. In America, where tricksters and thieves have total government power in their hands, and rule over the public mind with propaganda and other techniques of collective brainwashing, the only truth that is allowed to be expressed is their truth. What they say is real becomes reality itself; what they dream behind closed doors becomes lived experience. They did 9/11, and they’re still free almost ten years later because journalists have not fully questioned the events of that day. Since 9/11 the American people, and people across the planet, have lived not in a public dream but in a public nightmare. And we have the tricksters and traitors in Washington to thank.

It takes patience, and a “readiness to own thyself mistaken,” as Thomas Carlyle said, to dig through the facts and evidence before arriving at the truth of what really happened on September 11, 2001. I thought Moyers would be more open-minded and sympathetic, but he’s made an ignorant judgment about the movement for 9/11 truth and accountability. I feel let down because I admired Moyers. It turns out most journalists can’t handle the truth about 9/11. Oh well. I have new heroes now: Paul Craig Roberts, William Cooper, David Ray Griffin, Alex Jones, Richard Gage, Bob McIlvaine, the list is endless. I hope Moyers rejoins the list in the future.

Although I understand that people deny a painful truth because it undermines their core beliefs about the world, and damages their self-esteem, I’m still surprised that intelligent and genuinely independent-minded individuals can’t accept the fact that the Bush administration completely lied about 9/11. Our supposedly best journalists and reporters, who constantly talk about democracy, free speech, and the need to resist power, and who endlessly quote Orwell, are not only nowhere to be found when it comes to speaking the truth about 9/11, but they arrogantly mock the individuals who are simply asking for a new investigation.

Like other prominent journalists and reporters, Chris Hedges and Robert Parry among them, Moyers is shockingly dismissive of the evidence that undercuts the official story about 9/11 which has been painstakingly gathered by 9/11 truth activists, professional architects and engineers, citizen journalists, and regular individuals.

In a speech given at a convention held by History Makers in New York on January 27, 2011, Moyers said that the 9/11 truth movement is not based on the truth but disinformation and conspiracy theories. He ignorantly refers to 9/11 truth activists as “truthers.” Here is an excerpt from the speech:

Disinformation is not unique to the right, of course. Like other journalists, I have been the object of malevolent assaults from the “9/11 truthers” for not reporting their airtight case proving that the Bush administration conspired to bring about the attacks on the World Trade Center. How did they discover this conspiracy? As the independent journalist Robert Parry has written, “the truthers” threw out all the evidence of al-Qaeda’s involvement, from contemporaneous calls from hijack victims on the planes to confessions from al-Qaeda leaders both in and out of captivity that they had indeed done it. Then, recycling some of the right’s sophistry techniques, such as using long lists of supposed evidence to overcome the lack of any real evidence, the “truthers” cherry-picked a few supposed “anomalies” to build an “inside-job” story line. Fortunately, this Big Lie never took hold in the public mind. These truthers on the left, if that is where GPS can find them on the political map, are outgunned, outmatched and outshouted by the media apparatus on the right that pounds the public like drone missiles loaded with conspiracy theories and disinformation and accompanied by armadas of outright lies.

George Orwell had warned six decades ago that the corrosion of language goes hand in hand with the corruption of democracy. If he were around today, he would remind us that “like the rattling of a stick inside a swill bucket,” this kind of propaganda engenders a “protective stupidity” almost impossible for facts to penetrate.

But you, my colleagues, can’t give up. If you do, there’s no chance any public memory of everyday truths – the tangible, touchable, palpable realities so vital to democracy – will survive. We would be left to the mercy of the agitated amnesiacs who “make” their own reality, as one of them boasted at the time America invaded Iraq, in order to maintain their hold on the public mind and the levers of power. You will remember that in Orwell’s novel “1984,” Big Brother banishes history to the memory hole, where inconvenient facts simply disappear. Control of the present rests on obliteration of the past. The figure of O’Brien, who is the personification of Big Brother, says to the protagonist, Winston Smith: “We shall squeeze you empty and then we shall fill you with ourselves.” And they do. The bureaucrats in the Ministry of Truth destroy the records of the past and publish new versions. These in turn are superseded by yet more revisions. Why? Because people without memory are at the mercy of the powers that be; there is nothing against which to measure what they are told today. History is obliterated.
By quoting Orwell, you would think that Moyers would understand that using the labels “conspiracy theories” and “9/11 truthers” to bat away and delegitimize other human beings represents “the corrosion of language” that Orwell warned about. How did the label “conspiracy theory” enter the popular lexicon in the first place, anyway? It surely benefits the war criminals in power in Washington when journalists like Moyers and Parry use the label “conspiracy theorist” to put down activists and stand beside the official lie that Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden carried out the 9/11 attacks. It seems like Moyers, Parry, and other journalists are putting themselves inside a bubble of “protective stupidity,” making it “almost impossible for facts to penetrate.”

Has Moyers watched the collapse of Building 7? Has he read the books on 9/11 by David Ray Griffin? Has he interviewed Richard Gage of Architects And Engineers For 9/11 Truth? What kind of research has he done on the subject? Or is he just talking out of his ass?

If Orwell were alive today, he would not mock 9/11 truth, but research all the evidence, and then let it all hang out.

Saman "Truth Excavator" Mohammadi is a blogger and a full-time university student, currently living in Toronto, Canada. His blog is The Excavator -

Monday, February 14, 2011

Pumpitout Radio: Foreknowledge and Lack of Air Defense

Jeff Hill's Pumpitout radio show featuring John-Michael Talboo detailing his research into the many pre 9/11 warnings of terrorist attacks using planes as weapons.

Also, the UNBELIEVABLE LACK of response from NORAD and other facilities equipped to defend our air space on the morning of September 11, 2001.
Note from John-Michael:
This is a mashup of two conversations I had with Jeff, so if there seems to be points where I am repeating myself this is why.

Download source

Pumpitout Radio - "9/11 FACTS not fiction"

Presidential Daily Briefing from August 6, 2001: Bin Laden Determined To Strike in US

Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog has commented that, "The two paragraphs which do not appear historical in nature are also not very accurate in predicting 9-11; federal buildings in New York were not attacked and the attacks were not done with explosives."

Condoleezza Rice's bio on Wikipedia contains this tidbit:
Rice characterized the August 6, 2001 President's Daily Brief Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US as historical information. Rice indicated "It was information based on old reporting."[45] Sean Wilentz of Salon magazine suggested that the PDB contained current information based on continuing investigations, including that Bin Laden wanted to "bring the fighting to America."[46]
One commenter by the name of Brian Good on Pat's blog thanked him for his candor, "Thanks, Pat, for confirming that the 'Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US' memo actually did warn of new attacks, though Condi claimed under oath in the presence of the 9/11 widows that it did not."

Yes, there was a section that mentions "bin Laden supporters in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives," which as Pat pointed out, "the attacks were not done with explosives," meaning of course that it wasn't a bombing attack akin to the 1993 WTC bombing, but the memo also mentioned "suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks..." It then mentions that this included "recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York," to which Pat points out that the towers were not federal buildings, but the "recent surveillance" would be in addition to the "most attractive terrorist target" at the WTC as detailed by several reports dating back to the 1980s.

When we look at the PBD within a larger context we start to get a clearer picture of the situation.

Here is the list of mainstream news articles detailing ignored warnings, which I mentioned in the interview first got me started into 9/11 research.

Here is some of the more specific information.

In November 2007, Patty Casazza, one of the four New Jersey widows known as the "Jersey Girls" who helped instigate the formation of the 9/11 Commission, revealed that whistleblowers told her "the government knew the exact day, the type of attack, and the targets." Let's look further into this outrageous claim: Whom could she have meant by "the government?"

As pointed out by to me Fran Shure at this supports an earlier account:
David Schippers the former Chief Investigative Counsel for the US House Judiciary Committee and head prosecutor responsible for conducting the impeachment against former president Bill Clinton. Schippers stated that at the behest of several FBI agents he had attempted multiple times to warn US Attorney John Ashcroft, along with other federal officials, of the impending attacks weeks before they occurred, only to be stalled and rebuffed in each attempt.As summarized in the books The War on Freedom and The War on Truth by Nafeez Ahmed, who personally corresponded with Schippers, "According to Schippers, these agents knew, months before the 11th September attacks, the names of the hijackers, the targets of their attacks, the proposed dates, and the sources of their funding, along with other information."
The FBI command, however, cut short their investigations threatening the agents with prosecution under the National Security Act if they publicized this information.

Ahmed has stated, "In The War on Freedom, I merely laid out facts and lines of inquiry for an official investigation. The book was the first read by the Jersey Girls, informing their work with the 9/11 Family Steering Committee, and is part of the 9/11 Commission Collection at the US National Archives (a collection of 99 books, copies of which were provided to each Commissioner)."

Despite this fact, the account of David Shippers is nowhere to be found in The 9/11 Commission Report.

FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, in an open letter to the 9/11 Commission, reported that there was "specific information regarding a terrorist attack being planned by Osama bin Laden," that mentioned major cities, airplanes, approximate timeframe, and operatives already in place in the US. This was reported by FBI agents to Special Agent in Charge of Counterterrorism Thomas Frields at the FBI Washington Field Office, but was subsequently ignored.

Edmonds has recently reaffirmed these points as factual and provided the testimony of the agent who first raised them. As Debunking the Debunkers blog contributor Scootle Royale wrote, "Pat Curley is confident that if we were to ever see the unredacted testimony, it will bear no resemblance to what Sibel posted. Well, how about supporting the truth movement in a quest for a new investigation so we can maybe see it unredacted then? No? Didn't think so."

More on foreknowledge here.

Speaking of 9/11 foreknowledge often brings up the issue of how this all corresponds with the idea of 9/1 being an inside job. As I have pointed out, many people make the mistake of only seeing the issues concerning 9/11 in black and white, as opposed to shades of grey.

NORAD Stand-Down:
A stand-down is defined as "a relaxation from a state of readiness or alert." This certainly took place regarding air defenses on 9/11. One explanation offered was that the terrorists turned off the electronic device known as a transponder, which helps identify aircraft on radar.

As stated by the 9/11 Commission, "With its transponder off, it is possible, though more difficult, to track an aircraft by its primary radar returns. But unlike transponder data, primary radar returns do not show the aircraft's identity and altitude."

The commission failed to consider the fact that the US military has more than just ground radar at their disposal.

As defined by the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, AWACS is "a sophisticated detection aircraft, fitted with powerful radar and a computer, capable of simultaneously tracking and plotting large numbers of low-flying aircraft at much greater distances than is possible with ground radar."

On 9/11 an AWACS plane on a training mission in the Washington, DC, area was ordered to return to its base in Oklahoma limiting the communications and surveillance capabilities of NORAD’s Northeast Air Defense Sector.

In 2006 New Scientist magazine reported that "US military radar can track space debris as small as 10 centimetres across, and can sometimes see things as small as 5 cm wide if it is in just the right orbit."

The 35 USAF bases that were within range of the 9/11 flights unquestionably possessed highly-sophisticated radar.

Commercial airliners do not need their transponders turned on in order to be tracked by the US military. If America was being attacked by aircraft belonging to a foreign power, it is ridiculous to think these enemy aircraft would have transponders installed to help the US Air Force shoot them down. It is equally ridiculous to believe the US military lack the technology to track aircraft without a transponder signal.

Another excuse given by defenders of the official story is that NORAD only looked outward for threats, not inward. There is much evidence that looking inward was also one of their responsibilities, but in any event, there is at least one incident which proves NORAD could be tasked to defend any part of the skies over the United States and Canada, as well as much evidence that it is not the only time this has happened, but rather, the only time we have been privy to.

The Popular Mechanics book Debunking 9/11 Myths cites an article in a 2002 edition of the Colorado Springs Gazette, which claims that, "Before September 11, the only time officials recall scrambling jets over the United States was when golfer Payne Stewart’s plane veered off course and crashed in South Dakota in 1999."

Popular Mechanics adds, "Except for that lone, tragic anomaly, all NORAD interceptions from the end of the Cold war in 1989 until 9/11 took place in offshore Air Defense Identification Zones (ADIZ). . . . The planes intercepted in these zones were primarily being used for drug smuggling."

But an October 13, 2001 Calgary Herald article reported that before 9/11 fighter jets "were scrambled to babysit suspect aircraft or 'unknowns' twice a week."

As Professor David Ray Griffin pointed out in his book Debunking 9/11 Debunking, "Twice a week would be about 100 times per year, and 'babysitting' is not what planes would do with jets suspected of smuggling drugs into the country."

Furthermore, a 1994 United States General Accounting Office report on continental air defense states, "Overall, during the past 4 years, NORAD’s alert fighters took off to intercept aircraft (referred to as scrambled) 1,518 times, or an average of 15 times per site per year. Of these incidents, the number of suspected drug smuggling aircraft averaged one per site, or less than 7 percent of all of the alert sites’ total activity. The remaining activity generally involved visually inspecting unidentified aircraft and assisting aircraft in distress."

As the New York City Activist blog pointed out, "Admittedly this is the early 1990′s, not 2001, and the quote is from a report which recommended trimming down the force. But still it casts a lot of doubt on the Popular Mechanics claim that intercepts were a rare occurrence."

And as Griffin points out in Debunking 9/11 Debunking, "In this account NORAD made 379 interceptions per year, 354 of which 'involved visually inspecting unidentified aircraft in distress,' not intercepting planes suspected of smuggling drugs. Besides the fact that 1992 was part of 'the decade before 9/11,' it is doubtful that the pattern of interceptions would have changed radically after that."

A Canadian government performance report on their arm of NORAD for 1999-2000, the same period as the Payne Stewart flight, relevant to military operations in the years leading up to the 9/11 attacks, backs up Griffin’s statements. The report states, "If required, 'unknown aircraft' are intercepted and identified by aircraft dedicated to NORAD. Over the past year, NORAD has intercepted 736 aircraft, 82 of which were suspected drug smugglers…"

While not addressing these reports, Mike Williams of the “debunking” website states, "The Popular Mechanics claim that there was one intercept of a 'civilian plane over North America' in the decade before 9/11 still seems quite absolute, but then that just means it wouldn’t take much to disprove it. Just find a media report of an intercept, an interview with a pilot who was intercepted when they accidentally flew too close to the White House, anything like that... How difficult can it be?"

Being that Williams only provides two examples of other intercepts for comparison on his webpage concerning the Payne Stewart incident, and that he could not find all the information needed to draw firm conclusions on these, he should know that finding any detailed statistics on such matters is difficult.

The aforementioned entry on the New York City Activist blog highlights the following from the 2004 Complaint & Petition to the NY Attorney General (Spitzer at the time) for a new criminal investigation into 9/11:
Also necessary would be data on cases of errant planes or unknowns in which no scramble orders were issued. Of special interest would be the prior performance within NORAD’s Northeastern Air Defense Sector (“NEADS”), which is headquartered at Rome, New York. Such a cumulative analysis–with special attention to cases when passenger planes deviated from course in the air-traffic control zones within which the 9/11 attacks occurred–would provide indispensable context for serious research into the subject of air defense response on September 11. This data is currently unavailable to the public, and there is no indication such an analysis was undertaken by the Kean Commission.
When 9/11 researcher and activist Aidan Monaghan sent a Freedom of Information Act Request to the FAA he was informed that, "...The FAA does not track or keep information about the request for support of NORAD for intercepting aircraft throughout the National Airspace System."

When Monaghan tried obtaining FOIA information from NORAD he was advised that they are not subject to the FOIA because they are a bi-national organization between the U.S. and Canada.

Perhaps those in government are the ones worthy of the question, "How difficult can it be?"

When Williams was asked in an interview to give his "strongest argument" against a NORAD stand-down he stated that, "I would point out the Payne Stewart intercept time of over 70 minutes, and the pre-9/11 confirmation that NORAD only had 14 fighters on alert at one time, none of which were at Andrews Air Force Base."

First off, as is pointed out in Paul Thompson's article "The Failure to Defend the Skies on 9/11," "We know details of a 1999 fighter scramble, because famous golfer Payne Stewart was aboard a runaway Learjet. With the pilot unconscious, NORAD used fighters from a number of bases outside NORAD’s official seven bases to follow the plane as it crossed over several states before finally crashing."

So William's first point takes away from his second one. As reported by Aviation Week and Space Technology magazine, after the second strike on the WTC, "Calls from fighter units… started pouring into NORAD and sector operations centers, asking, ‘What can we do to help?’" One of these bases was Syracuse, which offered to have planes in the air with some weapons within ten minutes. Paul Thomson notes that, "Even if fighters didn’t take off from Syracuse until 9:20, that still would have been enough time for those fighters to reach Washington before Flight 77 did, if they had been ordered to protect that city." Sadly, fighters from Syracuse did not take off until over an hour and a half after their offer to help.

William's admits on his page concerning Andrews that they "had some pilots and fighters, just not sufficiently prepared." This refers to their excuse for not launching fighters until 95 minutes after the second WTC crash because they were loading missiles, however, the first two planes to launch only had guns available.

Just as with Syracuse something could have been done much earlier. David Ray Griffin is quoted on William's page as stating "Fighters loaded with bullets, but no missiles, could have provided considerable protection. Even fighter jets completely unloaded would be better than no fighters at all, given their ability to deter and, if all else failed, ram an airliner headed towards the Pentagon, the White House or the Capitol." William's doesn't focus on this though, instead he rebuts Griffin's other argument that the "arming never happened," which it did, but not for another 33minutes after the first two planes took off.

Regarding Griffin's former point, the article "IGNORAD - The military screw-up nobody talks about" by former U.S. Navy intelligence officer Scott Shuger also notes that there are other techniques fighters could have used with a hijacked plane, Shuger states:
It can first rock its wingtips to attract attention, or make a pass in front of the plane, or fire tracer rounds in its path. So even though on 9/11, the NORAD pilots working the first three airliners didn't have shootdown authority (they got it only after the Pentagon was hit), they would or should have been ready to try these other techniques, which might well have spooked or forced the hijackers into turning, which might have given the fighters a chance to force them out to sea. And even if the hijackers decided instead to fly right into a fighter in their way, wouldn't an airburst have killed fewer people than two collapsed flaming skyscrapers did?
As it turned out Shuger knew what he was talking about. Almost 8 months after his January 2002 article reported that:
Within minutes of American Airlines Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon on Sept. 11, Air National Guard F-16s took off from here in response to a plea from the White House to 'Get in the air now!' Those fighters were flown by three pilots who had decided, on their own, to ram a hijacked airliner and force it to crash, if necessary. Such action almost certainly would have been fatal for them, but could have prevented another terrorism catastrophe in Washington.
These or other heroes like them could have and should have been in the air much sooner on 9/11, but don't take my word for it.

In the article "The 90-Minute Stand Down on 9/11: Why Was the Secret Service's Early Request for Fighter Jets Ignored?" Captain Brandon Rasmussen from Andrews is quoted as stating that, "We were relieved to actually be given permission to go up and do something, instead of feeling totally helpless. I mean, we are fighter pilots, just like guard dogs chomping at the bit, ready to go."

All this being said, the fact that NORAD's force had been cut down to 14 fighter jets and that Andrews wasn't more prepared is problematic enough. As "Loose Nuke" commented on the 911 Blogger article:
On pg 2 of Note 13 it says, 'Wherley had no properly armed planes at Andrews. His units were not air defense units.' There's a 'summer of threat', warnings of a planes as missiles attack, CIA and FBI knew operatives were in the country, nothing was done to disrupt the plot, and nothing was done to harden security, nothing was done to defend the nation's capital. Rather, it appears some took action to leave the capital open to attack.
Back to the Payne Stewart incident, on Willams' old webpage on the subject he states that, "To be fair, if the first fighters had been closer (as they were on 9/11) then the response time would have been better."

His new page on the subject no longer contains this line. So much for being equitable!

Regardless, using a roughly 76 minute starting point for a refutation is fine because these events are barely comparable. Stewart was flying a 6-8 passenger Learjet 35, not a large commercial airliner, which was not flying over densely populated areas, did not have its transponder turned off, and was on autopilot as opposed to having terrorists at the helm clearly attacking the country.

The third strike on 9/11 at the Pentagon took place at 9:38 a.m., 44 minutes after Flight 77 veered off course at 8:54 a.m. This is a conservative figure, and judging from William's own page on the subject, one with which he would agree. By this time the first tower had already been struck. Although many government officials would claim that they thought the first strike was just an accident, couterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke wrote in his 2004 book Against all enemies that a member of his White House staff told him that, “Until we know what this is, Dick, we should assume the worst.” And in Bob Woodward's 2002 book Bush at War it was reported that when CIA Director George Tenet learned of the strike he was told specifically that, “The World Trade tower has been attacked,” after which he immediately suspected bin Laden.

The reaction of these officials should have been universal and hence the moment Flight 77 deviated from its course it should have become a target for interception. As noted on Wikipedia:
The Bojinka plot was a planned large-scale Islamist terrorist attack... to take place in January 1995...

A report from the Philippines to the United States on January 20, 1995 stated, "What the subject has in his mind is that he will board any American commercial aircraft pretending to be an ordinary passenger. Then he will hijack said aircraft, control its cockpit and dive it at the CIA headquarters."

Another plot the men were cooking up would have involved hijacking of more airplanes. The Sears Tower (Chicago, Illinois), The Pentagon (Arlington County, Virginia), the United States Capitol (Washington, D.C.), the White House (Washington, DC), the Transamerica Pyramid (San Francisco, California), and the World Trade Center (New York, New York) would be the likely targets. This plot eventually would be the base plot for the September 11, 2001 attacks, only hitting the World Trade Center (which was destroyed) and The Pentagon (which suffered partial damage).
Furthermore, Williams neglects to mention the fact that the jets already in the air which failed to reach the first two strikes were not redeployed towards the deviating planes headed for the capital. This would have guaranteed interceptors reaching Flight 77 before it crashed into the Pentagon.

To put it all another way, if the military can get to a Learjet in roughly 76 minutes when they are not being waged war on, then 44 or more minutes should be sufficient when they are. These points hold all the more true for the fourth plane to perish that day.

Based on a timeline provided by NORAD, on September 17, 2001 CNN reported that at "9:16 a.m.: FAA informs NORAD that United Airlines flight 93 may have been hijacked." The 9/11 Commission would later claim that NORAD is first notified about Flight 93 one minute after it had already crashed at 10:07 a.m. However, the initial report is supported by statements from two NORAD commanders that they were already tracking the flight when it changed direction at 9:36. This would mean that the military was tracking the flight for 50 minutes as opposed to zero! (Update on this point) This is just one of many such changes made in the 9/11 Commission's third mutually contradictory version of events.

During testimony given to the 9/11 Commission, then Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta had the following exchange with 9/11 commissioner Lee Hamilton regarding the plane coming into the Pentagon:
MR. MINETA: ...There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, "The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to, "The plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?" And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?"...

MR. HAMILTON: The flight you're referring to is the --

MR. MINETA: The flight that came into the Pentagon.

MR. HAMILTON: The Pentagon, yeah.
The 9/11 Commission would assert that the military "had at most one or two minutes to react" to Flight 77 before it hit the Pentagon, however, Mineta's testimony indicates that they had 10 to 12 minutes, leading many to suspect the orders were stand-down orders. They omitted Mineta’s testimony from both their final report and the official version of the video record, however, they did imply Mineta was mistaken, stating that the discussion between Cheney and the aide occurred later than he claimed, and that it was referencing a shoot-down order for Flight 93, which crashed in a Pennsylvania field.

So, were the orders for a stand-down or a shoot-down? As pointed out by 9/11 researcher "jimd3100":
Even if the 9-11 Commission is correct, when they claim he arrived at 10:07 (according to the White House) Mineta makes it clear the order was given before he got there. There was no shoot down order given before 10:07. The 9-11 Commission seems to admit this.

...It seems very clear from the evidence that no shoot down order was given until 10:20 and none relayed to the military until 10:31. Which means if an order was given before 10:20 there is no reason to believe it was a shoot down order. Which would seem to indicate it was a stand down.
Now thanks to recent research by "jimd3100" we know that a one Douglas F. Cochrane was the naval aide Mineta was referring to. When 9/11 researcher Jeff Hill followed up and phoned Cochrane, asking him what the orders were, Cohrane replied that he was "really not prepared to talk about this subject at all." Jeff then pleaded with Cohrane to ease his mind about whether the orders were stand-down orders, to which Cohrane replied that he had "nothing further to add" to the information already publicly available. Hill then asked Cohrane if he thought answering his questions would get Cheney in trouble, Cohrane paused, and then stated that "The 9/11 Commission Report is the authoritative narrative on the events surrounding 9/11."

As it turns out, it is against the law for Cohrane to say anything else because his interview with the 9/11 Commission has been classified.

We need to be allowed to view Cohrane's testimony, but even if he says the orders were shoot-down orders, the fact remains that after seeing the second tower struck at 9:03 AM the National Military Command Center realized there was "a coordinated terrorist attack on the United States," but yet shoot-down orders were not relayed to the military until 10:31. (Update on these points. Lack of 9/11 Air Defence Explained?)

The Washington Post reported on August 2, 2006 that:
Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources... "We to this day don't know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us," said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. 'It was just so far from the truth. . . . It's one of those loose ends that never got tied."
It is often claimed that 9/11 skeptics are quote mining the 9/11 Commissioners, as to suggest that they agree with our case, but this is the real logical fallacy. Kean admitted they were lied to and he did not know why. He can think that the 9/11 Commission's story of astounding incompetance is correct all he wants, but the fact remains that his report failed to tie up “those loose ends" and prove that ineptitude is all that was at hand.

As David Ray Griffin has stated:
...Although this explanation has been widely accepted, is it really believable? If our military had been guilty only of confusion and incompetence on 9/11, it would have been strange for its officials, by saying that they had been notified by the FAA earlier than they really had, to open themselves not only to the charge of criminal fraud but also to the suspicion that they had deliberately not intercepted the hijacked airliners. We are being asked to believe, in other words, that Scott, Arnold, and the others, in telling the earlier story, acted in a completely irrational manner--that, while being guilty only of confusion and a little incompetence, they told a lie that could have exposed them with being charged with murder and treason.
Equally counter intuitive is the fact that the top officials in charge of NORAD and the FAA on 9/11 were rewarded for their supposed incompetence with promotions instead of charges of perjury.

In regard to how the NORAD stand-down was achieved, many have speculated that inaction by an intentionally AWOL chain of command, combined with the four wargames that were conducted on 9/11, which seem to have included live-fly simulations of hijackings, and NORAD radar screens, which displayed false tracks throughout the attacks, caused deliberate confusion. features outdated pages on the issues of live-fly exercises and false radar blips, proving once again that we don't need "debunkers" to answer these questions, but rather a new investigative body willing to tie all "loose ends" so there is no need for Loose Change or their detractors.
See the links above "live-fly exercises" and "false radar blips" above and you decide if the excuses for the facts, leads to a logical conclusion that there was no was confusion from these issues.
Former U.S. Army Air Defense Officer and NORAD Tac Director, decorated with the Purple Heart, the Bronze Star and the Soldiers Medal stated that "there is no way that an aircraft . . . would not be intercepted when they deviate from their flight plan, turn off their transponders, or stop communication with Air Traffic Control ... Attempts to obscure facts by calling them a 'conspiracy Theory' does not change the truth. It seems, 'Something is rotten in the State.'"

"I knew within hours of the attacks on 9/11/2001 that it was an inside job. Based on my 11-year experience as an FAA Air Traffic Controller in the busy Northeast corridor, including hundreds of hours of training, briefings, air refuelings, low altitude bombing drills, being part of huge military exercises, daily military training exercises, interacting on a routine basis directly with NORAD radar personnel, and based on my own direct experience dealing with in-flight emergency situations, including two instances of hijacked commercial airliners, I state unequivocally; There is absolutely no way that four large commercial airliners could have flown around off course for 30 to 60 minutes on 9/11 without being intercepted and shot completely out of the sky by our jet fighters unless very highly placed people in our government and our military wanted it to happen. - Robin Hordon, Former FAA Air Traffic Controller at the Boston Air Route Traffic Control Center, located in Nashua, NH, 1970 - 1981. FAA certified commercial pilot. FAA certified Flight Instructor and certified Ground Instructor. After leaving the FAA, he had a 12-year career in the field of comedy ending up as artistic coordinator for "Catch A Rising Star" in Harvard Square in Cambridge, MA.

Related Info:

Debunking the Debunkers on Pumpitout Radio