Alex Jones Debunks The So-Called 911 Debunkers

A review of the history of military orders governing response to hijackings casts doubt on the idea that the June 1 order was instrumental in hobbling the military's response on September 11. The June 1 order superseded the 1997 directive CJCSI 3610.01. ³   The 1997 directive also stipulated that the NMCC "forward all requests or proposals for DOD military assistance for piracy (hijacking) to the Secretary of Defense for approval."
The 1997 directive cancels three earlier ones:

• MCM-102-92, 24 July 1992, "Hijacking of Civil Aircraft"
• CJCS MOP 51, 13 April 1992, "Aircraft Piracy (Hijacking) of Military and Military Contract Aircraft"
• MCM-- 173-90, 14 September 1990, "Destruction of Derelict Airborne Objects"

These earlier documents do not appear to be archived on dtic.mil. It would be interesting to learn what policy they mandated for military response to hijackings, and, in particular, whether it required approval by the Secretary of Defense.

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/defense/june1.html

Layered Failures

The air defense network had, on September 11th, predictable and effective procedures for dealing with just such an attack. Yet it failed to respond in a timely manner until after the attack was over, more than an hour and a half after it had started. The official timeline describes a series of events and mode of response in which the delays are spread out into a number of areas. There are failures upon failures, in what might be described as a strategy of layered failures, or failure in depth. The failures can be divided into four types.

• Failures to report: Based on the official timeline, the FAA response times for reporting the deviating aircraft were many times longer than the prescribed times.
• Failures to scramble: NORAD, once notified of the off-course aircraft, failed to scramble jets from the nearest bases.
• Failures to intercept: Once airborne, interceptors failed to reach their targets because they flew at small fractions of their top speeds and/or in the wrong directions.
• Failures to redeploy: Fighters that were airborne and within interception range of the deviating aircraft were not redeployed to pursue them.

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/norad/

Pumpitout Radio: Foreknowledge and Lack of Air Defense - NORAD Section Update 12/24/2014

Who is Winning the Peer-Reviewed Scientific Literature Battle?

• Click here and decide for yourself.

Welcome to the Debunk Bin

Debunking 9/11 Debunking

Aside from David Ray Griffin's excellent book, I also highly recommend http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/.

I have followed the scientific literature on the WTC Demolition Investigations and made several videos addressing various scientific evidence that was ignored by the Government Cover-Up (I dare not call it an "Investigation" because that it wasn't!).

I've also helped fuel the ideas that lead to many of Jonathan Cole's videos, which successfully debunked many of the hypotheses put forward by National Geographic and Popular Mechanics.

More at:

http://alienscientist.com/debunked.html

Debunkers = Fish in a Barrel

YouTube.com:

ctcole77 (2 days ago) 911 TRUTH = 911 LIES

The history channel aired your favorite show last night :) "911 DEBUNKED"

911debunkerschannel (1 day ago)

"911 TRUTH = 911 LIES"

History Channel Hit Piece = Dirty Tricks, Malicious Lies & Journalistic Fraud...

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2007/210807_dirty_tricks.htm

ctcole77 (1 hour ago)

History Channel SCIENCE Piece = Educated expert testimony

Nanothermite paper = the first peer reviewed paper in which the chief editor NEVER reviewed it

Nanothermite paper = the first peer reviewed paper in which a physicist claims to be an expert in chemistry

911 TRUTH = 911 LIES

911debunkerschannel (44 minutes ago)

"Nanothermite paper = the first peer reviewed paper in which the chief editor NEVER reviewed it"

"The editor in chief of the journal where recently the paper: 'Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe' was published, resigned, claiming she wasn't informed of the publication. She proceeds to provide not a single solid scientific rebuttal, only administrative bickering and personal political bias against, well.. inconvenient science. One particularly notable comment attributed to Ms. Pileni is this one: "Marie-Paule Pileni points out that because the topic lies outside her field of expertise, she cannot judge whether the article in itself is good or bad.". Strangely, her areas of research seem to contradict that." - Source: http://911blogger.com/node/19963

What you need to know about "Peer-review":

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2009/04/steven-jones-tells-911-debunkers-to-put.html

"Nanothermite paper = the first peer reviewed paper in which a physicist claims to be an expert in chemistry"

"First author is Professor Niels Harrit of Copenhagen University in Denmark, an Associate Professor of Chemistry. He is an expert in nano-chemistry; current research activities and his photo can be found here: http://cmm.nbi.ku.dk/" - Source: http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2009/04/active-thermitic-material-discovered-in.html

Chemical Engineer Mark Basile Discusses 9/11 WTC Dust:

http://911blogger.com/node/20998

Oh... and the work of the National Institute for Standards and Technology has not been peer-reviewed!:

http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/150907_nist_investigate_911.html

Related Info:

Visibility 9-11 Welcomes John-Michael Talboo and Stewart Bradley of Debunking the Debunkers Topics discussed include the "debunkers" take on the new scientific paper "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe," and defence thereof.

The History Channel: JFK and 9/11

'Debunking NIST's Conclusions About WTC 7 is as Easy as Shooting Fish in a Barrel' and other Responses to 8/21/08 NIST Briefing on WTC7

No fish were harmed in the posting of this blog. Being a vegetarian I prefer my fish bullet-free. But in the interest of debunking the debunkers that would have you believe shooting fish in a barrel is not actually easy: