Touching History

[Sweet Pea]

Finally, a few days ago, I was able to finish this book on the skies above America on 9/11.

If I could recommend anything to anyone to help them understand the confusion that went on that day and the frustration in all the players that day, from the pilots in the airliners to the controllers to the F-15 and F-16 pilots who ended up on combat air patrol over our cities, it would be this book.



Those of you who are convinced a "military stand down" was issued need to read this book. Those of you who think thing were controlled from the White House need to read this book. Those of you who think instantaneous situation awareness was there but the personnel refused to act on it need to read this book.

Touching History by Lynn Spencer, who is an airline pilot herself. I picked my copy up at Borders, but it is all over the Amazons and Simon and Shusters and Barnes and Nobles.

[seemslikeadream]

1. Did she mention the military exercises going on that day?

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?before_9/11=militaryExercises&timeline=complete_911_timeline




It wasn't a stand down that was the problem here it was the confusion because of the exercises which just happened to be taking place that day, how convenient

[SDuderstadt]

6. Jesus, SLAD....

Just when I think you can't possibly be more illogical, you prove me wrong. How convenient? Are you claiming the US Military planned those exercies to provide cover for the attacks? Are you? To me, this is where the "truth movement" goes off the tracks and exhibits their tendency for "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" fallacies.

War games and military exercises take place nearly all the time, SLAD. Assuming that you could grasp that the timing was entirely coincidental or that maybe the terrorists somehow knew about the exercises and wanted to capitalize upon them, were we supposed to plead, "Please, whatever you do, we're conducting military exercises on 9/11, so give us a break and don't attack us."? Do you ever actually use your brain?'

Again, I ask. Is there ANY CT so goofy that even YOU won't embrace it? Is there?

[seemslikeadream]

12. Cynthia McKinney "Mr. Chairman, I have a question"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lE3iCmjuP2Y





Representative Cynthia McKinney Rocks Rumsfeld on War Games

"Mr. Chairman, I have a question"

On-the-Record:
Representative Cynthia McKinney Rocks
Rumsfeld on War Games

By
Michael Kane

Hurriedly I made contact with her staff and forwarded a number of PDF files so that when her time came and on national television, McKinney could finally, in a public forum, hold those responsible for 9/11 accountable with the proof in her hands and demand an answer. These were the same files I had acquired during my research for Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil. McKinney was to be well-armed with assistance from other tenacious 9/11 researchers and there would be no escape.

Unless it came time for lunch.

Having lost her seniority after a successful 2002 Israeli-funded and Republican Party-managed campaign to unseat her, McKinney's chance to question Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld and Joint Chiefs Chairman General Richard Myers was pushed aside until the hearings were about to be closed. It appears the bears knew what was coming and had neatly dodged a bullet.

Not quite.

Although the American people were deprived of an on-the-record answer about who was running the wargames which paralyzed official response on 9/11, Cynthia McKinney let it be known (on the record) that we knew and would not forget. As she found a way to get her question on the record, she gave us all a priceless Kodak moment: one that ranks right up there with the reaction I evoked in public from then CIA Director John Deutch in 1996.

The point here is not that 9/11 is suddenly back on the table, somehow available for resolution and justice. It's a long way from a question from a junior member of the minority party asking a question to an impeachment, conviction and imprisonment. The election is still over. The compromised Keane Commission has still closed its doors. No further investigations or legal proceedings are pending. The media has still moved on and the court system and congress are still willfully impotent.

But courage endures. And as long as there is someone like Cynthia McKinney on Capitol Hill there will be moments - wonderful moments like the one captured on the attached video - which prove that we have not gone away or forgotten and that we still have the will to speak.

For those of us who spent years investigating 9/11, the research and evidence we have compiled will always be within arm's reach, awaiting these golden moments. As new threats and challenges overtake us and demand our focus in "the now" we stand ready to jump on any miracle that presents us with an opportunity to remind the world that murderers still walk free, still in power. Like blades of grass growing steadfastly up through the sidewalk we will never surrender our ability to speak truth to power.

God bless Cynthia McKinney. - MCR]

March 1, 2005, PST 1200 (FTW): On February 16, 2005, Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney asked Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Richard B. Myers the same question this reporter asked General Ralph "Ed" Eberhart at the final 9/11 commission hearing:

What about the war games?

The Full House Armed Services Committee met to receive testimony on the Fiscal Year 2006 National Defense Authorization budget request from the Department of Defense. As the meeting wound down to its expected end, Secretary Rumsfeld prepared to leave. Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-CA), who chaired the hearing, asked the Secretary to commit to a breakfast with Representatives who had not yet asked their questions. Secretary Rumsfeld happily agreed to do so.

At that moment Cynthia McKinney made sure to get the following vital question into the Congressional Record.

Transcript, February 16, Rumsfeld and Myers questioned by Cynthia McKinney:

Cynthia McKinney: Mr. Chairman, I have a question.

Duncan Hunter: The Gentle-lady is recognized.

McKinney: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Would that breakfast with the Secretary be open to the public?

Hunter: Well, if you want to bring all the omelets it might be, but ah -

McKinney: Well Mr. Chairman, the problem is - and I appreciate your adherence to the five-minute rule - however there are many of us who have important questions and my question in particular is about the four war games that were taking place on September 11th and how they may have impaired our ability to respond to those attacks.

Mr. Hunter: Well let me say the gentle lady...



McKinney: I would like that question to be answered in public Mr. Chairman.

Hunter: Let me say to the gentle lady we're going to have other opportunities to have the Secretary in front of us and what we will do beyond having questions, if you want a question for the record, be able to put that to the record and have the answer on the record, but additionally at the next event where the Secretary testifies - we'll try to make sure that happens - we will start with the folks who did not get their question answered so you will have an opportunity.

McKinney: Thank you so much Mr. Chairman, and I hope the record is still open so that even that portion of my comment will be on this record.

Hunter: It will be so ordered.

McKinney: Thank you Mr. Chairman.

-- end of transcript

At this point Representative Skelton (D-MO) asked a visibly flustered Donald Rumsfeld if in the future a classified briefing could occur on the recommendations given by General Luck and his team to the Secretary.

This helped to bury McKinney's question (and by necessity, the process continues: DoD has posted a peculiar "transcript" of the meeting's final moments, from which Representative McKinney's question has been thoroughly deleted), giving Rumsfeld a way to divert attention from the issue she had skillfully placed on the record. Rumsfeld responded to Skelton's question without addressing McKinney's at all. The only response to her question came in the form of both Rumsfeld and Myers' rapid hand movements and off-microphone murmurs. The issue seemed to knock Rumsfeld off-balance, affecting him as it had affected Ralph "Ed" Eberhart at the final 9/11 Commission hearing.

It's unlikely that "No comment" will be an acceptable reply to Representative McKinney's question. Eberhart got away with that when responding to this reporter, and has since retired from his post heading both NORTHERN COMMAND and NORAD. His retirement came immediately after the 2004 presidential election. It appears "no comment" will be his final word on the matter, but that will not be the case for Secretary Rumsfeld and General Myers.

Who was in charge of coordinating the multiple war games running on 9/11? Crossing the Rubicon has already answered this question in spades. But maybe, just maybe, with her return to Capitol Hill Cynthia McKinney has kept alive a flicker of hope that the crimes of 9/11 may yet shake up the US government.

The courage and directness of this fearless woman never cease to amaze us. She has let it be known that she will be a perpetual thorn in the side of the administration for at least the next two years.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Open Letter to Richard A. Clarke regarding War Games, 9/11 Timeline and Myers/Rumsfeld Testimony

From: Kyle Hence
February 23, 2005
Open Letter to Richard A. Clarke, former counter-terrorism 'czar' for both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. Author, Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror
http://www.911citizenswatch.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=484

Subject:
Pertaining to accounts in Clarke's book Against All Enemies, neither retracted or refuted, regarding 9/11 war games and the participation of General Myers and Sec. Rumsfeld in a video conference managed from the White House Situation Room by Richard Clarke with the assistance of his Deputy, Roger Cressey.

Note of Explanation:
This letter/email was presented (via email or in person) to Mr. Clarke on four occasions without a response of any kind to the specific questions raised regarding the actions (or lack of) from our military and top officials in positions of responsibility on 9/11. Given no response, and Rep. Cynthia McKinney's attempt to raise the issue at February 16th Armed Services Committee hearing, CitizensWatch is taking the step of making this letter public.

This letter (see below) with questions pertaining to 9/11 (wargames, sworn testimony by Rumsfeld & Myers) was first sent as an email in June of 2004 to Mr. Clarke via his consulting company, Good Harbor. This note and these questions were presented personally to Mr. Clarke a second time on October 6, 2004 - and via email (3rd attempt) directly to his personal email box on October 15. When presented with a second opportunity in person (4th attempt) to respond to these queries backstage at a December 7th function at the Institute for Ethical Culture in New York City, Mr. Clarke refused to acknowledge the author and instead quickly left the room.

Receiving no response despite repeated attempts I am now releasing this to the public as an 'open letter' in the hopes responsible members of the press, family members and/or dedicated investigators will follow up publicly and personally with Mr. Clarke and the Commissioners who failed to examine the glaring discrepancies between Clarke's accounts and those offered in public statements and in sworn testimony by Chairman Myers and Sec. Rumsfeld.

It should be noted that Richard Clarke is the only member of the Bush Administration to publicly apologize to the 9/11 families. While generating controversy at the time, his testimony before the 9/11 Commission regarding the warnings and plan for dealing with Al-Qaeda that he presented to Condi Rice and the Bush Administration in January of 2001 has been recently bolstered by the release of an unclassified version of his January memo to then National Security Advisor Rice.

This controversy could pale in comparison, however, to what could be revealed in sworn testimonies before the appropriate Committee regarding Sept. 11th war games (including "Vigilant Warrior" mentioned by Gen. Myers on the morning of Sept. 11th), changing NORAD timelines and the testimony already offered by Chairman Myers and Sec. Rumsfeld regarding their whereabouts and actions taken in the first and most critical minutes immediately following the attack on the World Trade Center. {see pages 1-7; Against All Enemies)

This is being made public now in an effort to force this issue into the public's eye and ultimately to see full accountability and disclosure. Another 9/11 commemoration must not pass without these issues being addressed forthrightly and honestly before the American people; either in Manhattan before an AG Spitzer or DA Morganthau-convened Grand Jury or public hearings, in Albany before the appropriate Committee or on Capitol Hill. We offer this in hope that those with integrity in a position of responsibility will rise to this challenge. In this case above all others we must not allow the truth to continue to be veiled or obfuscated.

Kyle F. Hence
Co-founder, 9/11 CitizensWatch
February 23, 2005

[email protected]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sent originally in June '04 via email to Good Harbor Consulting; Presented directly to Mr. Clarke on October 6th at a speaking engagement in New Jersey. A follow-up email was sent directly to his personal email box following the October meeting and his signing of my copy of his book, Against All Enemies. Another attempt to get answers to these questions was rejected on December 7th at the Institute for Ethical Culture in New York City.
Dear Mr. Clarke,

Yesterday I had the pleasure of a brief discussion regarding the events in the White House Situation Room on the morning of September 11th with your then Deputy and now partner, Roger Cressey. He was helpful in answering a few questions. Seeing as I didn't expect him to answer when I rang a number I wasn't sure about, I was not entirely prepared with my questions. Thankfully he offered to make himself available in the future and encouraged me to email you via your Assistant, Ms. Roundtree, for questions I wanted to address to you specifically.

Before I get to my specific queries I should say that I have been running a Citizens watchdog group since March of last year monitoring the course of the investigation of the September 11th attacks. I've attended all the hearings and been successful in putting key questions and areas of inquiry on the radar for the Commission though they have not been sufficiently addressed them in their report.

Currently we are preparing to publish a response to the 9/11 Commission Report and are in the midst of attempting to review their 'findings of fact and circumstances' and their timeline; and where appropriate challenge them with substantiated and credible conflicting accounts or evidence. I appreciate whatever details and corroboration you can offer us to help us in this effort.

Roger said that both you and he were questioned for many hours by the 9/11 Commission Report. I guess I'd like to start there if I may:

In your book, from my reading of your account, the Video Conference with links to the CCC at the OSD, the FAA, etc began sometime between 9:08AM approximately when you arrived at the White House but well before 9:27AM, the time you recounted in the book immediately following detailed exchanges you had with General Myers and prior to that with Jane Garvey at the FAA.

Is this accurate?

Since your book and the Report has been released have you had opportunity to confirm your version of the timeline of events with others who were present?

Given your account, is it accurate to say that both Gen. Myers and Sec. Rumsfeld were involved in discussions about how to respond to the attack? And again, before 9:27AM?

Roger said he remembered clearly seeing Rumsfeld sitting at the CCC on screen at the Video Center when he arrived before 9:30AM. In your account, while you mention the presence on Rumsfeld on the Conference from the outset when Lisa Gordon-Hagerty started taking the roll, was he involved in any substantive discussions regarding the need for issuing orders for military response, the scrambling of planes for intercept of any of the most threatening of the 11 targets that Jane Garvey had identified, or putting a CAP over D.C.?

Or was this issue handled entirely by Gen. Myers and his uniformed staff as recounted in your book?

In either your testimony before the Commission or in the private interview, did you convey the above timeline and details?

I imagine you are well aware of the Commission's account of the videoconference and that it conflicts with the account in your book.

Obviously the bottom line here to put it to you bluntly, did they get it right?

And are you standing by your account including the timeline and the participation in the conference by both Myers and Rumsfeld from Defense?

The report maintains that the videoconference did not begin until 9:40AM. (see page 36 of the Report). Roger says it was underway when he arrived in the Situation Room before 9:30AM and your account has it starting around a half hour earlier. What's the truth here? Can you help me resolve this discrepancy; it's seems a serious one?

Given this discrepancy are you concerned about the implications of such a possible distortion of the public record as it is reflected in the report?

Thank you for taking the time to consider these questions. I know your time is valuable. I have just a few more questions if I may.

1) From what location did Gen Myers join the videoconference? Was he too, along with Rumsfeld, at the CCC in the Office of the Secretary of Defense?

2) At any point during the first half hour of the conference did the conference include or communicate directly with the NMCC?

3) Is there a direct secure line between the CCC and the NMCC?

4) Are you aware of any communication regarding a CAP or scramble and intercept orders being conveyed by either General Myers or Sec. Rumsfeld to the NMCC?

5) Defending D.C.:
While I understand that military jets from two squadrons at the highest state of readiness at Andrews were not formally part of NORAD on the morning of September 11th, can you tell me if there were any jets there that morning in standard readiness at D.C. area bases to protect P-56 or the Pentagon airspace?

If yes, were these planes scrambled and if so, when and from where? In other words, was the non-NORAD defense option--involving normal P-56 defense--for the Capitol identified and employed that morning?

And if not, why not from your position in the circle of those responding that morning?

When did you first hear of a possible threat to D.C. either from the so-called phantom flight 11 or from flight 77?

Did the Andrews AFB based jets on practice bombing runs over North Carolina (confirmed by John Farmer of the Commission and reported in the press) factor into defense options? For example, speculating for a moment from my position of ignorance, did these exercises involving three planes from Andrews leave D.C. without strip alert fighters armed and ready that morning?

Finally, did the NORAD war games (Vigilant Guardian, Vigilant Warrior, Northern Vigilance) being run on 9/11 impact in any way, positively or negatively, the response by the military that morning?

Was there any involvement from the White House in the war games?

Who was ultimately responsible for monitoring and running these exercises? And for being sure there was a 'firewall' between the games and 'real life'?

Were any of the 11 potential hijacks on the FAA system radar 'injects' part of the war gaming?

Re. the Vice-President. When did he reach the PEOC? My reading of your account has him headed down there some minutes after your arrival at the WH but well before 9:27AM. Was the PEOC linked to either the Video Center, the NMCC or the CCC during the critical minutes before the Pentagon strike? When did you first have the VP on an open line at the PEOC?

On any of these questions if you cannot answer for whatever reason perhaps you could direct me to someone who could. The pieces are starting to fall into place and your support could be critical to our own, we believe ultimately, more accurate report.

If you would prefer to meet in person for an interview I would be happy to arrange to come to Washington. A half an hour is all I would need should you be interested in further helping us clarify the record here.

Alternatively, may I follow up with you by phone at some point before we conclude our report?

Your willingness to take the time to help us sort this out is much appreciated.

Sincerely,

Kyle F. Hence
9/11 CitizensWatch
[email protected]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following questions had been prepared in advance of Mr. Clarke's appearance at the Institute for Ethical Culture in New York City on December 7th, 2004:

Discrepancies in accounts regarding Rumsfeld and Myers

In addition to answers to the above questions can you explain why in your second edition of your book coming out AFTER the 9/11 Report (the first edition have come out before the final report) when you clearly had the opportunity you did not address the very serious discrepancies between your accounts of the whereabouts and involvement of General Richard Myers, then Acting Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff, and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld in the response to the terrorist attacks in the critical thirty minutes prior to the attack on the Pentagon?

Your account which I confirmed personally with your former deputy and now business partner Roger Cressey, places Myers at a location where he is seen by way of the video conference you were running from the White House situation room? Whereas, Myers' own account repeated in the 9/11 Report has him in a breakfast meeting and presumably incommunicado until he leaves the office of Max Cleland to head to the Pentagon where en route, he says, he saw smoke rising from the Pentagon. Similarly, Rumsfeld claims he is out of the loop (echoed again by the Commission) but your account places him on your videoconference not long after the second tower was struck around 9:10AM EST. Furthermore, Mr. Cressey informed me personally by phone from his home that when he arrived at the Situation Room at approximately 9:35 he recalled clearly seeing Rumsfeld on screen in direct contradiction to Rumsfeld's public statements and the 9/11 Commission Report.

9/11 War games/Terror exercises - Vice-presidents role…

At a recent speaking engagement in Northern Californian I understand that you were asked by a member of the audience if on the morning of 9/11 Cheney was coordinating war games including ones involving false radar injects and live mock hijacked aircraft. According to the conversation as it was related to me, you corrected her saying that Cheney was NOT responsible for coordinating the war games that just happened to coincide with the actual attacks but that we was in charge of overseeing these war games.

Would you please for the benefit of all Americans and in the interest of full disclosure confirm for us what VP Cheney's role was in these war games, particularly Vigilant Warrior?

Were you involved in any way of the field-training exercise you mentioned in your book, Vigilant Warrior? Can you confirm that it involved live-fly hijackings? That it involved multiple radar 'injects' on FAA radar?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This article comes from 9/11 CitizensWatch
http://www.911citizenswatch.org

The URL for this story is:
http://www.911citizenswatch.org/modules.php?op=modload& ...
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/030105_mckinney_question.shtml#1


The War Games of September 11th

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/11/war-games-of-september-11th.html

[seemslikeadream]

13. Lt Col Rick Gibney,

[SDuderstadt]

58. Posting another incoherent (but, mercifully not ponderously long)...

post in response to your previous ponderously long, incoherent post accomplishes what, exactly?

[SDuderstadt]

57. Okay, I give up...

how is posting yet one more ponderously long, incoherent response actually responsive to my post.

[Ghost in the Machine]

16. "Are you claiming the US Military planned those exercies to provide cover for the attacks?"

"Are you claiming the US Military planned those exercies to provide cover for the attacks?"

Why would your mind automatically assume that?? Is it not possible that the attacks were planned around the exercises? It wouldn't have been hard for Cheney & company to know the dates of the military exercises in advance, would it? Look who they had:

Vice President Dick Cheney: PNACer neocon

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld: PNACer neocon

Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz: PNACer neocon

National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice: PNACer neocon



just sayin'....

[Grateful for Hope]

22. I like your sig line n/t

[Ghost in the Machine]

43. Thanks, Hope...

feel free to steal it.. I made it myself...

:hi:

[vincent_vega_lives]

26. THIS is where the truth movement "goes off the tracks"???

More derailments than the Green Line in Boston.

[elias7]

45. your certainty amazes and disturbs me

And the personal attacks:

"Just when I think you can't possibly be more illogical"
"Do you ever actually use your brain?"
"Is there ANY CT so goofy that even YOU won't embrace it? Is there?"

You sound like Rush Limbaugh, dogmatic and insulting to the point of being patronizing to someone who is clearly more intelligent and broad minded than you...

[SDuderstadt]

47. I love the way conspiracy theorists seem believe that...

being "broad-minded" means that one cannot discard any theory based upon the evidence. How is relying upon evidence being "dogmatic", Elias? What is "dogmatic" about asking people for evidence? Does embracing every goofy conspiracy theory without employing Logic to determine if it would even be possible make one "broad-minded", Elias? Do you think critical thinking is somehow narrow-minded? As far as your comment about "clearly more intelligent", do you honestly believe that it's intelligent to just spout silly conspiracy memes without having concrete evidence?

I stated facts. We conduct military exercises all the time. Sometimes we hear about the more prominent ones. Do you honstly believe that the military scheduled exercises that day to aid and abet the attacks? If you construct the "alternate hypothesis" that incorporates the necessary combination of common "9/11 was an inside job" themes, do you see that it's far more absurd than the "official story" is claimed to be by that crowd?

BTW, I loved your comment about Rush Limbaugh. I certainly "sound" like him. Oh, wait. I don't. If you'd ever listen to Limbaugh, he routinely states some data point, then says, "Now that proves...", when he clearly does not have nearly enough information to support his conclusion, even assuming his data point is remotely true (it almost always is not). I call his brand of illogic "connecting the dot". As far as this poster you claim to be "clearly more intelligent" than me, do you ever read some of the absolute nonsense she posts? If she's "clearly more intelligent" doesn't it stand to reason she would evaluate what she's posting and ask herself, "do I really have the evidence to post this as a statement of fact".

I've been a liberal since even before I worked for RFK's campaign, as well as McGovern's and a long line of progessive Democratic candidates. I've been excited to see both the Democrats and progressives ascending. During the period of time before this, I was appalled at the conspiracy theories emanating from the RW ("Clinton is going to declare martial law and suspend elections", "the Federal Reserve is unconstitutional and exists to enslave people", "the U.N. aims to subjugate American sovereignty", etc.). I am even more appalled to find equally goofy conspiracy theories from our side, as I have always believed strongly that liberals embrace reason, Logic and science as critical elements of our philosophy.

Have you ever noticed some of the RW sources this poster employs? When I have called her on that, the response I get is, "we should consider all sources". Really? We should consider Moonie publications? I also find it funny that you comment on my "certainty" without similarly commenting on this poster's "certainty". My certainty derives from taking the time to subject things to critical thinking, looking for internal contradictions or logical fallacies, examining externally contradictory sources as well as confirmatory sources, before stating something as more than my opinion. What I find even more appalling about this poster is that she often asks questions which reveal that she's done none of the above but, instead, has just accepted what she's read as if it is the gospel. If she can produce some sort of hard evidence that these military excersises were deliberately planned to coincide with the 9/11 attacks, I'm all ears. However, until that day, I truly resent the smears by implication she launches at the military because she looks at an extremely complicated situation of which she "knows" scattered bits and pieces and draws unwarranted conclusions.

[Sezu]

50. I'd say the bigger possibility would be that the 9/11

hijackers may have known that these exercises were going on via some mole or spy or useful idiot.

[elias7]

51. Where is your evidence for coincidence?

OPERATION NORTHERN VIGILANCE
OPERATION VIGILANT GUARDIAN
OPERATION NORTHERN GUARDIAN
OPERATION VIGILANT WARRIOR
BIOWARFARE EXERCISE TRIPOD II
NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE DRILL

All of the above conducted on or around 9/11. I know you state that military drills are conducted "all the time", but I can find nothing comparable to the scale of the above. Best resource I found is below:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&before_9/11=militaryExercises

My problem is that I cannot "produce some sort of hard evidence that these military exercises were deliberately planned to coincide with the 9/11 attacks". From reading various testimonies and reports, I feel it is reasonable to conclude that the simultaneous wargames did contribute to the confusion of the day, and therefore may have hindered expeditious responses to the real threats of the day.

And two possibilities exist. Either it was a coincidence that these exercises were stacked on 9/11, or they were intentionally scheduled to create confusion on that day.

I have no proof either way, do you?

[SDuderstadt]

55. You already left out the third possibility...

and, in the process, committed a "false dilemma" fallacy...that it looks like a coincidence because somehow the plotters found out about them and planned the attacks to capitalize upon them. That is no less reasonable than the other two. And, since you have no evidence at all that the exercises were planned by the military to facilitate the attacks, it's more reasonable to assume one of the other two is more likely. Now, if someone discovers that anyone plotted to give the information about the military exercises to the perpetrators, that actually WOULD be evidence that at least part of the plot was an "inside job" (assuming no infiltration of the appropriate information channels by an actual plotter or agent). However, lacking any such discovery, I'm provisionally (look up that word) "certain" that it's a coincidence.

BTW, I don't put much stock in "coincidence theory". Coincidences happen everyday and we don't notice the majority of them. We are, in general, fooled by randomness in our daily lives by the way our brain has evolved, i.e., evolutionarily we seek out patterns in the world around us to the extent that we often see patterns which aren't even there (as shown in the "hot hand" fallacy or through tests which show subjects asked to guess which series of a list of numbers is more random will reject lists with clusters of numbers, believing wrongly that a more even distribution is, in fact, random).

Take something that only has a once in a million chance of happening to someone in a day. The reality is that happens, on average 300 times a day across the United States or roughly 6800 times a day around the world. The problem is the way we think about things (lookup "found significance"). Take a deck of cards, shuffle and cut them as many times and you want, then deal them face up. The odds that they will come out in that exact same order are 52 factorial (52 X 51 X 50 X 49...). See if you can actually calculate the product of that multiplication. It's an astronomical number. Does that mean you just performed a miracle? Of course not. What's even more apparent is, if you take an alternate hypothesis narrative roughly approximating the "inside job" allegation, there are far more coincidences required, yet conspiracy theorists think this explains 9/11 better. I prefer to rely on Occam's Razor.

[elias7]

83. True re: false dilemma,

but I would disagree that "since you have no evidence at all that the exercises were planned by the military to facilitate the attacks, it's more reasonable to assume one of the other two is more likely". I have no evidence to suggest AQ had advanced knowledge; in fact I would think that the dates for the attacks were chosen before or concurrent to the scheduling of wargames, as I think planning a terrorist act would be more complex. I have no evidence for a coincidence, either.

My opinion is that there was concurrent planning, and that AQ was commissioned for a piece of the job that was orchestrated from within our borders. Do I have evidence? No. But it is a valid scenario, and that is the main thrust of this forum. My initial point was that your certainty is disturbing to me; that coupled with the insults you throw around is very curious.

[SDuderstadt]

85. I'll admit I get impatient with....

conspiracy theorists and, especially. those who exhibit limted critical thinking skills. In my professional work with clients, I have to be very direct with them amd pull no punches. It's not really my intent to insult and, to the best of my knowledge, I think I refrain from name-calling. But, to be completely candid, whether or not some posters aligned with the truth movement (best way I can put it) intend to or not, in my opinion, make the debate far more edgy than it has to be by calling us "OCTabots", insinuating some of us are "traitorous", questioning our liberal/progressive credentials, etc. To imply that any of us are either "enabling a cover-up" or simply afraid to buck the power establishment is simply an insult in and of itself. Most importantly, to continue to characterize the state of the various official investigations as the "official conspiracy theory" is loaded language that does little to further the debate.

For the most part, I don't question the motivation or sincerity of most, if not all truthers, however, I also believe that many of them have not taken time to adequately research answers to the questions they have, or are unprepared to understand some of the science/engineering/logistics of things that occurred on 9/11. More importantly, many of them are not even open to listening to scientific evidence, especially if it contradicts something they've read somewhere on the Internet. The thing that concerns me the most, however, is that some (not all) of these individuals smear by implication many fine public servants, including first responders or the military. For the life of me, I don't understand why anyone believes anyone in FDNY is lying about WTC7 leaning or having put a transit on it to confirm it, inasmuch as FDNY sustained something like 330 deaths that day. It simply boggles the mind to think that someone would think any first responder, no matter how high up, would be "in on" anything that so decimated their ranks. It also bothers me that some automatically reject the work of NIST or other government entities simply because they are part of the government. These people are our friends and neighbors and to tar them all with the same brush is frankly lamentable.

Again, my intent is not to insult. However, if the level of the debate is going to be raised, it will require more civility from the truth movement also.

[elias7]

94. thanks n/t

[Sweet Pea]

7. Exercises were touched on a bit

But the book does not discuss the number that were actually being run that day, which for those of us in the business of running exercises, was nothing extraordinary.

As far as military assets being unavailable for use, that myth is addressed in the prelude. The number of alert aircraft assigned to NORAD's bases around the US was only 14 "due to post-cold-war budget cuts". That, plus the fact the Soviet Union no longer existed and they stopped flying their Bear and Badger aircraft down the coasts meaning we had an almost minuscule need to have multiple aircraft ready for an intercept.

On the east coast, Langley and Otis were the two designated NORAD alert bases. Each base had the required aircraft fueled and armed and ready to go - 2 aircraft for each base. Otis had an additional 16 F-15's available, but those aircraft lacked weapons and Langley had an additional 2 F-16's. There were numerous additional aircraft all around, but the book reflects the stringent pecking order between Air Force commands and NORAD and NEADS and SEADS and the various components that are involved here. The Navy even had a ton of aircraft at the base in Virginia Beach, but since they are not part of the NORAD alert team, they never had any aircraft configured as an armed alert jet.

The myth that exercises took valuable military assets out of the region is just that - a myth.

[seemslikeadream]

8. no one said they were out of the region

at least I didn't


9:35 a.m. September 11, 2001: Boston Center and NEADS Decide to Send Home Fighter Jets on Training The traffic management unit (TMU) at the FAA’s Boston Center calls NORAD’s Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) to ask whether military planes out on training should be sent home. Boston Center asks, “The military aircraft that are in the air right now, we’re wondering if we should tell them to return to base if they’re just on training missions, or what you guys suggest?” NEADS replies, “No, they’re actually on the active air for the DO out there,” but adds, “We did send the ones home in 105 that were on the training mission.” This is presumably a reference to some fighters from Otis Air National Guard Base that were training in “Whiskey 105,” which is military training airspace southeast of Long Island (see (Shortly After 9:03 a.m.) September 11, 2001). Boston Center mentions that there are other military aircraft still airborne for training, and asks, “In general, anybody that’s training?” After consulting with colleagues, the member of staff at NEADS tells Boston, “Yes, go ahead and send them home.” NEADS was involved in a major training exercise this morning, though this was reportedly canceled shortly after the second WTC tower was hit (see After 9:03 a.m. September 11, 2001).
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?before_9/11=militaryExercises&timeline=complete_911_timeline

[Bolo Boffin]

21. Well, what else could you have meant by your statement?

You obviously meant to imply that the wargames impaired the ability to respond someway. Sweet Pea rebutted a common enough myth by 9/11 CT advocates.

Maybe you should try stating more precisely what you mean in the first place, and then people won't mistake what you mean.

[seemslikeadream]

36. You obviously don't have a clue

[SDuderstadt]

38. More unintentional irony from SLAD....n/t

[seemslikeadream]

9. Airborne Command Post Launched from Near Washington

(Shortly Before 9:37 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Airborne Command Post Launched from Near Washington An E-4B National Airborne Operations Center (NAOC) takes off from an unspecified airfield outside of Washington, DC. The aircraft, which is carrying civilian and military officials, is launched in order to participate in a pre-scheduled military exercise. This would be Global Guardian, which is being conducted on this day by the US Strategic Command (Stratcom) to test its ability to fight a nuclear war (see 8:30 a.m. September 11, 2001). E-4Bs are a militarized version of a Boeing 747. They serve as an airborne command center that could be used by the president, vice president, and Joint Chiefs of Staff, in order to execute war plans and coordinate government operations during a national emergency. Two other such planes are also participating in Global Guardian on this day (see Before 9:00 a.m. September 11, 2001). For the exercise, the E-4B launched from outside Washington is supposed to be using and testing its sophisticated technology and communications equipment. Global Guardian was reportedly canceled after 9:03, when the second WTC tower was hit. But according to journalist and author Dan Verton, the E-4B located outside Washington has “only just taken off” at the time the Pentagon is hit (which is at 9:37 a.m.). Verton says the aircraft is then “immediately ordered to cease the military exercise it was conducting and prepare to become the actual national airborne operations center.” Minutes after the Pentagon attack, an unidentified four-engine jet plane is seen circling above the White House (see (9:42 a.m.) September 11, 2001). CNN later suggests this is an E-4B, so it is possible it is the same plane as is launched from the airfield outside Washington.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?before_9/11=militaryExercises&timeline=complete_911_timeline

[Sweet Pea]

24. That's great information

and is what I'd expect an airborne command and control aircraft to do in this situation.

[seemslikeadream]

10. At the Education Center at Fort Myer, an army base 1.5 miles northwest of the Pentagon

Before 9:37 a.m. September 11, 2001: Army Base near Pentagon Holding Air Field Fire Fighting Training At the Education Center at Fort Myer, an army base 1.5 miles northwest of the Pentagon, the base’s firefighters are undertaking training variously described as “an airport rescue firefighters class”; “an aircraft crash refresher class”; “a week-long class on Air Field Fire Fighting”; and a “training exercise in airport emergency operations.” Despite hearing of the first WTC crash during a break, with no access to a TV, the class simply continues with its training. According to Bruce Surette, who is attending the session: “We had heard some radio transmissions from some other units in Arlington about how they thought they had a plane down here or a plane down there. So you’re thinking, ‘Hey this could be real.’ But it really didn’t strike home as being real until our guy came on the radio and said where the plane crash was.” The Fort Myer firefighters then immediately head for the Pentagon, arriving there at 9:40 a.m., only three minutes after it is hit, and participate in the firefighting and rescue effort there. The fire station at the Pentagon heliport is actually operated by the Fort Myer Fire Department, and is manned on the morning of 9/11 by three Fort Myer firefighters who have already undertaken the airfield firefighting training. The Fort Myer military community, which includes Fort Myer and Fort Lesley J. McNair—another army base, just two miles east of the Pentagon—was scheduled to hold a “force protection exercise” the week after 9/11. However this has been cancelled, so just prior to the attacks the morning of September 11, “some of its participants breathing a sigh of relief.”
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?before_9/11=militaryExercises&timeline=complete_911_timeline

[seemslikeadream]

11. initially thought the reports of Flight 11 being hijacked were because “Somebody started the exerci

(9:40 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Hijacking Simulation Scheduled as Part of NORAD Exercise As part of a NORAD training exercise, a simulated hijacking was scheduled to occur around this time. It was to have been based around politically motivated perpetrators taking command of an aircraft, landing it on a Cuba-like island, and seeking asylum there. The hijacking was one of several simulated scenarios prepared for the day. Details of the other scenarios are unknown. Major Kevin Nasypany, the NEADS mission crew commander who’d helped designed the exercise, initially thought the reports of Flight 11 being hijacked were because “Somebody started the exercise early.” The exercise was canceled after the second plane hit the World Trade Center (see After 9:03 a.m. September 11, 2001).
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?before_9/11=militaryExercises&timeline=complete_911_timeline

[Bassman66]

18. "a bit"

a book that explains everything but only touches on the excercises "a bit" and doesn't discuss numbers.

O..K..

Hijacked aircraft roamed American skies for two hours without interception and nobody got fired. Some did get promoted though I believe.

[seemslikeadream]

19. a raise and a medal!

[vincent_vega_lives]

28. I admit I have to agree with you here

"Hell of a Job Georgie" :wtf:

[Sweet Pea]

40. I agree, as well...n/t

[Sweet Pea]

25. Ok...

Hijacked aircraft roamed American skies for two hours without interception and nobody got fired. Some did get promoted though I believe.

I'll put the question to you.

What SHOULD have happened that morning with regards to the NORAD air defense condition? How would you have sped up the information flow such that we could have gotten F-15's or F-16's on the tail of those hijacked aircraft?

Don't be shy - how would you have created perfect situational awareness between the ATC controllers, the Northeast Air Defense Sector controllers and the aircrew manning the alert jets? How would you have, on that morning, made disparate communications systems and radios work together? How would you have made the hundreds of people involved in watching this event unfold know *exactly* and *precisely* what was going on, and would you have had no problems whatsoever, without any doubt in your mind, giving an order to shoot down an airliner as it neared Manhattan based on the information you had?

Plus, at various times over the next hour, dozens of airliners are observed doing goofy things as they try to sort out the airborne situation - they are flying to strange airports on direction from their company (on a separate radio frequency that ATC does not monitor), they are getting conflicting information from controllers, sending them to one airport then to another, then not acknowledging radio calls from the aircraft for minutes on end because of the chaos. Towers and control centers are being evacuated, in some cases leaving one controller to talk to dozens of aircraft. One Korean aircraft was actually squawking a hijack code as it neared US airspace on the west coast - the aircrew was using a non-standard (boy, was it EVER non-standard) way of telling ATC that they were "aware" of the hijackings. Would you have shot THEM down without any problems?

Its easy to criticize when you don't know the intimate working details of a situation, I suppose.

And just to reiterate, the first missed communication from the first jet to be hijacked was at 0814 that morning. The Otis ANG base F-15's were launched on alert at 0846. They were launched into an incredibly confusing situation - how would you have sorted things out?

[SDuderstadt]

39. Excellent post, Sweetpea n/t

[mhatrw]

49. Yes, it makes perfect sense that nobody in the military had any idea

Flight 93 was hijacked until the 20 minutes after the passengers stuck 35,000 feet in the air figured this out for themselves, called dozens of family member (some as many as 4 times), prayed with a Verizon operator for 20 minutes, planned an attack, mounted an attack and brought the plane down!

I mean, the explanation for this is patently obvious: the military is full of Republicans!

[Grateful for Hope]

86. Excellent observation.

"I mean, the explanation for this is patently obvious: the military is full of Republicans!"

I hadn't thought of this, but, since you mentioned it, it makes perfect sense. We all know the typical level of IQ of most republicans.

[vincent_vega_lives]

27. Also significant

IIRC there were ZERO USAF aircraft on alert status.

All Alert bases and aircraft were Air National Guard.

[tetedur]

35. Operation Vigilant Guardian is mentioned by Spencer in this interview

with Diane Rhems.

http://wamu.org/programs/dr/08/06/04.php

Someone called in with a question (about 36:44 into the 51 minute interview) and Lynn Spencer says Operation Vigilant
Guardian did involve the "scenario of a hijacking but in the traditional
form." That is, the planes were not used as missiles to attack an American
city. Apparently that coincidence doesn't strike her as anything odd.

In this interview Lynn Spencer states several times that "until 9/11 there
wasn't any need for direct coordination between the FAA and the military."

And: "It is important to understand that the air defense mission of the United States on 9/11 did not involve anything within the border of the United States. Our air defense units were looking outward. They were looking for airborne threats coming primarily from missiles. They were not looking within the United States borders. Every aircraft in the United States was considered friendly and so their radars were not even set to look within the borders of the United States."

"There had never needed to be direct communication between the FAA and the military." (24:33)

So how do we reconcile the fundamental question this poses considering
the fact that there was a position for a military liaison in the Boston Center FAA? Colin Scoggins (Cheap Shot) states here (it used to be here anyway)http://911guide.googlepages.com/
that he held such a position.

"As the military specialist I am responsible for all military procedures
between Boston Center and the military units in my airspace, and any
visiting military units that participate in any of our Special Use Airspace
(SUA). Through the years I have developed a pretty good working relationship
with those units. One of the main units I deal with is the Northeastern
Air Defense Sector (NEADS). They schedule the majority of the SUA in Boston
Center Airspace."

He relates that the "military and the FAA share a majority of the Long Range Radar Sites, the FAA is tied off from receiving the altitude triangulation feed that the military get."

Surely the military must coordinate with the FAA not only for their business but for times when the military helps out the civilians in emergency situations.

[mhatrw]

41. No, 9/11 changed everything. Before that, there was no air defense

over the entire continental United States. If any threat of any kind somehow got into domestic airspace, there was no stopping it. That's how Clinton wanted it! Luckily, Bush has fixed all that. :sarcasm:

[Name removed]

2. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[seemslikeadream]

3. How very interesting

Despite recent developments in Iraq, Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) still continues to advocate for immediate withdrawal, still has yet to meet with General Petraeus, and still insists on merely 'considering' a trip. The time for consideration is over. Senator Obama must make a commitment to seeing the success of the counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq himself.


http://vetsforfreedom.org/

[vincent_vega_lives]

29. What does this have to do with 9-11 pray tell? (n/t)

[Name removed]

31. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bryan Sacks]

14. where's the rest of the thread? n/t

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mhatrw]

17. So this book is a recent history of Republican party leaders?

Touched By A Republican

[Bolo Boffin]

20. No. This is a book about how Americans tried to respond to the 9/11 attacks as they were happening.

With research and all. You wouldn't be interested. It doesn't support your fantasies.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[vincent_vega_lives]

30. very predictable (n/t)

[Grateful for Hope]

32. They're not?

Why not do a search on the book in the OP? I think you will find some very interesting things.

[Bolo Boffin]

33. Stir, stir, stir.

Some people never learn.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[seemslikeadream]

42. numerous "phantom inject blips" falsely showing hijacked planes

Does the book mention these?


http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050830185334880

[stevenwarran]

62. Let's see...

No steel saved or studied from WTC Building 7--at all. Period.

All the preliminary paper work that went into the Arlington County After-Action Report has been misplaced or lost.

All the FCC audio tapes from September 11th destroyed by an underling who kept his job.

The CIA interrogation tapes destroyed despite court order and legal mandate....



Which one of these four does not belong in this list?

[stevenwarran]

44. Go to the book author's personal "My Page-esque" web page

http://www.girlswithwings.com/Bios/lynn.html

which we could rename "Girls Who Dot Their I's with Smiley Hearts!!!"

Then go to the professional web page for her book published by Simon & Schuster!

http://www.touchinghistory911.com/

Do you see the glaring inconsistencies?!

This is getting very spooky. How anyone could think Lynn Spencer would pass muster as having any credibility is beyond belief. Would no one else take the job?! Simon & Schuster is f***ed! Are we to believe Spencer wrestled the truth out of the various at-odds factions who lied to the 9-11 Commission?! Or is this just a trick that we were meant to get right off the bat? Is it reasonable that when we began to see the Emperor as naked we immediately go all the way to the short hairs?

Unbelievable. This other issue having to do with an outing of an online persona as a real-world spook by a variation of the same is being expressed in too grave an emotion tone and that is unsettling. Is it egomaniacal of me to think I am involved? Called an off-limits, anti-Semitic hate site by my detractors, (if I read between the lines correctly,) and apparently a 9-11 truth-teller by supporters of my theories. (I am a paradigm-shifter, or cognitive-dissonance-rectifier IMHO,)

It is painful to read Lynn Spencer's personal story, becoming a pilot, living her dream, raising her family. My mother had to abandon me in my senior year of high school to take a job in Washington DC. She sent a rent check every month mind you, for the fine house just down the block from where Al Gore was eventually to land, and I certainly thought I was a lucky bastard at the time--but that is no way to spend an adolescence and no way for America to treat working people. Lynn certainly sounds like a career sellout to me, and that is the central overarching conspiracy template. Sucking up to the man.

Where is the common good? The human family has been splintered by the machinations of our ugly rulers and the game is OVER. There is a better way.

Let's see how long this lasts at DU. I've copied and pasted in case it disappears. There is no debate, only manipulation.

[Bolo Boffin]

46. A difference between a personal home page and one from a major publisher about one of their books

Yes, wow, you've got some point there.

Attacking several people who's got it better than you -- Lynn Spencer, Al Gore.

Attacking DU.

"This other issue having to do with an outing of an online persona as a real-world spook by a variation of the same is being expressed in too grave an emotion tone and that is unsettling."

That's just a laugh riot there.

Between taking you seriously and taking Spencer seriously, I'm going with Lynn. No offense.

Besides, judging from your website, I'd thought you'd gotten a lot more exercised about the way "Firefight" completely destroys your fantasies about the Pentagon attack.

[mhatrw]

48. She's a model author!

Just like Paris Hilton!

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[stevenwarran]

52. I am worried about everybody's health and safety.

I am inexperienced in the ways of power. I was banned from JREF for "advocating violence," when I suggested "unintended suicide," as a solution to some problem, only to have a moral horror named enigma jump on the remark and run with it, saying, "Gosh, I've heard of low self-esteem before, but that takes the cake." Since I caught his drift, I--wearily and wrongly--replied, "I meant you, not me." (This was all deleted, including my PM warning.)

Actually, I was banned for only a week, (during which time JREF went strangely down...) got back to make two comments--one about the long, coincidental, pre-9-11 relationship between James Randi and William Rodriguez (
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=115142,) only to get popped forevermore. That's my two and two makes four.

JREF's arithmetic is different. In response to a blog of mine, said enigma replied on a thread http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3734059#post3734059, "I believe in freedom of speech but idiots that say this sort of thing should be lined up and shot by those they speak ill of." A moderator, Lisa Simpson, appended a warning, "Do not advocate violence towards others," while she left the threat up!

I was a local democratic committeeman. I gave Obama $250 in the primary. I belong here. Could we at least try for a democratic version of the truth here? Pinch (SWEET PEA? OMFG!) works navy themes and programs, but he also self-identifies as a right-wing reactionary so this isn't the ideal place for him.

I don't know who the bad guys and the good guys are. Jeff Wells banned me with only a little more fuss than Randi, but I like a little fuss made over me. All you guys and gals in the under-tier have been pitted against one another so you have to work it out yourselves. I'll be there to help if you want to break out of the system. I'm a free agent walk-in who outed himself remember.


My God! My chutzpa! Sometimes I simply take my own breath away!

[Ghost in the Machine]

53. Welcome to DU, Steve

You were "theauthor" at JREF? You were the first to welcome me over there... I post there as "Unchained Spirit"...

PEACE!

Ghost

[stevenwarran]

59. Thank you for the welcome GitM

No, I was stevenwarran there, as I am everywhere. I'm old fashioned that way. But I overlapped theauthor, we left in the same general purge, and I certainly liked his POV. Who and where is he now?

Actually, let me correct myself. For four hours just prior to my arrival at JREF, I was called something stupid over at the LooseChangeForum--oh yes! "Steven Welch!" Somebody just happened to use that name in a thread I stumbled upon, and without thinking I registered as Steven Welch and started to post there. A JREFer named BOBERT seemed to object to the use of what he called a "real identity," and it felt like he was defending me since I hadn't started it! I still kinda like him, although I disagreed with him later that he wasn't really in Hong Kong like he said, but in Lake Forest, California instead--so I don't think he likes me. I bet that the photograph of him that got posted wasn't chosen because it was the most flattering, and I imagine he's much better looking than we are led to believe.

(Aren't I a horrible flirt?)

[Ghost in the Machine]

63. Sorry for the mixup...

'theauthor' was the only banned person I saw on the one thread you linked to... LOL! I got suspended for 3 days over there last week... I haven't posted again yet since it was lifted. They're a funny lot over there, up to and including some biased mods. I don't know where 'theauthor' is now... I think there was a link to him posting on the LC forums though...

PEACE!

Ghost

[seemslikeadream]

88. (Aren't I a horrible flirt?)

yea ya are



I see you've met my good friend Ghost

[stevenwarran]

92. Yea, I'm figuring out the good guys from the bad.

Why does that mean moderator keep deleting my posts? One took AN HOUR to create and I forgot to make a copy!

I can't tell you how much love surges off your gif!

Would love heal bolo?

[SDuderstadt]

56. I didn't think anyone could write a more incoherent post than...

SLAD, but this one takes the cake.

[stevenwarran]

60. Incoherent is one word Mr. Kettle

Pot

[SDuderstadt]

67. Sorry...reading your posts...

they just don't make that much sense. Truth hurts, huh...

[Ghost in the Machine]

61. incoherent is one word, not two... maybe you'd understand more if you read & wrote better?

:shrug:

Just pointing that out, since you like to play spelling police with everyone else...

[stevenwarran]

64. Back me up Ghost in the Machine!

xo

[stevenwarran]

66. OMG! SLaD! SDuderstadt thinks we are the same person!

I knew we were soul mates the moment I met you!

I love you.

[Bolo Boffin]

68. He doesn't think you're the same person, though.

Are you sure that's just helium in that tank you're inhaling?

[stevenwarran]

74. Are you saying that I am coming across as overwrought?

I just figured out what n/t means!

[SDuderstadt]

70. Apparently, in addition to incoherent posts...

you also have a reading comprehension problem. How you can read my post and somehow conclude I think you and SLAD are the same person is beyond me.

[stevenwarran]

76. Dear SDuderstadt. You are right and I am wrong.

But aren't even my misreadings beautiful? I was so glad to tell SLaD that I loved her.

Flay me alive!

[SDuderstadt]

77. Why do I doubt that you're a serious poster? n/t

[stevenwarran]

79. Huh? Define "serious poster?" Glum? Self Important?

Shall we talk about my work? Can't we talk about watering-hole trivialities, like parties and frocks?

[SDuderstadt]

80. Bye....you proved my point n/t

[stevenwarran]

81. So long, farewell. n/t

[greyl]

91. Auf wiedersehen, goodbye nt

[seemslikeadream]

89. jah bless i and i

[Name removed]

93. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[stevenwarran]

54. The "personal home page and one from a major publisher about one of [her] their books" don't fit!

But "Firefight" and "Touching History" match exactly. They both have no credibility, no power, no mojo.

"Patrick Creed, who is described as a volunteer firefighter and amateur historian, who is also an army reserve officer who was called to serve in Iraq and was injured there," is either one reserve, one volunteer, or one amateur too many. I couldn't believe that Terry Gross on NPR (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90696597) went off on a digression about his TBI from Iraq. It is interesting, it is human, it is a sad reality and consequence of our invasion of Irag, and I feel terribly sorry for the man personally, but it is no way to sell a history book!

But I praise the pair for this revelation:

From Acknowledgments, page 460:

"The 'Arlington County After-Action Report' for instance, provides a thorough overview of the incident at the Pentagon. But it was based on a trove of officer reports, internal memos, interview transcripts, and other documents from the Arlington County Fire Department that were either destroyed or misplaced afterward, and were unavailable to us."

There is no more history left for any of us! Nonetheless, I still want my reality handsome, smart, and with integrity! I will not stand for bad acting! I saw a comment recently on military.com where gay enlistees were being welcomed into service by an old-fashioned lifer with open (practical) arms--he called them "patriot gays" for the spirit to volunteer in troubled times. That's called living in the solution. What have you contributed recently bolo?

[Bolo Boffin]

65. How do they "not fit"? n/t

[stevenwarran]

69. Ummm...grammer, sensibility, outlook...gravitus

maybe footnotes, indexes, and appendixes, but my copy hasn't arrived yet so I can't say for sure on those.

[SDuderstadt]

72. It's "grammar"..........n/t

[stevenwarran]

73. Hoisted on my own petard!

Friends?

[Bolo Boffin]

75. One was written by her publisher and the other by herself.

I doubt she submitted her personal website to the scrutiny of her publisher.

[stevenwarran]

78. Then I wish the publisher had written the book...

and the author had...well, I'm not going to finish that thought.

[stevenwarran]

71. I know! Reference point!

[Sweet Pea]

84. Talk about not staying on the OP thread.....n/t

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mhatrw]

90. Every action seems to have its own reactionary. n/t

[Grateful for Hope]

97. The OP.

Is the OP right-wing or left-wing?

Hmmmm????

[seemslikeadream]

95. Lynn Spencer

So just who is Lynn Spencer?

[Grateful for Hope]

96. Good question. ????

[Bolo Boffin]

98. Who is anybody here?

When somebody's research is solid, who the hell care who they are? Judge her by the merits of her work, not by "who she is."

[seemslikeadream]

100. research is solid,

Where is the proof of that?

[Bolo Boffin]

101. Have you read her book?

No? Then you can't speak to the subject of whether or not her research is solid.

[SDuderstadt]

102. Exactly n/t

[seemslikeadream]

103. I guess you have?

[Laurier]

106. Yes. Why haven't you?

What is it with you, constantly trying to slag off someone without even being remotely aware of their work or their credentials? It only makes you look silly.

[seemslikeadream]

107. You should do some checking out of the author

you might be a bit surprised. I always find it necessary to know an author BEFORE I read anything they've written, in this case I've got some questions

[SDuderstadt]

110. And what questions would those be?

I just don't think you're all that discerning when either choosing books to read or videos to post here.

[Bolo Boffin]

111. Actually, SLAD has posted some links to some pretty cool documentaries

The one about the impact of Freud's theories on modern public relations, "The Power of Nightmares," I believe, was excellent. Also, there was another one that was quite good. The name escapes me. SLAD probably remembers them because I complimented her on the links.

[JackRiddler]

104. ROFL!!!!

[seemslikeadream]

99. I hear see likes a little talk with her coffee

[Laurier]

105. It's an excellent book and her credentials are spelled out within.

I take it that you're just cheer-leading without any substance or basis, as usual.

[seemslikeadream]

108. Having coffee with Tommy Franks how interesting

[HamdenRice]

109. Strange coincidence?

This book was recommended on a certain blog by a self-described right wing reactionary around the same time.

That "right wing" blogger refers to DU as the apex of the lunatic left.

Are you familiar with that other analysis of this book?

[SpikyPenguin]

112. Stand-down == Rummy not picking up the phone...

Dudes, the Italians investigating this are way ahead of you. Yes there were exercises that day and yes these exercises did send important planes to far off places. However, the procedure was changed in June 2001 so that the Secretary of Defence had to authorise a shoot down. The FAA and NORAD followed procedures with a very high degree of professionalism, with everything in place, but, when they called Rumsfeld for permission he did not answer the phone. That was all it took to effect a stand-down - one man not picking up a telephone. It's as simple as that.

Also of note, Mr. Mineta's 'do the orders still stand?' testimony at the commisson was no Bush-style slip up. In a documentary he repeats the same to a BBC reporter.