Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Assuming a conspiracy, how many involved?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
RaRa Donating Member (705 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-05 04:11 PM
Original message
Assuming a conspiracy, how many involved?
I check in from time to time here and read some of the links, but I am nowhere near as knowledgeable as most of you here. When I see/read things about insider trading and other red flags, I have to wonder: how many people could really be involved to MIHOP or LIHOP? Sometimes it seems like dozens or more are involved. How on earth can so many stay silent? Scared or not to talk, somebody could still get the story out, don't you think?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
pauldp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-05 05:13 PM
Response to Original message
1. Let's See... Sibel Edmonds, Indirah Singh, The Able Danger Guys
Various people at this website.
http://www.nswbc.org /

People have come forward. Many are being silenced with the "States Secrets" crap.

Unfortunately any one of them doesn't have the whole story.
Getting the whole story from one person is unlikely considering how high the stakes are.
Black Ops are usually highly compartmentalized.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-05 08:29 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. You're talking about a cast of hundreds (if not thousands)...
...all of whom have managed to keep absolutely silent.

Amazing, isn't it?

:tinfoilhat:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pauldp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 02:32 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. Muffled cries of people who expose criminals
Edited on Thu Sep-29-05 02:35 AM by pauldp
are treated as absolute silence. Damn shame.

Lets meet some of our cast members:

A big round of applause for P-Tech ladies and gentlemen.

A software company with major Al Qaeda connections climbed deep into the assholes of the FAA, the IRS, the White House and the Department of Defense (to name a few) and was allowed to STAY THERE in some cases even after the terrorist connections were exposed. Indira Singh was far from silent on this, but after BushCo shut down the CBS Boston affiliate story she may as well have been a deaf mute as far as the media was concerned.

So I guess her story and the other whistle blower stories don't count because they are just insiders EXPOSING the criminals, rather than claiming to BE one of the criminals?

http://wbz4.com/iteam/local_story_343145212.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 10:34 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. Give me ONE concrete link between P-Tech and 9/11. Just ONE.
There isn't one. There IS a lot of circumstantial evidence and innuendo, none of which (even if it DID connect P-Tech with 9/11) proves any MIHIP or LIHOP scenario...just incompetence.

With all of the people that would have to be involved in a LIHOP or MIHOP scenario, there would almost HAVE to be somebody that would have come forward by now with something more than casual affiliations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pauldp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. The point is if there is never a real investigation
we will never get beyond what can be characterized as "circumstantial evidence and innuendo". Lets just assume government complicity is a possibility for a second - would you expect someone with blood on their hands to just come forward and say "hey I was involved and this is what I did" - that would most likely be a death wish no?

The many P-Tech connections to Al Qaeda financing are a fact not a "casual affiliation" Last time I checked Al Qaeda is still blamed for 911.

If we never investigate what these whistle blowers are talking about we will never know for sure. Are you saying there is no need for a real investigation into P-Tech or what Sibel Edmonds has tried to reveal? How can you be sure all the gag orders on the whistle blowers are just covering incompetence? Their testimony has not been heard!

Remember, many of the people associated with this administration were involved in Iran Contra - Illegal arms sales to an enemy state used to fund mass murdering right wing narco-terrorists. To give them a free pass and assume mere incompetence is dangerous IMHO.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 02:16 AM
Response to Reply #10
14. Of course there should be investigations...
...however the thread title was "Assuming a conspiracy, how many involved?"

For the complete events of 9/11 to have been MIHOP, a LOT of people would have had to be involved.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pauldp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. I was replying
to the part of the post where she said "how can so many stay silent".

My point being that people have come forward with information that is being supressed. They may not have blood on their hands but they probably have knowledge and information about people that do. Over and over these people are being silenced by the government. We have not had real investigations into P-Tech etc. We've had the exact opposite.

Regarding how many would have to be involved - If it was LIHOP it could be just a few. MIHOP - probably more would be completely in the know, but not necessarily hundreds. The question is who is being bribed or intimidated for knowing a small piece of information as many in the National Whistle Blowers Coalition are. Those are the people who will blow the lid off of this if their stories are ever allowed to be told.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
StrafingMoose Donating Member (742 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-05 06:40 PM
Response to Reply #10
33. Oh, governemental complicity in a terrorist act is very possible
Edited on Wed Oct-05-05 06:52 PM by StrafingMoose
(against their own people) You might even have proofs that a certain agency erased hours of tapes of evidence, before and after the deed.

And they might use the constitution and charts of rights to cover their asses too!

And no, as many people might think, a governement killing it's own people doesn't necesarily leads to a bloody coup against the perpetrators. Some tend to think "If I went to work today, and that the stock markets are A OK, everything is A OK".

WRONG

It DID happen, and as far as I know, us Canadians aren't locked into a bloody fight against our killers. The declassified CSIS (our 'CIA'), RCMP (our 'FBI') own papers show this.

That event was called "The Bombing of Air India Flight 182"

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/airindia/files_invest...

(And that's national TV here, so if they run that kind of thing, it's called 'damage control')

While this doesn't in any way apply directly to 9/11, the scenario in which a governement ignored willingly many warnings and destroyed evidences becomes bleakly more plausible. Able Danger my friends! It might be your key to send the criminals into a jerky dance about how they had to protect terrorists' rights because they looooooooove your constitution so much after all. Now that will change the 9/11 paradigm debate big time.

The difference between 9/11 and Air India bombings, is that the US governement even had the disgusting idea to use it as a lever for policies they couldn't instate before. Maybe Canada used it also for policy modifications, but that was in 1985. I was 6 years old back then, I'll have to check this out.







Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. "All of the people that would have to be involved"
How many? Ptech haywires the radar injects that were happening anyway
in the war games--and tells al Qaeda ahead of time. One?

Then the responders were simply obstructed, not complicit, and they're
forbidden to talk about it because the war games are a national security
issue. "There's an ongoing investigation," the line goes. "Don't
compromise it."

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 02:13 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. P-Tech didn't have the ability to "inject" into FAA computers.
They were working with NORAD, not the FAA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. ""P-Tech didn't have the ability to "inject""
I haven't read "Crossing the Rubicon" yet, but I understand the
assertion is that Mitre Corp and Ptech were in the basement of the FAA,
working on interoperability issues between FAA and NORAD and the Air
Force. Also the Secret Service had access to FAA radar information, and
Cheney had access to all that.

If you knew about radar injects and they were classified, would your
duty be to say "I can't talk about radar injects" or would it be to deny
their existence?

You may recall that FAA denied the existence of the Saudi flight from
Tampa to Lexington for two years until they admitted it. Surely many
ATCs knew during that period that the official story was a lie, but
AFAIK nobody dared to issue a "point of clarification" about even a
minor point that was only slightly damaging politically to the Bush
administration. That being the case, the proposition that nobody
breathes a word about major points that involve classified information
seems pretty reasonable.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 10:35 PM
Response to Reply #16
20. Once again, there IS no "basement of the FAA".
Each facility has its own computers. The radar data isn't shared between them, each facility processes its own data. They're not linked in a way that allows "injecting" radar targets from a central location.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 12:57 AM
Response to Reply #20
22. "Each facility has its own computers."
Well you can assert that: "I work there and I know." But somebody who
works for JP Morgan can say the same thing. "There is no central
computer." And though that guy might believe it, Indira Singh knows he's
wrong, 'cause she's involved in the enterprise software. I've worked at
a lot of places but I've never claimed I knew all their secrets.

Indira Singh said at the 9/11 Citizens' Commission in NYC in 9/04 that
Ptech was in the basement of the FAA with Mitre Software Corp for two
years before 9/11, working on interoperability issues among FAA, NORAD,
and the Air Force.

The mere fact that you never heard of such a thing does not mean it
didn't exist. Mike Ruppert says Cheney had the same backdoor access to
the FAA system through the Ptech software that Singh had been looking
for in her project for JP Morgan.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 01:04 AM
Response to Reply #22
23. Whatever...
Believe what you like, but it's a silly story...

...there is still no such thing as the "basement of the FAA".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 01:39 AM
Response to Reply #23
24. "a silly story..."
I haven't investigated it yet, so I don't know. But it certainly
seems less silly than the story that almost an hour after the first
WTC strike an unarmed passenger airliner passed unnoticed into what
should have been the most expensively-defended airspace in the history
of the world and flew into the HQ of the greatest military power the
world has ever seen.

It's less silly than the notion that after three hijacked airliners
had been flown into buildings, the following dialog took place about
the fourth:

Command Center: Uh, do we want to think, uh, about scrambling aircraft?

FAA Headquarters: Oh, God, I don't know.

Command Center: Uh, that's a decision somebody's gonna have to make
probably in the next ten minutes.

FAA Headquarters: Uh, ya know everybody just left the room.


Now that is a silly story.

So, when you say there is no basement at the FAA, you're saying the
DOT offices are built on some kind of unconventional slab foundation?






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 06:12 AM
Response to Reply #24
25. No, I'm saying that "the FAA" is comprised of hundreds of buildings.
Of those buildings used for ATC, their computers operate semi-autonomously (they're designed that way so one failure doesn't bring down the entire system). They exchange flight plan data, but not radar data (they each process their own radar data independantly of each other).

There's no single "basement", or attic, or super-secret living room that has the access to all of the different facilities' computers that would allow somebody to inject false radar data from a central point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-03-05 03:30 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. "their computers operate semi-autonomously"
Indira Singh is an expert in enterprise level software who worked for
JP Morgan and planned to install a system that would allow her to open
backdoors into the JP Morgan system of semi-autonomous computers so they
could be monitored for evidence of criminal activity. She
consulted Ptech because they could supply such a system. She said at
the NYC Citizens' 9/11 Commission in 9/04 that Ptech and Mitre worked
on the FAA system for two years before 9/11, working on interoperability
with NORAD and the Air Force.

In "Against All Enemies" Richard Clarke says: "Secret Service had a
system that allowed them to see what FAA's radar was seeing."

Years ago when my workplace switched from a centralized computer
system with dumb terminals to a system of networked semi-autonomous
PCs, I asked one of the system geeks if other people could access
files on my computer through the network. He told me no. Later I
found this wasn't true.

You should consider the possibility that your sources of information
are mistaken.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 12:14 AM
Response to Reply #26
27. Possibility considered.
Weighing what I know against what's been posted on this board, though, I'd have to stick with what I know.

That aside, have there EVER been any actual claims that artificial targets were introduced to FAA computers? NORAD's computers, sure...it was part of an exercise, but the FAA's computers?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
StrafingMoose Donating Member (742 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-05 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #23
29. Unless you're ready to call her a liar...


The story remains quite important until she's asked to testify under oath and examined afterwards. She said in numerous interviews that she will testify at anytime.

And how could they _not_ be working with the FAA? You're contradicting her statements here...

FTW: You said at the 9/11 Citizens' Commission hearings, you mentioned - it's on page 139 of transcript - that Ptech was with Mitre Corporation in the basement of the FAA for 2 years prior to 9/11 and their specific job was to look at interoperability issues the FAA had with NORAD and the Air Force, in case of an emergency.

Indira Singh: Yes, I have a good diagram for that.


She was working on a software that could perform a handshake between Depts's IT system. FAA, NORAD and the Air Force, at least, in this case.

If I wanted to code a software that could make a 'handshake' with your MSN Messenger program, I'd need to get a part if not the whole source code.

And stop hitting the nail on the 'basement' strawman argument here. Call her a liar right now and deal with it if that's your intention.






Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-05 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. Not a "liar", just imprecise.
Edited on Wed Oct-05-05 12:38 PM by MercutioATC
Did a company look into developing a way to let NORAD and FAA computers talk to each other? Probably.

Does that mean that this would fundamentally change the entire NAS (National Airspace System) network, making it do something it's incapable of doing? Probably not.

I have no doubt that somebody looked into a way to share data between NORAD and the FAA computers at the Command Center. The point is that the Command Center's computers don't share radar data with other FAA facilities. NONE of our facilities share radar data.

To hazard a guess at how many "computer systems" the FAA now has, I'd say about a half a dozen. We have our NAS system that's autonomous by facility. We have URET that shares flight plan data between facilities and interacts with the NAS computers, but has nothing to do with radar data. We have VSCS, our inter- and intra-facility communications system. We have flight data processing (not my area). We have our regular computer network (also not my area). I'm sure there are more.

I know what our NAS computers (the ones that process radar data) are designed to do. None of the P-Tech information mentions anything specifically about the NAS computers or devising a way to make them talk to each other.

There's absolutely NOTHING about the P-Tech articles that would suggest that they did what you're suggesting they did. The information given is much too vague to make that determination.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
StrafingMoose Donating Member (742 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-05 04:50 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. I agree...
Edited on Wed Oct-05-05 04:54 PM by StrafingMoose

The details in the articles (FTW, Daniel Hopsicker, local CBS) don't paint a clear picture about exactly what P-tech was able to do, and what it had access to.

But we have Singh's own word though:

"The project included incident investigation, law enforcement, military aviation systems, highly sensitive information, especially if you wanted to exploit the FAAs current capabilities and holes to jam or slow down U.S. military response to a domestic hijacking, for example." here

"P-tech worked on a project that revealed all information processes and issues that the FAA had with the National Airspace Systems Agency, NAS," Singh said. here

That's pretty darn precise if you ask me. The only way here to discount her, would be by saying 1) Hopsicker made this up 2) Indira Singh, also made up, this very precise statement.

In a Guns and Butter (Interview with Indira Singh. "Ground Zero 911, Blueprint for Terror, Part Two")
interview, she spoke about Michael Ruppert covering her story. She didn't mention Hopsicker, but if he did make up his article, I doubt she wouldn't have mentionned it.

Whether if there's a conspiracy or not, I don't have an answer to that either.

You have Yassin al-Qadi (Ptech's start-up money man) who's been put on a terrorist list on Oct 2001. Then you have Singh, saying she's been threatened many times. Go figure. We could get many more details if she's ever asked to testify I suppose.

If you want to class this in the "non-issue" section, go ahead your entitled to your opinion.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-05 11:21 PM
Response to Reply #31
34. But it's not precise at all...
It's ONE person's vague statement about P-Tech working on a project having to do with NAS. A LOT of companies do that (Lockheed Martin-Marietta, Harris Corp., etc.). There's nothing here to suggest that P-Tech (or anybody) would be able to insert false targets into the NAS computers at numerous facilities simultaneously (which is the issue here).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
StrafingMoose Donating Member (742 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-05 11:31 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. What part did you not understand?
Edited on Wed Oct-05-05 11:34 PM by StrafingMoose
"P-tech worked on a project that revealed all information processes and issues that the FAA had with the National Airspace Systems Agency, NAS," Singh said."

I didn't say it's the truth, I said this is what SHE said and SHE said over many different interviews that she's willing to testify about what SHE said, including putting names of the people who threatened her.

Beleive me, I also want to know what a terrorist backed software company could do when they have a crapload of agencies handling sensitive data as customers. I doubt these agencies and departements went trough the "Oh, they're terrorist financed -- let's give them access to only this and that part, but not this part" process.

I strongly doubt that a "Senior Enterprise Architecture Consultant at JP Morgan" would push things just to fuel conspiracy theories.







Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-05 11:38 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. You're still making gross assumptions.
"P-tech worked on a project that revealed all information processes and issues that the FAA had with the National Airspace Systems Agency, NAS,"

So what? I can work on a project that "reveals all information processes and issues" about a Chevy Chevette. That doesn't mean that I can make it fly. The NAS system is not designed to do what some allege P-Tech did (insert false targets simultaneously into the systems at many different facilities). P-Tech could have a great understanding of the system...they still can't make it fly.

Show me ONE qoute that states that P-Tech found a way to do it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
StrafingMoose Donating Member (742 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-05 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #36
37. re...

OK, maybe I just got it wrong, but if I do, Indira Singh also does -- after all SHE is the whistleblower risking her career and security for something she thinks is a serious breach of security


Ptech Inc. Confidential Business Plan: Page 37 of 46, 11/7/2001

The FAA recognized the need for leveraging its IT investment, with a means of centralizing activities and introducing consistency and compatibility within the operating systems environment. A Ptech consulting team was organized to use activity modeling to identify key functions that could be examined for improvement in network management, network security, configuration management, fault management, performance management, application administration, network accounting management, and user help desk operations.


As a network admin and programmer, give me that much access to your network and you could see odd things starting to happen.

Of course, the question is did the FAA actually give Ptech the said access and then started to work on it, or it was just a blueprint that never got implemented?

Ptech's mandate was to look at interoperability between FAA and NORAD. Isn't that exactly what failed on 9/11, interoperability?

And no, I won't prove that they were able to inject false bleeps on their radars -- since I don't know if they really could.



According to this altough, the 'logical wiring' seems to all end in one place, unless I'm mistaken -- which is probable. The software may not let a component communicate with another component in the diagram simply because by design it's not made that way, but what if you're actually tasked and given access to remodel, reprogram this software?







Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-06-05 11:40 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. I believe the issue is this:
It's not a software issue, but a hardware issue.

My direct experience is limited to ARTCC radar processing, but there were five ARTCCs involved in 9/11 radar data issues.

ARTCC (Center) radar displays are a radar mosaic. Radar data is received from multiple radar sites, compared by the NAS computer, and displayed on the Center scopes. Each facility NAS computer does its own processing of the data and displays its own image.

This is a dangerously simplistic analogy, but it may serve to partly illustrate the way things work:

Imagine that each ARTCC NAS computer is a reporter and each radar site is an eyewitness. Depending on the geographic area in question, certain eyewitnesses are polled by certain reporters. Each NAS computer takes statements from each radar site, compares the stories (which differ at times) and writes a story based on its interpretation of the varying accounts.

To add something false to the story, you'd have to get that false information to each of the reporters individually...the reporters don't talk to each other before they write the story.

Hope that makes things a little clearer. If not, I'm always here to think up new analogies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
StrafingMoose Donating Member (742 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-08-05 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #38
39. Thanks for your time

That explans it better. And sorry if I slipped into insulting insinuations at times.

On a totally different matter, my friend is taking a course to become an ATC and the word is that they are on their way to centralize all radar data, in Canada. In Montreal or Toronto I beleive.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-09-05 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #39
40. No problem. It's a complex system that most people know nothing about.
It DOES look suspicious if you don't know the mechanics of it.

Congrats to your cousin (at least here in the States, it's a good job). I haven't heard about them centralizing, but it wouldn't surprise me. Since they privatized Canadian ATC, they've been bleeding red ink and looking for ways to cut costs. Centralization would definitely be a way to do that.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-10-05 01:57 AM
Response to Reply #40
41. "It's a complex system"
But all you have to do is feed it fraudulent data and it's subverted.

Nothing you've said negates the Michael Ruppert hypothesis that false
blips were inserted by the Ptech software.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-10-05 06:12 AM
Response to Reply #41
42. My point is that feeding it fraudulent data is very difficult.
It can't be done from a single access point. Again, it's a hardware issue, not a software issue. The computers at different facilities do not share radar data.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-10-05 09:12 PM
Response to Reply #42
43. They don't share radar data.
So what? My computer and my cousin's computer don't share data either,
but that doesn't mean we can't both be hacked, separately, by the same person.

Unless you're going to maintain that the radar computers are isolated
and without connections to the other computers, how does it matter that
they don't share data?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-10-05 10:02 PM
Response to Reply #43
44. Because it has everything to do with the way they process the data.
Each ARTCC HOST computer takes data from multiple radar sites, sorts and values the data based on predetermined criteria and presents a picture of what it "thinks" is going on (we're talking about over a dozen radar sites and hundreds of different sort priorities for a small ARTCC).


Yes, the HOST computers are isolated. They only accept radar data from physical radar pipes to the facility. That's my point. Somebody would have to physically have to tap into the HOST computers at multiple facilities (a simultaneous physical connection to multiple computers inside multiple secure facilities) to be able to insert erroneous radar data.

Is there another way for me to say that this is damn near impossible?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-11-05 02:27 PM
Response to Reply #44
45. the HOST computers are isolated.
Edited on Tue Oct-11-05 02:30 PM by petgoat
Richard Clarke said (p.7) that the Secret Service could see what was on
the FAA radar screens. Perhaps he means only in Washington, but at
least to that degree the isolation is imperfect.

As to what's impossible, nothing's impossible. If computer consultants
like Mitre had access to the facility for work on other systems, they
may well have been able to install something on the HOST machines.

Or couldn't the radar sites be confused by a device that picks up the
radar pulse and transmits a phony reflection? I don't know if you'd
need two synchronized devices to confuse the redundant receivers or if
it could be handled from one location. I would think that the US
military would have stuff like that, and probably the Brits, the
French, the Russians, the Israelis, and the Chinese.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-05 06:55 AM
Response to Reply #45
47. SEEING what's on the screens is one thing...
...CHANGING them is another thing altogether.

I can SEE what you're watching on TV if I tune in the same channel, but I can't CHANGE it.

I don't know the mechanics of the "phony reflection" device you propose, but it's have to be installed on ALL radar sites separately. Remember, the HOST computers at different facilities all poll different radar sites for different geographic areas and throw out anydata that seems erroneous. If the data were just being sent from one site, it wouldn't show on multiple facilities' displays.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-05 07:00 PM
Response to Reply #47
48. Whatever it is, it seems to be fouling things up royally at Merrimack
Edited on Wed Oct-12-05 07:16 PM by petgoat
And your broadcast analogy is not appropriate unless Secret Service has
its own antennae.

A better analogy would be if I was tied in to my neighbor's cable TV
system--a connection which could allow me not only to receive the same
signals, but to interfere with my neighor's signals and even inject
counterfeit ones.

Since data from one aircraft shows on multiple radar sites, I don't see
why more than one counterfeit reflection station would be needed per
counterfeit aircraft. But if multiple transmitters were needed for
multiple radar stations, I don't see why they couldn't be radio-
synchronized.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-12-05 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #48
49. That's my point...the Secret Service CAN'T interfere with the input.
(well, maybe they CAN, but nobody's managed to show me how)

Exactly what is a "counterfeit reflection station" and who makes them? Hell, my life would be perfect if I just had a magic wand, but I can't seem to locate one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-05 01:23 AM
Response to Reply #49
50. A counterfeit reflection station would be
a device that reads radar pings, and responds with a transmission that
simulates the reflected ping of an aircraft.

It would fall under the category of electronic warfare devices. I have
little doubt that the US military has them. I would imagine that at
least six other military powers have them too.

I bet any intelligent technocrat could build one in a few months for a
thousand dollars.

As to the ability to interfere with the input, if the Secret Service has
a hard-wire read connection on the FAA feed, how many people get to
inspect the connection and ensure that it doesn't have a read-write connection?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-05 02:13 AM
Response to Reply #50
51. You really don't understand RADAR, do you?
You know, the whole "RAdio Detection And Ranging" thing...

Please explain to me how a device "reads radar pings, and responds with a transmission that simulates the reflected ping of an aircraft".


"I bet any intelligent technocrat could build one in a few months for a thousand dollars."


"Technocrat"?? Are you sure that's the word you meant to use??


Main Entry: technocrat
Pronunciation: 'tek-n&-"krat
Function: noun
1 : an adherent of technocracy
2 : a technical expert; especially : one exercising managerial authority

Definition of "technocracy":

Main Entry: technocracy
Pronunciation: tek-'n-kr&-sE
Function: noun
: government by technicians; specifically : management of society by technical experts


I'm a little confused by your arguement...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-05 02:49 AM
Response to Reply #51
52. I understood RADAR twenty years ago; perhaps I'm a bit rusty
Let's see. It sends out a radio signal, it receives the reflected
signals, it measures the time between the sent signal and the reflected
signal, perhaps analyzes phase relationships, and determines the
distance to the reflecting object.

The reflected signal is presumably rather weak, so it wouldn't take a
real strong transmitter to simulate one.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-05 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #52
53. So, you're proposing that they had multiple mobile radar target generators
strung out between Indiana and the east coast (enough to interefere with every radar site along the path of the 9/11 planes)?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-13-05 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #53
54. "multiple mobile radar target generators?"
Not at all. First of all, if the official story of the recent
Logan/Merrimack false blips is to be believed, they only replaced one
radar dish. Thus it appears that only one dish need be deceived to
disrupt the entire region.

And not all regions need be deceived. 11 flights were viewed by the
FAA as suspicious.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2002-08-12-hijacker...

That would seem to be enough to confuse the air defense and prevent
interception.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-14-05 01:29 AM
Response to Reply #54
55. It doesn't work that way.
If you fool only one site, that data will not agree with the other sites and will most likely be discarded by the HOST.

...and that would only have an effect on a small geographic region. The planes were seen (over the course of their flights) on many different systems, using many different radar sites.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-14-05 03:13 AM
Response to Reply #55
56. You said a number of radar sites connected to one HOST,
and redundant data from multiple sites was resolved by the HOST.

But at Merrimack we had a situation where (allegedly) one bad antenna
created false blips that fouled up the whole system for two days.

The four hijacked planes were, yes, tracked over a number of different
regions, through many different radat sites, and many systems.

But if Merimack's one antenna can foul up a whole region, it seems to me
that two antennae in different regions could foul up the whole air
defense. Was anybody going to say... "well, no other regions saw it,
and therefore that blip doesn't exist"?




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-14-05 04:16 AM
Response to Reply #56
57. I'm not familiar with the system in Merrimac but for all of the facilities
along the routes of flight of the 9/11 planes to display false data, there would have to be multiple corruptions of the data.

We're talking about at least five Centers and god knows how many other facilities over hundreds of miles.

As an example, if you corrupted the data at the Clearfield, PA radar site, you'd be affecting small parts of two Centers...and their HOSTs would throw out that data in some cases. To mess with the entire system, you'd need to fool with dozens of radar sites simultaneously.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-14-05 04:39 AM
Response to Reply #57
58. you'd need to fool with dozens of radar sites
You keep saying that. But the fact is, Logan was disrupted by false
blips Monday and Tuesday and the official story, if you believe it, is
that the problem was one radar antenna at Merrimack regional center. If
you have evidence that they're lying I'd love to believe it.

But assuming their story is true, electronic disruption of two antennae
at two different regional centers could be sufficient to create enough
false blips to disrupt the FAA system throughout the NYC and DC regions.

False blips are consistent with the 9CR's (9/11 Commision Report)
assertion that FAA told NORAD that flight 11 was still airborne and
was heading for DC.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-14-05 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #58
59. Logan is suffering from a known issue with ASR-9 radar units.
It's a glitch, not an intentional thing.

Notice that it's only Logan that's effected...no other facility is showing anything that shouldn't be there. How are you considering this evidence that only two radar sites would have to be tampered with?

Here's the most clear way I can show that you're mistaken:

1) Pick any two radar sites along the flight paths of the 9/11 planes.

2) We'll assume that they were made to show false targets and those false targets were accepted by the HOST (unlikely).

3) You've just made a few sectors show a false target on their scopes. Other sectors don't even USE the radar sites you've tampered with (they use other sites in other areas of the region) so they don't show the targets. You simply can't make the entire system see something that's not there my only altering the data at two sites.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-14-05 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #59
60. It's a glitch, not an intentional thing.
That's assuming what's told to the press is the truth. But if a glitch
in a single radar antenna can disrupt the entire region, it seems
that intentionally confusing one radar antenna can disrupt an entire
region.

"You can't make the entire system see something that's not there...."

Clearly it's not necessary to confuse the entire system. If one antenna
can disrupt the entire region, then two antennae in two different
regions can disrupt two regions. The Air Force only had something like
14 planes because some were sent to Iraq, some were sent to Iceland for
war games, and others were sent to Alaska and Northern Canada for war
games.

A little bit of confusion would go a long way. For instance, the Otis
F-15s scrambled for flight 11 were not told to go after 175. In
response (allegedly) to reports that flight 11 was heading for DC
the F16s scrambled from Andrews immediately flew out to sea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-15-05 01:07 AM
Response to Reply #60
62. One antenna CAN'T disrupt an entire region. That's what I'm saying.
Edited on Sat Oct-15-05 01:13 AM by MercutioATC
All that was disrupted was Boston TRACON, located in Merrimac, NH. The "region" you're speaking of is very small.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-15-05 02:37 AM
Response to Reply #62
64. Boston TRACON....is very small.
So what? How many false blips do you need to completely disrupt the air
defense? According to the 9CR a phone call from FAA saying flight 11
was approaching DC was sufficient to cause the Andrews F16s to head
straight out to sea.

Disrupt New York TRACON with false blips, disrupt Reagan Washington
National TRACON, and you've got chaos.

And the lesson of the Merrimack issue is that Boston TRACON can be
completely disrupted by one flaky antenna.

If you're not going to believe in false blips, then you're stuck with
incompetence. Then why was nobody fired?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-16-05 11:53 PM
Response to Reply #64
65. Yes, but you still have the Centers watching things.
THEY'RE the ones that take a lot of work to disrupt. And they see everything (basically) that the TRACONs do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-17-05 08:16 PM
Response to Reply #64
66. The REAL issue:
Boston TRACON is approximately 100 miles east-west and 70 miles north-south, and only covers from the ground to 14,000 feet.

They have their own radar that allows them to separate planes at the same altitude by 3 miles.

Boston Center completely surrounds Boston TRACON and overlays it from 15,000 feet to 60,000 feet. Center radar sites see everything that TRACON radar sees.

If the TRACON's radar site goes out, they use Center radar. The only real "disruption" caused is that they then have to use 5-mile separation instrad of 3-mile separation.

Even if you injested false radar data into TRACON radar at Boston and Washington, you'd still have multiple Center radar sites to contend with.

...which is exactly what I've said from the beginning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-18-05 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #66
67. "multiple Center radar sites"
So it seems that you've proved that one flaky antenna at Merrimack
can not have disrupted Logan for two and a half days like mainstream
news said it did.

Then the official cover story must be a lie, the disruption must have
been caused by something more subtle, and my wishful thinking (that CIA
messed up the system to show that they could) stands.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-18-05 09:07 PM
Response to Reply #67
68. What don't you understand?
Edited on Tue Oct-18-05 09:08 PM by MercutioATC
One site at Boston TRACON (Terminal Radar Approach CONtrol) went down. That forced the TRACON to use an alternate radar site. Because of certain parameters, the "disruption" entailed using 5-mile separation instead of 3-mile separation (a pain, but not anything extreme).

Boston TRACON is a little piece of airspace that's about 100 miles by 70 miles extending from the ground to 14,000 feet. The radar that went down was the one they use locally so they can use reduced separation. The other facilities around them were completely unaffected.

The bottom line is that Boston TRACON did, in fact, lose a radar site for a couple of days. While it was down their operations were "disrupted" in that they had to use an alternate radar feed and had to change their separation procedures. However, no "entire region" was affected.

It's an inconvenience, but it happens on an occasional basis at facilities all over the country. One piece of equipment fails and an alternate system is used until it's fixed. That's a result of the redundancies built into the system.

You're attempting to create an issue where there is none.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 03:26 PM
Response to Reply #13
70. PTech has worked on FAA - NORAD interoperability
It doesn't matter whether the "basement" was real or methaphorical.

In the cause of their work they had unlimited access to all computers involved in interoperability.

According to Indira. And it was pretty much her job to know those kind of things. She wouldn't want to involve her client Morgan-Chase with some shady corporation, no matter how exclusive the software is that they make. Software where the very essence of its functionality rests on the capability to access large computer networks, including inter-business communications. Software that is in use at a large number of government agencies and high-end corporations. Software that nobody had heard about outside a small circle of specialists and users, until Indira brought it up. So now a few more people know there's such a thing as Enterprise Architecture Software (has nothing to do with construction of buildings), which is being merged with Risk Managament Software, and it uses Artificial Intelligence. Not your every day piece of software.
For a description of the software you can go the website of the renamed PTech: www.goagile.com .

"A Dynamic, Real-time Approach (Electronic Enterprise Blueprint)"

"By investing in an electronic, dynamic organizational blueprint that truly integrates Strategic intent, Business processes and IT capabilities, and which can be kept evergreen, an organization can play e to quickly understand the impact of change, play what-if scenarios, uncover orphan strategies or capabilities, discover misalignment and disconnects, compare different to-be with the as-is, understand the impact of different planned alternatives. In addition, both the management team and knowledge workers have access to birds-eye and magnified views of the strategies, processes and capabilities needed to accomplish the goals presented. This places all strategic and operational concepts and functions in a streamlined perspective, setting control factors in their proper place."

Or in the words of Indira:

"The job of this software is to think about all the information that represented what was going in the enterprise at any given time as bank business was being transacted worldwide. For example, it would be a surveillance software that would look at trading patterns that indicated someone was up to no good and then do something about it, send a message somewhere, send a transaction information somewhere, perhaps shut their system down, perhaps shut another system down, perhaps start something up elsewhere."
-- Indira Singh, testimony at 9-11 citizens commission

"Surveillance and intervention" is the phrase that's coined in the context of this software.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 09:16 PM
Response to Reply #70
71. Again, you can't make a Chevette fly.
I don't care how much access they had. The computers simply do not share that data. The entire artichitecture of the system would have to be changed (software and hardware) at multiple facilities for that to be possible.

It wasn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-20-05 09:02 AM
Response to Reply #71
72. But you're wrong about Ptech working on NORAD, not the FAA.
I suppose you did not prepare for this discussion by having a look at Indira's testimony before the 9-11 Citizens Comission.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-20-05 11:55 PM
Response to Reply #72
80. Show me where Singh states that those specific modifications were made.
Allowing FAA and NORAD computers to talk to each other and share data is one hell of a lot different than fundamentally changing the manner in which FAA HOST computers process radar data. Singh does not ONCE state that this happened.

Again, it's like listening to a mechanic state that modifications were made to a Chevette and, from that general statement, trying to extrapolate that the Chevette can now fly.

If you have evidence to the contrary, PLEASE enlighten me.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-21-05 07:08 AM
Response to Reply #80
86. She says it's possible - you say it is in principal impossible
There's be no need to "fundamentally change" the way data is processed - no-one but you claims that's necessary. All that's needed is to monitor the data and have some point to inject data. The former is trivial to do without anyone ever noticing (save for quantum encrypted communications), the latter is also quite possible once you get 'down to the metal' of computer network technology, it's called "spoofing" (essentially: manipulation of the contents of data packets) and is certainly within the capabilities of Ptech/Goagile. A target computer does not have to be connected directly to the manipulating computer - as petgoat points out: "Even if they are not networked together, if each of them is networked to a third computer that has read/write capabilities with both machines, then they can share data even though they "don't" and even though their operators don't know they do."

I suppose you don't believe reports that the wargames on 9-11 involved 'fake' radar blips (alongside some "live" operations). It only makes sense that capability exists or else every exercise would have to be completely "live" instead of simulated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-21-05 09:42 AM
Response to Reply #86
89. She does NOT say that it's possible.
Please show me where she says that. She talks about many things, but altering FAA radar data at multiple facilities isn't one of them.

Once again, the computers that do the radar data processing do so independantly and they don't interface with any other computers. To make them show false targets, you'd have to manipulate the data coming from dozens of radar sites simultaneously. For petgoat's scenario to work, somebody would have to install hardware at each individual facility they wished to influence and then that hardware would have to remain undetected. It can't be hacked, because it's designed to be autonomous. The HOST is absolutely hack-proof because it can't be accessed from any outside source. The data piped to NORAD in this case was finished data, not pre-processed data.

Let me try to illustrate: I can make oatmeal cookies and give some to you. You can't then turn them into chocolate chip cookies because your access to the cookies is at the finished product stage. The only way to change the makeup of the cookies would be to change the ingredients when I make them and you don't have access to my kitchen.

As far as intentionally inserting false targets in a system designed to work that way, of course it's possible, but we're talking about two completely different systems.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-21-05 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #89
90. data packets are not cookies
Once it's digital, it can in principal be digitally altered into anything one can think of - digital oatmeal cookies can indeed be turned into digital chocolate cookies. So "finished data" can be altered while it is being "piped" to its destination.
This doesn't so much require hardware as it requires software. Ptech was installing software that makes it exceedingly easy to spoof data because it has access to the entire system.

I'll get back to you on what Indira says about this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-22-05 04:34 AM
Response to Reply #90
91. No, but the result is the same.
To change the output, you have to change the "ingredients". There's been absolutely NOTHING to suggest that this was even attempted, much less accomplished.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-20-05 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #71
79. The computers simply do not share that data.
Two autonomous computers do not share data--unless they are provided
with network software and hardware and networked together.

Even if they are not networked together, if each of them is networked to
a third computer that has read/write capabilities with both machines,
then they can share data even though they "don't" and even though their
operators don't know they do.

That's what Indira Singh is talking about: enterprise-level software
that snoops undetectably and even intervenes.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-20-05 11:57 PM
Response to Reply #79
81. See Post #80. What you're claiming simply isn't possible.
If you can prove otherwise, let me know.

Otherwise, you might want to allow for the possibility that an FAA employee who works in a Center MIGHT have a better idea of what their computers are capable of than you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-21-05 01:02 AM
Response to Reply #81
82. simply isn't possible
Richard Clarke says in Against All Enemies on page 7 that the
Secret Service could see what was on the FAA radar screen. If they
can read it, there's a connection. If there's a connection, they
can write to it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-21-05 01:09 AM
Response to Reply #82
83. Absolutely incorrect.
...and if you understood anything about the system of networks we use, you'd know that.

They are able to view the data because they were provided with a link that acted as an additional scope. It's as if they were given a sector of their own. Having a sector allows you to view the finished product of HOST processing. It does NOT, in any way, allow you to manipulate radar data.

I believe you were going to provide a qoute from Singh that supported your alleged modifications to FAA computers...got that yet?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-21-05 07:12 AM
Response to Reply #83
87. are you a computer network technician?
or a radar operator/trafic controler? or both?

If you have any idea what (real) hackers can do to a system that they don't officially have access to, it won't be hard to imagine what skilled people with malicious intent can do to a system that they do officially have (admin/root) access to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-21-05 09:23 AM
Response to Reply #87
88. Nope, just an ATC.
Edited on Fri Oct-21-05 09:24 AM by MercutioATC
However, I understand what's possible and not possible with our equipment.

Radar data is simply not processed in a way that shares that data. The computers that do the data processing have no connection to each other.

Believe differently? Find documentation that proves that it's possible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rich Hunt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 11:14 PM
Response to Reply #2
21. oh, they ain't all that silent

They're probably all over the 'net....just talking in code is all.

Or at least those who maybe know something, or who are connected to those who were involved might be.....'cos that's what criminals do.

Yeah, they're really that dumb when it comes to this internet thingie.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-19-05 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #1
69. Those are not conspirators but whistleblowers.
The OP asked for conspirators.
Just so that we have that clear.

But never mind, it's interesting you brought up those people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
petgoat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-20-05 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #69
78. How many conspirators?
Not a whole lot, IMHO. One to leak the date of the war games. A few
perhaps to see that the war games were not terminated prematurely.
According to Mike Ruppert, Cheney was in charge of the war games.
And presumably everyone involved in the games is not permitted to talk
about classified war games, and probably just as glad not to.

Come to think of it, MercurioATC never answered my question: If the war
games were classified, would your duty be to say "I can't talk about war
games" or would it be to deny that there were war games?

If the WTC and/or the Pentagon were bombed--a few there. As stickdog
points out in post #7, getting rid of such operatives would not be
difficult.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-28-05 11:55 PM
Response to Original message
3. So you believe that 19 bumbling Arabs could pull off 9/11,
Edited on Wed Sep-28-05 11:56 PM by stickdog
but it would take more than 19 well-placed insiders with far, far greater means and opportunity?

Please explain your logic.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaRa Donating Member (705 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 08:06 AM
Response to Reply #3
6. I'm not explaining my logic
because I have not come to any conclusions. I believe in at least that they LIHOP with the possibility of MIHOP. I'm simply baffled at the seemingly large number of people involved. pauldp came up with a simple point that makes sense to me: that most don't know the whole story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stickdog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. If it was MIHOP, just tell most involved that go date is in October
and to meet you on the 99th floor of the WTC on 9/11 to collect their payment for a job well done.

Then lock the door and leave. Also, book other co-conspirators on Flights 11 and 77. Anyone left over will get the message loud and clear.

Or just make up some sort of "limited hangout" cover story. For example, tell those at the high levels who are suspicious that the attack depended on a traitor or group of traitors at the highest levels of federal government. Say that the situation has now been dealt with, but that it would severely compromise national security if such knowledge were ever made public and that in the event of any breach of secrecy, federal intelligence agencies have been authorized to plug the leak with deadly force.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrSammo1 Donating Member (788 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-29-05 03:03 AM
Response to Original message
5. All you need
is a handful of people. Lots of money to bribe the greedy, and a military that just follows orders.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-04-05 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #5
28. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
ikri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-30-05 06:01 AM
Response to Original message
9. Depends on LIHOP or MIHOP
If it's LIHOP then you need very few people since all you need is a knowledge of the date for the event and the location. After that, a few key personnel can divert resources to ensure that it all goes off without a hitch. LIHOP could work with 1 person and probably wouldn't require any more than 12.

MIHOP on the other hand would require a lot more people and depends even more on the conspiracy involved.

The most basic MIHOP would require the pilots/hijackers, middlemen to link the pilots to the key men, etc. plus all the key personnel required for LIHOP. Any conspiracies involving more than 4 planes, missiles, etc. would require yet more people.

Hundreds or perhaps thousands of people would be required for MIHOP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Informed Citizen Donating Member (120 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-01-05 01:18 AM
Response to Original message
12. Another answer...
I believe that this operation could have been pulled off by a command structure that compartmentalizes authority and externalizes responsibility. The 9/11 Report was written specifically not to assign indictable blame on any one organization or individual working for the government. That seems to have been Zelikow's legal role as Executive Director.

The official account suggests that no one could be blamed because there was a 'global failure of imagination'. Group think. Supposedly regarding a failure to take seriously all prior warnings. Relative to the body of 9/11 research which I have reviewed, I would say that these assertions entirely betray the true nature of power. While it may be true that below a certain level everyone was naive about what was happening. Above that level, a very small number of people could have directed the confusion necessary to pull off an attack planned with the help of foreign intellingence agents. I think that maybe 30 people at the top willing to keep a secret about acceptable casualties could have pulled this off.

Is that so much a stretch. People below will follow orders, and are not expected to question the rationale of those orders. People do what they are told, and there is sufficient secrecy and compartmentalization in our government to suspect that secrets can be kept at the very highest levels, while thousands below them naively working to secure hidden ends.

Don't let anyone give you the standard line about thousands of people having to know about the plot. This isn't the way our modern National Security establishment works.

- I.C.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sterling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-14-05 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #12
61. Your post is the answer to this thread. I hope all read it.
Great post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Informed Citizen Donating Member (120 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-15-05 01:36 AM
Response to Reply #61
63. Thanks - A refreshing response (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 09:48 AM
Response to Original message
15. No need for all to be in on it
Ie insider trading: some people with few scruples might have known something was going down, and took advantage of that knowledge. There's no need for them to have known it was part of an inside job.

People involved know things only on a need-to-know basis; few people need to know the complete plan. It works like that in the Mafia, and in secret agencies. That's how they keep their secrets secret.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pberq Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 01:46 PM
Response to Original message
18. Assuming a conspiracy?
Edited on Sun Oct-02-05 01:51 PM by pberq
As David Ray Griffin points out, the greatest conspiracy theory of them all is the official story, given the fact that it falls apart on even the most cursory examination.

See this link for a video of Griffin's lecture last April:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8765.ht...

After seeing this, I got a copy of his book, "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions".

So far, in the introduction, Griffin points out that the Commission omitted or distorted any evidence, no matter how compelling, that did not support the official conspiracy theory.

For me, the best book is still Michael Ruppert's "Crossing the Rubicon". Whether or not you agree with his conclusions, the evidence he presents, gathered from such sources as the U.S. Government and the MSM, shows that, at the very least, we are dealing with a massive government cover-up of what happened on 9/11.

on edit: spelling
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pberq Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Oct-02-05 01:57 PM
Response to Original message
19. RaR, this is an important question
Based on my reading, I side with those that say it would not take very many people who knew the full plan to pull it off. For example, the war games served an important role in keeping those who didn't have to know either away from the scene or confused as to whether the attacks were real or part of the exercises.

I highly recommend doing your own research. "Crossing the Rubicon" and the David Ray Griffin books are good places to start.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrSammo1 Donating Member (788 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-05-05 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #19
32. Very true
Computers take the place of a lot of possible leaks.

A few people on the inside and a few diversions take care of the rest.

Add in blind obeisance the likes of which we see here........sprinkle in a couple of shills......a near perfect conspiracy!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
StrafingMoose Donating Member (742 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-11-05 02:48 PM
Response to Original message
46. You should also check how the FBI handled investigations...


Where the FBI is operating in a 'democratic' society, it doesn't mean the information found by field agents gets to higher levels 'democraticaly', meaning people don't 'vote' to send or not sensible information higher in the pyramid.

It only takes one Supervisory Special Agent and your investigation can be stalled.

Crossing over your boss in these institutions is harshly reprimanded.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generarth Donating Member (309 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-20-05 09:37 AM
Response to Original message
73. M16 were involved
or a rogue element within at least. But they were involved.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generarth Donating Member (309 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-20-05 09:41 AM
Response to Reply #73
74. oh and Boeing
were definitely involved. Lockheed too I'd say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generarth Donating Member (309 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-20-05 09:47 AM
Response to Reply #74
75. and some Posters from the Guardian board in 99
were involved as well. In fact I'm sure I saw this in 99. Back then I think the main plan was the many airplanes over the pacific at the same time. The plane into buildings was the backup option if my memory serves me correctly. I THINK I saw this in a thread header which linked to a file which had the British spies which was hosted on a french server. AND Richard Dearlove former M16 head was posting on that board too. How do I know? Well the board was particularly insecure in 99 so you could access the posters information by looking at source code in guest mode (no you can't do that anymore). Dearlove and his brother were on the aforementioned file and Richard was posting on the Guardian.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generarth Donating Member (309 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-20-05 09:52 AM
Response to Reply #75
76. I think if I remember that his signin name was Manlove
his online persona was a lesbian. Anyway that list of British spies was posted to the NYT board as well. I'd be really interested if anyone could give me the text of the original thread.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generarth Donating Member (309 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-20-05 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #76
77. I'd just like to say hello to a few people.
First of all hi Alastair from scoop yep it's me again. I havn't got anything new for you unfortunately.

Hi to Peter poop. I love that Boeing connection.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-21-05 05:10 AM
Response to Reply #73
84. M16 / MI6
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16

M16 can mean:

* M16 (rifle)
* Eagle Nebula

MI6 (from Military Intelligence
6), the common name for the British Secret Intelligence Service, could easily be confused with "M16".

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Generarth Donating Member (309 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-21-05 05:29 AM
Response to Reply #84
85. Thanks
I mean MI6 of course. I'm sure they were involved.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Dec 22nd 2014, 03:13 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC