Something funny in the 9/11 Commission report, re: AA77

[BeFree]

In sum, Indianapolis Center never saw Flight 77 turn around. By the time it reappeared in primary radar coverage, controllers had either stopped looking for the aircraft because they thought it had crashed or were looking toward the west. Although the Command Center learned Flight 77 was missing, neither it nor FAA headquarters issued an all points bulletin to surrounding centers to search for primary radar targets. American 77 traveled undetected for 36 minutes on a course heading due east for Washington,D.C.(144)

footnote 144.

144. John Thomas interview (May 4,2004); Charles Thomas interview (May 4,2004). We have reviewed all FAA documents, transcripts, and tape recordings related to American 77 and have found no evidence that FAA headquarters issued a directive to surrounding centers to search for primary radar targets. Review of the same materials also indicates that no one within FAA located American 77 until the aircraft was identified by Dulles controllers at 9:32. For much of that time, American 77 was traveling through Washington Center?s airspace. The Washington Center?s controllers were looking for the flight, but they were not told to look for primary radar returns.

**************************


The Washington Center's controllers were looking for the flight! They had been alerted and were looking, even though (according to the report) FAA hadn't told them to! Now, the report says "were not told to look at primary radar", but they were looking for AA77. And the report says Dulles identified it at 9:32. They were looking for AA77 and they found it, even though they weren't told to!

So they say. Can the story get any more murky? Merc, ya wanna chime on in?

[Dancing_Dave]

1. Actually, the aircraft picked up on radar wasn't identified as 77

By the Flight controllers. Indeed, based on it's maneuvers, a Washington Flight controller figured it must be some kind of military plane.

Of course, the 9/11 report isn't going to make any sense of the story. They leave it murky enough that no one is held accountable.

[BeFree]

3. "Some kind of military plane"?

Thanks, I hadn't heard that.

Odd, however, that a plane can travel due east at DC for 30 minutes or so, and no one gets a little nervous about a UFO headed straight at DC? Of course, if a controller thinks it was a military plane, he must have had good reason to think so.

There is a new theory going around that the plane which appeared to have hit the pentagon actually overflew the building and landed a few miles later at Reagan. And that plane was on a filed flight plan recognized by the FAA the whole time, but was shadowed by a smaller plane which did hit the pentagon as the larger craft barely overflew it, making it look to stunned observers as if it had indeed hit.

[midwayer]

5. Does anyone remember who put forth

the theory that at least one of the flights actually landed at langley or dulles (which one I can't remember but i thought it was langley), was later dumped/ flown into the atlantic with the passengers who had been knocked out, and then a sister plane took off from there to follow through with the plan?

Can't remember where I read this theory

I've always thought Barbara Olsen is still alive...I don't trust her husband Ted

[Abe Linkman]

6. Odd, only if it wasn't part of the PNAC -inspired "Frame OBL" inside job

On one of the other threads in this forum, there's a map which shows the direct lineup of a runway that is less than 8 seconds flying time from where a large aircraft overflew the Pentagon. That plane may or may not have been FL 77 (B757 aircraft).

IF the Official Conspiracy Theory sales reps respond at all to this information, expect Mr. Murky & Company to be, well, murky. Since they play "good cop, bad cop" (lar lar plays mean-spirited cop) - we might get a "lecture" about ATC rules (which will either be contradictory to something previously posted, or else it will be, well, murky), followed by out-of-context, selective "evidence" from the "bad cop" and a confident, shaming phrase condeming people who "make up stories" in spite of the "evidence" that FL 77 allegedly crashed at the most amazing Pentagon (which, as you know, is completely unguarded -- no defenses whatsoever, or else the security forces assigned to protect it from attack were away from their assigned posts - perhaps using the bathroom.
but, they'll have you believe that doesn't mean that the ONLY protection at the Pentagon that is also used to identify attackers is the parking lot video images...which
they'll tell you do NOT PROVE that FL 77 didn't crash there, just because the video captured the image of a small jet and the vapor trail of the missile it fired to open up that reinforced Pentagon wall so the F-16 or F-15 or similar jet could enter it more easily.).

Got it? And besides, only the Evildoers frame people and make them Patsies, and we all know who the Evildoers of 9/11 are, don't we?

[BeFree]

8. Odd too, is the 9/11 commish report

That a military plane spotted both the DC/pentagon bound plane and the flight 93 crash. Boy, talk about being in the right places at the right times.

BTW: that military plane was identified as a C-130 coming back from a mission in the Carribean. Now, what was that we read about C-130's and their electronic warfare and firepower capabilities?

Odd. It all begins to add up and it adds up to odd. Odd, odd, odd.

[Abe Linkman]

9. Polite, respectful disagreement over characterization

I agree with every material point you have made. I just wouldn't characterize what happened as being "odd." In my opinion, "odd" is something "THEY" can live with. Sort of like "intel failures, negligence, bureaucratic snafus" etc. Rather than odd, I'd say it's all part and parcel of typical official conspiracies - carried out on behalf of corporate, domestic political, and international geopolitical interests. Complete with Disinformation agents and PR flacks...doing what they do best in crisis communications consulting...via smoke, mirrors, distractions, demonization of skeptics, appeals to patriotism,
nationalism, religious bigotry, and in concert with the nation's leading stenographers to power (Media).

[BeFree]

10. Well, of course, we pretty much agree, Abe

I am not always a hard sell kinda operator.

If we can get the apologists agreeing that it sure was odd that all these factors add up to being very, very odd, then we've come a long way to getting the kind of support necessary for another 9/11 Commission.

By pointing out how any support for W's WCDI theory is in reality asking for something to happen again, we may be able to avert further attacks.

[Abe Linkman]

14. I understand your logic, but it's premised on a belief that apologists...

are sincere in their claimed beliefs, and not just professional PR flacks. I think it's fairly easy to separate them into: truly sincere, and those who are professional PR flacks.

[MercutioATC]

13. You seem to think that primary targets are a rare thing...

...and that the movement of any given single target would stand out. As I've explained, there are LOTS of primary targets out there at any given time (especially in the east (more densely populated airspace).

No, a "UFO headed straight at DC" wouldn't necessarily draw attention.

Additionally, terminal airspace is much more restrictive than enroute airspace. An aircraft may be able to avoid identification in Center airspace, but it's ludicrous to think it could do so while landing at a major airport. AAL77 did not land at Reagan.

[Abe Linkman]

15. Who said FL 77 DID avoid identification?

FL 77 (or a phantom FL 77) may or may not have landed at Reagan. It may easily have landed there. If it did, it was obviously unexpected, so there wouldn't be a public announcement of it.

[MercutioATC]

16. It couldn't possibly have landed at Reagan.

"It may easily have landed there. If it did, it was obviously unexpected, so there wouldn't be a public announcement of it."

What does a public announcement have to do with it?

What possible scenario allows a large commercial aircraft to land at a busy airport with no flight plan?

[Abe Linkman]

17. Fake national emergency, for one. Gov't conspiracy, for another.

Planned training exercise, like those that were used as cover for the 9/11 inside job that is the subject of much discussion here and elsewhere.

I'm surprised you would even ask such a question as that.

[MercutioATC]

18. Ok, so the debris at the Pentagon was planted and AAL77 landed

at Reagan without controllers realizing it. That still leaves the passengers and crew...gassed to death and driven away in catering trucks, I suppose?

Usually there's anal probing involved in fabrications of this caliber. Abe, where's the anal probing?

[Abe Linkman]

19. You misstated what I said. Did 1 of your cohorts do some probing on U?

Or, was it the other way around? Or both?

[BeFree]

21. Whatever landed at Reagan was expected

The plane that overflew the pentagon was expected by controllers there.
So there would be no controversy about it's arrival.

It would be nice to see the records of arrivals on 9/11. You would find that a plane landed just a few seconds after the pentagon was hit.

[MercutioATC]

24. You're sure of that?

It's a bold claim, with absolutely no supporting evidence. You'd have to keep 20 or so controllers and who knows how many ground crew quiet, because they'd know what was going on.

That still leaves you with the problem of disposing of a 757, its passengers and crew. I'd LOVE to hear how this was accomplished.

[Abe Linkman]

26. Another bold claim by a reputed ATC employee.

So, which is it, Mr. Murky Probe: Controllers would know if FL 77 landed at the Pentagon, or Controllers wouldn't know it?

You can't have it both ways. (not talking about your probing habits)

[MercutioATC]

36. Controllers WOULD know...

Absolutely nothing unidentified lands at a major airport. It's not a "bold claim", it's a fact.

[Abe Linkman]

37. Clear as mud. What's it supposed to mean?

You trying to imply that FL 77 couldn't have landed at Reagan, or what?
OF COURSE, SOME people would know if it did. That doesn't mean that it would necessarily become public knowledge.

[MercutioATC]

38. Would another language help?

I'm not "implying" anything. I'm stating that AAL77 could not have landed at Reagan without a lot of people (controllers, ground crew, etc.) knowing. We're not military personnel, we're civilians. We're not that easy to keep quiet.

You have yet to explain what happened to the airplane, the crew and the passengers that supposedly landed at Reagan. For days, the national airspace was closed. Where did they go?

AAL77 did not land at Reagan.

[Abe Linkman]

40. Try English.

Well, they DID keep quiet, didn't they?

How do YOU know FL 77 didn't land at Reagan? You've also claimed it crahsed at the Pentagon, despite the video proof it didn't.

Your credibility has been on a downhill slide for some time now, Mr. Murky, and it keeps on heading South. At some point, you're either going to have to come up with something plausible, or else acknowledge you don't have the slightest idea about anything having to do with 9/11.

[MercutioATC]

42. You seem to be having trouble with English so I'm trying to help...

They "kept quiet" because there was nothing to tell...AAL77 didn't land there.

There's absolutely NO proof it did and plenty of reasons why it couldn't have. You have more than proximity to the Pentagon as "proof"?

I'm comfortable with my credibility, Abe. Thanks for the concern, though.

[MercutioATC]

23. I think everybody else understood what I meant...

...my bet is, you did, too.

[LARED]

25. Who are you kidding?

Planned training exercise, like those that were used as cover for the 9/11 inside job that is the subject of much discussion here and elsewhere.

No it wasn't. You still refuse to answer any questions as to how the planned exercise was used as a cover.

[BeFree]

28. No kidding

The exercises that day obscured the real events.

Imagine this scenario in the control tower:

"We have a target"

"Are you sure that's not part of the exercise?"

"No, not sure, let's call Norad"

"The guy at Norad isn't sure if it's real life or part of the exercise"

"Should we call for an intercept?"

"That's up to Norad"

Meanwhile, at Norad, a rookie was placed in charge and he has been reported as saying something like this to a caller: "Everyone just left the room so call back in a little while"

[LARED]

29. You have a vivid imagination

Do you have any evidence of the above? Do you have any evidence control towers at airports were even aware of the NORAD exercise?


Every report and interview I have read indicated there was no confusion at all between the exercise and the hijackings at NORAD or any control tower.

If you have some evidence supporting your imaginary scenario, please let everyone see.

[BeFree]

30. And those reports are where?

"Every report and interview I have read indicated there was no confusion at all between the exercise and the hijackings at NORAD or any control tower"

I know I am wasting my time, but what the hey..... do you have any links to those reports you've read?

[LARED]

31. Those reports are located in this forum

Somewhere.

It was posted in a discussion "Mr Linkman" and I were having. He claimed there were five military exercises ongoing the morning of 9/11. I showed that to be patently false.

He then when on to say the military exercises was used as a cover for the real 9/11 plotters. I provided a number of newspaper account that indicated the NORAD exercise did not confuse anyone. When Mr. Linkman was asked for evidence of his claims or even what he speculated caused confusion he clammed up. A standard MO.

I do not maintain a reference of each subject I discuss. Feel free to perform a search and find them yourself. Or ask "Mr. Linkman."

So, do you have ANY credible evidence that the NORAD exercise caused ANY confusion? I would love to see it. Do you have any credible evidence that any ATC or anyone at the FAA was confused because there was a military exercise?

The burden of proof is on you. As someone that takes part in two or three emergency response drills each year; calling off a drill is a simple matter that should cause no confusion.

[Abe Linkman]

32. Vivid BS

From the BS Master himself. You were right the first time, BeFree -- it's always a waste of time to get involved with "lar lar" (whose pants are on fire).

[LARED]

34. Here's your big chance

So how did the military exercise cause confusion?

I think this will be the sixth or seventh time you have refused to answer.

[BeFree]

33. What? No proof of any reports you read?

I knew I was wasting my time...

Of course, since we are dealing with an "Investigation which is still ongoing" as ya'll have so many times stated, most evidence is still hidden from us little folk. Why even most of the testimony to the 9/11 commish is still kept from our democracy. That fact alone is proof of a another conspiracy to keep the truth from coming out. One would think ya'll would be expending your efforts towards getting the truth out, instead ya'll attack the truth seekers... something is wrong with that picture, eh?

"The burden of proof is on you" States Lared. See? Instead of going after the government, you attack truth seeking citizens. What idiocy.

Anyway.... we know from the few 'facts' thus far, that NORAD did not execute it's primary mission that day. We know that in the previous year, NORAD sent 67 interceptors after wayward planes, but on 9/11 they completely failed to execute their primary mission. So, since they refuse to come clean, and as Sen. Dayton has claimed: "NORAD is lying", it makes perfect sense to surmise that the known scheduled exercises confused and kept NORAD from it's primary mission that day.

The burden of proof is not on us, the burden lies at the feet of the boosh administration. Why don't you go ask them for the proof you deserve? We are asking them; join us, together we may finally get to the bottom of this story. At the very least you really ought to quit attacking us by claiming the burden is on us.

[LARED]

35. I am not attacking you, Why characterize it that way?

I am simply asking you to provide some, any, evidence of your claim the the military exercise caused confusion.

Can you?

If you are going to make claims without any evidence, you are the one burdened with backing up what you say. If you really want to get to the bottom of the story, part of that is eliminating baseless nonsense and then moving on. All I ever see is the same foolishness repeated with slightly modified spin over and over.

that NORAD did not execute it's primary mission that day.

Do you even understand what NORAD's primary mission is? It is not what you are implying.

[BeFree]

44. Ya made me laugh

This is good:
If you are going to make claims without any evidence, you are the one burdened with backing up what you say. If you really want to get to the bottom of the story, part of that is eliminating baseless nonsense and then moving on. All I ever see is the same foolishness repeated with slightly modified spin over and over.

Hah! That's all we get from ya'll: a slightly modified spin! LOL

What we've been saying all along is that the whole conspiracy theory you buy into -WCDI- has no real evidence to back it up. They just did a dog-and-pony show trying, with all their might, to continue the cover up and deny the truth to the American public. And you have the gall to tell me the burden of proof is on little 'ol Befree? LOL

Newsflash, Lared, I was not involved. I don't know the facts, only a handfull of people do, and you ain't one of 'em. So, I shall be free to profess any thing I want until facts show me to be wrong.

Ohh... about Norad. Let's see the 9/11 commish grilled the Norad generals about what they did and didn't do. If that is not enough proof that Norad screwed up, then I have a feeling nothing would ever convince you to stop apologizing for them.

Two: let's see a link to all those reports you read. You made the claim you read them, show us the evidence. Or am I wasting my time with you again?

[LARED]

45. What are you talking about?

What we've been saying all along is that the whole conspiracy theory you buy into -WCDI- has no real evidence to back it up.

Be serious. No real evidence? Here's a new flash for you. The available evidence without question indicates the official story is largely true. There are of course inconsistencies, and less than adequate explianations, but the real evidence is not on the CT'ers side.

They just did a dog-and-pony show trying, with all their might, to continue the cover up and deny the truth to the American public. And you have the gall to tell me the burden of proof is on little 'ol Befree? LOL

Lets try this again. It really is a very simple concept. You make a statement, you need to provide some evidence to rationalize the statement. Why is that too complicated for you?


Newsflash, Lared, I was not involved. I don't know the facts, only a handfull of people do, and you ain't one of 'em.

In reality there is an abundance of evidence you choose to ignore. Why?

So, I shall be free to profess any thing I want until facts show me to be wrong.

That's true. Except you refuse to provide any facts to back up your claims. It easy to say you believe something. It's another thing to provide a compelling reason for someone to believe you.


Ohh... about Norad. Let's see the 9/11 commish grilled the Norad generals about what they did and didn't do. If that is not enough proof that Norad screwed up, then I have a feeling nothing would ever convince you to stop apologizing for them.

There is a vast gulf between NORAD screwing up and NORAD being complicit in a planned attack on American by the American government. Why are you backpedaling from your position? For crying out loud no one is making the claim that NORAD did not screw up. But you are the one claiming the military exercise that day are part of the 9/11 conspiracy.

Two: let's see a link to all those reports you read. You made the claim you read them, show us the evidence. Or am I wasting my time with you again?

Use the search engine. I don't do homework and after posting it a few times I'm not going to do it again. If you are really interested, search this forum. And don't start whining that you are wasting your time.

[BeFree]

49. I see we are finally getting to you, Lared

"...available evidence... ...there are...inconsistences... ...less than adequate explanations..."

Glad to see ya getting with it. I know, it's been hard to fathom that your government would ever do anything wrong. I know.

Ya know, there's a whole slew of info on the web, which, now that you are getting with it, will help guide you to the true determination of what really happened. Let me know if ya need some help..

[Abe Linkman]

46. Reports? he only reports he's got/read reports. (doesn't share)

"let's see a link to all those reports you read. You made the claim you read them, show us the evidence. Or am I wasting my time with you again?"

Wasting your time, again. lar lar ("pants on fire") trys to bully people by suggesting that whatever is being put forth, has already been debunked as being from someone not credible (= someone who doesn't support the OCavemenDI CT), or it isn't believable because it wasn't a valid statistic/study etc., or ______(your choice)...but what lar lar DOESN'T do is cite the very report that HE claims debunks the one that conflicts with the OCDI CT.

Waste of time. We've got the "good cop/sometimes murky cop", "bad cop", and "bully cop"...all working out of the same virtual Precinct.

They ARE a hoot, more often than they intend to be, I'd guess.

[LARED]

47. You have a lot to say for a guy with no answers.

I know you remember our discussion about the so called five military exercises on 9/11. The ones you claimed proved that they were part of the government plot on 9/11. The one that turned out to be a bunch of BS.

You got your butt kicked on that one and still have no response to the inane notion that the NORAD exercise somehow was designed to cause caused confusion.

Shall I ask for a response for the tenth time? I'm sure it's a waste of time as you cannot answer the question.

[LARED]

48. A gift. I did your homework. Don't tell mom.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=13246

And

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=12811#13812

The articles

Northern Vigilance


December 9, 2001 Sunday Ontario Edition

SECTION: BUSINESS; Pg. B05

LENGTH: 974 words

HEADLINE: The scene at NORAD on Sept. 11

BYLINE: Scott Simmie, Toronto Star

HIGHLIGHT:
Playing Russian war games ... and then someone shouted to look at the monitor

BODY:
EARLY morning, Sept. 11. A lifetime before the attacks on New York and Washington.

Deep inside a mountain in Colorado and far beneath the granite of North Bay, members of the North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD) are at full "battle staff" levels for a major annual exercise that tests every facet of the organization.

Operation Northern Vigilance, planned months in advance, involves deploying fighter jets to locations in Alaska and northern Canada. Part of this exercise is pure simulation, but part is real world: NORAD is keeping a close eye on the Russians, who have dispatched long-range bombers to their own high north on a similar exercise.

Everything is going as planned when Capt. Mike Jellinek arrives for his 6 a.m. shift. The Canadian will be overseeing the crew staffing a crucial post inside the mountain - NORAD's command centre.

Whether it's a simulation or a real-world event, the role of the centre is to fuse every critical piece of information NORAD has into a concise and crystalline snapshot.

An hour into his shift, something unscripted happens. NORAD's Northeast Air Defence Sector (NEADS), based in Rome, N.Y., contacts the mountain.

The Federal Aviation Administration has evidence of a hijacking and is asking for NORAD support. This is not part of the exercise.

In a flash, Operation Northern Vigilance is called off. Any simulated information, what's known as an "inject," is purged from the screens.

Someone shouted to look at the monitor displaying CNN.

"At that point, we saw the World Trade Center, one of the towers, smoke coming out of it. And a minute later, we watched the live feed as the second aircraft swung around into the second tower," says Jellinek.

He had one question for the people on the line from NEADS: "Was that the hijacked aircraft you were dealing with?" he asked.

Yes, it was, came the reply.

And then, Jellinek says, "it got really, really busy."

Maj.-Gen. Rick Findley, director of NORAD operations, had just completed the night shift. Usually, Findley would be across town at NORAD headquarters at Peterson Air Force Base. But because of the exercise and the time difference with Russia, he'd been working nights in the mountain. He was just preparing to leave when the disaster began unfolding.

It was a scenario unlike any NORAD had trained for.



Vigilant Guardian


Calgary Herald (Alberta, Canada)

October 14, 2001 Sunday Final EDITION

SECTION: NEWS, Pg. A1 / FRONT

LENGTH: 959 words

HEADLINE: Sept. 11 baptism of fire for Norad officer: Training pays off

BYLINE: Linda Slobodian

SOURCE: Calgary Herald

DATELINE: CHEYENNE MOUNTAIN, Colo.

BODY:
Canadian Capt. Neal Mathews eagerly reported for his first day as an air battle management officer in the Command Centre at Norad headquarters.

He was excited about the major training exercise underway -- Vigilant Guardian -- conducted only twice a year in this granite bunker carved into Cheyenne Mountain, in Colorado Springs, Colo.

Just 45 minutes into his first shift in his four-year posting, all hell broke loose.

It was Sept. 11.

Mathews stood dumbfounded with Norad military experts, Canadians and Americans shoulder to shoulder, helplessly watching a horrifying crisis unfold on the TV set in the Command Centre.

An airplane had crashed into one of the World Trade Center's twin towers. Was it caused by a mechanical problem? Was it the aircraft rumoured, but not yet confirmed, as hijacked?

Information started trickling in, then spewing through the computer network and over the phone lines.

Then a second plane crashed into the other World Trade Center tower.

At this point, the training exercise was scrapped -- Vigilant Guardian became Operation Noble Eagle -- and Norad plunged full-throttle into the reality of high alert.


NRO "war game" LOL

Edited on Sat Jun-19-04 05:09 PM by LARED
The Record (Bergen County, NJ)

August 22, 2002 Thursday All Editions

SECTION: NEWS; Pg. A12

LENGTH: 338 words

HEADLINE: Planned exercise a weird coincidence;
Sept. 11 'crash' quickly canceled

SOURCE: Wire Services

BYLINE: JOHN J. LUMPKIN, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

BODY:
WASHINGTON - In what the government describes as a bizarre coincidence, one U.S. intelligence agency was planning an exercise last Sept. 11 in which an errant aircraft would crash into one of its buildings. But the cause wasn't terrorism - it was to be a simulated accident.

Officials at the Chantilly, Va.-based National Reconnaissance Office had scheduled an exercise that morning in which a small corporate jet would crash into one of the four towers at the agency's headquarters building after experiencing a mechanical failure.

....

Agency chiefs came up with the scenario to test employees' ability to respond to a disaster, said spokesman Art Haubold. No actual plane was to be involved - to simulate the damage from the crash, some stairwells and exits were to be closed off, forcing employees to find other ways to evacuate the building.

"It was just an incredible coincidence that this happened to involve an aircraft crashing into our facility," Haubold said. "As soon as the real world events began, we canceled the exercise."

Terrorism was to play no role in the exercise, which had been planned for several months, he said.

....


The National Reconnaissance Office operates many of the nation's spy satellites. It draws its personnel from the military and the CIA.

After the Sept. 11 attacks, most of the 3,000 people who work at agency headquarters were sent home, save for some essential personnel, Haubold said.






Guelph Mercury (Ontario, Canada)

August 22, 2002 Thursday Final Edition

SECTION: NEWS; Pg. A11

LENGTH: 135 words

HEADLINE: Intelligence agency planned to crash plane into building

SOURCE: Mercury news services

DATELINE: WASHINGTON

BODY:
A U.S. intelligence agency was planning an exercise last Sept. 11 in which an errant aircraft would crash into one of its buildings.

Officials at the Chantilly, Va. -based National Reconnaissance Office had scheduled an exercise that morning in which a small corporate jet would crash into one of the four towers at the agency's headquarters building after experiencing a mechanical failure.

The agency is about 6.5 kilometres from the runways of Washington Dulles International Airport.

Agency chiefs came up with the scenario to test employees' ability to respond to a disaster, said spokesman Art Haubold. No actual plane was to be involved -- to simulate the damage from the crash, some stairwells and exits were to be closed

“A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.” Winston Churchill


The summary

wargames caused so much confusion ????????


Not based on reality

Vigilant Warrior was an operation from 1994. Clark probably misspoke and said Vigilant Warrior rather than Vigilant Guardian. This is understandable a Clark most likely had a big role in Viglant Warrior with Bush Sr.

Northern Vigilance and Vigilant Guardian are the same exercises. As both took place at NORAD in Colorado, either the names have been mixed up or they were two difference parts of the same training exercise.

At ant rate it seems Vigilant Guardian, Northern Vigilance, and Vigilant Warrior are in reality one training exercise.

The reference to the term Northern Guardian in the Toronto Star, December 9, 2001 is BS. It does not exist.

So we most likely have one exercise at NORAD.


So (From the above link.)

An hour into his shift, something unscripted happens. NORAD's Northeast Air Defence Sector (NEADS), based in Rome, N.Y., contacts the mountain.

The Federal Aviation Administration has evidence of a hijacking and is asking for NORAD support. This is not part of the exercise.

In a flash, Operation Northern Vigilance is called off. Any simulated information, what's known as an "inject," is purged from the screens.

Someone shouted to look at the monitor displaying CNN.

"At that point, we saw the World Trade Center, one of the towers, smoke coming out of it. And a minute later, we watched the live feed as the second aircraft swung around into the second tower," says Jellinek.

He had one question for the people on the line from NEADS: "Was that the hijacked aircraft you were dealing with?" he asked.

Yes, it was, came the reply.

The folks at NORAD did not even know about the attack until the first plane hit. This makes sense as NORAD is tasked with monitoring incoming air space not the airspace in the USA. Someone had to call them to let them know what was happening. Once they knew, they canceled the exercise and attempted to figure out what to do. No one at NORAD seemed to be confused between the exercise and the real attack. There is a reason for this NORAD does not have any reason to hold exercises simulating an internal attack.

__________________________________________________


The NRO “war game” is amusing to say the least. The scenario calls for a small plane to crash into the building and folks have to figure out what exits to take. I can really see how this was critical to the 9/11 plot going off without a hitch LOL.


The biowar exercise in New York is also pretty amusing when one tries to imply that it was useful for the “inside” terrorists. How having FEMA in town with the attacks occurring before the exercise started seem to have no bearing on the ability to pull off 9/11. If anyone can tell me please speak up.

__________________________________________________

In summary

There was one NORAD exercise on 9/11 not three. Not exactly amazing as NORAD holds training exercises all the time. Because NORAD watches for attacks form the outside-in they don’t even know we are under attack until someone calls them. Once they know they scrap the exercise.

The NRO exercise is an evacuation drill that tests the employee’s reaction if some stairwells are closed. The folks at the NRO are so important that everyone except those critical to the operation are let go after the attacks.

The biowar training did not take place and I hope one of you 9/11 investigators can tell me how having a bunch of FEMA guys and first reponders in NYC is critical to the attacks happening, please let the world know.

[BeFree]

50. So, your saying NORAD

Doesn't do anything until someone calls them? Hahahaha

They sit around the office, exercising, just waiting for a call? That's hilarious!

Anyway, the North American Aerospace Defense Command Center was exercising that day. But "..at that moment, someone said 'Look at that monitor'". The time would have been 9:04. 44 minutes after flight 11 was first known to have serious problems. 44 minutes. "Look at that monitor" the exercise was cancelled. Up until the time the second plane hit the WTC, Norad was exercising.

Lifted from your article:
"Then a second plane crashed into the other World Trade Center tower.

At this point, the training exercise was scrapped.."

I'd say their attention was somewhere else, eh? Confusion? Yeah, I'd say confused.

67 times in the previous year, wayward planes had been intercepted by Norad command within 10 minutes. The morning of 9/11, not one of the four planes was officially intercepted by Norad. Confused? Best and most reasonable theory I've heard for the lack of interception. Complicit? Could be, very well could be.

Thanks Lared, you've just about proved that theory.

[MercutioATC]

51. Again, I'd bet that most of those interceptions were made when

an unauthorized plane flew into an active training area (so the jets were already in the air and only minutes away). It's not realistic to compare 9/11 response times to that.

[BeFree]

55. Interesting fact, Murky

On 9/11 there were training missions ongoing all over the Northeast.
Read some of the reports of that day. Mentions of training flights are numerous.

Now, if you are saying the military took a day off from training, I'd say you need to prove that. And, you being, as you say, an ATC, then you'd have an inside line to whether or not the military took a day of on 9/11...

Wow.... imagine that, the US military took a day off on 9/11. Kinda adds to the mystery.

.... Damn, Murky, you may be on to something that no one else even considered!

[MercutioATC]

56. That's not what I said at all.

It was stated that NORAD intercepted 67 planes in the year prior to 9/11. I said that most of those interceptions were most likely made in conjunction with an unauthorized aircraft entering an active training area (not interceptions ordered on suspicious aircraft someplace else).

Why would that mean that the military took a day off from training?

[BeFree]

58. Oh, I thought you infered

That there were no training flights in the Northeast that morning.

Of course they didn't take the whole day off - even though there were no fighter escorts for AF1 when he, *, left the kids - they were all over the place after 10am. Armed and ready for anything. Go get 'em boys!

Still, I like this new avenue you've taken us down. "It wasn't a stand down, they took the morning off, that's all."

There were no training flights across the whole of the northeast and upper midwest on the early morn of 9/11, so therefore no interceptions by trainig flights could have been made, and by gawd, they weren't!

We have the evidence.

[MercutioATC]

59. Excuse me, but what the hell are you talking about???

I have NO idea what you're babbling about, but I didn't address stand-downs or training on 9/11 at all.

Read my original post and get back to me.

[vincent_vega_lives]

53. Asking for a shred of evidence...

is akin to a personal attack with CT'ers, donchaknow.

"Flight 77 obviously Landed at Reagan"

"Got any evidence?"

"How DARE you! You're a Bush apoligist!"

:eyes:

[BeFree]

57. Evidence is everywhere, lacking

Ya'll have no evidence. All ya'll have is the few crumbs thrown to you by the Bush administration.

Ya'll trust the Bush people. We do not. That's the divide. You have trust, we have none.

So, we, who do not trust, must explore the possibilities. We, the non-trustees, open our minds to the alternatives, examine them and bring them up for others to study. And sometimes we just blurt!

We, the enemies of the Bush people, consider our efforts to be nothing more than voicing that which others are afraid of voicing.

Believe it or not, the number of people not satisfied, not trusting, and no longer afraid, is growing.

Join us, quit supporting the elite hijackers of the truth, whether it's about Iraq or 9/11.

We need ya'll.

Befree

[MercutioATC]

60. That was vaguely frightening.

[Abe Linkman]

61. Some people are afraid of the truth.

Some people don't know what the truth is, and don't care to know.
Some don't know, but want to, and actively seek it.

Some people know, but don't care.
Some know, and know they'd better keep their mouth shut.
Some are actually in the business of undermining the search for truth.

[MercutioATC]

62. That was poetic, Abe. I'm going to put music to it.

I'll let you know when it's ready...


I find extremes a littly scary, whether they be a rabid trust in everything our government says or a rabid distrust of everything it says.

[vincent_vega_lives]

63. Not true

It is a matter of trust isn't it? You state "Ya'll have no evidence. All ya'll have is the few crumbs thrown to you by the Bush administration." There's plenty of evidence. The problem is it doesn't exist in a conveniently browsable medium that you can peruse at your leisure. I's well known by thousands of people that I trust a lot more than a few kooks on a message board. Police, firemen, EMT's, doctors, civil engineers, military officers, scientists, FBI agents, airline pilots, air traffic controllers, members of the media, NONE of which can be considered "the Bush administration".

It's cynical to the extreme to think that thousands of public servants have any less ethical scruples than yourselves.

Which brings me to my theory about CT'ers. They must have an extreme Narcissistic streak to believe that they alone know the TRUTH. They alone are smart enough to see what others are blind to. They see themselves alone at the center of a self imagined fantasy where they are Fox Mulder, or perhaps even Scully, and the evil empire known as the Bush Administration is all powerful, all knowing, all controlling rather than just a group of misguided individuals bungling along at the head of a government bureaucracy.

[BeFree]

64. See, there's your apology

...and the evil empire known as the Bush Administration is all powerful, all knowing, all controlling rather than just a group of misguided individuals bungling along at the head of a government bureaucracy.

You dismiss them as just a group of idiots. Sounds like an apology to me. Allow me to rephrase: "Oh, they couldn't do what you say, they're just a bunch of idiots, with no real power or control over anything."

Now, we don't have the truth. Neither do you. The real problem is that you think you know what happened, we know we don't know. That's why we come up with theories.

We do know they are crooks and we don't put anything past them. You, however, evidently do trust the crooks or, at the very least, hope -beyond your wildest dreams- that they are "just a group of misguided bunglers" and wouldn't harm anyone.

[vincent_vega_lives]

65. Hardly and apology

If I called you an idiot would you take that as an apology? I doubt it. BTW You would have to call me a Kerry, Clinton, Edwards apologist too, as they seem to be protecting the Bushes as well. I doubt they think the Bush Administration murdered 3,000 people on September 11th, or are they part of the conspiracy too?
Also, for the most part I don't consider the thousands of public servants as crooks, because quite a few of them would have to be in on any conspiracy of yours.

[Abe Linkman]

66. Naive. REALLY naive. Or, maybe not.

Hard to believe that you are THAT naive. But, anything is possible. Including the idea that 9/11 was an inside job, and OBL was framed just as sure as Lee Harvey Oswald was. Are you aware of any of the other recent conspiracies carried out by our Gov't and other governements, too. Such as, what happened in Spain etc.?

Who told you that someone here considers "the thousands of public servants" to be crooks? That's like condemning all of the employees at Enron because of the criminality of Kenny-Boy, Fastow, Skilling et al.

btw- Aren't you the gentleman who once claimed here that you are a Naval Officer?

[vincent_vega_lives]

67. Got news for ya...

I believe in the "Lone Gunman" Abe, so if you want to start a new thread on that I will certainly go post for post with you on that. Surprised? }(

Just one question: Do you believe the Moon landing was faked? C'mon Abe don't disappoint me. :tinfoilhat:

Who told you that someone here considers "the thousands of public servants" to be crooks? That's like condemning all of the employees at Enron because of the criminality of Kenny-Boy, Fastow, Skilling et al.

Well no shit Abe, now we's getting somewhere. The point is that for all these theories to be true, literally "thousands of public servants" would have to be corrupt.

btw - No never a Naval Officer...but warm. ;)

[BeFree]

68. All these theories

In order for someone to believe we think all these theories are true, someone would have to be wacky. We don't believe all these theories to be true, we just don't believe the one theory you believe is true.

Besides, none of us think there needed to be thousands in on the events of 9/11. It is entirely possible there were only 20 people involved in doing the dirty deed. Oh wait... that's what you believe too, 19 plus 1.

See, you believe all it took was 20 individuals. We just don't think it was the same 20.

Basically, under just about any one of our theories, all that was needed was a few generals, some FBI, a handful in the White house, and a small team of black-ops to rig the planes.

In theory:
The generals in key positions would have issued the standown orders which confused Norad, a couple of White house organizers would have made sure all the right lackeys were in place at Sarasota, DC and NY, and the team of black-ops could have handled any of the various planes and explosives used that day. Stretching it out a bit, maybe 30 individuals could have done the deed using the CIA trained 'hijackers' as cover.. Given that anthrax was delivered to certain people right after 9/11, the core group might have been sending a message that to talk was to die, thereby silencing anyone who might have blown the whistle.

Plausible. Much more plausible than your theory that 19 cavemen outsmarted the Whitehouse, the CIA, the Pentagon, and the FBI. Unless you think they are all idiots. Of course if you think they are all idiots, I can't see why you would ever trust what they say.

[Abe Linkman]

69. conspiracies w/lotsa perps happen every day & we don't hear about them.

Every day and night in this country, there are conspiracies that involve
lots of people. They're carried out by local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies...and they usually involve setting people up, stings, framing people or groups (gangs). It's not uncommon to open the morning newspaper and read about a BIG DRUG bust involving 50, 100 "task force officers (btw- why are they called "officers"?.

Law enforcement's code of silence is very effective. For one thing, a cop who squeals on another cop usually ends up with lead poison and quickly gets sent to Jesus.

[vincent_vega_lives]

70. First of all

Those "conspiracies" target a very small population, so it is not hard to keep secret, even then mistakes are made.

Second, it is much easier for a conspiracy to work if people believe they are doing the right thing. Mass murder is not one of those things, regardless of how you try to justify it.

[tngledwebb]

72. why the gigantic cover-up?

Consider this- most top pols, most major Intel. orgs of the world and their governments KNOW the truth, but cannot let the cat out of the bag, yet. Many reasons for this: 1. Who would believe it really? Folks still can't accept WMD lies etc. 2. Collapse of dollar, and collapse of trust in USA = huge global political & economic instability for decades. 3. Western industrialized countries really do need all the oil NOW to avoid similar global consequences. 4. If USA took umbrage, who's got all the guns, who's gonna win that shootout? Would any ANYONE trust the present admin to play fair after the last 4 years? Best to wait it out till a better time, wouldnt be prudent to make any sudden moves.

[Abe Linkman]

73. Fine web you weaved.

If the polls are even close to being accurate, half the public must not realize bushco's policies and actions are detrimental to them. How else to explain their support for the lies of this Administration?

Progress comes very slowly, by degrees.

[vincent_vega_lives]

71. So you think your government publicly murdered 3000 of its citizens?

Motive? What gain was worth risking being found out? Why wouldn't remenants of this special gear or explosives be found at the crash sites, unless police, fire, investigators were in on it? So who trainied these people? The "CIA hijackers" Who paid them? Who noticed they didn't come into work the next day? All their families, relitives killed too? I'm sure you could come up with clever answers that involve a movie script, but in real life a conspirisy this big would eventually come out.

This standown order, who issued it, when was it issued, how was it issued and by what means. I keep hearing it refered to as sacrosaint, but never see details.

Whats with the "19 cavemen" bullshit? Seems kind of racist to me. These guys were the al Quaida elite. These guys were well educated, had spent time in the west, and armed with unlimited funds. How did they "outsmart" the White house? They only had to outsmart a few INS agents and airport security "specialists". I've had experience with both and was less than impressed.

[BeFree]

74. Such faith, so lacking in facts

1) The August 6 Presidential briefing was the shot across the bow that either the bunglers completely bungled (as you say) or willfully disregarded.

2) They got paid by the government, that's who they work for, duh. These people follow orders without question.

3) The stand-down order was part confusion, part misdirection, and a lot of intentional mis-communication.

4) Wherdy go? That 757 at the pentagon? Pictures don't lie, only humans do.

5) "19 cavemen" is the bullshit we mock * with, because he is the one who descibed your "19" perps. We didn't come up with it, he did. Don't blame us, blame him. Besides, it's a joke.(edited)

6) So, you are of the opinion that al-queezada could attack again at any time, because all they have to do is fool a couple of INS agents and airport security?

Or do you feel they are geniusess who are far more wiser and capable than our defense forces?

[DulceDecorum]

75. Many of those that are claimed to be dead

had died long before September 11, 2001.
Ameer Bukhari for starters.
Ameer made the mistake of following the advice of a certain ATC.
Ameer has not made any more mistakes since then.

According to the relieving controller, traffic was moderate to heavy and of routine. He believed he had the traffic picture when he took control. When asked if there had been a point at which he was concerned about the two airplanes, he said yes, when the pilot of the Aztec advised he did not have the traffic in sight.
The relieving controller was asked what he was trying to accomplish by telling the Cherokee (Ameer Bukhari) to overfly the runway, he said that he wanted to take the airplane out of its landing configuration and it just happened to be the Cherokee.
<snip>
He never used the binoculars to confirm the position of the two airplanes. When asked why not, he replied there was a lot going on and that a local controller does not focus on one specific situation. He noted, that he had another airplane landing and rolling out while there were others waiting to depart. When asked if he had observed the collision, he said no.
He was asked if there are times at which a controller must take other action if a pilot continues to advise he does not have his traffic in sight. He said no that traffic advisories are issued, and that you try to get them to see each other.
He was asked if spacing and sequencing are used to make sure that aircraft under his control do not collide, he said yes. He was then asked to review FAA Order 7110.65, paragraph 2-1-1, and was asked if that is the purpose of the air traffic control system.
As quoted in FAA Order 7110.65, "Air Traffic Control," "The primary purpose of the ATC system is to prevent a collision between aircraft operating in the system and to organize the flow of traffic."
He acknowledged that is pretty much what it says. He was asked why these two airplanes collided if there is a responsibility to keep them from doing so. He said, in his opinion, he is responsible for issuing traffic advisories and trying to get the pilots to see each other. He said the system failed because the pilots did not see each other and the pilot of the Aztec did not see the Cherokee. When asked if he felt satisfied with his performance he said, "yes I do."
http://www2.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20001212X21903&ntsbno=ATL00FA091A&akey=1

Two dead pilots, and a satisfied ATC.
All the more reason to go Greyhound.

Anyhow,
Ameer Bukhari was confirmed dead
long before he got up out of his grave
to go crash another plane.
And the Feds are VERY sensitive about this Fox-pass.
Ask Mr. James P. Hopkins.

According to OSC’s petition, two days after the September 11th terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, Mr. Hopkins read a Washington Post news article that reported that at least one hijacker on each of the planes had received flight training in the United States. The article identified two individuals who were linked to passenger manifests of the hijacked planes and about whom the FBI was seeking information, Mohammed Atta, no known nationality, and Adnan Bukhari, from Saudi Arabia. Mr. Hopkins performed a search of FAA’s International Training Program database, which contains the names and nationalities of persons accepted for training at an FAA Academy in Oklahoma City. He sought to determine whether these two individuals had been trained at the Academy.
While he did not find a match for “Atta,” a match did appear for the name “Bukhari,” indicating that an individual with that surname, and also from Saudi Arabia, was trained in Aviation Security at the FAA Academy in 1991 and 1998. Mr. Hopkins took this information to his first-level supervisor with a request to pass it on to FAA Security for further inquiry as to whether the “Bukhari” in the FAA database might be a relative of the “Bukhari” identified in the Washington Post article.
Mr. Hopkins has advised OSC that his supervisor denied him permission to go to FAA Security and stated that it was not Hopkins’ responsibility to investigate the case. According to Mr. Hopkins, he told his supervisor that he had taken an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic,” and that he intended to pass the information to FAA Security, notwithstanding his supervisor’s directions.
http://www.osc.gov/documents/press/2001/pr01_25.htm
Perhaps the problem was Mr. Hopkins' intention to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all DOMESTIC enemies.
http://www.workindex.com/editorial/hre/hre0207-08.asp
That Osama sure gets around. With foreign enemies like these.....
http://www.mspb.gov/decisions/2001/hopkins_cb020004_20u1.html

Other allededly dead people,
appear to have avoided having the Social Security Numbers being declared defunct
and appear on real estate transactions.
I wonder how the feds hide people in the Witness Protection Program...
Surely a conspiracy of that size (3,000) would eventually come out.

These Burlington County real estate transactions were recorded June 12 to July 1 (2003).
Evesham
4 Sweetgum Ct Melodie Homer and Leroy W Homer Jr to Michael C and Stephanie Cascio, $206,000.
www.twincities.com/mld/philly/ classifieds/real_estate/7620205.htm

Yo Vinnie,
about the stand-down order:
DU has gone into that in depth.
ABB gave it.
And as for outsmarting the specialists,
have you seen Al Qaeda's nuclear-bomb plans?

To help decipher the documents' contents, CNN commissioned three analysts to conduct an exhaustive review of the documents. The lead analyst -- David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security -- is an expert on nuclear weapons design and proliferation and has been a consultant to the U.N. organization investigating Iraq's weapons programs.
ISIS senior analyst Corey Hinderstein and Ron Wolfe, one of the nation's top Arabic translators with experience translating technical and weapons documents, assisted Albright.
<snip>
One document, labeled "Superbombs," appears to be a plan for nuclear device experts said is unworkable. But the author clearly is knowledgeable of various ways to set off a nuclear bomb. For example, the document describes a little-known short cut to initiate a nuclear explosion.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/01/24/inv.al.qaeda.documents/
Anthony Lloyd, a reporter from the Times of London also appears to have discovered the document, since he refers to its erroneous instructions about using TNT to create a thermo-nuclear device.
http://www.alternet.org/story/11935

David Albright, Corey Hinderstein and Ron Wolfe.
THIS is the "intelligence" we have working for us!!
Such mavens, from whom we should be delivered.

Yo Vinnie,
you asked who trained the patsies who names were used in this caper.

Lieutenant Colonel Butler, who wrote in a letter to the editor of the Monterey County Herald charging that “Bush knew about the impending attacks,” was vice chancellor for student affairs at the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California—a US military facility that one or more of the hijackers reportedly attended during the 1990s.
<snip>
The issue is a particularly sensitive one for the Pentagon and the Bush administration. While many people believe that the Bush administration viewed September 11 as a priceless opportunity to implement an ultra-reactionary program of militarism and repression, Butler is different. His military assignment brought him into contact with at least one of the alleged hijackers.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/jun2002/offi-j21.shtml

And apparently,
they trained them well.....
http://www.blackopradio.com/top%20ten.html

As for being racist,
How does shock and awe grab you?
Or a sodomizing a nation's children?
What do you think of profiling and jailing Arabic-speaking people?
Any comments AGAINST the Muslim Holocaust?

[tngledwebb]

52. a good 'imagination'

Plausible... The CT discussed here involves a cast of hundreds, or thousands, years of careful planning, government involvement at the highest levels, and major media complicity. Difficult to grasp this for those who have not spent months reading time-lines, websites, etc, but eventually it all sinks in and one realizes that the Official CT is actually the MOST incredible scenario. Mock exercises were an excellent way to divert attention, ensuring that those who were privy to part of the plot would acquiesce, in full knowledge that yes, some terrible 'mistakes' were made. IE, Government bombing of the Pentagon's new wall, resulting in real deaths, NORAD, ATC and radar screw-ups that were integral to the exercise. But the other aspects of the Official Story wouldn't be queried. Those that may have intuited something more nefarious have families and jobs to protect, and besides, who would believe them?

[Abe Linkman]

54. Very good analysis and insight, "tngledwebb".

People who just "can't believe ____, because SO many people would have to be involved, and how do you keep them quiet" --- either fail or refuse to understand that when your livilhood is at stake, or when there is a thinly veiled suggestion that its best to keep quiet, or __, well, smart people get the message. Those that don't, end up _______.

[LARED]

2. Something like this happened to me today

I was looking for my car keys and found them even though no one told me to.

Pretty amazing.

[BeFree]

4. All things considered, yes, that is amazing. n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

7. They were told to look for the flight, but not on primary radar returns.

You're quoting from page 25 (pdf 42) of the report, btw.

Nothing mysterious here. They were looking because they'd been told to look - they just hadn't been told to look at the primary radar returns. They were probably looking on their standard screens.

Hey, Merc? Any luck on getting better primary radar coverage in Indianapolis and other centers? I'm sure that the Bush Adminstration wouldn't have allowed their lust for invading Iraq to distract them from updating our internal radar infrastructure, since it played such a terrible part in that day's attacks...aren't you?

[MercutioATC]

11. Forget about improving primary radar coverage...

We HAD better coverage, but it's expensive to maintain. The FAA started decomissioning primary radar sites years ago. Our union (NATCA) fought them, insisting it was a safety issue. They stopped decomissioning the primary radar sites, but have no plans to return the ones already decommissioned to service.

[MercutioATC]

12. If we're told to look for a plane that lost its transponder, we ALWAYS

look for primary returns. That's all there'd be to look for. Issuing a "directive" isn't necessary.

Clearer, now?

[BeFree]

20. Ya missed the point

The point being that FAA is stated as NOT alerting other centers, yet the Washington Center was looking for AA77. A contradiction, at the very least.

It clearly (the 9/11 commish) states that they were not told to look at primary, yet you say primary is the only thing to look at. Now you are contradicting the 9/11 commish.

Frankly, nothing the 9/11 commish spews should be be taken as fact.

[MercutioATC]

22. I'll agree that non-ATCs(in fact, ALL non-professionals in whatever field)

should be expected to get many details correct.

I don't have any personal knowledge of who told who what to look for. As a general statement, you're correct. We don't usually go to the trouble of looking for airplanes unless somebody alerts us to something.

[Abe Linkman]

27. Contradictions, Murky probes - all in a daze work for a would-be ATCer

And, precious little from DU's most well-known, self-proclaimed ATC employee should be taken as anything more than lightweight spin.

[MercutioATC]

39. Curiously, Abe, the CTists here are the only ones having trouble

understanding what I say. I wonder why that is?

[Abe Linkman]

41. Here's why.

Because what you say doesn't make a bit of sense and is ususally in contradiction to the available evidence, common sense, and historical patterns.

I don't think anyone here is surprised that a PR flack for buscho wouldn't point that out about you.

(Out of respect for your delicate ego, I didn't put any of this in the message line.)

[MercutioATC]

43. If you can't

understand what I say, ask me to rephrase it. I'll try to make it simpler to understand. Are you saying that there are only 5 or 6 people here who aren't "PR flack for buscho"? Most people have no problem understanding me.

As for my ego, it's not invested in this discussion. I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything. I'm just stating facts and offering my opinions based on what I know.

(on edit)

If part of this message is lined out, that's DU's doing, not mine.