MUST READ: Analyzing The 9/11 Report - Chapter 1

[althecat]

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0408/S00199.htm

ANALYZING THE 9/11 REPORT

Chapter 1: Omissions, Contradictions and Falsehoods
by Michael Kane
Editorial & Research Contribution from Bryan Sacks

From: http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/article.php...
The final report released by the 9/11 Commission contradicts itself in the very first chapter, repeatedly, and strains credulity beyond a reasonable limit in a number of places. Our primary focus will be chapter 1 of the report titled, “We Have Some Planes,” in which the notification and response of the FAA and NORAD is discussed...

In chapter 1, there is a discussion of NORAD’s mission to defend the airspace of North America. The report states that in the immediate post-Cold War era:


NORAD perceived the dominant threat to be from cruise missiles. Other threats were identified during the late 1990s, including terrorists’ use of aircraft as weapons. Exercises were conducted to counter this threat, but they were not based on actual intelligence. In most instances, the main concern was the use of such aircraft to deliver weapons of mass destruction.
This statement shows the threat of planes being used as weapons was known to NORAD for a long time. But later in the same chapter, the report states:


The defense of U.S. airspace on 9/11 was not conducted in accord with preexisting training and protocols. It was improvised by civilians who had never handled a hijacked aircraft that attempted to disappear, and by a military unprepared for the transformation of commercial aircraft into weapons of mass destruction.
This must be what Chairman Kean has called the “ failure of imagination.” So we are asked to accept that while NORAD was well aware of the possibility of hijacked aircraft being used as weapons, it somehow couldn’t imagine commercial aircraft being hijacked and used as weapons? This seems highly unlikely, particularly when one considers the environment in which NORAD found itself after the collapse of the Soviet Union.


& MUCH MORE

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0408/S00199.htm

[fearnobush]

1. I stopped reading the report due to contradictions like this.

plus, not one mention of Sibel Edmonds etc. My conclusion, 911 commission a joke of a cover up.

[Old and In the Way]

2. When the fox gets to create the commission to investigate the

slaughter in the hen house, you know the outcome is going to be a critique on the locks.

[Bolo Boffin]

3. :eyes:

Okay, right off the bat, these authors are idiots or worse.

They take two comments (one saying NORAD had recognized the threat of hijacked planes being used as weapons, and another saying the military was unprepared for hijacked planes being used as weapons) and builds the nicest little straw man argument somebody could ever hope for:

This must be what Chairman Kean has called the “ failure of imagination.” So we are asked to accept that while NORAD was well aware of the possibility of hijacked aircraft being used as weapons, it somehow couldn’t imagine commercial aircraft being hijacked and used as weapons?

Please note: the second quote didn't say the military couldn't imagine the hijacked-airplane-as-weapon threat - it said the military was unprepared for it. Recognizing a threat and being prepared for that threat are two separate things. The Kean quote is brought in to muddy the waters, and so the straw man is stuffed and waved about.

Now am I justifying the military's lack of preparation? No. In fact I condemn it.

But the fun continues. The authors then find another quote which says that before 9/11, NORAD never recognized the threat of planes hijacked inside the United States being used as weapons. The claim is made that this contradicts the first quote mentioned.

Well, no, it doesn't. NORAD had recognized the threat of hijacked airplanes being used as weapons, but had assumed that these planes would originate from outside the US, giving them time to respond to the threat. How do I know this? It's the sentence before the one the authors chose to boldface in their quote!

Understand that? Being aware of a general threat is not proof that all specific forms of that threat are being considered.

BTW, now the basis for the "military unprepared" becomes clearer: they never thought the planes could come from inside the US, which would require much faster response time. They were unprepared.

Then the authors almost seize upon some real contradiction: they mention a USAToday article which states, they say, that hijacked-airplanes-inside-US-used-as-weapons was considered in a NORAD exercise in 2001. Planes from Utah and Washington State, to be precise. That would be a real contradiction...

...except that's not what the article says, exactly. In the drill, the planes that "took off" from Utah and Washington State were escorted in the exercise to airfields in British Columbia and Alaska. Does that sound like suicide pilots to you? No, this is a regular hijacking drill in which the scriptwriters were given license to have their erstwhile hijackers say anything that might broaden the response.

Did you get that? The hijackers in the drill were communicating with authorities. The drill was conceived as a standard hijacking drill, not a hijacked-plane-used-as-weapon drill. This wasn't like 9/11 at all.

So once again, the authors either lack reading comprehension skills or they're deliberately lying about the 9/11 Commission report. They repeat this error at the end of the section (after showing General Eberhart was the source of the unpreparedness meme):

But claiming to be unprepared in this instance amounts to gross negligence at the very least, especially when NORAD itself admits to having run drills for exactly what they claim to have been “unprepared” for.

No, NORAD never did run a drill for the 9/11 scenario. They'd run lots of scenarios about hijacked planes from foreign countries being flown to the US and being used as weapons. But they had never seriously contemplated hijacked planes inside the US being used as weapons. The two ideas may be first cousins of each other, but they are two separate scenarios.

The next section talks about the various war games being conducted by the military. What bombing practice runs have to do with anticipating the 9/11 attacks the authors never say.

They do note that General Eberhart told them "No comment" when asked by them about a central coordinator for the multiple war games being conducted on 9/11. They neglect to tell us in which forum they questioned Eberhart. Was it a press conference or a one-on-one interview? Or did they catch Eberhart in the hallway on the way to an appointment and shout out a question as he passed? It would help evaluate their claim if they'd provide some context - they don't.

And now the coup de grace. The authors then conclude:

At this point it should be clear that the first chapter of the 9/11 Commission report is a disjointed account rife with contradictions, misstatements, false insinuations, critical omissions and, one could argue, outright lies. But let’s continue.

Hunhhhh?????

They've discussed a single issue (did NORAD anticipate hijacked planes as weapons) and then tried to show General Eberhart stalling on some point they deem relevant. On that basis they condemn the whole first chapter of the report so vigorously?

What is in the first chapter? It's 46 pages long. The first section deals with a blow-by-blow account of the actual hijackings and crashes: 14 pages long. The second section provides background on the FAA and NORAD, then deals with the details of how these two agencies found out about the 9/11 attacks and communicated with each other: 20 more pages. The remainder of the chapter deals with the details of how the core of the executive branch learned about the hijackings.

The single point so badly mangled by the authors is a sideline to this chapter! The authors are far from proving that the chapter is the foul thing they so fervently wish it to be.

The hapless and inept construction of arguments against the 9/11 report don't suggest this article to be anything but a source of amusement. If that's the best 9/11 revisionists have to offer against the 9/11 Commission report, then you can rest easy. Its reputation is not endangered by this blunt little tool.

[tngledwebb]

4. Taking your point, but

regardless of report, and interpretations of report, my question for you is: who should be held accountable, who should be docked a day's pay, reprimanded, fired, court-martialed, or even impeached for such systemic and tragic failures? Anyone? Be specific, and beg pardon if you have answered this elsewhere.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[tngledwebb]

7. Wasn't asking you

But your responses are at best non-sequiters. Re-phrase? Use generalities if it helps? Say 'well I would think about getting rid of a couple of NORAD people, or an ATC or two, etc.' Btw, have you seen F/911 yet?

[RH]

10. The advice I see

is that F/911 "mostly consists of mainstream pictures and video", which we've therefore seen before. Given also that most of what I've already seen on the subject during the past couple of years has been at best a total waste time the last thing I would presently wish to do is to repeat the dissapointment.

So what's new then?

The same feeling applies to any search for scapegoats. If there is a particular charge of negligence, crimilanity or bad faith to made out against any individual or group, lets hear the details. As yet I've not seen enough to make a case of. The desire to see heads fall just for the sake of it is not in the mean time a pleasant spectacle to behold.

[tngledwebb]

11. That is incorrect sir,

F9/11 is full of unseen footage. F/911 and other sources give plenty of details. I don't want scapegoats, Bushco does. I want the folks who are paid huge salaries with my hard-earned tax dollars to do their job. Those that screw up big time ( by not heeding terror warnings or securing airports, or by sending kids to die in unjustified wars,) should get investigated, sacked, impeached. But with rigged elections, rigged investigations and a complicit media, I don't hold my breath.

[Sperk]

6. the commissions reputation was endangered from the start when

they made their conclusions BEFORE they started their investigation.
No pointing of fingers allowed because no one was to blame, just an unfortunate intellegence failure.

Again, I must say that this "outward posture" thing is ridiculous....even if a hijacking originated from overseas, it is a VERY HIGH probability that the hijackers would not let their intentins be know until they were in US air space and closer to their intended target. I don't think they would be stupid enough to hijack the plane two hours out, do you?

[impe]

8. Ding Ding

Good thing the terrorists knew to be incommunicado, otherwise Iron Mt. would have
showned them a thing or two.

my question to the apologists, do you get paid by the week or by the number of words?

[LARED]

12. By the month.

Weekly checks are for chumps. Plus we get free secret decoder rings.

[k-robjoe]

13. Agree

After reading the article, and Boloboffins objections, I agree with Michael Kane : " It is deceitful to suggest NORAD had not considered this threat."

Moving to the timeline issue,

One excerpt from the article :

"NEW TIMELINE

The report continues:


As it turned out, the NEADS air defenders had nine minutes’ notice on the first hijacked plane, no advance notice on the second, no advance notice on the third, and no advance notice on the fourth.
This portion of the final report is entirely misleading and has been hotly contested. This statement is based upon a “new timeline” presented at the final public hearing on June 17, 2004 that defies every official timeline recognized prior to the publication of the final report. Note that no official explanation has been given for the alterations in the respective timelines. This is a serious matter that, left unexplained, further undermines the Commission’s credibility."

And apropos changing the timeline, see my thread : http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x13454

Lies and coverup.

[althecat]

14. Can you deconstruct Senator Dayton in a similar manner?

http://innworldreport.net/video/2004-08-04/dayton.html

[Bolo Boffin]

35. Senator Dayton is concerned about the reactions that day, al...

...not whether NORAD was seriously considering the idea of a 9/11 style attack months before 9/11. That issue - the reactions of the day - is a major topic of Chapter One, yet the did-NORAD-know question, a subject barely mentioned in Chapter One, is all that the authors of this "critique" need to claim the 9/11 report is chock fulla lies.

Michael Kane, in this video link, clearly doesn't tell the truth about the July 2001 drill, BTW. He says, and I quote, concerning the USAToday article:

...it very specifically said that NORAD had planned a drill in July of 2001 that posed hijacked airliners originating in the continental United States that were turned into weapons of mass destruction, and even flown into the World Trade Center itself.

This is not true. Kane has conflated several accounts of NORAD drills into the July 2001 drill. Two drills are mentioned in the very beginning of the article. One has a plane turned into a WMD (chemical weapons, to be precise). Another flies into the WTC.

But the article very specifically says that both of these drills, included the cancelled Pentagon drill, used planes that originated outside the United States.

Kane very specifically lies about the July 2001 drill. It concerned two planes that took off from Utah and Washington State which were escorted to airfields in British Columbia and Alaska. No mention of WMD were made. The planes never came close to the WTC.

Kane is lying about this article. He's not a good source to discredit the 9/11 Commission report.

Do over.

[k-robjoe]

15. reading

From the USA Today article :

"WASHINGTON — In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties."

But these exercises "differed from the Sept. 11 attacks in one important respect: The planes in the simulation were coming from a foreign country."

But then there was the excercise planned in July 2001.(and conducted "later".)

Here is what it says in the USA Today article (1), and what Micael Kane says (2).

( According to Boloboffin, this can be said about what Michael Kane writes : "So once again, the authors either lack reading comprehension skills or they're deliberately lying about the 9/11 Commission report." Seems to me that Michael Kane is saying the same thing that the USA Today article said, namely that " "scriptwriters" for the drills included the idea of hijacked aircraft being used as weapons." )

1)"But there were exceptions in the early drills, including one operation, planned in July 2001 and conducted later, that involved planes from airports in Utah and Washington state that were "hijacked." Those planes were escorted by U.S. and Canadian aircraft to airfields in British Columbia and Alaska.

NORAD officials have acknowledged that "scriptwriters" for the drills included the idea of hijacked aircraft being used as weapons." - USA Today

2) "In chapter 11, “ Foresight – And Hindsight,” on page 346, the commission again states that NORAD did recognize the threat of hijacked airliners being used as weapons, but assumed such a flight would originate overseas. The USA Today report does note that this was NORAD’s contention, but the report also notes NORAD scriptwriters postulated hijacked aircraft originating from Utah and Washington State and included the idea of hijacked aircraft being used as weapons. This refutes the Commission’s contention that the threat posed by hijacked domestic airliners “was not recognized by NORAD before 9/11”." - Michael Kane

[althecat]

17. Snap :)

[Bolo Boffin]

18. But not understanding what you're reading

It's rather simple, actually. The operation planned in July 2001 had perhaps one scripted exchange where the hijackers threatened to crash the plane into a building. One statement is enough to say the drill "included" the idea of hijacked planes being used as weapons, but it's not proof that NORAD recognized and planned for a plane hijacked within the States being used as a weapon.

I can't help that NORAD was blind to that specific possibility. The USA Today article even says an exercise planned to deal with a hijacked plane (from a foreign country) attacking the Pentagon was cancelled, because they felt it was too "unrealistic". What we have here is not exactly a failure of imagination - it's blindness from an undue pride. It's hubris.

[k-robjoe]

20. And

And based on this sophistry you feel yourself in the right to claim that " these authors are idiots or worse."

And that " the authors either lack reading comprehension skills or they're deliberately lying about the 9/11 Commission report."

Amazing.

[Bolo Boffin]

24. Whatever.

It's not sophistry to point out that these guys don't know what they're talking about.

[althecat]

16. USA Today Article - First Three Paras...

WASHINGTON — In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties.

One of the imagined targets was the World Trade Center. In another exercise, jets performed a mock shootdown over the Atlantic Ocean of a jet supposedly laden with chemical poisons headed toward a target in the United States. In a third scenario, the target was the Pentagon — but that drill was not run after Defense officials said it was unrealistic, NORAD and Defense officials say.

NORAD, in a written statement, confirmed that such hijacking exercises occurred. It said the scenarios outlined were regional drills, not regularly scheduled continent-wide exercises.

******

You accuse Kane of misrepresenting this article... it seems to me that it says precisely what he says it says. You claim it was a routine hijacking drill?

You accuse Kane of selective quotation and then you take this article. Extract one paragraph...

Namely...

But there were exceptions in the early drills, including one operation, planned in July 2001 and conducted later, that involved planes from airports in Utah and Washington state that were "hijacked." Those planes were escorted by U.S. and Canadian aircraft to airfields in British Columbia and Alaska.

and assert...

Then the authors almost seize upon some real contradiction: they mention a USAToday article which states, they say, that hijacked-airplanes-inside-US-used-as-weapons was considered in a NORAD exercise in 2001. Planes from Utah and Washington State, to be precise. That would be a real contradiction...

...except that's not what the article says, exactly. In the drill, the planes that "took off" from Utah and Washington State were escorted in the exercise to airfields in British Columbia and Alaska. Does that sound like suicide pilots to you? No, this is a regular hijacking drill in which the scriptwriters were given license to have their erstwhile hijackers say anything that might broaden the response.

Did you get that? The hijackers in the drill were communicating with authorities. The drill was conceived as a standard hijacking drill, not a hijacked-plane-used-as-weapon drill. This wasn't like 9/11 at all.

But the very next para in the story says.

NORAD officials have acknowledged that "scriptwriters" for the drills included the idea of hijacked aircraft being used as weapons.

Which is precisely like 911 is it not?

ENDS

[Bolo Boffin]

19. No, it's not at all like 9/11.

How the drill in question is not like the 9/11 attacks:

1. Due to its conclusion, we can see that it was a routine drill of a simple hijacking.

2. The "hijackers" in the drill were communicating with the ATCs and other officials.

3. The threat of using the plane as a weapon was probably a one-time statement from an agitated "hijacker."

In contrast, the hijackers on 9/11 communicated only inadvertently with ATCs. They never threatened buildings; they simply carried out their attacks. NORAD had never contemplated such an attack. Should they have? Yeah, and the thought wasn't unthinkable. But for whatever reason (I blame good old American hubris) such an attack wasn't recognized by NORAD.

What's so hard about that to understand?

[k-robjoe]

21. > "The threat of using the plane...

> "The threat of using the plane as a weapon was probably a one-time statement from an agitated "hijacker.""

And based on this sophistry you feel yourself in the right to claim that " these authors are idiots or worse."

And that " the authors either lack reading comprehension skills or they're deliberately lying about the 9/11 Commission report."

Amazing.

[k-robjoe]

23. Idiot Kane

So what we have is :

the USA Today article, saying :

" NORAD officials have acknowledged that "scriptwriters" for the drills included the idea of hijacked aircraft being used as weapons."

And then Michael Kane, who feels that : " This refutes the Commission’s contention that the threat posed by hijacked domestic airliners “was not recognized by NORAD before 9/11”."

And who is convinced that the threat was recognized by NORAD before 9/11, arguing that they must have recognized it, considering what we know about the Bojinka plot, and the threats towards the Genoa conference (plus a couple of more things he mentions, and quite a few he doesn´t mention).


And then we have Boloboffin, who feels that Michael Kane must be an "idiot or worse", since he can not see that what the scriptwriters were writing in was "probably a one-time statement from an agitated "hijacker."", and that the other arguments from Kane amounts to nothing, because the real explanation is simply "hubris".

[Bolo Boffin]

27. Don't misrepresent me, k-robjoe.

I dealt with the authors' arguments one by one, until I gave up in disgust. I never said that the other arguments amount to nothing because the real answer is "hubris". Their arguments actually do amount to nothing, and I explained why.

You and al have seized upon this one issue and hope to discredit my treatment of the piece. That's a lot like the methodology of the authors of this illogical smokescreen we're discussing.

The first chapter of the 9/11 Commission report contains a lot of information about how the planes were hijacked and about how the various agencies involved found out about the hijackings and what they did about them. How much of this do the authors deal with before they proclaim the whole thing full of lies and deceit and on and on and on?

One single issue. And they don't prove their point on that!

No cursory glance at either the Commission report or my deconstruction of the attacking article is going to suffice here, k. Deal with what I say, not with your straw men.

[Abe Linkman]

28. The 9/11 Commission Cover-up Report is chock full of straw men.

You hold the Warren Commission Report in similar high esteem?

[Bolo Boffin]

32. I was wondering when you'd show up to change the subject, Abe. n/t

[k-robjoe]

39. I seized

upon this one issue because it was the only one that could possibly give base to a discussion that would not be just stupid, and because it was the only one that, if correct, could make any sense of your claim that the authors "must be idiots", it was the only one of your arguments that seemed to have some weight.

You are yourself using the "methodology" that you find in the article, and in my arguments, but with you it´s called "gave up in disgust", and so it´s ofcourse something very different.

You say that Kanes article deals with "one single issue". Rubbish! ( It almost seems like you are trusting that I didn´t actually read it.)

You say that the arguments of the article ( some of which I referred to ) actually amount to nothing, and that you´ve explained why. Rubbish!

[Bolo Boffin]

40. We'll let the reader decide who's dealing with substance...

...and who's blowing smoke.

All of my arguments had weight - the one you seized upon had enough details that you could make a hash of it and call it rebuttal.

The methodology is "looking at a side issue and saying everything's wrong because of it". Giving up in disgust is what I did after looking at at least three attempts of Kane's to make a real argument.

You took my words out of context. Kane uses one single issue to base his claim that the whole 9/11 commission report is chock fulla lies. I didn't say that Kane only deals with one single issue. (It almost seems like you are trusting that I don't know what I said.)

The arguments that I dealt with amount to nothing. I've explained why. Deal with it.

[Abe Linkman]

42. 9/11 Report Doesn't explain THIS. Deal with it, bolo. It's about WTC1

Let's acquaint ourselves with a few basic facts. According to the official version of events the planes that hit the Twin Towers were both Boeing 767s that had left Boston Logan airport on scheduled flights to LA. Both planes had been airborne for around 45 minutes before they crashed so both planes would have been carrying roughly the same payload and the same amount of fuel. It has been calculated however that the first plane was travelling at 470 mph when it hit the north tower and the second plane at 590 mph (close to the top cruising speed of a 767) when it struck the south tower. It is reasonable to predict therefore that the second plane struck its target with considerably greater force than did the first plane — about 50% greater force according to one calculation I have seen.

The seismic evidence however tells a different story. As already noted, the first plane generated an impact of magnitude ML=0.9 compared with a value ML=0.7 for the second plane. Despite the fact that it was travelling much more slowly than the second plane, the first plane nonetheless managed to cause an impact 30% greater in magnitude. This is easily demonstrated by comparing the relative amplitudes of the two collisions in the graphs above.

Look now at the duration of the two impacts as recorded on the seismic charts. It can be seen that while the impact of the second plane was two to three seconds in duration, that of the first plane lasted around ten seconds, which by all accounts is one mighty long impact. That's about as long as it took for each tower to collapse.

The seismic records lend further credence to the notion that the north tower was hit, not by a Boeing 767, but by a sequence of powerful missiles and bombs. This explanation fully accounts for the unexpectedly high force of the impact and its remarkably long duration. The official account cannot explain these facts.

Above is excerpted from Leonard Spencer's research.

[Bolo Boffin]

44. Which means it's off the subject, Abe.

Why do you have to keep trying to change the subject, Abe?

[Abe Linkman]

46. It DEBUNKS the 9/11 Report. It's very much ON the subject, bolo.

Is it fair to say that you would have rebutted it if you could?
Is it also now fair to conclude that the "Great bolo", scourage of Conspiracy Researchers, has gone limp? No air in the tires (though the "spare tire" is probably as full as ever...and partly with air)?

Amazing how quickly some apologists for the "Cavemen Did It" Conspiracy Theory fold. Facing the truth can be painful.

[MercutioATC]

49. It does no such thing.

You're assuming the planes carried the same amount of fuel. That's not even close to necessarily true. Airlines frequently fill either just enough for a flight (plus FAA-mandated reserves) or fill all the way up depending on a variety of factors (the contracts they have with fuel suppliers at either end of the flight being one).

The planes also hit the buildings at different angles and at different heights.

The crashes were substantially different. That they resulted in different seismic disturbances doesn't "debunk" anything.

[Abe Linkman]

52. Oh, no. merc struck out! What happened, bro?

I think I can speak for a whole bunch of people who were expecting at least one of the Olson twins to rebut the article which debunks the 9/11
Report about WTC1...and you let us down, murk.

Yeah, buddy -- that excerpt I posted is strong medicine. Why, the seismic analysis alone is enough to choke a bushco horse. No wonder it seems like in the last few days the apologists are running faster than a hog eats supper.

[MercutioATC]

53. I'm responding to YOUR post, Abe. You stated, I refuted.

You were maybe expecting a comprehensive analysis of the 9/11 Commission Report and reports claiming to debunk it? Sorry.

I'll respond as you convey these reports' blather.

[Abe Linkman]

54. murky strikes out AGAIN! Oh well, you can have another swat at it.

It's just too powerful, isn't it? Have another hit...or at least a swing. You might want to bring in a pinch hitter, merc. You're not doing too well at the plate. RH? bolo? VV? Can you hep him?

[MercutioATC]

55. So you don't want to respond to my post? I'm SHOCKED!

...SHOCKED, I tell ya.

If you feel like dealing with responses to claims you make, let me know...we seem to have quite a backlog going.

[Bolo Boffin]

58. How you know when anyone's confounded Abe Linkman:

...he refuses to deal with the substance of the answer and simply declares victory.

Merc's raised some valid points, Abe. Try dealing with them instead of spiking your airball into the endzone...

[Bolo Boffin]

57. Just refusing to let you sidetrack this discussion, Abe.

Start another thread that discusses your ironclad proof, and I'll be happy to debunk it.

I haven't read Merc's takedown yet though, so maybe he's polished it off. Sorry to keep you waiting, but someone around this joint has to work for a living...

[LARED]

50. The official account cannot explain these facts.

Actually there is nothing to explain. I will be more than happy to provide a reason -- if you're interested.

[Bolo Boffin]

25. Prove me wrong.

I'm saying it was a one time statement. That's my opinion, and since the authors demonstrate their inability to read and reason in other ways beside this single example you've latched onto, I think it's a valid one.

Of course, the matter could be cleared up if we had a copy of the script and/or transcript of the drill to look at? What's that, you say? You don't have one? Neither do I? Neither do the authors?

How about that.

[althecat]

22. How do you know this?

You say,

"The threat of using the plane as a weapon was probably a one-time statement from an agitated 'hijacker.'"

How do you know this?

[Bolo Boffin]

26. Because I read the article, al.

It's not hard. When you read the words, you can get a clear idea of the substance of that "damning" drill. It was a regular hijacking in which the scriptwriters introduce the idea of using the plane as a weapon. But the "hijackers" in the drill never actually use the plane as a weapon - they are escorted to a different airfield.

This means that the idea of using the plane as a weapon was a threat alone, from a "hijacker" as he communicated with the ATCs and other officials. It's only necessary to posit a single scripted statement like this to have "included" this possibility in the drill.

So when these authors say that "NORAD must have known" (as if NORAD was a metamind that could transmit knowledge instantly among all its members), they are wandering far afield of what's necessary and rational. What they have is one regional drill in which the "hijackers" threaten to use the plane as a weapon, then allow themselves to be escorted to an airfield. It's more like 9/11 than Granny D walking across the country, to be sure, but in crucial details, it's not proof that NORAD was seriously considering a 9/11 attack.

As for "idiots or worse", I prefer to fault their intelligence rather than their motives. Perhaps they just don't know how faulty every one of their arguments are. That would be better than conciously misstating and confusing the issue.

But that remains a strong possibility.

[Abe Linkman]

29. People who want to be taken as serious "journalists" accept the O.Story

You agree with that, don't you, bolo?

[k-robjoe]

30. So when

the USA Today reports that "In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties", it can not be drawn into this discussion at all, because the planes were meant to come from abroad.

And when Sperk says that "this "outward posture" thing is ridiculous....even if a hijacking originated from overseas, it is a VERY HIGH probability that the hijackers would not let their intentions be known until they were in US air space and closer to their intended target", then he must be an idiot or something.

And when the USA Today writes that "NORAD officials have acknowledged that "scriptwriters" for the drills included the idea of hijacked aircraft being used as weapons" , what they really mean is that they included the idea of a THREAT of aircraft being used as weapons. And one must not at all see this exercise in connection with the exercises mentioned in the quote above, because they were something totally different.

And Boloboffin is not into sophistry, he´s just informing us that Michael Kane doesn\t know what he´s talking about.

Your argument reminds me of Cheneys excuses, where he doesn´t distinguish between "intercept" and "shoot down". Very much in the spirit of the Commission.

[RH]

31. OK then. Distinguish.

I don't know what "intercept" is supposed to mean, especially in a military sense, if not to make a difference, if not to gain control.

So how then would your interception make a difference if not by shooting down?

As I'd understood it the de riguer routine with a hijacking or a kidnapping is to diligently avoid doing anything to provoke a culprit.

[Bolo Boffin]

33. k-robjoe: this isn't hard to understand.

Before 9/11, when NORAD drilled on the idea of hijacked airplanes being used as weapons, those airplanes were consistently considered as coming from outside the country. Every last one of them.

On one single exercise of a hijacked plane inside the US, the idea of that plane being used as a weapon came up. It's described as the initiative of the scriptwriter, and the plane in question was escorted to an airfield. This suggests to the rational person that the introduction of the weapon idea was simply a threat, a one-time remark. The drill was never concieved to deal with a actual use of a plane as a weapon.

The arguments of Michael Kane are deceptive and irrational. I never said conclusively that Michael Kane doesn't know what he's talking about: I purposely left open the option that Kane is quite aware of how deceptive and irrational his arguments are.

[Abe Linkman]

34. You're saying NORAD didn't know about Bunnypants in Genoa?

Before your unfair sarcasm ("this isn't hard to understand"), I would have sworn you were merely suffering from an acid reflux incident.

The "arguments" of the bushco/Laden crowd are getting more and more desperate. Really having to draw fine lines now.

Ironically, that's not only NOT impressive HERE, but your other audience
probably wouldn't be impressed either. Must be frustrating. Have some more canoodle. Wait, I'll pass it.

[Bolo Boffin]

36. The Genoa incident isn't part of the discussion, Abe.

Whether NORAD knew about that or not is immaterial.

NORAD never conducted a drill in which hijackers take a plane from the continental US and use it to fly into a building (turn it into a weapon). That's what the authors of this "critique" claim, and it's a false claim.

Stop trying to change the subject.

[k-robjoe]

37. The plane

didn´t have to go just above the WTC, for it to be an exercise of a plane being used as a weapon. The plane involved in the exercise that DID specifically deal with the threat of a plane being crashed into the WTC didn´t actually crash into it. And so there is nothing stopping them from saying, ok, for this exercise we will pretend that the the building x in the town y is a likely terrorist target.

You say that "the plane in question was escorted to an airfield. This suggests to the rational person that the introduction of the weapon idea was simply a threat." Please...

It´s allowed to see things in connection. Like seeing the exercises with planes coming in from abroad in connection with the July exercise.

Then see this all in connection with the numerous warnings about planes being used as weapons, that came in during summer 2001.

[Bolo Boffin]

41. You're wandering, k-robjoe.

Why are you bringing "warnings" and conjectures into this?

Kane made some bogus arguments. I called him on it. If Kane is going to discredit the 9/11 commission report, he needs to clean up his act.

[Abe Linkman]

43. Message #42 destroys the 9/11 Cover-up Report. Deal with it.

Do you know ANYONE who believes the 9/11 Report's findings?

[Bolo Boffin]

45. Message #42 is a naked attempt to change the subject, Abe.

Do you know ANYONE who tries to change the subject as often as you, Abe?

[Abe Linkman]

47. Message #42 is about the 9/11 report. Why won't you deal with it?

It's very much about the 9/11 report. You just can't refute it, so you're looking for an excuse to avoid being labeled a ____.

[MercutioATC]

51. Message #49 refutes Message #42. Why won't YOU deal with it?

Hmmmm?

:shrug:

[Bolo Boffin]

59. labeled a _________.

Whatever could you be implying, Abe?

As I've posted elsewhere, I'm just trying to keep this thread to the subject of the article posted at the beginning. It's a foreign concept to some, talking about one subject at a time, but I have faith in all members of the 9/11 forum here to be able to accomplish it.

I'd be happy to discuss the article you want to discuss if you would just start a thread devoted to it. That way, the forum could serve as a compendium of appropriately named threads, instead of the mismash of freewheeling ideas that you seem determined to reduce our discussion to.

[NecessaryOnslaught]

48. Bolo, staunch defender of official government reports everywhere

[Bolo Boffin]

56. Ad hominem is oh, so convincing, NO. n/t

[Abe Linkman]

60. Eyes placement is accurate, but I believe bolo claims to be BIGGER

MUCH bigger. Which might have something to do with why he is unable to
rebut arguments which debunk his favorite Conspiracy Theory ("Cavemen Did It"). Ironic, isn't it, that to a bolo, it's an "acceptable" conspiracy theory which says that a bunch of cave dwellers ("Evildoers"), led by a fiendish master criminal (OBL) with a satellite phone and a pair of bad kidleys, could outfox the largest, most sophisticated Defense establishment in the known physical universe.

[MercutioATC]

61. You keep bringing up OBL's bad kidneys. So what?

Hitler had Parkinson's. Was he just a "patsy"?

[Abe Linkman]

62. That's off-topic, murky - try and stick to the subject, please.

Thank you.

The Patsy most of us here at DU (excluding agents from the Ministry of Truth) have referred to (by name) is Osama bin Ladin Patsy.

[MercutioATC]

63. Off-topic? YOU were the one who brought it up...

How am I not "sticking to the subject" by responding directly to a claim you made in a post?

The fact remains, OBL's kidneys have nothing to do with his ability to organize his followers.

[Abe Linkman]

64. You're doing this because you want us to forget you can't refute us.

What does the Ministry of Truth have to say about the cited Spencer argument that exposes the 9/11 Commission Report as a dishonest cover-up
just like the Warren Commission Report.

You say your expertise is confined to ATC issues, but you've offered your "expert" opinions on plenty of non-ATC matters, so THAT can't be an excuse for your unwillingness/inability to rebut the Spencer argument which points out so many of the absurd lies in the Official Conspiracy Theory.

At some point, aren't you going to look silly if you can't refute the arguments which are so compelling in their deconstruction of the "Cavemen Did It" Conspiracy?

[MercutioATC]

65. I believed I've "refuted" every Spencer cite you've posted.

You want better responses? Post better issues.

This "OBL kidney" thing is an ongoing favorite of yours. You cite it as a reason he couldn't have organized the events of 9/11. All I'm asking for (since you brought it up again) is a reason a kidney problem would prevent him from planning a terrorist attack.

[Bolo Boffin]

66. I'm begging you, Abe: start a new thread with your new subject

I've asked you several times, but it seems you're happier saying I won't respond than to actually put your little article up to the sustained scrutiny of a dedicated thread. Merc, of course, has already dealt with it quite well, so maybe that's why you hesitate to start a new thread.

[Abe Linkman]

67. GO ahead, bolo - you have my permission to rebut it right here.

Let's hear it straight from the horse mouth. The whole DU world is waiting.

[MercutioATC]

68. How about dealing with MY rebuttal first, Abe?

I'm feeling neglected...

:cry:

[Bolo Boffin]

69. Rebutting here means changing the subject, Abe.

What number on the truth supression list is "changing the subject when you're over a barrel"?

ON EDIT: And by the way, if you think the "whole DU world" is reading this exchange, you do have delusions of grandeur.

[graphixtech]

9. Excellent summation (and link to new video clip)

For a new, short, streetside video that features Michael Kane
in NYC visit this website page later tonight:
http://www.septembereleventh.org/kc/multimedia/


9/11Truth Summer Schedule of Events here:
http://www.911Truth.org/index.php


Join us!
Tabloid sized (11x17) poster download is available here:
http://www.septembereleventh.org/downloads.php


Contribute to discussion!
http://www.septembereleventh.org/forum/ubbthreads.php

[DU GrovelBot]

38. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v3.0
==================



This week is our third quarter 2004 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend almost entirely
on donations from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for
your support.