See other 9/11 Articles
Title: The First Fifteen Minutes of September 11th - Former Air Traffic Controller Robin Hordon speaks out.
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://911blogger.com/node/10711
Published: Aug 18, 2007
Author: Jeremy Baker
Post Date: 2007-08-18 05:45:39 by Kamala
Ping List: *9-11* Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: 911
Views: 674
Comments: 66
The First Fifteen Minutes of September 11th - Former Air Traffic Controller Robin Hordon speaks out. The First Fifteen Minutes of September 11th Former Air Traffic Controller Robin Hordon speaks out on 9/11, NORAD and what should have happened on 9/11. By Jeremy Baker Former Air Traffic Controller Robin Hordon Within three hours of the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, Robin Hordon knew it was an inside job. He had been an Air Traffic Controller (ATC) for eleven years before Reagan fired him and hundreds of his colleagues after they went on strike in the eighties. Having handled in-flight emergencies and two actual hijackings in his career, he is well qualified to comment on what NORAD should have been able to achieve in its response to the near simultaneous hijacking of four domestic passenger carriers on the morning of September 11th, 2001. “There had to be something huge to explain why those aircraft weren’t shot down out of the sky. We have fighters on the ready to handle these situations twenty-four-seven. We have NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command) monitors monitoring our skies twenty-four-seven. We have a lot of human beings, civilian and military, who care about doing their jobs.” I spoke to Mr. Hordon one afternoon at a coffee shop in Bremerton, Washington. “You have to understand the emotions, the duty, the job of an ATC. We are paid to watch aircraft go across the country.” It’s clear that Hordon is passionate about the subject. A lot of people are. The dark questions that the attacks have left lingering in the national psyche have been recorded. 49% of New Yorkers believe that the government had something to do with 9/11. Following an interview with Charlie Sheen, a CNN poll revealed that 82% of respondents believed that there was “a government cover-up of 9/11.” Jay Leno asked Bill Maher on The Tonight Show about the fact that 37% of Americans (according to Scribbs-Howard) believe that the government was involved in some way with the attacks (Maher was definitely not one of them). As far as the “emotions, the duty, the job” of an ATC is concerned, Hordon puts it this way: “Imagine yourself at a circus, a fair, a crowded sports event. You have in your hand your little child of five or six, you’re amongst hundreds of people and you turn around and see that your child is gone. How do you feel at that moment? You feel panicked. You feel that this is the worst thing possible, so what you do is you engage. When ATCs lose an aircraft, all hell breaks loose. They flip right into motion. We take action and do not wait for other things to happen.” As a former member of the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) and PATCO (Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization), Hordon’s years as an ATC are particularly relevent to 9/11 researchers. “I was a certified ATC in Boston west-bound departures, the routing that AA11 and UA175 followed on 9/11. I know it like the back of my hand.” He even received a letter of commendation for his role in dealing with an actual hijacking. When it became clear that there hadn’t been a systems failure of any kind on the morning of September 11th, Hordon was certain that something had gone terribly wrong within the upper echelons of authority. A pilot (third level air carrier) as well as an ATC, he is well versed on in-flight emergency protocol. He is also adamant that if these procedures had been followed on 9/11 not one of the hijacked planes would have reached their targets. “I’m sorry but American 11 should have been intercepted over southwest Connecticut—bang, done deal.” According to Hordon, air emergencies requiring scrambles, or “flushes,” from fighter jets occur 50 to 150 times a year. “It’s routine. At Otis AFB we would have practice exercises two or three times a year. We’d flush aircraft, get the B-52’s up, get the tankers up, get the fighters up. Just out of Otis there’d be twenty, thirty fighter jets. And on 9/11 there were plenty of fighters as well. They were just diverted over the ocean, tied up in drills, etc.” The vast majority of air incidents are simple communications or routing failures, common mishaps that are easily remedied. Nonetheless, when a problem does arise, it is treated as an emergency and interceptors are scrambled. “This is exactly what’s written in our manuals. We alert our immediate supervisors, we get another set of eyes on the scope. We have, two feet away from us, a little button that says ADC, Air Defense Command [nowadays NEADS (Northeast Air Defense Sector)]. Bing, hit the button. ‘Hey, this is me at the Boston Center air space. I just lost a target or I have an erratic target. He is twenty-five miles west of Keene, last reported at such-and-such location.’” Pilots use similar checklists when responding to problems with their airplanes: “If I lose an engine in a multi-engine aircraft I know exactly what to do. I start to control the aircraft to fly with one engine, I’ll shut the ailing engine down, I’ll get the aircraft trimmed up. It’s check, check, check.” Hordon is not persuaded by those who make excuses for the lack of military response on 9/11. U.S. air defenses have been on hair-trigger alert to defend the nation from attack since the early sixties. The idea that, on the morning of 9/11, there was an inexplicable wave of incompetence on the part of his former FAA “brothers in arms” offends him deeply. “The pilots are in their ready rooms, the planes are in open-ended hangars. You have frontline players, pilots and controllers. I’m there, I’m watching. The pilot is there, he’s flying. We have direct air defense command communications. That’s the way it’s been for fifty years.” The unfathomable delays seen in military action on 9/11 are inconceivable to those who have painstakingly investigated the matter—and for a man who worked for years keeping air travel over the U.S. safe. “Military pilots would have their asses off the ground faster than you could imagine. I know how quickly our systems can respond. Why would you design a system that responds slowly to an emergency?” Claims by authorities that, once a hijacked aircraft’s transponders have been turned off, the plane becomes virtually invisible to radar, is another sore point for Hordon. “Bottom line, these aircraft were always radar monitored, we were always in communication with them, even if they were hijacked. The only way you can lose an aircraft these days is for the plane to flat out blow up.” Since any genuine air attack would not likely announce itself as such, NORAD radar has to be able to detect anything. But there’s nothing stealthy about an enormous Boeing passenger liner, whether its transponder is operating properly or not. “That aircraft is represented on their radar scope from the time it takes off to the time it lands. Even little puddle-jumpers out of our local airports. NORAD tracks all these aircraft. They have the world’s most sophisticated radar.” After eleven eventful years as an ATC, Hordon naturally reacted with shock when he first heard that fifty years of tried and true in-flight emergency protocol was abruptly altered in June of 2001, just two months before the attacks. “Rumsfeld put a third party in between the ATC and the Air Defense Controller responsible for scrambling interceptors —the Pentagon.” He speculates that “the phone calls went from the FAA to the Pentagon and were not answered. Therefore the Pentagon never reached down to the ADC base to release the aircraft. The Boston Center’s ATCs got so frustrated with the non-answer from the military that they finally said, ‘get these guys going anyways.’ That’s the way it’s been for fifty years. We scramble aircraft. We don’t wait for OK’s from third or fourth parties.” The no-show status of the U.S. military on the morning of September 11th, 2001, has understandably become the single most compelling point that 9/11 researchers, writers and activists use to support their claims of complicity on the part of the U.S government (and its military and intelligence apparatus) in the attacks. When even those who condemn “conspiracy theory” in regard to 9/11 have questioned the military’s conduct that morning, it’s clear that this anomaly is worthy of intense concern and diligent investigation. Whatever the case may be, there are no doubts that history’s largest and most technologically advanced military was apparently caught completely off guard by four huge hijacked passenger jets that were in the air for almost two hours on the crystal clear morning of 9/11. 9/11 researchers have spent years speculating about what exactly did happen in the cockpits of the hijacked jets on 9/11. Theories run the gamut, from duplicate aircraft taking over the flight plans of the hijacked planes to passenger jets being remotely commandeered in mid-air. Naturally, the technical complexities involved in operating a huge commercial passenger jet can only be fully conveyed by someone with extensive aviation training and experience. “For years, they have been improving what the common person will call an autopilot. The modern term is a flight director. You can program a flight director basically for your entire flight, before and after you take off.” Flight directors—high-tech navigational computers—are used in commercial aircraft because they are always sensing every factor that affects an aircraft’s flight (wind speed and direction, fuel weight, atmospheric conditions, etc.) and instantly make the adjustments necessary to sustain the most efficient and economic operation of the plane. “The Boeing 707 Series, I believe, were the last series of aircraft built where you actually controlled the plane using wires or cables. There are no cables anymore. What we have now are electronic or hydraulic sensors that transmit information to servos and other control devices that apply pressure to the control surfaces.” The fact that the operation of modern aircraft is primarily computerized essentially makes the controls hackable, either from onboard or, if the proper receivers are installed in the plane, from a remote location. “Internally the aircraft had to have a separate receiver unit built into it; separate windows of access into the flight director and an ability to disengage the manual controls in the aircraft and take it over with all of the pre-determined information.” Hordon adds an important caveat: if a flight director was redirected during a flight, the new flight-plan would not necessarily be communicated to those on the ground. Obviously, the training required to alter a flight director’s routing is substantial. But, as a student pilot learns to operate increasingly sophisticated aircraft, this knowledge becomes available as needed. Hordon believes that if the hijackers really did take control of the cockpits this may well have been what they were studying in the flight schools they attended. Much has been made by 9/11 researchers about the seemingly limitless incompetence of the 9/11 hijackers as pilots—amateur aviators who could barely operate light aircraft. This odd fact has led many conspiracy advocates to speculate that the nineteen alleged hijackers may have been merely a gang of patsies or “Oswalds,” groomed by their handlers to take the fall for the attacks without their knowledge or involvement. Some researchers even speculate that these “terrorists” never actually boarded the planes at all. Although this theory may sound outlandish to many, it is however supported by the astonishing fact that none of the hijackers’ names appear on any of the published passenger manifests. But Hordon believes that, if the hijackers really were on the planes and did indeed take over the cockpits as reported, their ability to actually fly the aircraft to their targets is a distinct possibility. “If anybody thinks that these flight directors weren’t sophisticated enough to be programmed to go to these exact, specific coordinates—WTC One and Two—they’re wrong. It has nothing to do with pilot competence.” Hordon believes that it would be relatively easy for the hijackers to reroute a commercial jet’s flight director to hit any location with great accuracy, as long as they had acquired the proper training. This is apparently one of the few accurate scenarios portrayed in the Hollywood movie Flight 93, a film Hordon otherwise dismisses as elaborate propaganda designed to deceive the public and sell the official story. This point is intriguing when you consider the fact that a book recently published by the editors of Popular Mechanics magazine—Debunking 9/11 Myths—specifically claims that the hijackers of UA Flight 93 stormed the cockpit, took over the controls and drove the plane by sight, a method that PM and its army of expert technicians and specialists have nicknamed “point and go.” Besides representing a bizarre departure from Hordon’s expert analysis, PM’s “point and go” theory also contradicts the scenario dramatized in Flight 93. Although it’s difficult for many people to believe that such a lack of consensus exists among the “experts” who support the official story, this is really just one of many examples where this kind of unfathomable contradiction has occurred. Some theorists have speculated that homing beacons may have been transmitting signals to Flights 11 and 175 from within the Twin Towers—all the hijacked planes had to do was follow these signals to their destinations. Although he doesn’t necessarily subscribe to this theory, Hordon elaborates on it as a possibility: “When a commercial jet approaches its destination, the flight director interfaces with transmitters located at the end of a runway and makes the adjustments. All the pilots have to do is sit back, monitor the controls and watch the airplane land itself, even in “zero-zero” conditions [no ceiling height or visibility].” This combination of computerized onboard controls and what is essentially a homing signal from the flight’s destination is called “coupling,” a technological dance performed by aircraft thousands of times a day at airports all around the world. Often criticized by detractors for speculating about the use of “Buck Rogers”-style aviation technology in the attacks, 9/11 researchers are nonetheless vindicated by Hordon who believes that such speculation may not be so outlandish after all. Referring to elaborate experiments done by the military decades ago that involved the remote control commandeering of aircraft, Hordon responds: “In the seventies, they were extremely sophisticated with aircraft. Could they commandeer an aircraft in mid-flight right now? Absolutely, in a heartbeat. Clearly the technology is there. It’s been there for a long time.” It only seems reasonable that if this technology were the most efficient, reliable and discrete means to guarantee the success of such an elaborate operation, the conspirators wouldn’t hesitate to make full use of it. The question of whether or not the hijackers piloted the planes themselves or if control of the aircraft was taken completely out of their hands by operatives from a remote location has always been central to 9/11 researchers. But, to Robin Hordon, it’s, at best, a moot point: “My answer to you is it’s irrelevant. It’s irrelevant whether the hijackers were real and were actually in the aircraft or whether the aircraft was commandeered by external forces. It could have been either one. One way or another, somebody other than U.S. certified airline pilots took over that aircraft, whether it be a terrorist sitting in the cockpit or someone outside the cockpit.” Whatever scenarios Hordon may consider in regard to Flights 11, 175 and 93, he is adamant that 9/11 researchers shouldn’t rest until they’ve gotten to the bottom of the alleged crash of Flight 77 into the Pentagon. To many, the idea that a military jet or missile—not Flight 77—actually struck the Pentagon is a bizarre and almost inconceivable assertion. But for many 9/11 researchers, it is a central and compelling focus. “The particular maneuver that was called upon for this huge Boeing aircraft, OK, it’s highly suspicious that a flight director could pull that one off. We also know that it’s highly suspicious that if it were the pilot that people say was operating the aircraft, we know that that guy couldn’t pull that off. That was completely impossible.” A common notion to which many defenders of the official account cling (including such notables as Noam Chomsky) is the idea that any conspiracy as vast as 9/11 would have had to involve hundreds, perhaps thousands of people, all in-the-know and willing to go to the grave with their secrets. But well researched claims—that many sizable covert operations have indeed been kept from the public in the past; that state of the art technology can drastically reduce the number of people required for any given “op,” and that systemic “compartmentalization” of duties can effectively exploit many people’s involvement without their knowledge—have convincingly refuted this assertion. In addition, the ability of higher-ups to intimidate and silence potential whistleblowers after the fact is formidable. Naturally, Mr. Hordon has a thing or two to say on the subject. “I think we all have to agree that, one way or another, the U.S. military was involved in the attacks. The advantage that Rumsfeld had is that he can classify, reshape, make available, make unavailable any information that he wants, at any time and deny that information to the public for any reason, especially national security.” Hordon believes that one facet of the plan that the conspirators could not control was the individual integrity of the civilians in the FAA—dedicated professionals who would not likely remain silent if they had witnessed something unusual during the attacks. Number one on Hordon’s list are the air traffic controllers: “What part of this whole thing is missing? Is it not the voice tapes from the civilian ATC’s? They had to devise a way to take the loose lips group, the civilian guys, and disengage them. If they are allowed to testify exactly as to their normal protocol behavior, they’re going to prove that the military were the culpable ones.” When he was in the FAA, Hordon was certified as the operator in his facility tasked to secure relevant data after an air emergency; if not entirely because of public safety concerns, certainly for liability reasons. “Whenever we had an incident, an emergency, on-air trouble, some type of a near ‘mid-air’ or a breakdown in aviation rules, we would immediately take the voice tapes and secure them. We would immediately take the radar data on that controller’s scope that day and secure them. Whenever there was an incident, all of the information, all of it was secured. Period.” Despite this rigid protocol, there have been shocking accounts of ATC records being seized shortly after the attacks and kept far from public scrutiny. Hordon believes that these ATC recordings have either been destroyed or mutilated. “The reason that they’re not giving us this early-on information is because they want to paint a picture of confusion, and they had to somehow get the civilian eye-witnesses out of it.” Although the 9/11 Commission, desperate to deflect the public’s attention away from official quarters, scapegoated the FAA for incompetence in regard to the attacks, Hordon believes that the real confusion originated in the Pentagon, a theory that jibes well with the timely and suspicious change in air defense protocol mentioned above. “The FAA has given us the computerized information about the aircraft being tracked. What the FAA has not given us is the internal tapes from the sectors in the Boston Center who were controlling this aircraft.” If there were one point Robin Hordon would like to impress most upon 9/11 Truth researchers and activists it would be that the truth about the non-performance of U.S. air defenses on 9/11 lies in a careful examination of the first few minutes after the planes were known to have been hijacked. “The first fifteen minutes are the key. I have done the math. If we had scrambled some aircraft five or six minutes after we saw this huge deviation, the fighters from Otis would have intercepted American 11 over southwestern Connecticut or just south of Albany, NY. The federal government and the military, for extremely serious reasons, are keeping the public focused on after American 11 hits the tower. But the real focus for 9/11 researchers should be what NORAD was doing five minutes after American 11 lost its transponder and went off course.” Whatever criticism Hordon may have for NORAD and the Pentagon, it certainly doesn’t extend to the individuals on the frontlines of our nation’s civil defense: “These are military fighter pilots. These are good guys. They figure stuff out. What do you think the pilots are doing? Ordering coffee and donuts? No. They are up there, their blood is pumping, they are thinking one thing: ‘My country is being invaded. This is why I stand on the ready in the waiting room down at Otis AFB; so that I can get up and defend my country.’ Do you think they’re going to get on the tail of American 11 when it was heading straight for the WTC and let it hit? No. What they’re going to do is say ‘OK, there’s going to be some bodies and shrapnel…boom.’ They’re going to take that risk.” One of Hordon’s more ambitious proposals for the 9/11 Truth movement is that a support network be developed for the aid and protection of its single most important resource, whistleblowers. “What the 9/11 movement should do is band together and develop safe lives for whistleblowers.” Legal counsel, moral support, even physical protection could do much to inspire those who are considering stepping forward with potentially explosive insider testimony about the attacks. Hordon would also like to see young people being told the truth about politics, history and the world in their schools. “The people who are our greatest assets are the kids in high school. If the military is taking advantage of the susceptibility of high school kids to seduce them to kill people, the peace movement needs to offer alternatives. We need to make available, at the end of the high school years, alternatives of thought in regard to the world’s economy and control apparatus.” Hordon’s plan, though idealistic, is not without a certain opportunism: “I want to go to high school kids because it’s a two for one proposition. First, their ears are wide open. They’re skeptical about this government right now and they’re plugged into the internet. Second, if we give them material to bring home, it winds up on the kitchen table. And what happens when parents find contraband that’s come into the house? They read it. It’s two for one.” Many 9/11 activists believe that their work on issues related to the attacks has greater potential for true social transformation than any other single issue, and Hordon emphatically agrees. “I think that this 9/11 thing is the quintessential opportunity to expose all of the infecting poisons; more than Iran Contra weapons for hostages, more than rampant militarism, more than Watergate, more than Enron, more than the dark side of the world’s financial institutions, more than any other similar kind of thing. I think that this is pretty much their last gasp, and the reason is very simple; the internet. We’re going to catch’em.” Activists with a sense of humor are always a breath of fresh air. After his stint as an ATC, Hordon worked for years at the comedy club Catch a Rising Star in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Something must have rubbed off: “We have two parties in this country; we have republicans and we have republicans dressed up in blue drag. And when we get the blue outer clothing off of the fake democrats, they stand there in their red Armani underwear.” Hordon respects humor as a formidable weapon for activists. As an artistic coordinator for up and coming comedians, he once worked with some of the most talented and successful comics of our time including Jerry Seinfeld and Larry David. Some of the political comics he once coached are regulars on Air America Radio. Of the reigning powers-that-be, he has this to say: “They know they’re done with 9/11. They know they’re cooked. They’re just throwing boxes of nails in the road behind their car as it speeds away and they’re hoping that all our tires get flattened. But it’s not happening. They know they’re pretty much done.” Grounded and well informed, Robin Hordon is not a typical pie-in-the-sky progressive, and he likes what he sees happening around him. “There’s so much good work being done. There’s such a cool pattern now and there’s so many kids coming up who know not to believe the stories they’re being told.” His greatest hope is that these young movers and shakers shun the roads previously taken by their less politically savvy forebears. “Sixty percent of our elected officials are millionaires. Until we change that, we are going to struggle to make our democracy better. And I think that, you now, democracies are OK. I think it’s a pretty good plan. I think we should try to get one.” Copyright 2007 Darkprints Comments? web_wender@hotmail.com On Monday, April 9, 2007, 7-9 pm Pacific Time, Carol Brouillet began a weekly two hour radio show, entitled hosted on We The People Radio Network. The show archive includes the May 7, 2007 show on 9/11 Truth with Former Air Traffic Controller Robin Hordon and David Ray Griffin, author of Debunking 9/11 Debunking - An Answer to Popular Mechanics and the Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory which draws heavily from Robin Hordon's insights in the first chapter. Here is a statement that Robin Hordon wrote for http://patriotsquestion911.com "I was an FAA Air Traffic Controller from 1970 - 1981. In 1981, I was one of 15,000 FAA air traffic controllers who went on strike and one of the 12,000 fired for going on strike, a strike that was primarily based on our complaints about safety and working conditions within the FAA, which are still seen today. During my time as an Air Traffic Controller, I worked at the Boston Air Route Traffic Control Center in Nashua, NH, and I was certified in the air traffic sector where American Airlines Flight 11 became an "IN-FLIGHT-EMERGENCY" before being declared a "hijack" on 9/11. In my 11-year FAA career, I worked in the development of "procedures and airspace design", including some military operations, and was part of the team which trained other Air Traffic Controllers and transitioned the FAA from its old broadband radar and simple flight data processors into the RDP (Radar Data Processing) and computerized radar displays. I was a Facility Training Instructor and was certified to create transcripts from audio tapes, to interpret radar data in tracking aircraft from computer files, and to analyze computer tracking data, all of which would combine to "tell the story" of air traffic incidents. I was also the main creator of the Boston Center Profile Descent and Metering Program for Boston Logan airport. And while "on the boards", I personally worked one commercial airliner hijacking and assisted on another. I received several Letters of Commendation for my work, including one where my piloting experience was instrumental in saving the lives of two people on board an aircraft suffering an "IN-FLIGHT EMERGENCY" in which the aircraft had a total loss of electrical power while in the clouds. Our air traffic controller team ordered the scrambling of suitable military aircraft and directed the intercept which successfully led the helpless and lost aircraft down to a safe landing in "socked in" weather conditions. Several times each year, practice exercises were conducted on how to handle high speed scrambles and group departures called "flushes" all in conjunction with military exercises and NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command). Out of Otis Air Force Base alone, twenty to thirty jet fighters would scramble and then later return. In addition to my career as an Air Traffic Controller, I have a great deal of other experience in aviation. I was a Certified Commercial Pilot and accumulated 1600 hours total time in light aircraft; qualified in Single-Engine Land, Multi-Engine Land, Single-Engine Sea, and Glider. I was also a Certified Flight Instructor and Certified Ground Instructor. And prior to my becoming an Air Traffic Controller, I passed the Flight Engineer Basic exam focused on the Boeing 727 and accumulated over 2000 hours of aircraft maintenance, repair and rebuilding time. I knew within hours of the attacks on 9/11/2001 that it was an inside job. Based on my 11-year experience as an FAA Air Traffic Controller in the busy Northeast corridor, including hundreds of hours of training, briefings, air refuelings, low altitude bombing drills, being part of huge military exercises, daily military training exercises, interacting on a routine basis directly with NORAD radar personnel, and based on my own direct experience dealing with in-flight emergency situations, including two instances of hijacked commercial airliners, I state unequivocally; There is absolutely no way that four large commercial airliners could have flown around off course for 30 to 60 minutes on 9/11 without being intercepted and shot completely out of the sky by our jet fighters unless very highly placed people in our government and our military wanted it to happen. It is important for people to understand that scrambling jet fighters to intercept aircraft showing the signs of experiencing “IN-FLIGHT EMERGENCIES” such as going off course without authorization, losing a transponder signal and/or losing radio contact is a common and routine task executed jointly between the FAA and NORAD controllers. The entire “national defense-first responder” intercept system has many highly-trained civilian and military personnel who are committed and well-trained to this task. FAA and NORAD continuously monitor our skies and fighter planes and pilots are on the ready 24/7 to handle these situations. Jet fighters typically intercept any suspect plane over the United States within 10 - 15 minutes of notification of a problem. This type of "immediate, high speed, high priority and emergency" scramble had been happening regularly approximately 75 - 150 times per year for ten years. In the same ten years, there were ZERO "low speed, delayed reaction, and low priority" hijacking scrambles reported, which means that the only time interceptors were ever scrambled for ten years before 9/11, they were using the high speed immediate scrambles. The system was well tuned and ready before June 2001. However, the "emergency scramble" is NOT what was used on 9/11/2001...it was the "laissez fair" scramble for a hijacking that had to get Pentagon approval before departing…and there was none forthcoming. I have the deepest and most sincere respect and sadness at the loss of so many lives on 9/11. With no disrespect towards the surviving family members still feeling the horrors surrounding the attacks on 9/11, I see the events of September 11th as being a symptom of a far bigger problem. A problem that Dwight David Eisenhower had brought to our attention as he left office in the 1950's where he warned this country about two significant elements of our economy looming above us: The Military Industrial Complex, and the Military Industrial Congress. 9/11 served the goals of both of those elements but our government and military failed to serve and protect its citizens. In my fourth decade within the Peace Movement and now the first decade in the 9/11 Truth Movement, I can now clearly see that General Eisenhower was absolutely correct and that the military-corporation-political-economical cabal has indeed gone out of control. I believe that 9/11 was what is known as a "False Flag Operation" in which a country inflicts casualties upon itself, and then blames it on an enemy that they want to go to war against. It is one more instance in the United States’ long history of using "False Flag Operations" and blatant propaganda to ramp-up hostile emotions towards an enemy in a population otherwise resistant to going to war. The destruction of the battleship USS Maine in Havana harbor, which led to the Spanish-American War, allowing the attack on Pearl Harbor to occur, the declassified 1960's plan Operation Northwoods, which was going to be used as a pretext for going to war with Cuba, the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, which justified the war in Viet Nam, the planted story about babies being taken from incubators and killed by Iraqi soldiers to help justify the first Gulf War, and now, the attacks on 9/11/2001 being used to justify the current war in Iraq, were all used to manipulate the "warring emotions" within U.S. citizens so that they would come to support this country going to war against this "new enemy". And in all of these wars, everyone in this decadent cabal shares in the financial profits associated with war, and, of course, share in none of the pain and deaths associated with war. Bob Dylan says it best in his unheralded, yet seminal song "Masters of War". Four decades of experiencing the John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and Robert F. Kennedy assassinations, the Vietnam lies, the Watergate saga, the Iran-Contra scandals, stolen elections and the conglomerization and ensuing control of the mainstream media, instructed me that this was going to be a long battle to uncover the truth about who was behind the attacks on 9/11/2001. That I can show how Rumsfeld's Military reshaped interceptor protocols so that 9/11 could happen without the airliners being shot from the sky, is but a small bit of evidence that is flooding past the Bush regime, the U.S. Military and the mainstream media’s best efforts to continue the cover-up of their callous and deathly malfeasances. Additional Resources, Interviews with Robin Hordon are at- Bonnie Faulkner's interview at the Guns and Butter Radio Archives- http://www.gunsandbutter.net/archives.php Video by Pilots for 9/11 Truth- http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9147890225218338952 Article at Prison Planet- Boston Air Traffic Controller Says 9/11 An Inside Job Knew people in FAA on day of hijackings who said intercept procedures should have been enacted as normal by Paul Joseph Watson Interview with Michael Wolsey at 9/11 Visibility Archives- http://www.visibility911.com/archives.htm Robin Hordon and David Ray Griffin spoke on Questioning War- Organizing Resistance with me on May 7, 2007, audio is in the Archives- http://mp3.wtprn.com/Brouillet07.html Paper on Air Defense Response- Excellent summation/clarification of Hordon's work with additional key points http://www.ringnebula.com/Oil/911/airspace_defense_911.htm Robin Hordon spoke at the 9/11 Truth Conference in B.C., Canada-
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-19) not displayed.
.
.
.
#20. To: Kamala (#0)
“Rumsfeld put a third party in between the ATC and the Air Defense Controller responsible for scrambling interceptors —the Pentagon.” He speculates that “the phone calls went from the FAA to the Pentagon and were not answered. T Excellent! This was the key to the success of this False Flag Operation.
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition Since many of our pilots were military officers, and pilots, they were used to taking their sidearms whenever they flew, just like the pilots of El Al do. This had to stop in order to prop up the "nineteen arabs with box-cutters" (none of whom was on any of the flight manifests) cover story.
this in and of itself is very odd. police departments have special training sessions, but do they ever have every single officer in a training classroom at the same time, leaving none on duty? surely any *war game* would not involve everyone. I would be interested in how often this situation occurred prior to 911. anybody know?
Perhaps that is true of modern day military but as a prior SAC crew member, I can assure you we NEVER carried firearms.
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/011805_simplify_case.shtml
The officers carried, didn't they? I know that my FIL (TAC) had to periodically qualify with his 1911.
the photos I saw including on the front page of big newspapers like LA Times & Army Times were inconsistent with the big Boeing 727 or 757 flying into the building. But I agree with you that you have to look at the whole preponderence of evidence and not simply at a small part. When I look at the whole array of evidence, at each part carefully, then I conclude that it was an inside job.
Jeremiah 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day [that] I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
No. The only time anyone would be issued sidearms was IF we were going into China or Russia. In that case we would have been given one clip of .45 Cal. Now just suppose you are down in either country, what is the weapon for? Mind you, you have just dropped an A-bomb on that country.
I agree that we won't likely ever know if the 19 arabs with box-cutters really did hijack those planes or whether another means was used - as some have suggested the planes were taken over by computer from a remote location and the passengers & crew immobilized with gas even. who knows? but it was an inside job. we have lots of evidence. People are continually stuck on the idea that the tv will tell us if it was an inside job, etc. They have delegated to the tv all authority & responsibility for gathering news & for anlaysis & for thinking. Just as people trust a barber shop to cut their hair, they also trust the tv to do their thinking for them. and any news any thought any sentiment any conclusion that is not brought to them in a favorable light by the tv is automatically excluded from serious consideration in the minds of many. it is that delusion spoken about in 2'nd Thessalonians.
Jeremiah 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day [that] I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
Only if you have post 9/11 knowledge. Can you imagine the outcry if we had just shot those plans down? Heads would have rolled. And I actually do believe 93 was shot down.
wow. thank you
I read they were testing the whole system, and so everybody is part of the system. it's too much of a coincidence. and when you consider that they had prior warning. There were about 10 governments around the world that warned them. French & German papers said that their intelligence agencies called up our CIA and started talking about an impending attack and our CIA responded with 'we know all about it, don't tell us'. and in this environment they decided to test the system right at that time too.
Jeremiah 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day [that] I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
I understand the ultimate purpose of being armed, and knowing how many round(s) were available.
Pentagon: Rumsfeld misspoke on Flight 93 crash Defense secretary's remark to troops fuels conspiracy theories From Jamie McIntyre CNN Washington Monday, December 27, 2004 Posted: 9:54 PM EST (0254 GMT) Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld referred to the people who "shot down the plane over Pennsylvania." WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A comment Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld made during a Christmas Eve address to U.S. troops in Baghdad has sparked new conspiracy theories about the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. In the speech, Rumsfeld made a passing reference to United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania after passengers attempted to stop al Qaeda hijackers. But in his remarks, Rumsfeld referred to the "the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania." A Pentagon spokesman insisted that Rumsfeld simply misspoke, but Internet conspiracy theorists seized on the reference to the plane having been shot down. "Was it a slip of the tongue? Was it an error? Or was it the truth, finally being dropped on the public more than three years after the tragedy" asked a posting on the Web site http://WorldNetDaily.com. Some people remain skeptical of U.S. government statements that, despite a presidential authorization, no planes were shot down September 11, and rumors still circulate that a U.S. military plane shot the airliner down over Shanksville, Pennsylvania. A Pentagon spokesman insists Rumsfeld has not changed his opinion that the plane crashed as the result of an onboard struggle between passengers and terrorists. The independent panel charged with investigating the terrorist attacks concluded that the hijackers intentionally crashed Flight 93, apparently because they feared the passengers would overwhelm them.
Red... I would never dispute an inside job. (I spent my professional career in government) Wasting time on the larger mechanics is just that, a waste and actually works to the advantage of those that originated the evil scheme. The evil people that originated this plan must laugh themselves silly reading of people running around arguing whether something or nothing hit someplace. Who originated the affair should be the ONLY interest, all of this other merely works to their advantage to obscure everything,
Agree. But if they were all downed, we wouldn't have had our new "Pearl Harbor type event," would we?
It was a very sobering thought, one that was NEVER written or spoken, but was firmly understood by all.
Nope. But it was shot down after the planes hit the buildings. If they had all been shot down before hand the question from the public would have been "why". What would have been the answer? The public outcry would have been enormous.
I can see them letting the 1'st plane hit the WTC without interveneing, but not the 2'nd. The USAF jets should've been right there beside the hijacked craft prior to when they went into the WTC buildings. That is what would've happened if normal procedures had been followed. and remember, they had intelligence that the WTC was a potential target of hijacked aircraft. This was in the August 6 briefing of Condi Rice in the White House. when they were tracking that jet and learned that it lowered its elevation to that of the WTC buildings and were flying towards them, then would've been a time to shoot them down.
Jeremiah 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day [that] I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
Agreed! The millitary would have scrambled when they lost contact with the planes. All would have been shot after the first plane hit.
Case in point, 50 people testified they SAW an AA jet fly into the Pentagon. Yet people insist they were a part of the evil plan and lied or whatever. There is little disagreement by the 9/11 truth movement about what happened to WTC7. You choose to discuss the Pentagon, for which there is less unison. There is much speculation about what actually happened at the Pentagon, all of which could easily be solved if the Pentagon would release their own high quality 30 fps video, which they must have. That they have not done so is HIGHLY suspicious. Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski was at the Pentagon on the morning of 9/11. Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
robin... With all due respect robin, read that resume and tell me where in there is there any indication of a person that has ever seen an aircraft crash, burn, cleaned up and a few remaining parts placed on a flatbed truck and hauled away? A 747 can crash and burn and the remains hauled away on a flatbed. Other than the engines and landing gear there is very little left. I hold no impressive academic credentials of any kind, but while in SAC for a few years I did witness two large aircraft crash, burn and later hauled away. Who did what to whom for why on 9/11 I have not a clue, that is the real unknown, not the rest of the endless conjecture.
And what are the credentials of the other eyewitnesses that you mention? I'll take the word of Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) over any unnamed eyewitness, and over anyone in the regime. And I see you persist in discussing the Pentagon when WTC7 is the most blatantly obvious absurdity for that day.
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
I'll take the word of Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) over any unnamed eyewitness, and over anyone in the regime. And I see you persist in discussing the Pentagon when WTC7 is the most blatantly obvious absurdity for that day. robin.. one at a time... The names of the 70 eyewitnesses that gave information are all available in the transcripts and on the internet. No credentials were needed as they SAW the aircraft and the resulting crash. Of the 70 about 50 if I recall said it was an American Airlines aircraft. Unnamed??? Robin their names are all there to see. Several were foreign tourists in Washington on vacation, there names are there and country of origin. Persist? Don't let this scare you but I think WTC7 is the hokiest thing I have ever seen. I honestly admit to not being an expert in anything, that being the case I do not let myself be drawn into endless conjecture of how it was down and all that. If people have time to expend, use it on WTC7, not so much as to how but to WHO. Endless debate and argument about whether it was blown up, down or out is meaningless.
Let's calm down - we're on the same page here. All we know, for sure, is that the "official" story is not the truth. In fact, is a lie. Beyond that, we're still looking for the missing pieces - most of which were swept up, throw away, buried, sold overseas, or otherwise, disposed of. Four crime scenes that were violated. Peace and truth.
You found the resume of Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) inadequate and therefore you dismiss what she has to say. I take it you have read the resumes of all these foreigners. And where is the Pentagon high quality 30 fps video of the plane that hit it? Where is it? It's the dog that didn't bark. Endless debate and argument about whether it was blown up, down or out is meaningless. Oh, the obvious demolition is meaningless. That the govt clearly lied about it is meaningless.
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
apparently not
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
robin... Perhaps I should expand upon that. Thru the past six years, endless arguments, debates, discussions etc, are we any closer as to WHO conceived and orchestrated 9/11? Not one inch. The evil people that did hatch the plan must be very well satisfied. Were people in our government in on the hatching or at least have knowledge of it??? That is most likely a sure bet. Again, after six long years of conjecture by untold experts, average Americans, as to how WTC7 came down, do we know how? And surely debating "how" endlessly will never give us the "WHO".
Don't waste your time with another government "OCT"er. He has stated he was not for a new independent investigation. Sure doesn't sound like we are on the same page. You, Robin and I, have forgoten more about the events around 911 than he'll ever know. He has been exposed as a fed/military ball gargler. A pretender, a poser. Him and his ass licking protege', packed their bags and left before, and more than likely, will again.
Mark "I was real close to Building 7 when it fell down... That didn't sound like just a building falling down to me while I was running away from it. There's a lot of eyewitness testimony down there of hearing explosions. [..] and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... — Former NYC Police Officer and 9/11 Rescue Worker Craig Bartmer
Mark... If you are referring to me, why not post to me and I am willing to disabuse you of any such opinion you have drawn. Lodwick seems to have understood and comprehended my position quite well. I understand obscene language but it is not needed here.
Were people in our government in on the hatching or at least have knowledge of it??? That is most likely a sure bet. Again, after six long years of conjecture by untold experts, average Americans, as to how WTC7 came down, do we know how? And surely debating "how" endlessly will never give us the "WHO". I disagree, we are much closer to the truth than we were on 9/12. There is more than one explanation, and every one is closer to the truth than the official govt lie, which as I've mentioned before von Bulow calls laughable. Most in the 9/11 truth movement call it treason. Treason is always worth exposing. You seem to disagree. In fact, it is difficult to distinguish you from the govt shills on this subject. I can understand someone saying they are unsure what happened on 9/11. I do not understand someone arguing in support of the govt's official explanation.
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
I can understand someone saying they are unsure what happened on 9/11. I do not understand someone arguing in support of the govt's official explanation. robin... Recall the original post by Kamala, about some former employee of the FAA. I spent my professional life with the military/CAA/FAA. I was FORCED to resign from the FAA, it was resign or be thrown out. If that makes me a "shill" in anyones eyes then my writing ability has deteriorated greatly. In 25 years of Federal Service, I always spoke my mind, for that I paid a terrible price. Your name gets flagged and when an opportunity arises you walk the plank. When my health failed, they had me. If I were one to use profane or vulgar language, I would tell you exactly my feelings towards our government. Bitterness does not last forever, you learn to cope. In approaching Kamalas original post, I addressed it strictly from the standpoint of we need to expend our effort to unearth WHO not how. After six long years we have gained nothing. Shill no. Government drone, no. Angry, bitter? No. Realistic? To the Nth degree.
Of course we have gained something. We have some great ideas of WHO and HOW. For some reason you have closed your mind to these ideas. And I'm not saying they are ALL correct, but there are some very good leads with some very smart and educated people behind these ideas.
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
For some reason you have closed your mind to these ideas. Closed my mind???? As a realist that has experienced the workings of government to some degree, I realize and accept that we will NEVER know WHO. The mechanics of such an operation are so hidden, so entwined that the little people involved never realized they may have played a part, totally unknowingly. I am more inclined to consider what is in store for the future, along the same lines as 9/11. By the same people.
You do well to consider that. But, the mechanics are not as hidden as you might think. How many 9/11 truth videos have you watched?
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
The people that brought us 9/11 are smart and educated, PLUS, they have three things we do not, namely position, power and wealth.
robin... Many. Read many first hand accounts. Watched the young man that was in the basement when it happened. Hispanic name. Very convincing young man.
Some of the enemy are smart, some are incompetent and some are very careless. Their arrogance, hubris have made them careless.
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
robin... Careless? The little people at the bottom were indeed careless. A local gentleman was the one that insisted that the FBI needed to look at Moussaoui and later testified against him. It took several tries to finally have someone contact the FBI. Moussaoui paid his first installment for flight instructions with new 100 dollar bills, six thousand dollars worth.
Rodriguez I prefer the testimony of New York's bravest (FDNY) and finest (NYPD). And the high-school physics explained very well in Rick Siegel's footage from Hoboken and Sinatra piers. PNAC publicly stated their desire for "a new Pearl Harbor event". Once they came to power, they got it. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3762231166802308548 Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
smoke and mirror stuff More interesting is who made a profit, who benefits.
Ron Paul for President - Join a Ron Paul Meetup group today!
Comments (61 - 66) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestHordon naturally reacted with shock when he first heard that fifty years of tried and true in-flight emergency protocol was abruptly altered in June of 2001, just two months before the attacks.
"There is no 'legitimate' Corporation by virtue of it's very legal definition and purpose."
-- IndieTx
#21. To: Red Jones (#18)
#22. To: Red Jones (#15)
and then it was publicly acknowledged that a war game occurred on that day where the defenses of such a hijacking were to be tested. There were unusual events scheduled that day apparently where the normal jets that would respond were simply not available. as the article says above, many were out over the ocean. The few available were far away
#23. To: lodwick (#21)
Since many of our pilots were military officers, and pilots, they were used to taking their sidearms whenever they flew,
#24. To: kiki (#22)
Here's a good link to the drills and the timeline -
#25. To: Cynicom (#23)
#26. To: Cynicom (#19)
#27. To: lodwick (#25)
The officers carried, didn't they?
#28. To: lodwick (#21)
#29. To: Kamala (#0)
“There had to be something huge to explain why those aircraft weren’t shot down out of the sky.
#30. To: lodwick (#24)
#31. To: kiki (#22)
I would be interested in how often this situation occurred prior to 911. anybody know?
#32. To: Cynicom (#27)
#33. To: farmfriend (#29)
And I actually do believe 93 was shot down.
#34. To: Red Jones (#26)
then I conclude that it was an inside job.
#35. To: farmfriend, Kamala, all (#29)
And I actually do believe 93 was shot down.
#36. To: lodwick (#32)
I understand the ultimate purpose of being armed,
#37. To: lodwick (#35)
But if they were all downed, we wouldn't have had our new "Pearl Harbor type event," would we?
#38. To: farmfriend (#29)
Can you imagine the outcry if we had just shot those plans down?
#39. To: Red Jones (#38)
I can see them letting the 1'st plane hit the WTC without interveneing, but not the 2'nd. The USAF jets should've been right there beside the hijacked craft prior to when they went into the WTC buildings. That is what would've happened if normal procedures had been followed.
#40. To: Cynicom (#14)
In discussing 9/11 too many people are willing to advocate that dozens of people were in on the deal.
Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Former Political-Military Affairs Officer in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Also served on the staff of the Director of the National Security Agency. 20-year Air Force career. Member adjunct faculty, Political Science Department, James Madison University. Instructor, University of Maryland University College and American Public University System. Author of African Crisis Response Initiative: Past Present and Future (2000) and Expeditionary Air Operations in Africa: Challenges and Solutions (2001).
It is as a scientist that I have the most trouble with the official government conspiracy theory, mainly because it does not satisfy the rules of probability or physics. The collapses of the World Trade Center buildings clearly violate the laws of probability and physics. ...
I saw nothing of significance at the point of impact - no airplane metal or cargo debris was blowing on the lawn in front of the damaged building as smoke billowed from within the Pentagon. ... all of us staring at the Pentagon that morning were indeed looking for such debris, but what we expected to see was not evident.
The scene, in short, was not what I would have expected from a strike by a large jetliner. It was, however, exactly what one would expect if a missile had struck the Pentagon. ...
.More information is certainly needed regarding the events of 9/11 and the events leading up to that terrible day."
#41. To: robin (#40)
Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Former Political-Military Affairs Officer in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Also served on the staff of the Director of the National Security Agency. 20-year Air Force career. Member adjunct faculty, Political Science Department, James Madison University. Instructor, University of Maryland University College and American Public University System. Author of African Crisis Response Initiative: Past Present and Future (2000) and Expeditionary Air Operations in Africa: Challenges and Solutions (2001).
#42. To: Cynicom (#41)
#43. To: robin (#42)
And what are the credentials of the other eyewitnesses that you mention?
#44. To: robin, Cynicom (#42)
...WTC7 is the most blatantly obvious absurdity for that day.
#45. To: Cynicom (#43)
#46. To: lodwick (#44)
we're on the same page here.
#47. To: robin (#45)
Endless debate and argument about whether it was blown up, down or out is meaningless.
#48. To: robin, lodwick (#45)
#49. To: Kamala, robin (#48)
You, Robin and I, have forgoten more about the events around 911 than he'll ever know.
#50. To: Cynicom, lodwick, Kamala (#47)
Thru the past six years, endless arguments, debates, discussions etc, are we any closer as to WHO conceived and orchestrated 9/11? Not one inch. The evil people that did hatch the plan must be very well satisfied.
#51. To: robin (#50)
In fact, it is difficult to distinguish you from the govt shills on this subject.
#52. To: Cynicom (#51)
In approaching Kamalas original post, I addressed it strictly from the standpoint of we need to expend our effort to unearth WHO not how. After six long years we have gained nothing.
#53. To: robin (#52)
#54. To: Cynicom (#53)
I am more inclined to consider what is in store for the future, along the same lines as 9/11. By the same people.
#55. To: robin (#52)
there are some very good leads with some very smart and educated people behind these ideas.
#56. To: robin (#54)
How many 9/11 truth videos have you watched?
#57. To: Cynicom (#55)
#58. To: robin (#57)
Their arrogance, hubris have made them careless.
#59. To: Cynicom (#56)
#60. To: Cynicom (#58)
.
.
.