nano Thermite found in all 911 dust samples

[NOVA]

From a mediocre poster of some mildly interesting positions at times ... to a pinhead conspiracy nut in a few hours....way to go bac....
you now rank in the middle of the pack with evince, Ib1, Jarod, Darla, DNC, and others.....
You've got a ways to climb to even reach the narrow-minded hack category of maineman...

 

[blackascoal]

From a mediocre poster of some mildly interesting positions at times ... to a pinhead conspiracy nut in a few hours....way to go bac....
you now rank in the middle of the pack with evince, Ib1, Jarod, Darla, DNC, and others.....
You've got a ways to climb to even reach the narrow-minded hack category of maineman...

Please don't tell me that you're actually dumb enough to believe that your opinion of me counts or that I would give a rat's ass about how you rate posters.

As usual, here you are once again my brother without the benefit of information.

There is something missing in your analysis of posters that should be stated. ALL, as in everyone of the posters you mentioned, including me, were absolutely correct about the invasion of Iraq and George Bush .. both of which you supported.

Obviously in your judgement of posters you're using some other criteria than intelligence or the ability to see through bullshit.

Count me in with the group you mentioned anyday.

 

[Minister of Truth]

First of all, there aren't any ATCs at the ADSs in NORAD. They are trained for a completely different job than ACWs (Aerospace Control and Warning Systems operators) such as me.

What this Controller may not be aware of, is that on the 9/11 era radar system (called the Q-93), our standard procedure was to drop out all track symbologies associated with data once they were over land, to prevent clutter and because every system has a maximum number of tracks that it can run with before it crashes.

If any piece of data within radar coverage were to "squack" (transpond) an emergency code such as "hijack," then a symbology would have popped up on the scope right over the target. However, once the transponder is turned off, the target becomes nothing more than search data (data resulting from the actual radio waves, as opposed to reinforced beacon data, which shows up clear as day from the transponder signal), and with no track symbology associated with it, it would have been quite well hidden.

Nowadays, on the current system, I can immediately see an emergency code pop up on my Alerts display, and quickly jump right to it, and the system automatically creates a track symbology, so it would be impossible for hijackers to turn off the transponder before I took all of the necessary actions and passed the information up the chain of command. That is just a sad fact about technology... As an example, I see emergency signals all of the time when I am on duty, because pilots sit on the runway and flip the transponder's frequency through codes (cycles through codes) until he or she gets the one they want. I will click on it, report it, and then it generally goes away pretty quickly. Often, I see the same aircraft cycle through emergency codes multiple times.

Basically, if the FAA was able to detect when an aircraft went delinquent and changed course, violated a flight plan, or turned off the transponder, they would have had to contact the Northeast ADS in NY, and relayed the information to them, because they would have been confused or oblivious to the situation.

 

[Damocles]

First of all, there aren't any ATCs at the ADSs in NORAD. They are trained for a completely different job than ACWs (Aerospace Control and Warning Systems operators) such as me.

What this Controller may not be aware of, is that on the 9/11 era radar system (called the Q-93), our standard procedure was to drop out all track symbologies associated with data once they were over land, to prevent clutter and because every system has a maximum number of tracks that it can run with before it crashes.

If any piece of data within radar coverage were to "squack" (transpond) an emergency code such as "hijack," then a symbology would have popped up on the scope right over the target. However, once the transponder is turned off, the target becomes nothing more than search data (data resulting from the actual radio waves, as opposed to reinforced beacon data, which shows up clear as day from the transponder signal), and with no track symbology associated with it, it would have been quite well hidden.

Nowadays, on the current system, I can immediately see an emergency code pop up on my Alerts display, and quickly jump right to it, and the system automatically creates a track symbology, so it would be impossible for hijackers to turn off the transponder before I took all of the necessary actions and passed the information up the chain of command. That is just a sad fact about technology... As an example, I see emergency signals all of the time when I am on duty, because pilots sit on the runway and flip the transponder's frequency through codes (cycles through codes) until he or she gets the one they want. I will click on it, report it, and then it generally goes away pretty quickly. Often, I see the same aircraft cycle through emergency codes multiple times.

Basically, if the FAA was able to detect when an aircraft went delinquent and changed course, violated a flight plan, or turned off the transponder, they would have had to contact the Northeast ADS in NY, and relayed the information to them, because they would have been confused or oblivious to the situation.

Using true expertise and information will not phase him. He believes that you and about a few hundred thousand others all conspired to trick us into a fruitless war. You killed Kenny, you bastard!

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I'd like you to read this from a former ATC that I interviewed. This is not my interview, but his account of 9/11 is exactly the same.

He says the events of 9/11, particularly the non-response of NORAD and air-traffic controllers is not possible without intervention and that turning off a planes responder does not mean that plane is lost to contollers or the military.

"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."
http://www.communitycurrency.org/robin.html

His reference to June 2001 references the Stand-Down Order I talked about.

Whoever this controller is, he's so full of shit he needs to see a proctologist. I was an ATC in the marines and this was NEVER the policy, EVER. When an aircraft 'squawks' an emergency transponder, we try to verify it. If it goes away, we don't ignore it, but we alert the facility supervisor who would then alert the airline companies Officer of the Day. AT NO TIME would there EVER have been a call made to any military post or base with a request for fighter escort to fly up and check. EVER.

This ATC interview is crap.

 

[blackascoal]

Using true expertise and information will not phase him. He believes that you and about a few hundred thousand others all conspired to trick us into a fruitless war.

Go ram your head into a wall dude.

I've had nothing but good conversation with Threedee on this issue and I value his expertise .. WHICH IS WHY I ASKED FOR IT.

You don't believe civil and sane conversation should be had on 9/11 .. which is why it was burning your ass to see it happening.

 

[Damocles]

Go ram your head into a wall dude.

I've had nothing but good conversation with Threedee on this issue and I value his expertise .. WHICH IS WHY I ASKED FOR IT.

You don't believe civil and sane conversation should be had on 9/11 .. which is why it was burning your ass to see it happening.

Rubbish, you and I spoke well on the subject yet you maintain that nobody's expertise is as good as whatever person you listened to and no information as good as the websites you bring. Even those that directly answer the questions of your website. I speak from experience and why I won't engage you on this topic, you do not listen. This is a person who was doing that very job at that very time telling you what they did and what happened, yet in a few days you will again post this other guy's interview like he's the magic bullet.

Your memory is as short as your temper and as weak as your humor gland.

While it wasn't meant to be "haha" funny, it was meant as a sardonic take on our previous conversation, that you clearly do not remember. I know how fruitless it will be because questions that I answered in that previous conversation were asked again in this one. I know that it made zero impact on you.

While I took your words and sought out answers, you only brought dismissal and prompt erasure of any information that may have been brought.

 

[blackascoal]

First of all, there aren't any ATCs at the ADSs in NORAD. They are trained for a completely different job than ACWs (Aerospace Control and Warning Systems operators) such as me.

What this Controller may not be aware of, is that on the 9/11 era radar system (called the Q-93), our standard procedure was to drop out all track symbologies associated with data once they were over land, to prevent clutter and because every system has a maximum number of tracks that it can run with before it crashes.

If any piece of data within radar coverage were to "squack" (transpond) an emergency code such as "hijack," then a symbology would have popped up on the scope right over the target. However, once the transponder is turned off, the target becomes nothing more than search data (data resulting from the actual radio waves, as opposed to reinforced beacon data, which shows up clear as day from the transponder signal), and with no track symbology associated with it, it would have been quite well hidden.

Nowadays, on the current system, I can immediately see an emergency code pop up on my Alerts display, and quickly jump right to it, and the system automatically creates a track symbology, so it would be impossible for hijackers to turn off the transponder before I took all of the necessary actions and passed the information up the chain of command. That is just a sad fact about technology... As an example, I see emergency signals all of the time when I am on duty, because pilots sit on the runway and flip the transponder's frequency through codes (cycles through codes) until he or she gets the one they want. I will click on it, report it, and then it generally goes away pretty quickly. Often, I see the same aircraft cycle through emergency codes multiple times.

Basically, if the FAA was able to detect when an aircraft went delinquent and changed course, violated a flight plan, or turned off the transponder, they would have had to contact the Northeast ADS in NY, and relayed the information to them, because they would have been confused or oblivious to the situation.

Please explain this ..

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."

Prior to June 2001, commanders in the field did have the authority to respond to hijackings.

The 1997 procedures provided a clear way for the military to
respond to an emergency such as a hijacking:

"4.7.1. Immediate Response.
Requests for an immediate response (i.e., any form of immediate action taken by a DoD Component or military commander to save lives, prevent human suffering, or mitigate great property damage under imminently serious conditions) may be made to any Component or Command. The DoD Components that receive verbal requests from civil authorities for support in an exigent emergency may initiate informal planning and, if required,
immediately respond as authorized in DoD Directive 3025.1 (reference (g))."

The priority in the June 1st, 2001 directive is to place decision making power -- in the specific case of a hijacking -- into the hands of the Secretary of Defense.

"c. Military Escort Aircraft
(1) When notified that military escort aircraft are needed in conjunction with an aircraft piracy (hijacking) emergency, the DDO, NMCC, will notify the appropriate unified command or USELEMNORAD to determine if suitable aircraft are available and forward the request to the Secretary of Defense for approval in accordance with DODD 3025.15, paragraph D.7 (reference d)."

In your opinion, how did NORAD fail so miserably on 9/11?

 

[Minister of Truth]

I will say that I am aware that NORAD is a buzzword for many people. When I was first discovered that I was assigned to an ADS and that it was part of the NORAD mission, I immediately thought of UFO conspiracies and all that jazz. Plus, its in the Cheyenne Mountain area!

In fact, one day in the break room, we were watching Independence Day, and a character goes "sir! They've destroyed NORAD!" - to which we all cheered and applauded, and someone asked, "does this mean we can go home?"

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Fighter pilots were told to stand down. The metal was all melted and there's NO WAY it would melt like that. and SATAN's face was in the dust cloud! OMGZS! Explosions in a straight line right down the middle line of windows, timed sequentially? As if.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Please explain this ..

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."

Prior to June 2001, commanders in the field did have the authority to respond to hijackings.

The 1997 procedures provided a clear way for the military to
respond to an emergency such as a hijacking:

"4.7.1. Immediate Response.
Requests for an immediate response (i.e., any form of immediate action taken by a DoD Component or military commander to save lives, prevent human suffering, or mitigate great property damage under imminently serious conditions) may be made to any Component or Command. The DoD Components that receive verbal requests from civil authorities for support in an exigent emergency may initiate informal planning and, if required,
immediately respond as authorized in DoD Directive 3025.1 (reference (g))."

The priority in the June 1st, 2001 directive is to place decision making power -- in the specific case of a hijacking -- into the hands of the Secretary of Defense.

"c. Military Escort Aircraft
(1) When notified that military escort aircraft are needed in conjunction with an aircraft piracy (hijacking) emergency, the DDO, NMCC, will notify the appropriate unified command or USELEMNORAD to determine if suitable aircraft are available and forward the request to the Secretary of Defense for approval in accordance with DODD 3025.15, paragraph D.7 (reference d)."

In your opinion, how did NORAD fail so miserably on 9/11?

The short answer is that NORAD failed because we were still fighting the Cold War. Everything about our mission, assets, and equipment, was focused on missile, air, and electronic attack from Russia.

Scrambling interceptors is done often enough, but it is usually just a part of the indentification process, in which all other methods have failed, and a visual ID is required. If necessary, the fighters would force pilots to land because they were being idiots (I once saw a guy get escorted to a training field where he landed - lol)

Pretty much, the fighters are trained to get a visual ID, escort an aircraft (such as a conventional hijacking), force a landing, or shoot down a conventional enemy.

 

[blackascoal]

Rubbish, you and I spoke well on the subject yet you maintain that nobody's expertise is as good as whatever person you listened to and no information as good as the websites you bring. Even those that directly answer the questions of your website. I speak from experience and why I won't engage you on this topic, you do not listen. This is a person who was doing that very job at that very time telling you what they did and what happened, yet in a few days you will again post this other guy's interview like he's the magic bullet.

Your memory is as short as your temper and as weak as your humor gland.

While it wasn't meant to be "haha" funny, it was meant as a sardonic take on our previous conversation, that you clearly do not remember. I know how fruitless it will be because questions that I answered in that previous conversation were asked again in this one. I know that it made zero impact on you.

While I took your words and sought out answers, you only brought dismissal.

You're absolutely right. You made ZERO impact on what I believe.

First, you have no expertise and you haven't studied this issue. Some of the answers you gave made no sense at all. There are no exceptions to impossible.

Secondly, you discount every expert you don't agree with .. so what the hell is your argument? I discount your experts and you discount mine. So what?

I've studied this issue, talked to people on both sides of it, then came to the conclusion that the official 9/11 story was impossible.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I just want sane conversation about it .. which is exactly what Threedee and I were doing.

I respect Threedee's expertise, but that does not mean that my opinion has to change because I respect him.

Bowman, who has the highest expertise on issues of national security and aircraft flight, doesn't agree with you. Does that mean you have to change your opinion?

You not only don't listen, you don't believe anyone should have an opinion on this you don't agree with .. nor should any two people be able themselves to speak civily on this issue even though they may disagree.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

The short answer is that NORAD failed because we were still fighting the Cold War. Everything about our mission, assets, and equipment, was focused on missile, air, and electronic attack from Russia.

Scrambling interceptors is done often enough, but it is usually just a part of the indentification process, in which all other methods have failed, and a visual ID is required. If necessary, the fighters would force pilots to land because they were being idiots (I once saw a guy get escorted to a training field where he landed - lol)

Pretty much, the fighters are trained to get a visual ID, escort an aircraft (such as a conventional hijacking), force a landing, or shoot down a conventional enemy.

The question I have is when did the FAA change their policies to immediately alert DoD on any hijack warning?

 

[Damocles]

You're absolutely right. You made ZERO impact on what I believe.

First, you have no expertise and you haven't studied this issue. Some of the answers you gave made no sense at all. There are no exceptions to impossible.

I studied it pretty heavily. Mostly because I don't trust the government and thought there might be something more than we had seen.

Secondly, you discount every expert you don't agree with .. so what the hell is your argument? I discount your experts and you discount mine. So what?

I don't discount yours, I sought out the information and gave you answers for what they found that were different. Like this thermite issue. Reality doesn't coincide with it. The tens of thousands of tons of thermite it would have taken, the particularly distinctive smoke it sets off, the incredibly bright light that would have been there... It simply doesn't jive with what happened in any way, yet people still speak of it as if it has some merit. It's total rubbish. I know that this wasn't the cause of the building's collapse.

I've studied this issue, talked to people on both sides of it, then came to the conclusion that the official 9/11 story was impossible.

As have I with a different conclusion than yours.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I just want sane conversation about it .. which is exactly what Threedee and I were doing.

I respect Threedee's expertise, but that does not mean that my opinion has to change because I respect him.

It wouldn't change even if he were walking on water and healing the sick. On this subject all you do is floccinaucinihiliplificate.

Bowman, who has the highest expertise on issues of national security and aircraft flight, doesn't agree with you. Does that mean you have to change your opinion?

You not only don't listen, you don't believe anyone should have an opinion on this you don't agree with .. nor should any two people be able themselves to speak civily on this issue even though they may disagree.

Again, total rubbish. However, when presented with information I know to be true either through the classes that I took or through somebody I trust I tend to listen. What you find 'impossible' wasn't.

Is there more to the 9/11 story? Possibly there is. Did GWB and several hundred thousand of his closest buddies do it? No.

 

[Minister of Truth]

The question I have is when did the FAA change their policies to immediately alert DoD on any hijack warning?

I'm not sure. Even though our equipment is waaay upgraded to the 21st Century now, and I can spot a hijack signal instantly now as an operator, we still have to go through the process of validating it, since we get a lot of false readings due to pilots cycling through codes.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I'm not sure. Even though our equipment is waaay upgraded to the 21st Century now, and I can spot a hijack signal instantly now as an operator, we still have to go through the process of validating it, since we get a lot of false readings due to pilots cycling through codes.

When I did marine ATC, it could take us up to 30 minutes alone, sometimes longer, to verify that a 7500 was indeed a hijack or just a false alarm.

 

[Damocles]

When I did marine ATC, it could take us up to 30 minutes alone, sometimes longer, to verify that a 7500 was indeed a hijack or just a false alarm.

I'm not sure. Even though our equipment is waaay upgraded to the 21st Century now, and I can spot a hijack signal instantly now as an operator, we still have to go through the process of validating it, since we get a lot of false readings due to pilots cycling through codes.

How long does it take to verify a true hijacking? Would we now stop another 9/11?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

How long does it take to verify a true hijacking? Would we now stop another 9/11?

unless the pilot comes on the air immediately and says, 'this is not a drill or an accident, we are being hijacked as I speak', it could take 10 minutes or an hour. At least back when I was a controller it could.

 

[Minister of Truth]

How long does it take to verify a true hijacking? Would we now stop another 9/11?

I only have experience waiting for the Air Surveillance Techs to validate a general emergency, but it can take a little while. I would say at least five minutes. Then they need to talk to the FAA to see if they want us to take action or not (for a hijack, it would be more like, what kind of action).

 

[blackascoal]

I will say that I am aware that NORAD is a buzzword for many people. When I was first discovered that I was assigned to an ADS and that it was part of the NORAD mission, I immediately thought of UFO conspiracies and all that jazz. Plus, its in the Cheyenne Mountain area!

In fact, one day in the break room, we were watching Independence Day, and a character goes "sir! They've destroyed NORAD!" - to which we all cheered and applauded, and someone asked, "does this mean we can go home?"

I have no such delusions about NORAD or its mission. I never have. I know exactly what they do.

Are you saying that you disagree with this ..

"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.’”

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.”

***

Planes turning off their transponders and being still visible to NORAD has also been stated by a different source, but I'd like your opinion.