The widows and children of Osama Bin Laden

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:47 am

Why, in your opinion, were this troop of armed men incapable of arresting and detaining Osama bin Laden during the raid?
Because if the raid took a bad turn, bin Laden could have been rescued. He was wanted Dead or Alive. No apologies. He committed an act of war & got what he so richly deserved--being fish food.

Post by **spot** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 9:01 am

AnneBoleyn;1391700 wrote: Because if the raid took a bad turn, bin Laden could have been rescued. He was wanted Dead or Alive. No apologies. He committed an act of war & got what he so richly deserved--being fish food.

If any country committed an act of war in sending armed troops without consent into a foreign country to kill, it's the US landing in Abbottabad in pursuit of their Commander's order and this act is merely one of a large succession of such acts.

What's adrift is your use of English: no individual can commit an act of war, countries commit acts of war. Individuals commit crimes.

Further than that, the US had no jurisdiction in Abbottabad. The US concept of jurisdiction seems, in practice, non-existent.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 9:07 am

I'm still glad of how it was done, & especially glad he is dead. bin Laden saw it as war, whether you do or not. He thought he could take on & conquer the west. If he's an outlaw, a criminal, then he committed his acts on a world stage. He got exactly what he deserved & that's that. A person can't just get away with being a meglo-maniac, holding the world hostage.

Post by **spot** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 9:18 am

AnneBoleyn;1391703 wrote: A person can't just get away with being a meglo-maniac, holding the world hostage.It depends on who he is by the sound of it. George Bush is still unprosecuted, for example.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 9:39 am

spot;1391664 wrote: What's odd is that it sounds more enticing in the French, I'd never have thought it.

Google Translate is getting better all the time, it's only glitches like "un café résistant" which give it away. .

It was Babelfish, and if you translate the French translation back into English, it shows how many 'glitches' there are

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 9:49 am

spot;1391667 wrote: In the context of this thread it's the people resident in the Abbottabad compound, none of whom have been allowed to speak to any news reporters since the raid last year.

Why, in your opinion, were this troop of armed men incapable of arresting and detaining Osama bin Laden during the raid?

Why do you assume they would want to talk to anybody ?

They could possibly not be politicised at all.

He was never going to be taken alive whatever happened, too much hassle.

Post by **spot** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 10:02 am

Bruv;1391706 wrote: Why do you assume they would want to talk to anybody ?

They could possibly not be politicised at all.
Perhaps because the people killed in the raid included their father and their brother? Wouldn't you want to describe what happened, in such circumstances? Where does politicization come into that?

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 12:00 pm

spot;1391704 wrote: It depends on who he is by the sound of it. George Bush is still unprosecuted, for example.
That's right. Left unprosecuted. Like Wall Street types were left unprosecuted. Nauseating.

Post by **spot** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 12:48 pm

AnneBoleyn;1391720 wrote: That's right. Left unprosecuted. Like Wall Street types were left unprosecuted. Nauseating.

What Americans in general appear incapable of even considering is that Osama bin Laden, or a hundred like him, would for ever be incapable of "destroying" America (whatever "destroying" might mean in that context). The only thing capable of significantly damaging America would be America's reaction to whatever gadfly prick his organization was capable of delivering.

And guess what the Bush administration went straight out and did: they significantly damaged America by reacting to the gadfly prick in a shockingly predictable and insane manner. They went into government wanting to deploy their armed forces in massive numbers into the Middle Eastern theater and by Christ they did just that, to the extent (in my considered judgement) of passively allowing the gadfly to prick in the first place.

There's another thread discussing "you reap what you sow" at the moment. Enough of you wanted gung-ho adventurers in your White House that they were elected, so stop pretending it's not your own collective fault that the US is now spiraling out of control into relative insignificance. The post-coldwar period only turned out this way because of how you embraced such witless policies.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 2:09 pm

What Americans in general appear incapable of even considering is that Osama bin Laden, or a hundred like him, would for ever be incapable of "destroying" America (whatever "destroying" might mean in that context).

Only the most nervous of nellies ever thought Osama's boys could destroy the United States. Three thousand lives were enough, the loss of the Twin Towers were enough, the direct threat to millions of New Yorkers was enough. They were pretty well squashed, & the NY Police does incredible effort, so far with success, Every day. Wasn't it enough for you? If you lived in London & this happened I don't know how cavalier you would be. I doubt they'd go after Bristol, so you are safe.

katsung47 · Post by **katsung47** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 2:23 pm

Don't you feel enough for these disinformation? It was used to enbelieve you that Bin Laden was killed in Operation Geronimo. A cover up for that hoax.

Bin Laden was dead ten years ago. They wouldn't let an important witness stay alive, (Bin Laden denied he was involved in 911 attack). Operation Geronimo was created to justify Iran war. The Pentagon plotted another 911 alike terror attack on US in the name of "the revenge of Al Qaida for Bin Laden's death". Which was planned to justify Iran war just like 911 used for Iraq and Afghan invasion. Now the attempt to war on Iran is very evident.

Operation Geronimo was a corpseless operation because there was no Bin Laden at all.

The Seal team 6 died twice - the helicoptor was crashed on May 1 operation. A few weeks later, another helicoptor crash in Afganistan killed a team 6 of Seals too. So there is no witness could prove "Bin Laden" was killed in "Operation Geronimo".

Post by **spot** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 2:43 pm

Thank you katsung. The problem with what you state as fact is that it's unverifiable, it's speculative. Just because you believe it to be true doesn't make it so. You speak a revealed truth but you don't say how it was revealed to you.

The family of Osama bin Laden are real people, I'd quite like to hear them tell their stories because what they say, if they tell the truth, will be a credible first hand experienced truth.

Post by **spot** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 2:54 pm

AnneBoleyn;1391727 wrote: Only the most nervous of nellies ever thought Osama's boys could destroy the United States. Three thousand lives were enough, the loss of the Twin Towers were enough, the direct threat to millions of New Yorkers was enough. They were pretty well squashed, & the NY Police does incredible effort, so far with success, Every day. Wasn't it enough for you? If you lived in London & this happened I don't know how cavalier you would be. I doubt they'd go after Bristol, so you are safe.

I wonder what you mean by "direct threat to millions of New Yorkers". If it means what the threat to Londoners during the IRA mainland bombings meant then it means that millions of Londoners were equally, randomly, at risk but that only a very small proportion of them were actually hurt during attacks. I was in London throughout, the trick then as now was not to let it affect your behavior. Refusing to react meant that the mainland attacks were relatively insignificant. Londoners reacting by changing mass behavior would have been a complete victory for the IRA teams involved.

No group short of another country has the resources to kill millions of New Yorkers. If a country does it then it's an act of war. If a group like bin Laden's does everything they possibly can then it's a criminal act. America's problem is that it failed to distinguish criminality from war and reacted catastrophically. That the reaction coincided with the strategic desire of the White House administration just shows how much your entire citizenry was lied to. It's shameful that the citizens as a whole swallowed what they were told and continue as a whole to defend what was done in their name.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 3:38 pm

spot;1391667 wrote:

Why, in your opinion, were this troop of armed men incapable of arresting and detaining Osama bin Laden during the raid?

katsung might have the answer................or at least a reason for the why.

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 3:41 pm

What I meant to say is that millions of NYers were affected, some for years afterward. There are 12 Million people in Manhattan on a workday. And it could have been anyone here, & it seems most people do know of someone directly within the zone. Millions within the NYC area, which includes New Jersey & Connecticut, other states, felt terrorized. People felt it could have been them. It doesn't appear to affect anyone's actual behavior, except give us something else to be pissed about! IRA never hit 3,000 people at once! What do You think would have happened to them if they succeeded in committing such an act?

PS, I was not living in NYC at the time.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 4:00 pm

katsung47;1391728 wrote: Don't you feel enough for these disinformation? It was used to enbelieve you that Bin Laden was killed in Operation Geronimo. A cover up for that hoax.

Bin Laden was dead ten years ago. They wouldn't let an important witness stay alive, (Bin Laden denied he was involved in 911 attack). Operation Geronimo was created to justify Iran war. The Pentagon plotted another 911 alike terror attack on US in the name of "the revenge of Al Qaida for Bin Laden's death". Which was planned to justify Iran war just like 911 used for Iraq and Afghan invasion. Now the attempt to war on Iran is very evident.

Operation Geronimo was a corpseless operation because there was no Bin Laden at all.

The Seal team 6 died twice - the helicoptor was crashed on May 1 operation. A few weeks later, another helicoptor crash in Afganistan killed a team 6 of Seals too. So there is no witness could prove "Bin Laden" was killed in "Operation Geronimo". You raise some very good points.... I read quite a bit of Bin Laden several years ago and many reported his death 10 years ago from kidney failure.....

The one thing I have to question In the killing of Bin Laden In Pakistan Is that the Seal apparently shot him In the head first based on 'Facial recognition'... Yet, when his body was taken from the building Into the courtyard. to ensure It was Bin Laden, we are told that a 6ft 2 Inch Seal lay down next to his body to check the fact BL was 6ft 4 Inch.... now, call me a cynic but surely, In a precise operation, someone must have had a better way of Identifying him..... Now we have the possibility that BL was not buried at sea In accordance with the Muslim Faith as we have been told, but In fact, his body was brought back to the USA.

Post by **spot** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 4:06 pm

AnneBoleyn;1391738 wrote: What I meant to say is that millions of NYers were affected, some for years afterward. There are 12 Million people in Manhattan on a workday. And it could have been anyone here, & it seems most people do know of someone directly within the zone. Millions within the NYC area, which includes New Jersey & Connecticut, other states, felt terrorized. People felt it could have been them. It doesn't appear to affect anyone's actual behavior, except give us something else to be pissed about! IRA never hit 3,000 people at once! What do You think would have happened to them if they succeeded in committing such an act?

PS, I was not living in NYC at the time.

I'm interested in why you think "at once" changes the nature of death. In the Troubles in Northern Ireland - "Troubles" means a specific date range of (without looking it up) 1970 to 1998 - more people were deliberately killed than died on 9/11.

Both events - the Troubles and 9/11 - were criminal acts.

The UK and Ireland brought the Troubles to an end by two means: treating the paramilitary killings as crimes, and ending the reasons for which the paramilitaries were fighting by a political process.

America hasn't even started to take either of those steps, all it's done is engaged in two completely pointless wars which has destroyed its good name in the eyes of a large fraction of humanity and radicalized generations of Muslims across the world. Both of those outcomes were the primary objective of Osama bin Laden. Against all the odds, and solely as a result of the crass stupidity of your successive governments, he achieved what he set out to do. America handed him a victory he could never have achieved on his own.

theia · Post by **theia** » Fri Apr 20, 2012 11:26 pm

spot;1391743 wrote: I'm interested in why you think "at once" changes the nature of death. In the Troubles in Northern Ireland - "Troubles" means a specific date range of (without looking it up) 1970 to 1998 - more people were deliberately killed than died on 9/11.

Both events - the Troubles and 9/11 - were criminal acts.

The UK and Ireland brought the Troubles to an end by two means: treating the paramilitary killings as crimes, and ending the reasons for which the paramilitaries were fighting by a political process.

America hasn't even started to take either of those steps, all it's done is engaged in two completely pointless wars which has destroyed its good name in the eyes of a large fraction of humanity and radicalized generations of Muslims across the world. Both of those outcomes were the primary objective of Osama bin Laden. Against all the odds, and solely as a result of the crass stupidity of your successive governments, he achieved what he set out to do. America handed him a victory he could never have achieved on his own.

"At once" doesn't change the nature of death. Why would it? Death is death. But, in my opinion, for 3,000 people to be killed "at once" in that way was totally shocking. And we don't know for sure how we would have reacted in the UK had 9/11 happened here. To make a personal comparison...if both my parents had been victims of a crime and had died together on the same day, my reaction would have been different to my reaction to them dying fourteen years apart from old age related problems.

Post by **spot** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 4:12 am

On the other hand those who were killed during the Troubles didn't in fact die of old age related problems. You're scarcely comparing like with like.

The sole reason 3,000 people died at once is that various US officials took their eyes off the ball and let it into the net. I don't in the least think they were incompetent. I find it astounding that nobody even asks when they'll be held to account for their dereliction. There were systems in place to prevent 9/11 and they weren't in operation on the day. The "nobody thought it possible" excuse, which seems to be all-pervasive, is nonsense, you'd think Tom Clancy had never written a book. The systems designed to prevent the 9/11 attacks were sabotaged from within the White House administration.

theia · Post by **theia** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 4:31 am

spot;1391760 wrote: On the other hand those who were killed during the Troubles didn't in fact die of old age related problems. You're scarcely comparing like with like.

The sole reason 3,000 people died at once is that various US officials took their eyes off the ball and let it into the net. I don't in the least think they were incompetent. I find it astounding that nobody even asks when they'll be held to account for their dereliction. There were systems in place to prevent 9/11 and they weren't in operation on the day. The "nobody thought it possible" excuse, which seems to be all-pervasive, is nonsense, you'd think Tom Clancy had never written a book. The systems designed to prevent the 9/11 attacks were sabotaged from within the White House administration.

I wasn't saying that people who died during the Troubles died of old age related problems! But maybe my post was unclear...I was comparing, on a personal level, the difference between two people dying at the same time as victims of a crime, and two people dying of old age related problems 14 years apart. I was saying that my reaction to the former would likely be very different from my reaction to the latter as the former would have been far more shocking.

How do you know that the "systems...were sabotaged from within the White House Administration?" You may well be right, or wrong, but I would like to read more.

Post by **spot** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 4:38 am

theia;1391763 wrote: How do you know that the "systems...were sabotaged from within the White House Administration?" You may well be right, or wrong, but I would like to read more.There are two aspects.

One is authority. I don't think any other establishment would have the authority to order so many agencies within the US to stand aside and allow the attackers through the existing security cordon.

The other is that none of the defenders stepped forward to accept responsibility, none were demoted, none were disciplined, none were fired, no person and no agency was held to any form of account for the security lapse, I'd call that aspect a definite smoking gun.

Of course I may be wrong and people were held responsible for the failure, in which case perhaps details could be appended here by those who know of it.

Post by **spot** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 7:27 am

There's something of a power struggle going on over the final disposition of the family. Assorted newspapers are being fed all kinds of tales by factions in Pakistan.“We should not deport al Qaeda chief’s family members, we want to keep them for further investigation,” a senior official said quoting the NCMC director general Brig (retd) Javed Lodhi who earlier briefed Interior Minister Rehman Malik, along with Director General of Federal Investigation Agency Javed Iqbal, in a meeting held at the interior ministry today. Pakistan fears that the outspokenness of the Yemeni widow of Osama would create problems for the state, according to the head of NCMC, who attended an important meeting at GHQ and briefed intelligence officials about the issue earlier this week.

On Tuesday, the interior minister directed Islamabad Chief Commissioner Bani Amin Khan to visit OBL’s family members along with a female police officer to take their consent regarding which country they want to live in. He also directed Khan to ask whether they want to live in Pakistan.

Repatriation process: Bin Laden family

theia · Post by **theia** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 8:04 am

spot;1391764 wrote: There are two aspects.

One is authority. I don't think any other establishment would have the authority to order so many agencies within the US to stand aside and allow the attackers through the existing security cordon.

The other is that none of the defenders stepped forward to accept responsibility, none were demoted, none were disciplined, none were fired, no person and no agency was held to any form of account for the security lapse, I'd call that aspect a definite smoking gun.

Of course I may be wrong and people were held responsible for the failure, in which case perhaps details could be appended here by those who know of it.

Could you elaborate on this, please, spot?

Post by **spot** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 8:32 am

theia;1391768 wrote: Could you elaborate on this, please, spot?

White House administrations can instruct US agencies without the orders being published. They tend to be called Presidential Findings or Executive Orders, their history is discussed in http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/98-611.pdf which summarises them thus:With each succeeding President, national security instruments of varying

denominations and character evolved from the NSC policy papers. In general, they

were not required to be published in the Federal Register, were usually security

classified at the highest level of protection, and were available to the public after a

great many years had elapsed, usually at the official library of the President who had

approved them. Many of the more recent ones remain officially secret.

So, that's the mechanism whereby orders "to stand aside and allow the attackers through the existing security cordon" can emanate from the White House. Whether they did or not is a matter of inference since it's by definition a secret order.

I infer it because mechanisms were fully in place to prevent 9/11 which would without doubt have prevented the events had they been left alone on the day. Air intercepts by the US Air Force whenever a plane deviated from course over the mainland US were absolutely routine and invariable for year after year until 9/11. A number of ex-FBI staff have gone public saying their agency deliberately held them back from intervening before the day.

The coordination required to enable "some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor" needed, I suggest, presidential authority. That quote is from September 2000 and its authors were authoritative White House advisers throughout 2001.

theia · Post by **theia** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 8:54 am

spot;1391770 wrote: White House administrations can instruct US agencies without the orders being published. They tend to be called Presidential Findings or Executive Orders, their history is discussed in http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/98-611.pdf which summarises them thus:With each succeeding President, national security instruments of varying

denominations and character evolved from the NSC policy papers. In general, they

were not required to be published in the Federal Register, were usually security

classified at the highest level of protection, and were available to the public after a

great many years had elapsed, usually at the official library of the President who had

approved them. Many of the more recent ones remain officially secret.

So, that's the mechanism whereby orders "to stand aside and allow the attackers through the existing security cordon" can emanate from the White House. Whether they did or not is a matter of inference since it's by definition a secret order.

I infer it because mechanisms were fully in place to prevent 9/11 which would without doubt have prevented the events had they been left alone on the day. Air intercepts by the US Air Force whenever a plane deviated from course over the mainland US were absolutely routine and invariable for year after year until 9/11. A number of ex-FBI staff have gone public saying their agency deliberately held them back from intervening before the day.

The coordination required to enable "some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor" needed, I suggest, presidential authority. That quote is from September 2000 and its authors were authoritative White House advisers throughout 2001.

I didn't know that...I find it disturbing.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 9:36 am

theia;1391772 wrote: I didn't know that...I find it disturbing.

Why?

Post by **spot** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 10:38 am

theia;1391772 wrote: I didn't know that...I find it disturbing.If I remember right, NORAD actually pulled the air interception pages from its website in the aftermath of 9/11 as being too embarrassing.

I reckon looking at pre-9/11 news reports is the only way to find material that's not been biased as a result of what happened. This is what the USAF was writing about scrambling its fighters to intercept suspect aircraft over the USA three years before: Western Air Defense Sector Gets 1998 Scramble Award | 911Blogger.com

There weren't many hijack events during the 1990s but there were quite a few aircraft flying with incapacitated pilots, stories of that sort of interception weren't unusual.

theia · Post by **theia** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 10:51 am

SnoozeAgain;1391775 wrote: Why?

Because I wonder why, and have no idea why

Because I was surprised by it.

And this disturbs me.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 11:06 am

theia;1391781 wrote: Because I wonder why, and have no idea why

Because I was surprised by it.

And both these whys disturb me.

That's why.

Did you get to watch ' 9/11 The lost tapes ' on Discovery channel?

Very Interesting...

theia · Post by **theia** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 11:11 am

oscar;1391783 wrote: Did you get to watch ' 9/11 The lost tapes ' on Discovery channel?

Very Interesting...

I did, Oscar, on Channel 4 the other night. I found it moving and I interpreted it as a hopeless situation for all those who were featured. That's another reason why I found spot's comment so disturbing...it contradicted my interpretation.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 11:18 am

I don't understand. We have air traffic controllers (along with every other country in the world) monitoring air patterns. Aircraft are required to file flight plans. If a plane doesn't follow its expected trajectory, it can endanger other aircraft and after 9/11, it could signal criminal intent. I can't imagine any other response than to send out AF interception. Should they just be allowed to fly wherever they want, particularly over heavily populated areas?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 11:28 am

theia;1391785 wrote: I did, Oscar, on Channel 4 the other night. I found it moving and I interpreted it as a hopeless situation for all those who were featured. That's another reason why I found spot's comment so disturbing...it contradicted my interpretation.

I agree. I think we all need to accept that 9/11 was an unprecedented event that no country would have planned for or have been able to deal with to a format. Apportioning blame Is futile when the like had never gone before.

Post by **spot** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 11:44 am

theia;1391785 wrote: That's another reason why I found spot's comment so disturbing...it contradicted my interpretation.I've certainly looked for old news references to any hijacked plane during the thirty years before 9/11 over the US which wasn't intercepted and I've not found one. It's difficult to confirm a negative but I did give it a go.

theia · Post by **theia** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 11:46 am

oscar;1391791 wrote: I agree. I think we all need to accept that 9/11 was an unprecedented event that no country would have planned for or have been able to deal with to a format. Apportioning blame Is futile when the like had never gone before.

Exactly how I feel, Oscar. I've just been visiting various sites about the lack of interception on 9/11 and I'm more confused than ever.

Post by **spot** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 11:46 am

oscar;1391791 wrote: I agree. I think we all need to accept that 9/11 was an unprecedented event that no country would have planned for or have been able to deal with to a format. Apportioning blame Is futile when the like had never gone before.

By the end of the day it may have been unique, but it wasn't when it started and there was just the one plane begging to be intercepted. If I'm right that previous hijacked planes were intercepted, what wasn't that one? What made that one special?

theia · Post by **theia** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 11:51 am

spot;1391795 wrote: By the end of the day it may have been unique, but it wasn't when it started and there was just the one plane begging to be intercepted. If I'm right that previous hijacked planes were intercepted, what wasn't that one? What made that one special?

From the programme on Channel 4, I formed the impression that no-one knew where it was because the transponder had been turned off.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 11:52 am

spot;1391795 wrote: By the end of the day it may have been unique, but it wasn't when it started and there was just the one plane begging to be intercepted. If I'm right that previous hijacked planes were intercepted, what wasn't that one? What made that one special?

But they were damned If they did and damned If they didn't were they not?

All were passenger aircraft and had they Intercepted and got It wrong, the outcome would have been equally frowned upon.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 11:54 am

Ah, I must have missed the part where the idea that 9/11 was a conspiracy with the US government. Nevermind.

Post by **spot** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 11:56 am

theia;1391797 wrote: From the programme on Channel 4, I formed the impression that no-one knew where it was because the transponder had been turned off.

Apply a little thought to the matter. If one aircraft in the whole of US airspace has its transponder off, and all the planes in the whole of US airspace are visible on radar, which plane is extremely easy to pinpoint. Or, as time goes on, two or three of four aircraft. Turning off the transponder merely attracts attention, it would only disguise the plane if everyone else did the same thing.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 12:00 pm

No Stand-Down Order

Claim: No fighter jets were scrambled from any of the 28 Air Force bases within close range of the four hijacked flights. "On 11 September Andrews had two squadrons of fighter jets with the job of protecting the skies over Washington D.C.," says the Web site emperors-clothes.com. "They failed to do their job." "There is only one explanation for this," writes Mark R. Elsis of StandDown.net. "Our Air Force was ordered to Stand Down on 9/11."

FACT: On 9/11 there were only 14 fighter jets on alert in the contiguous 48 states. No computer network or alarm automatically alerted the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) of missing planes. "They [civilian Air Traffic Control, or ATC] had to pick up the phone and literally dial us," says Maj. Douglas Martin, public affairs officer for NORAD. Boston Center, one of 22 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regional ATC facilities, called NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) three times: at 8:37 am EST to inform NEADS that Flight 11 was hijacked; at 9:21 am to inform the agency, mistakenly, that Flight 11 was headed for Washington (the plane had hit the North Tower 35 minutes earlier); and at 9:41 am to (erroneously) identify Delta Air Lines Flight 1989 from Boston as a possible hijacking. The New York ATC called NEADS at 9:03 am to report that United Flight 175 had been hijacked—the same time the plane slammed into the South Tower. Within minutes of that first call from Boston Center, NEADS scrambled two F-15s from Otis Air Force Base in Falmouth, Mass., and three F-16s from Langley Air National Guard Base in Hampton, Va. None of the fighters got anywhere near the pirated planes.

Why couldn't ATC find the hijacked flights? When the hijackers turned off the planes' transponders, which broadcast identifying signals, ATC had to search 4500 identical radar blips crisscrossing some of the country's busiest air corridors. And NORAD's sophisticated radar? It ringed the continent, looking outward for threats, not inward. "It was like a doughnut," Martin says. "There was no coverage in the middle." Pre-9/11, flights originating in the States were not seen as threats and NORAD wasn't prepared to track them.

Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report - The Planes - Popular Mechanics

Post by **spot** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 12:01 pm

oscar;1391798 wrote: But they were damned If they did and damned If they didn't were they not?

All were passenger aircraft and had they Intercepted and got It wrong, the outcome would have been equally frowned upon.

What was missing was any move to intercept. A decision on what to do once interception was achieved is a separate matter. All previous interceptions started with scrambling USAF aircraft. 9/11 didn't. It's the inaction that's wrong, it's the difference from previous behavior that's wrong, it's the people sat still and waiting rather than taking action that's wrong. It's nothing to do with "what would they have done if they'd taken off", they took off for previous hijackings. 9/11 involved stepping aside and awaiting the outcome.

theia · Post by **theia** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 12:06 pm

spot;1391802 wrote: Apply a little thought to the matter. If one aircraft in the whole of US airspace has its transponder off, and all the planes in the whole of US airspace are visible on radar, which plane is extremely easy to pinpoint. Or, as time goes on, two or three of four aircraft. Turning off the transponder merely attracts attention, it would only disguise the plane if everyone else did the same thing.

No point, spot. I'm way out of my depth here. I'm now googling "effects of turning off transponders" I may be gone some time.

Post by **spot** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 12:21 pm

SnoozeAgain;1391803 wrote: FACT: On 9/11 there were only 14 fighter jets on alert in the contiguous 48 states. I'm wondering how many of these super-whizz deliverers of destruction you actually need in order to intercept an aircraft. Wouldn't one each suffice? That could happily leave ten sat on the tarmac revving their engines for the next crisis.

Here's where they were:The Air National Guard exclusively performs the air sovereignty mission in the continental United States, and those units fall under the control of the 1st Air Force based at Tyndall. The Guard maintains seven alert sites with 14 fighters and pilots on call around the clock. Besides Homestead, alert birds also sit armed and ready at Tyndall; Langley AFB, Va.; Otis Air National Guard Base, Mass.; Portland International Airport, Ore.; March ARB, Calif.; and Ellington Field, Texas.

And you feel it's likely there's no filter available to say "show me the planes with no transponder signal" at ATC? I'm a systems designer, we don't leave loose ends like that, it's not in our nature. Maybe it's available as "show me the plane(s) with transponder code: blank" but it'll be there somewhere.

katsung47 · Post by **katsung47** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 1:03 pm

spot;1391731 wrote: Thank you katsung. The problem with what you state as fact is that it's unverifiable, it's speculative. Just because you believe it to be true doesn't make it so. You speak a revealed truth but you don't say how it was revealed to you.

The family of Osama bin Laden are real people, I'd quite like to hear them tell their stories because what they say, if they tell the truth, will be a credible first hand experienced truth.

The family of Bin Laden was escorted out of US by FBI after 911 happened. One thing for sure is they must have been under surveillance since then.

So said "widows and children" should be someone of later marriage. Since Bin Laden died ten years ago, it was a fake Bin Laden. Or simply, the "widows and children" were told the dead man was "Bin Laden". Could that be a problem for a professional lier? US government change the "kill Bin Laden" story so many times. It was a very simple story. If an elite of US army - Seal team 6, couldn't make it clear that the raid started from down stairs or from roof; or an official couldn't make it clear that Bin Laden trying to resist or only trying to escape, then it is an army of idiots. Or rather, this government view the Americans as fools.

Each time when they released a new story, was a time when they prepared a new plot of terror attack on US. It's a psychological tactic. The purpose is to remind people of "Bin Laden's death" and to justify the "terror attack" is a revenge from Bin Laden's Al Qaeda. The final target is Iran.

So until Iran is occupied, you'll see endless of such soap opera to be staged.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 1:19 pm

spot;1391804 wrote: What was missing was any move to intercept. A decision on what to do once interception was achieved is a separate matter. All previous interceptions started with scrambling USAF aircraft. 9/11 didn't. It's the inaction that's wrong, it's the difference from previous behavior that's wrong, it's the people sat still and waiting rather than taking action that's wrong. It's nothing to do with "what would they have done if they'd taken off", they took off for previous hijackings. 9/11 involved stepping aside and awaiting the outcome.

As I have understood from many documentaries, there was the question of Interception but they were ordered to stand down because of loss of life to passengers.

Air Force Stand-down - 9-11 Review

Post by **spot** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 2:03 pm

That would be a reasonable order to pilots in the air. Do you find it a reasonable order to pilots on the ground though?

If not, it doesn't explain the lack of interceptions.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 2:21 pm

spot;1391813 wrote: That would be a reasonable order to pilots in the air. Do you find it a reasonable order to pilots on the ground though?

If not, it doesn't explain the lack of interceptions.

It is routine policy and practice for fighter jets to intercept planes if they go off course even by 2 miles. In the year prior to 9/11 there were 67 such intercepts. It's therefore inconceivable that none of the hijacked planes would be intercepted on 9/11.

67 Intercepts

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 3:32 pm

I am intrigued to know where you are taking us Spot, have you got a theory ?

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 3:37 pm

I got this from 9/11 Myth Busted: NORAD Had No Time To Intercept Hijacked Planes - Democratic Underground. Democratic Underground is a source I find really good.

9/11 Myth Busted: NORAD Had No Time To Intercept Hijacked Planes

"This was posted at the JREF forum, and I thought that we should take a look at it over here. I myself had questions about why we couldn't intercept the planes that day, but the poster Gumboot has really put it in a easy-to-understand format here. There was no standdown order, and no need for wargames to cloud NORAD's understanding of what was going on. They didn't have time to deal with the planes, period."

"The 67 in the months prior to 9/11 (I think it was 6 months, not a year) should be considered intercepts, giving CTers the benefit of the doubt.

However...

NORAD's area of responsibility is the Air Defence Identification Zone - or ADIZ. This is a "buffer" zone located over water at the edges of the USA."

"So the question that should be asked is:

Did NORAD perform any successful intercepts inside CONUS Airspace prior to 9/11?

The answer is yes. In the decade prior to 9/11 NORAD was involved in ONE intercept."

I only picked excerpts out, go to the link above for the full explanation. This conversation is really disturbing, so I had to do some research. You have no idea how far the Peter Principle goes in the US, & how deep the incompetence is. And Bush, he was warned but he is an arrogant, dishonest piece of crap.

Post by **spot** » Sat Apr 21, 2012 3:51 pm

Bruv;1391837 wrote: I am intrigued to know where you are taking us Spot, have you got a theory ?

I'm interested in reading what the family who were in Abbottabad has to say if it ever gets the chance to speak openly to news reporters. While we're waiting for the Saudis to nail their conditions to the paperwork and for the Pakistanis to get out from under their US paymasters we're keeping the thread warm, but the thread's about the potential press conference and the raid.

As for the culpability of PNAC once it got into the White House, I have no doubt whatever that 9/11 would not have happened without their interference. The nature and extent of that interference should be investigated and the evidence taken to a US trial. I'm quite sure there are 9/11's equivalents of Daniel Ellsberg out there who can use the Internet and serve their country.