new thread - a WAKE UP call

[mhgaffney]

Paul Craig Roberts, a Republican, and a former high official in the Reagan administration, also a former editor of the Wall Street Journal -- among many other accomplishments -- learned long ago that the neo cons are not to be trusted. They gave us 911 -- and may well be preparing another surprise.

Roberts has attempted to wake up our country men -- so far with little success.

If this board is any indication, Americans (and esp Democraps) are sitting ducks for what is coming. Roberts probably has it right. MHG

A Wake-up Call

By Paul Craig Roberts

07/19/07 "ICH" -- -- This is a wake-up call that we are about to have another 9/11-WMD experience.

The wake-up call is unlikely to be effective, because the American attitude toward government changed fundamentally seventy-odd years ago. Prior to the 1930s, Americans were suspicious of government, but with the arrival of the Great Depression, Tojo, and Hitler, President Franklin D. Roosevelt convinced Americans that government existed to protect them from rapacious private interests and foreign threats. Today, Americans are more likely to give the benefit of the doubt to government than they are to family members, friends, and those who would warn them about the government’s protection.

Intelligent observers are puzzled that President Bush is persisting in a futile and unpopular war at the obvious expense of his party’s electoral chances in 2008.

In the July 18 Los Angeles Times (“Bush the Albatross”), Ronald Brownstein reminds us that Bush’s behavior is disastrous for his political party. Unpopular presidents “have consistently undercut their party in the next election.” Brownstein reports that “88% of voters who disapproved of the retiring president’s job performance voted against his party’s nominee in past elections. . . . On average, 80% of voters who disapproved of a president’s performance have voted against his party’s candidates even in House races since 1986.”

Brownstein notes that with Bush’s dismal approval rating, this implies a total wipeout of the Republicans in 2008.

A number of pundits have concluded that the reason the Democrats have not brought a halt to Bush’s follies is that they expect Bush’s unpopular policies to provide them with a landslide victory next year.

There is a problem with this reasoning. It assumes that Cheney, Rove,and the Republicans are ignorant of these facts or are content for the Republican Party to be destroyed after Bush has his warmonger-police state fling. “After me, the deluge.”

Isn’t it more likely that Cheney and Rove have in mind events that will, once again, rally the people behind President Bush and the Republican Party that is fighting the “war on terror” that the Democrats “want to lose”?

Such events could take a number of forms. As even diehard Republican Patrick J. Buchanan observed on July 17, with three US aircraft carrier battle groups in congested waters off Iran, another Tonkin Gulf incident could easily be engineered to set us at war with Iran. If Bush’s intentions were merely to bomb a nuclear reactor, he would not need three carrier strike forces.

Lately, the administration has switched to blaming Iran for the war in Iraq. The US Senate has already lined up behind the latest lie with a 97-0 vote to condemn Iran.

Alternatively, false flag “terrorist” strikes could be orchestrated in the US. The Bush administration has already infiltrated some dissident groups and encouraged them to participate in terrorist talk, for which they were arrested. It is possible that the administration could provoke some groups to actual acts of violence.

Many Americans dismiss suspicion of their government as treasonous, and most believe conspiracy to be impossible “because someone would talk.”

There is no basis in any known fact for this opinion.

According to polls, 36% of the American people disbelieve the 9/11 Commission Report. Despite this lack of confidence, and despite the numerous omissions and errors in the report, it has proven impossible to have an independent investigation of 9/11 or to examine the official explanation in public debate. Even experts and people with a lifetime of distinguished public service are dismissed as “conspiracy theorists,” “kooks,” and “traitors” if they question the official explanation of 9/11. This despite the fact that war in the Middle East, a long-planned goal of Bush’s neoconservative administration, could not have been initiated without a “new Pearl Harbor.”

That powerfully constructed steel buildings could suddenly turn to dust because they were struck by two flimsy aluminum airliners and experienced small fires on a few floors that burned for a short time appears unexceptionable to a majority of Americans.

Moreover, people have talked. Hundreds of them. Firefighters, police, janitors, and others report hearing and experiencing a series of explosions in upper floors and massive explosions in the underground basements. This eyewitness testimony was kept under wraps for three or more years until the official explanation had taken root. The oral histories were finally forced loose by freedom of information act suits. The eyewitness reports of explosion after explosion had no effect.

Larry Silverstein, who received billions of dollars in insurance payments for the destroyed buildings, talked. He said on public television that the order was given “to pull” building 7. His stunning admission had no effect.

The Bush administration is preparing us for more terrorist attacks. The latest intelligence report says that Al Qaeda has regrouped, rebuilt, and has the ability to come after us again. “Al Qaeda will intensify its efforts to put operatives here,” says the report.

Security operatives, such as Michael Chertoff, and various instruments of administration propaganda have warned that we will be attacked before next year’s election. Chertoff is not a person who wants to be known as Chicken Little for telling us that the sky is falling.

Bush has the Republican Party in such a mess that it cannot survive without another 9/11. Whether authentic or orchestrated, an attack will activate Bush’s new executive orders, which create a dictatorial police state in event of “national emergency.” [See http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHO20070624&articleId=6134 ]

The UK government is hand-in-glove with the Bush administration and will provide cover or verification for whatever claim the Bush administration advances. So will the right-wing governments in Canada and Australia. That takes care of the English-speaking world from which contrary explanations might reach the American people.

It is possible that Bush is now too weak, that suspicion is too great, and that there is too much internal resistance in the federal bureaucracy and military for any such scenario. If so, then my prediction prior to the invasion that the US invasion of Iraq will destroy Bush, the Republican Party, and the conservative movement will be proven true. The Democrats’ strategy of doing nothing except making sure Bush gets his way will produce the landslide that they expect.

However, this assumes that Cheney, Rove, and their neoconservative allies have lost their cunning and their manipulative skills. It is difficult to imagine a more dangerous assumption for Democrats and the American people to make.

Once the US experiences new attacks, Bush will be vindicated. His voice will be confident as he speaks to the nation: “My administration knew that there would be more attacks from these terrorists who hate us and our way of life and are determined to destroy every one of us. If only more of you had believed me and supported my war on terror these new attacks would not have happened. Our security efforts were impaired by the Democrats’ determined attempts to surrender to the terrorists by forcing our withdrawal from Iraq and by civil libertarian assaults on our necessary security measures. If only more Americans had trusted their government, this would not have happened.” And so on. Anyone should be able to write the script.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions. He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com

[RkyMtnThunder]

It is possible that Bush is now too weak, that suspicion is too great, and that there is too much internal resistance in the federal bureaucracy and military for any such scenario. If so, then my prediction prior to the invasion that the US invasion of Iraq will destroy Bush, the Republican Party, and the conservative movement will be proven true. The Democrats’ strategy of doing nothing except making sure Bush gets his way will produce the landslide that they expect.





I do think this will be the case. If anything were to happen, I do think a majority will be quite suspicious and not as quick to accept what the White House might have to say about it.

I listened to a radio interview with this man on my drive into work. I sure hope he is wrong. And a part of me believes he may be. But I can also be an optimist to a fault.

[codeman]

The probability of another terrorist attack is high. My opinion is that conspiracy theories will point them at the nearest person or administration that is available. I'll be interested to see the spin put on an attack that happens after GWB is no longer president, especially if Billary is in office.

There is no conspiracy, there was no conspiracy and there will be no conspiracy with the exception of those that have to find something other than what is presented to them.

[RkyMtnThunder]

There is no conspiracy, there was no conspiracy and there will be no conspiracy with the exception of those that have to find something other than what is presented to them.

Accepting what is presented with no 2nd guess?

This is a slave's mentality

[baja]

The amazing thing mhj is the chances of your scenario being right are greater than they being wrong in my mind at least.

[theAPAOps5]

mhg has posted so much crap out there that one of his things might actually be right and then he will be like ohohoh see I told you. Buts like buying $100 worth of lotto scratch tickets. You are going to get something but its minimalized by the fact that you spent $100.00. mhg has said so much stuff that its borderline worthless. Like Bob except I still think mhg has more credibility and he is nuts! ;D

[baja]

Seems to me he is saying 9/11 was a false flag and a desperate administration is preparing another false flag so they can say mission complete (attack Iran)

What else has he said?

[codeman]

Accepting what is presented with no 2nd guess?

This is a slave's mentality

From what I saw the second guessing arose long after the events of 9/11 and the videos I've seen as proof do not match the videos I taped live when the events were happening.

There were some subtle edits to the videos to prove their point. If you have to change history, at lease do it so it can't be detected.

Slaves mentality? I don't think so. Being able to see the lies of the conspiracy theorists is a prime factor for my beliefs. After all, they've been claiming mini-nukes for cripes sake. Even a small neutron bomb leaves a very tracible and substantial radiological footprint.

[theAPAOps5]

Seems to me he is saying 9/11 was a false flag and a desperate administration is preparing another false flag so they can say mission complete (attack Iran)

What else has he said?

Its mostly about 9/11. Supposedly Cheney was flying around in sooped up 747 and remotely flew the jet into the pentagon. Then mini nukes were used on the towers. The Russian general who said we are attacking Iran, but that was coberated by others so that is not a ding. Now Bush is going to become dictator after staging another attack. You can only cry wolf so many times.

[baja]

So he is throwing out possible theories as to how 9/11 was accomplished as a false flag orp. with some of them being far fetched. Is that a fair statement?

[Bob]

10 years from now after we are hit with something horrific, there will always be the blind minority who first think that aliens, or the ghost of JFK, or the developmentally disabled, yet selectively gifted ex-president Bush had a hand in the holy war against the West.

Freaking morons.

[baja]

10 years from now after we are hit with something horrific, there will always be the blind minority who first think that aliens, or the ghost of JFK, or the developmentally disabled, yet selectively gifted ex-president Bush had a hand in the holy war against the West.

Freaking morons.

Given current events how can you be so sure of this?

Do you not sometimes wonder what this administration is capable of?

Does not the fact that Pat Buchanan, a poster boy for conservatism is publicly questioning bushco's motives concern you in the least?

[mhgaffney]

Its mostly about 9/11. Supposedly Cheney was flying around in sooped up 747 and remotely flew the jet into the pentagon. Then mini nukes were used on the towers. The Russian general who said we are attacking Iran, but that was coberated by others so that is not a ding. Now Bush is going to become dictator after staging another attack. You can only cry wolf so many times.

Did you read the article Apa?

Roberts is merely pointing out the obvious. Bush's war in Iraq has doomed the neo cons to losing the next election. This is the standard group think. So why are the Bushes and Cheneys not in the least concerned?

Do you think maybe because they know something? Abother 911 and they can stampede the Amercan people to do whatever they want -- irregardless of the present polls

As for the sooped up 747 -- No you apparently don't read. Soon - I will post the stunning new CNN photos -- pulled from some raw 911 footage that's been gathering dust in the CNN archives for 6 years. It's never been on US TV or on the internet -- yet.

The footage proves that the world's most advanced warfare plane -- an E-4B - was circling above the White House on 911 at the time of the Pentagon attack.

Apa, Cheney wasn't in the E-4B -- he was in the White House bunker, where he reaffirmed the stand down order. This was heard by Norman Mineta, Secretary of Transportation. Mineta couldn't help but hear it -- he was standing right beside Cheney when it happened.

This is why Cheney did damage control very soon after 911 -- why? because Norman Mineta was a civil servant -- not a neo con -- hence could not be trusted.

The White House spun the story by lying about the time Cheney entered the bunker -- to morph the stand down order into a shoot down oder.

It's intersting how they did this. They claimed Cheney didn't arrive until 10 AM and that he was talking about Fl 93 -- not Fl 77. These are very sneaky bastards. They fed the lie to Bob Woodward at the Washinton Post who repprted exactly what they told him. Woodward -- recall -- was the hero of Watergate. Some hero -- mouthing propaganda about 9/11 as if it were real history. The purpose of the lie was to distance Cheney from what happened.


I found the spun story recently. It aired in the Wash Post in January 2002. This is the version that later was adopted as truth -- and became the basis for the 911 Commission Report. Read it yourself. Here's a link.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42754-2002Jan26.html

[yavoon]

I love the ass covering conspiracy nuttery.

"It is possible that Bush is now too weak, that suspicion is too great, and that there is too much internal resistance in the federal bureaucracy and military for any such scenario."

JUST INCASE U KNOW!

[codeman]

Did you read the article Apa?

Do you think maybe because they know something? Abother 911 and they can stampede the Amercan people to do whatever they want -- irregardless of the present polls

As for the sooped up 747 -- No you apparently don't read. Soon - I will post the stunning new CNN photos -- pulled from some raw 911 footage that's been gathering dust in the CNN archives for 6 years. It's never been on US TV or on the internet -- yet.

The footage proves that the world's most advanced warfare plane -- an E-4B - was circling above the White House on 911 at the time of the Pentagon attack.


New stunning photos that have been in the process of being edited to make the conspiracy seem truthful. What a crock of garbage.

What I find hard to believe is that so many people actually fall for this stuff. People that are supposed to be educated have taken the bait, hook line and sinker.

[TheDave]

http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f49/a1b2c3_Poster/tinfoilhat.jpg

[theAPAOps5]

Did you read the article Apa?

Roberts is merely pointing out the obvious. Bush's war in Iraq has doomed the neo cons to losing the next election. This is the standard group think. So why are the Bushes and Cheneys not in the least concerned?

Do you think maybe because they know something? Abother 911 and they can stampede the Amercan people to do whatever they want -- irregardless of the present polls

As for the sooped up 747 -- No you apparently don't read. Soon - I will post the stunning new CNN photos -- pulled from some raw 911 footage that's been gathering dust in the CNN archives for 6 years. It's never been on US TV or on the internet -- yet.

The footage proves that the world's most advanced warfare plane -- an E-4B - was circling above the White House on 911 at the time of the Pentagon attack.

Apa, Cheney wasn't in the E-4B -- he was in the White House bunker, where he reaffirmed the stand down order. This was heard by Norman Mineta, Secretary of Transportation. Mineta couldn't help but hear it -- he was standing right beside Cheney when it happened.

This is why Cheney did damage control very soon after 911 -- why? because Norman Mineta was a civil servant -- not a neo con -- hence could not be trusted.

The White House spun the story by lying about the time Cheney entered the bunker -- to morph the stand down order into a shoot down oder.

It's intersting how they did this. They claimed Cheney didn't arrive until 10 AM and that he was talking about Fl 93 -- not Fl 77. These are very sneaky bastards. They fed the lie to Bob Woodward at the Washinton Post who repprted exactly what they told him. Woodward -- recall -- was the hero of Watergate. Some hero -- mouthing propaganda about 9/11 as if it were real history. The purpose of the lie was to distance Cheney from what happened.


I found the spun story recently. It aired in the Wash Post in January 2002. This is the version that later was adopted as truth -- and became the basis for the 911 Commission Report. Read it yourself. Here's a link.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42754-2002Jan26.html

Gaff I have said I can see the current administration ignoring certain events and using things to their advantage. I can see them doing it again but I just don't buy into your theories I think they are borderline paranoia. Another reason the E-4B was up flying was b/c it was a national emergency. I just don't think it was an inside job. I find that laughable in fact.

[codeman]

http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f49/a1b2c3_Poster/tinfoilhat.jpg

Dave! That's an extremely good picture of you. The background could be better.

[W*GS]

That Roberts, in talking about 9/11, uses all the same nonsense that gaffe-ney has posed here time and again, makes his cred disintegrate.

[alkemical]

The probability of another terrorist attack is high. My opinion is that conspiracy theories will point them at the nearest person or administration that is available. I'll be interested to see the spin put on an attack that happens after GWB is no longer president, especially if Billary is in office.

There is no conspiracy, there was no conspiracy and there will be no conspiracy with the exception of those that have to find something other than what is presented to them.

Oh i guess maybe chertoff's "gut feeling" comment followed up by the Fed's drill won't ease anything.

Besides, conspiracy is just another word for coalition.

[mhgaffney]

From Apa's commments -- and from others it's clear many people still don't understand how the official 911 narrative was born. I mean the official version of events.

The Washington Post played a key role in this. No one reads it outside the beltway -- but the Post is an important paper, nonetheless, because it reflects the US government position.

Here, for example, is the version of Cheney's 911 role as reported by Bob Woodward in the Post in January 2002. According to Woodward's story, the following occurred at 9:55 AM, when Cheney supposedly arrived in the White House bunker.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42754-2002Jan26_4.html

I'm bolding the verbatim text:

In the White House bunker, a military aide approached the vice president.

"There is a plane 80 miles out," he said. "There is a fighter in the area. Should we engage?"

"Yes," Cheney replied without hesitation.

Around the vice president, Rice, deputy White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Cheney's chief of staff, tensed as the military aide repeated the question, this time with even more urgency. The plane was now 60 miles out. "Should we engage?" Cheney was asked.

"Yes," he replied again.

As the plane came closer, the aide repeated the question. Does the order still stand?

"Of course it does," Cheney snapped.

The vice president said later that it had seemed "painful, but nonetheless clear-cut. And I didn't agonize over it."

But Woodward did no research of his own. He merely regurgitated what his sources at the White House told him. Woodward's 2002 book, BUSH AT WAR, has not even one footnote. Clearly, the White House used Woodward as a mouth piece to rewrite history, in order to protect Cheney.

The cover up was necessary -- because Norman Mineta just happened to be in the bunker -- and the neo cons were aware that he heard the incriminating exchange with the young man, which Mineta later duly reported to the 911 Commission. Here is the video of Mineta's testimony before the commission in May 2003. Compare the following with the manufactured Post account above. Mineta makes it clear that Cheney arrived by 9:20 AM -- much earlier -- and that the exchange had to do with Fl 77 -- NOT fL 93. In other words, it was a stand down order -- NOT a shoot down order.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUqbOgFiPDI

Yet, Mineta's testimony was excluded from the 911 commission report. Instead the commission embraced Woodward's version of the same events. This is how the cover up was born.

[mhgaffney]

New stunning photos that have been in the process of being edited to make the conspiracy seem truthful. What a crock of garbage.

What I find hard to believe is that so many people actually fall for this stuff. People that are supposed to be educated have taken the bait, hook line and sinker.

The jpgs we pulled are too large for this board -- or I would have posted them already.

But soon the complete CNN video will be posted on the internet. At that point I will post a link here so you can watch it. This is unedited footage from 911. It proves that the world's most advanced electronic warfare plane circled over Washington at the time of the Pentagon strike.

It will be fun to watch codeman eat his own words.

[Hotrod]

Geez Mini-nukes do you actually believe even half the crap you post? If so surely you have a underground bunker under your house and some spare duct tape. Can you give us your address just incase we need to go underground with you someday Ha!

[Garcia Bronco]

The probablity of a terrorist attack in this country is low. statistically speaking Americans have a better chance of getting struck by lightning.

[alkemical]

Garcia, you aren't scared of the boogey man?

[TheDave]

The probablity of a terrorist attack in this country is low. statistically speaking Americans have a better chance of getting struck by lightning.

and eaten by a shark in the same day...

[alkemical]

and eaten by a shark in the same day...

that had fricken laser beams attatched to its head....

[TheDave]

that had fricken laser beams attatched to its head....

Exactly... and you sig is by Calvin Coolidge ;)

[alkemical]

Exactly... and you sig is by Calvin Coolidge ;)

Coolidge may have said it as well, but i have a book where regardie states it. since i received it first from regardie's books - that's why i cite him.

[Garcia Bronco]

Also women over the age of 40 have a better change of getting married.

[theAPAOps5]

The jpgs we pulled are too large for this board -- or I would have posted them already.

But soon the complete CNN video will be posted on the internet. At that point I will post a link here so you can watch it. This is unedited footage from 911. It proves that the world's most advanced electronic warfare plane circled over Washington at the time of the Pentagon strike.

It will be fun to watch codeman eat his own words.

You can resize pictures, or crop them to show this super plane. But still it doesn't say anything except a plane was circling D.C. You know that day there were TONs of planes circling all the major airports. You see you have to circle in a holding pattern to land when the airports are getting inundated with traffic the likes of 9/11. Nice try though.

[Garcia Bronco]

You can resize pictures, or crop them to show this super plane. But still it doesn't say anything except a plane was circling D.C. You know that day there were TONs of planes circling all the major airports. You see you have to circle in a holding pattern to land when the airports are getting inundated with traffic the likes of 9/11. Nice try though.

You folks might as well consider Apa a SME(subject matter expert) on the goings on of airports

[mhgaffney]

Originally Posted by ApaOps5:
You can resize pictures, or crop them to show this super plane. But still it doesn't say anything except a plane was circling D.C. You know that day there were TONs of planes circling all the major airports. You see you have to circle in a holding pattern to land when the airports are getting inundated with traffic the likes of 9/11. Nice try though.

Apa, you are apparently unaware that the airspace over Washington is very tightly restricted. In fact, it’s probably the most restricted airspace on the planet. The prohibited zone is known as area P-56 and extends out seventeen miles in all directions from the Washington Monument. The zone includes the Pentagon and virtually the entire Washington metropolitan area. It is more restricted than standard restricted FAA commercial air space, and is closely monitored by a joint FAA/Secret Service radar facility located at Langley, Virginia. An even larger scrambling zone known as the Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) extends out to fifty miles.

Every plane entering this area shows up immediately on FAA radar, and if not identified it will activate Washington’s air defenses. The Secret Service will also be alerted, because, according to multiple sources the Secret Service has a direct feed to FAA radar. This has been reported by the Washington Post, and by Richard A. Clark in his 9/11 memoir, Against All Enemies.

The core of P-56 is the most restricted zone of all, and is centered around the White House, stretching from the Potomac River to downtown Washington. A separate area known as P-56B surrounds the Vice Presidential mansion on the grounds of the Naval Observatory, located near Wisconsin Avenue. Other than approved flights, no aircraft may fly through these areas at less than 18,000 feet.

One of Washington’s perennial security problems has been the close proximity of the seat of government to Reagan National Airport, which is located in Arlington, just west of the Potomac. Reagan’s flight corridors follow the river, hence, adjoin the most stringently prohibited area. After a series of violations in the 1990s the FAA and Secret Service jointly conducted a security review and arrived at a memorandum of understanding. In 1996 a “P-56 Work Group” was also set up to review procedures and make recommendations, some of which were later implemented. Incidents continued, however. In July 1998 a scheduled American Airlines flight accidentally passed over the White House en route to Reagan Airport, prompting the airport manager to issue a stern warning to his flight controllers to “treat this area as a ‘Granite Mountain’ to be avoided in every possible way.” A similar letter was sent to pilots. Nevertheless, incidents continued in recent years.

The fact that the mystery plane spotted over the White House on 911 penetrated to the very core of P-56 raises obvious questions that the 9/11 Commission should have investigated. Yet, incredibly, the panel never once broached the issue. The 9/11 Commission Report makes no mention of the white plane, not even a passing remark in a footnote. Nor does it mention the news stories in the US press that reported the plane. The question that every American should be asking is: Why not?

There is no doubt the plane was an E-4B, the most advanced electronic warfare plane in existence.

Let me put it this way, Apa:

If the E-4B was on a legitimate mission, responding to terrorism -- as you suggest -- then why was it flying at tree top level? And why was it flying so slow? The E-4B is a Boeing 747 and cruises at 600 MPH. It also flies at 35,000-40,000 feet. What was it doing buzzing the White House?

Moreover, if it was on a legitimate mission -- then why was its presence expunged from the record?

If it was on a legitimate mission -- it should have been a part of the official record. Its presence would have boosted confidence in the US gov't and military. So why was it never mentioned in the 911 Commission Report? And why does the US Air Force deny to this day that it was present?

Some one is going to have a lot of explainng to do.

[Hotrod]

Originally Posted by ApaOps5:
You can resize pictures, or crop them to show this super plane. But still it doesn't say anything except a plane was circling D.C. You know that day there were TONs of planes circling all the major airports. You see you have to circle in a holding pattern to land when the airports are getting inundated with traffic the likes of 9/11. Nice try though.

Apa, you are apparently unaware that the airspace over Washington is very tightly restricted. In fact, it’s probably the most restricted airspace on the planet. The prohibited zone is known as area P-56 and extends out seventeen miles in all directions from the Washington Monument. The zone includes the Pentagon and virtually the entire Washington metropolitan area. It is more restricted than standard restricted FAA commercial air space, and is closely monitored by a joint FAA/Secret Service radar facility located at Langley, Virginia. An even larger scrambling zone known as the Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) extends out to fifty miles.

Every plane entering this area shows up immediately on FAA radar, and if not identified it will activate Washington’s air defenses. The Secret Service will also be alerted, because, according to multiple sources the Secret Service has a direct feed to FAA radar. This has been reported by the Washington Post, and by Richard A. Clark in his 9/11 memoir, Against All Enemies.

The core of P-56 is the most restricted zone of all, and is centered around the White House, stretching from the Potomac River to downtown Washington. A separate area known as P-56B surrounds the Vice Presidential mansion on the grounds of the Naval Observatory, located near Wisconsin Avenue. Other than approved flights, no aircraft may fly through these areas at less than 18,000 feet.

One of Washington’s perennial security problems has been the close proximity of the seat of government to Reagan National Airport, which is located in Arlington, just west of the Potomac. Reagan’s flight corridors follow the river, hence, adjoin the most stringently prohibited area. After a series of violations in the 1990s the FAA and Secret Service jointly conducted a security review and arrived at a memorandum of understanding. In 1996 a “P-56 Work Group” was also set up to review procedures and make recommendations, some of which were later implemented. Incidents continued, however. In July 1998 a scheduled American Airlines flight accidentally passed over the White House en route to Reagan Airport, prompting the airport manager to issue a stern warning to his flight controllers to “treat this area as a ‘Granite Mountain’ to be avoided in every possible way.” A similar letter was sent to pilots. Nevertheless, incidents continued in recent years.

The fact that the mystery plane spotted over the White House on 911 penetrated to the very core of P-56 raises obvious questions that the 9/11 Commission should have investigated. Yet, incredibly, the panel never once broached the issue. The 9/11 Commission Report makes no mention of the white plane, not even a passing remark in a footnote. Nor does it mention the news stories in the US press that reported the plane. The question that every American should be asking is: Why not?

There is no doubt the plane was an E-4B, the most advanced electronic warfare plane in existence.

Let me put it this way, Apa:

If the E-4B was on a legitimate mission, responding to terrorism -- as you suggest -- then why was it flying at tree top level? And why was it flying so slow? The E-4B is a Boeing 747 and cruises at 600 MPH. It also flies at 35,000-40,000 feet. What was it doing buzzing the White House?

Moreover, if it was on a legitimate mission -- then why was its presence expunged from the record?

If it was on a legitimate mission -- it should have been a part of the official record. Its presence would have boosted confidence in the US gov't and military. So why was it never mentioned in the 911 Commission Report? And why does the US Air Force deny to this day that it was present?

Some one is going to have a lot of explainng to do.

Geez man seriously have you ever

1. Read a fiction book
2. Watched TV/Movie
3. thrown a ball with your dog
4. gone fishing
5. taken in a sporting event
6. had sex

With all the time and energy you've spent chasing down conspiracy crap you could have had a full and enjoyable life.

Crap

[codeman]

The jpgs we pulled are too large for this board -- or I would have posted them already.

But soon the complete CNN video will be posted on the internet. At that point I will post a link here so you can watch it. This is unedited footage from 911. It proves that the world's most advanced electronic warfare plane circled over Washington at the time of the Pentagon strike.

It will be fun to watch codeman eat his own words.

Tell me what you think an electronic warfare plane does. I'm really curious here because I spent a considerable portion of my life working in electronic warfare and electronic intelligence.

I'll wait for you to eat your own words, but I'm sure that won't come from you.

[codeman]

The probablity (correct spelling probability) of a terrorist attack in this country is low. statistically speaking Americans have a better chance of getting struck by lightning.

Care to post the statistics that proves that point? Also, how about using s spell checker?

[Spider]

Tell me what you think an electronic warfare plane does. I'm really curious here because I spent a considerable portion of my life working in electronic warfare and electronic intelligence.

I'll wait for you to eat your own words, but I'm sure that won't come from you.
:rofl: whacking off on the throne to popular mechanics doesnt count kiddie

[Hotrod]

Tell me what you think an electronic warfare plane does. I'm really curious here because I spent a considerable portion of my life working in electronic warfare and electronic intelligence.

I'll wait for you to eat your own words, but I'm sure that won't come from you.

Well according to gaff it controls peoples brain waves. It also can trigger mini-nukes and is the devil invention of the evil Jews.

[Garcia Bronco]

Care to post the statistics that proves that point? Also, how about using s spell checker?

You can google it around. The bottom line is the chance is very close to zero. One article I read not to long ago list something like you are 200,000 times more likely to be in an auto accident.

[codeman]

You can google it around. The bottom line is the chance is very close to zero. One article I read not to long ago list something like you are 200,000 times more likely to be in an auto accident.

I thought maybe you pulled it out if your ass. No link, no credibility.

[codeman]

:rofl: whacking off on the throne to popular mechanics doesnt count kiddie

Care to discuss Electronic Warfare? I'm sure you haven't a clue as to what it is, in the air, on the sea, under the sea and on the ground.

Your insult only goes to prove you have nothing intelligent to say on the topic.

[Garcia Bronco]

I thought maybe you pulled it out if your ass. No link, no credibility.

It's out there. But the reality is that your chances of being killed by a terrorist is miniscule. Tiny. I think you know that. Don't believe me? That's fine. Do your research to say it's not true, because I also feel confident to say that everyone else here knows it.

[codeman]

It's out there. But the reality is that your chances of being killed by a terrorist is miniscule. Tiny. I think you know that. Don't believe me? That's fine. Do your research to say it's not true, because I also feel confident to say that everyone else here knows it.

That's not the point. The point is that you used a statistic in your point, I'd like to see your backup.

[Garcia Bronco]

That's not the point. The point is that you used a statistic in your point, I'd like to see your backup.

Well...I believe I read some where that in 2003 there were 170 terrorist attacks that killed 650 people world wide. So let's say that is the total number yearly in just the US. For the sake of argument we can multiple it times 10...for a total of 6500 deaths per year. That means there were 6500 people per 300,000,000. Now please....divide 6500 by 300,000,000. Yeah...that's right...it's about zero.

[codeman]

Well...I believe I read some where that in 2003 there were 170 terrorist attacks that killed 650 people world wide. So let's say that is the total number yearly in just the US. For the sake of argument we can multiple it times 10...for a total of 6500 deaths per year. That means there were 6500 people per 300,000,000. Now please....divide 6500 by 300,000,000. Yeah...that's right...it's about zero.

I read somewhere that all the statistics you pull out of your ass don't mean anything.

How about a link?

[mhgaffney]

Tell me what you think an electronic warfare plane does. I'm really curious here because I spent a considerable portion of my life working in electronic warfare and electronic intelligence.

I'll wait for you to eat your own words, but I'm sure that won't come from you.

I covered some of this two months ago in my post about the E-4B -- which you are welcome to read.

http://www.rense.com/general76/missing.htm

I have recently updated this article with much additional evidence -- including the new CNN photos -- and when it's posted I will provide a link.

The bottom line is this plane can fill in for the pentagon. It's a complete command control and communications platform. The E-4B can communicate with every US military command -- world wide -- including every plane, every missile, every sub.

These planes cost $800 million apiece. That's a lot of hardware. In 2005 Boeing received a contract from the Pentagon for a $2 billion upgrade. That's a lot of cash when you consider there are only 4 E-4Bs.

[Garcia Bronco]

I read somewhere that all the statistics you pull out of your ass don't mean anything.

How about a link?

You gotta look it up. I didn't read it on the internet. Would you like to double the number to 13,000 in the US? Divide 13,000 by 300,000,000 tell me what you get.....that's about zero. Do you think 13,000 people died in the US last year for terrorist attacks? Didn't happen.

[codeman]

I covered some of this two months ago in my post about the E-4B -- which you are welcome to read.

http://www.rense.com/general76/missing.htm

I have recently updated this article with much additional evidence -- including the new CNN photos -- and when it's posted I will provide a link.

The bottom line is this plane can fill in for the pentagon. It's a complete command control and communications platform. The E-4B can communicate with every US military command -- world wide -- including every plane, every missile, every sub.

These planes cost $800 million apiece. That's a lot of hardware. In 2005 Boeing received a contract from the Pentagon for a $2 billion upgrade. That's a lot of cash when you consider there are only 4 E-4Bs.

C3 planes are totally different from the Electronic Warfare arena. I'd still like to hear your definition of what you think Electronic Warfare is. Your deflection is telling me that you are just using terms you hear to confuse those that are not involved with the profession.

[codeman]

You gotta look it up. I didn't read it on the internet. Would you like to double the number to 13,000 in the US? Divide 13,000 by 300,000,000 tell me what you get.....that's about zero.

I'm not going to look up information to try to prove your point. YOUR job is to defend your comments. You have not done so. I suggest that you know the numbers are different enough to invalidate your claim.

Just post one single site that indicates that the chances of another Terrorist attack is anywhere in the vicinity of of the odds you threw out.

[Spider]

Care to discuss Electronic Warfare? I'm sure you haven't a clue as to what it is, in the air, on the sea, under the sea and on the ground.

Your insult only goes to prove you have nothing intelligent to say on the topic.

Much like your idiocy on other thread hey ....... electromagnitic waves used to gain intell on people , or it can be used in friendly way to help out allies Missing soldiers etc .........
yeah thought so , you dont know your ass from a hole in the ground

[Garcia Bronco]

I'm not going to look up information to try to prove your point. YOUR job is to defend your comments. You have not done so. I suggest that you know the numbers are different enough to invalidate your claim.

Just post one single site that indicates that the chances of another Terrorist attack is anywhere in the vicinity of of the odds you threw out.

Would you like to double the number again? You know damn well 13,000 people have not died in the US on US soil in the past decade. LOL

[Spider]

Would you like to double the number again? You know damn well 13,000 people have not died in the US on US soil in the past decade. LOL

LOL ....... well, they could have Hilarious!

[theAPAOps5]

Originally Posted by ApaOps5:
You can resize pictures, or crop them to show this super plane. But still it doesn't say anything except a plane was circling D.C. You know that day there were TONs of planes circling all the major airports. You see you have to circle in a holding pattern to land when the airports are getting inundated with traffic the likes of 9/11. Nice try though.

Apa, you are apparently unaware that the airspace over Washington is very tightly restricted. In fact, it’s probably the most restricted airspace on the planet. The prohibited zone is known as area P-56 and extends out seventeen miles in all directions from the Washington Monument. The zone includes the Pentagon and virtually the entire Washington metropolitan area. It is more restricted than standard restricted FAA commercial air space, and is closely monitored by a joint FAA/Secret Service radar facility located at Langley, Virginia. An even larger scrambling zone known as the Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ) extends out to fifty miles.


Wrong again genius. The day 9/11 happened none of these were in place. General Aviation could still land at Reagan National which as you apparently are unaware is right up the potomac from the mall. The only thing that was in place was the TFR ring around the White House and the Capital. The days after 9/11 happened was when p-56 when into place. To this day its impossible to get even a private jet into Reagan National because of the ADIZ and the TFR. In fact its only happened twice. Congressional members can't stand it as they have to go out to Dulles and then take the drive in.

And Garcia is right Aviation is my area of expertise. I have my degree in it and I its my job. If anyone caught the news they would have saw the plane on floats that landed on E-470. I was the first one on the scene. Here is a story:

http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=74032

[mhgaffney]

Wrong again genius. The day 9/11 happened none of these were in place. General Aviation could still land at Reagan National which as you apparently are unaware is right up the potomac from the mall. The only thing that was in place was the TFR ring around the White House and the Capital. The days after 9/11 happened was when p-56 when into place. To this day its impossible to get even a private jet into Reagan National because of the ADIZ and the TFR. In fact its only happened twice. Congressional members can't stand it as they have to go out to Dulles and then take the drive in.

And Garcia is right Aviation is my area of expertise. I have my degree in it and I its my job.


Ape, aviation may be your area of expertise -- but you are seriously mistaken about P-56. The restricted zone around Washington DC has been in place for many years -- since long before 911. Here is a 1998 story from the Washington Post describing it --

White House Overflights Breach Strict Security Zone; FAA Warns Pilots, Traffic Controllers

The Washington Post, September 21, 1998

by Don Phillips, Washington Post Staff Writer

An American Airlines jetliner flew directly over the White House two months ago, through some of the country's most sensitive restricted airspace, apparently because of a mix-up at Reagan National Airport's radar control facility.

The July 16 incident presented no danger to President Clinton or anyone else on the ground or in the air, and the aircraft was flying high enough that likely no one even noticed, other than air traffic controllers, the pilots and the Secret Service.

But it was one of a rapidly increasing number of White House airspace violations, which have more than doubled each year since fiscal 1996, despite precautions taken after a small plane struck the White House in 1994. The trend has concerned the Secret Service and the Federal Aviation Administration, leading to new warnings to pilots and a recommendation by a task force to update maps and make other changes at National. The American Airlines incident alone apparently has prompted the FAA to consider changes in procedures for one National landing pattern.

The incursions range from "minor clips" of the airspace during takeoff and landing to high-altitude overflights by military, commercial and private planes. A moment of inattention or even an unexpected gust of wind can propel an aircraft into the fringes of the area.

Nevertheless, the issue is considered extremely sensitive by the FAA and the Secret Service, even though at the moment no one will officially label the overflights either a safety issue or a security problem. Neither the FAA nor the Secret Service will discuss any aspect of the protected airspace other than to confirm its boundaries, which are printed on publicly available maps. Neither agency would offer an explanation for the increase in intrusions.

The FAA has become sufficiently worried about continuing violations that it has sent memos reminding various aviation groups to avoid the area. The agency also has admonished controllers at National to do more to ensure that planes do not stray into the restricted area. This, in turn, has fueled a bitter labor dispute in which National's traditionally combative air traffic controllers union has claimed that local management is ignoring a union plan to solve the problem because it would cost money.

The restricted airspace, known as Area P-56, stretches from the north bank of the Potomac River to downtown Washington and from the Capitol to the Lincoln Memorial. A separate small, circular area, P-56B, surrounds Vice President Gore's residence on the grounds of the Naval Observatory off upper Wisconsin Avenue. Other than approved aircraft movements, such as helicopter flights ferrying Clinton to Andrews Air Force Base or Camp David, no aircraft may fly through this area at less than 18,000 feet.

On March 4, the manager of the National Airport tower, Boyd V. Archer, issued a memo to all personnel warning controllers to "treat this area as a 'Granite Mountain' to be avoided in every possible way."

On July 1, the tower issued a letter to pilots saying that "avoidance of Prohibited Areas P-56A and P-56B is an essential and serious aspect of operating in the vicinity of Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport."

The FAA and the Secret Service have declined to release documents and other material concerning the airspace that would normally be public. FAA documents provided by sources outside official channels, however, shed some light on the growing problem.

According to the documents, there were 13 incursions in fiscal 1996, six of them involving commercial air carriers. There were 27 incursions in fiscal 1997, nine of them involving air carriers. And in the first 4 1/2 months of fiscal 1998, there were 20 incursions, five of them involving air carriers.

The issue is sensitive not because of innocent mistakes by pilots or controllers but because of the ongoing threat of terrorism.

There have been serious threats to the White House from the air, the most dramatic coming on Feb. 22, 1974, when Samuel J. Byck, an unemployed Philadelphia salesman, attempted to hijack a Delta Air Lines jet at Baltimore-Washington International Airport. Byck killed an airport guard and the plane's co-pilot. A police officer shot Byck in the chest, and Byck then fired a bullet into his own head.

Byck's plan to crash the aircraft into the White House was revealed in letters and tape recordings he mailed to public officials just before the hijack attempt.

On Sept. 12, 1994, Frank Corder of Aberdeen, Md., stole a single-engine Cessna from an airfield near Baltimore and crashed it onto the White House lawn, slightly damaging the executive mansion. Corder, high on alcohol and cocaine, was killed.

The Corder incident shocked both the Secret Service and the FAA because no one apparently had a clue the plane was coming until it was in sight over the White House lawn at about 1:49 a.m. Late at night the National tower has little air traffic to control and only a skeleton staff, and controllers apparently were not looking at radar screens. Officials later discovered that a special telephone link from the tower to the White House was broken that night, even if someone had tried to use it.

After a security review the two agencies developed a "memorandum of understanding" about air security threats. That document, in a red envelope marked secret, is locked in a safe.

Then-FAA administrator David Hinson refused to discuss the memorandum at the time, but on Oct. 8, 1994, he told reporters that if there had been a security coordination problem, "the problem has been addressed."

The Secret Service will not discuss what equipment it may have in the White House to monitor air traffic in the vicinity. But numerous sources said they believe the agency has a radar "repeater" allowing agents to watch radar images piped in from nearby FAA locations. Aviation sources said the agency now sometimes calls about airspace intrusions even before the FAA has noticed the violation took place.

The trend toward more violations became evident in 1996 and took a sharp upturn during late 1997 and early this year.

A "P-56 Work Group" was formed in November 1996, made up of representatives of the FAA, the Air Line Pilots Association, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, American Airlines, United Airlines, the U.S. Park Police, and the Secret Service. The group later added mapping and charting companies and the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority.

The group developed a number of recommendations, most involving special warning language on charts and maps, as well as runway warning signs. Most of these recommendations are now being implemented.

A Feb. 23, 1998, FAA memo, made available to The Post by aviation sources, noted that "the number of aircraft incursions into this airspace has increased dramatically over the last two years and continues to escalate." Most of the 60 incursions during that two-year period -- 87 percent -- involved the tricky approach and departure route to the north of the National airport.

According to FAA documents, about half of the incursions involve corporate aircraft and a much smaller number involve commercial airliners, making the July 16 incident involving the American Airlines McDonnell Douglas MD-80, as well as a June 5 overflight above the vice president's home by a Boeing 737 jet flown by another airline, relatively unusual.

In light of the American Airlines incident, sources said the FAA is considering a change in National's procedures. The American jet was approaching from the south, and air traffic controllers were supposed to give the pilot a left turn toward Great Falls, where the jet was to have turned downriver to land from the north.

For reasons still being investigated, the controller did not turn the aircraft even though the pilot reminded the controller that he should be turning. Following standard procedure, the American pilot remained at 10,000 feet and flew directly over the airport. By the time controllers realized their mistake, it was too late to prevent a White House overflight.

Sources said one possible new procedure for such approaches would be for pilots to make the turn at a set point south of the airport, even if there is no contact with controllers.

The incident was considered especially unusual because it appears to have been a mistake by controllers, called an "operational error." Almost all incursions involve pilot error.

FAA air traffic managers and the National Airport local of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA) now are battling over what to do about Area P-56. The labor-management dispute, which erupted early this year with an increasingly bitter exchange of letters between the union and local FAA management, has reached the desk of FAA Administrator Jane Garvey.

Andrew G. Acres, facility representative for the controllers union at National, charged that local FAA management is more interested in disciplining controllers than in solving the problem. Acres wrote Garvey on March 9, saying: "We realize that we are stepping outside the chain of command. However, we believe no one else within the FAA will listen."

Acres said the NATCA plan will cost money but will eliminate the problem. He said the FAA should assign an extra controller on each shift to do nothing but monitor the restricted area and steer aircraft away from it. Under current procedures it is solely the responsibility of the pilot to avoid the airspace, although controller mistakes can sometimes lead to violations.

To fix the problem, "you have to eliminate it," Acres said. "And the only way to eliminate it is staffing." Under current procedures, he said, "it's set up for failure."

The FAA would not discuss the NATCA plan.
Copyright 1998 The Washington Post

[theAPAOps5]

Yes you are right on the naming and like I said there have been restrictions for years around the white house, capital, and I forgot the VPs house. But the more restricted ADIZ and the expansion that you referenced is what was put in place after 9/11. And you know this point doesn't even prove anything. Commercial airplanes on a flight plan and assigned a squak code can penetrate that conus. If that wasn't the case then Reagan National wouldn't even be able to operate.

[mhgaffney]

Yes you are right on the naming and like I said there have been restrictions for years around the white house, capital, and I forgot the VPs house. But the more restricted ADIZ and the expansion that you referenced is what was put in place after 9/11. And you know this point doesn't even prove anything. Commercial airplanes on a flight plan and assigned a squak code can penetrate that conus. If that wasn't the case then Reagan National wouldn't even be able to operate.

You got a source on this, Apa?

We don't decide matters around here based on mere opinions. If you have some documentation please post it.

[mhgaffney]

Here's the low down on ADIZ. This comes from the FAA site.

Thanks for the correction, Apa.

http://www.faa.gov/news/news_home/visual_warning/

Visual Warning System for The Washington Air Defense Identification Zone

Special Notice

A new warning signal for communicating with aircraft is being deployed within the Washington D.C. metropolitan area Air Defense Identification Zone (DC ADIZ,) including the Flight Restricted Zone (FRZ.) The anticipated operational date is May 21, 2005. The signal consists of highly focused red and green colored lights in an alternating red/ red/green signal pattern. This signal may be directed at specific aircraft suspected of making unauthorized entry into the ADIZ/FRZ and are on a heading or flight path that may be interpreted as a threat or that operate contrary to the operating rules for the ADIZ/FRZ.

The beam is not injurious to the eyes of pilots/aircrews or passengers, regardless of altitude or distance from the source. If you are in communication with Air Traffic Control (ATC) and this signal is directed at your aircraft, we advise you to immediately communicate with ATC that you are being illuminated by a visual warning signal. If this signal is directed at you and you are not communicating with ATC, we advise you to turn to a heading away from the center of the FRZ/ADIZ as soon as possible and immediately contact ATC on an appropriate frequency, or if unsure of the frequency, contact ATC on VHF guard 121.5 or UHF guard 243.0.

Be advised that failure to follow the recommended procedures outlined above may result in interception by military aircraft and/or the use of force. This notice applies to all aircraft operating within the ADIZ, including Department of Defense, law enforcement, and aeromedical operations. This notice does not change procedures established for reporting unauthorized laser illumination as published in advisory circular 70-2.

[mhgaffney]

My mistake. It looks like ADIZ was created in 2003. For once, Wikipedia appears to be authoritative. MHG

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Defense_Identification_Zone

[mhgaffney]

Here's an even better source:

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/air_traffic/adiz.html

[theAPAOps5]

My mistake. It looks like ADIZ was created in 2003. For once, Wikipedia appears to be authoritative. MHG

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Defense_Identification_Zone

Exactly, I wasn't disputing there have been flight restrictions over areas of importance in D.C. It all stemmed when the dude flew into the white house during the Reagan years. But the ADIZ is a newly formed entity and AOPA really pushed to get it less restrictive based on what was proposed. Flight Schools on the East coast even have rules for their membership that forbid them to fly into the Washington D.C. area based on this ADIZ.

[mhgaffney]

Exactly, I wasn't disputing there have been flight restrictions over areas of importance in D.C. It all stemmed when the dude flew into the white house during the Reagan years. But the ADIZ is a newly formed entity and AOPA really pushed to get it less restrictive based on what was proposed. Flight Schools on the East coast even have rules for their membership that forbid them to fly into the Washington D.C. area based on this ADIZ.

I have acknowledged errors in the past -- on this board -- and that will continue to be the case. My purpose is to discover the truth about what happened on 911 -- since we've been lied to every step of the way.

BTW -- my paper on the E-4B will be going up in an on line journal in a day or so -- including the latest CNN photos. They are untouched -- simply pulled from the raw CNN footage.

I have deleted mention of ADIZ -- and I thank Apa for this heads up. However this minor correction changes nothing of substance. We know that the FAA tracked both FL 77 and Fl 93 on radar on 911. Moreover, the Secret Service was also in the loop.

Only a stand down order prevented FL 77 from being intercepted by fighters or missiles.

[mhgaffney]

Tell me what you think an electronic warfare plane does. I'm really curious here because I spent a considerable portion of my life working in electronic warfare and electronic intelligence.



Many on this board would love to hear what you know about electronic warfare. I know I would.

So tell us...

[theAPAOps5]

The changing FAA rules and regulations makes it easy to misquote yourself or be wrong. Heck my job is to follow all the regulations and I have trouble every day sorting through their rule making. It doesn't change my mind that you are wrong on your theory. But I do appreciate you admitted you were wrong. Many people can't do that.