Originally posted by Spoodily
You must look at any media source's owner to judge its credibilty.

Popular Mechanics is owned by Hearst Communications, Inc.

Hearst Communications, Inc. was founded by William Randolph Hearst.

William Randolph Hearst went to Harvard and was a member of Delta Kappa Epsilon (ΔΚΕ or Dekes).

Delta Kappa Epsilon was founded at Yale College on June 22, 1844.

Five Presidents of the United States were Delta Kappa Epsilon members: Rutherford B. Hayes, Theodore Roosevelt, Gerald Ford, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush.

These are the basics, I'll let you research more on your own.

I'm not going to weigh in on the topic of conversation here--I'll leave that for those more interested. But this comment presents an attenuated connection that contributes nothing to the argument. Are we really going to judge a magazine because of its connection to Rutherford B. Hayes, who was president in 1881? And even if the Bushes were in this fraternity, can you provide evidence that they met and or shared a similar ideological framework because of their involvement in the fraternity? And even if so, can you show that his opinions directly translate into content of the magazine? We can do better than this....

[edit on 6/14/2007 by Togetic]

the words used by them are 100% correct . and that mag is no rag ,
they only print what can be proven , unlike the truth virus .

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
Snoopy: check the first link - see if that jogs your thinking at all. Maybe not. But they knew to take off, it was not offshore, they'd discussed shootdowns over the Stewart case, they would've on 9/11... somehow it was all there, it just didn't come together.

Except that they're trying to use a KNOWN hijacking (AA11) to show that they had other interceptions over the mainland. Payne Stewart's plane was intercepted because there happened to be an F-16 in the area, they weren't talking to the tower, and they were WAY off course. At the time they got the alert fighters ready to launch on 9/11 they already KNEW the plane was hijacked, the pilot even said "We had a hijacked airliner" in his quote, so the response would have been different in that situation. There really WEREN'T many, if any, intercepts over the mainland prior to 9/11. The only one that I know for certain of, or could find any information on was Payne Stewart. It's actually VERY common to have to scramble to intercept in the ADIZ zone. We used to have them go off 2-3 times a month during a slow month when we lived near Hickam AFB.

Since when is Popular Mechanics a legal and legit investigating agency for 911.

The only real investigation agency is the FBI with technical help from the NTSB. We have not seen any crime scene reports from them.

Originally posted by Togetic

Originally posted by Spoodily
You must look at any media source's owner to judge its credibilty.

Popular Mechanics is owned by Hearst Communications, Inc.

Hearst Communications, Inc. was founded by William Randolph Hearst.

William Randolph Hearst went to Harvard and was a member of Delta Kappa Epsilon (ΔΚΕ or Dekes).

Delta Kappa Epsilon was founded at Yale College on June 22, 1844.

Five Presidents of the United States were Delta Kappa Epsilon members: Rutherford B. Hayes, Theodore Roosevelt, Gerald Ford, George H. W. Bush, and George W. Bush.

These are the basics, I'll let you research more on your own.

I'm not going to weigh in on the topic of conversation here--I'll leave that for those more interested. But this comment presents an attenuated connection that contributes nothing to the argument. Are we really going to judge a magazine because of its connection to Rutherford B. Hayes, who was president in 1881? And even if the Bushes were in this fraternity, can you provide evidence that they met and or shared a similar ideological framework because of their involvement in the fraternity? And even if so, can you show that his opinions directly translate into content of the magazine? We can do better than this....

[edit on 6/14/2007 by Togetic]

The point is that Popular Mechanics is not an unbiased magazine. When a media outlet has an opinion, it is no longer free press. History is determined by the winner, or people in power.

I don't know of many fraternities that have that kind of clout.

Originally posted by snoopy

Once again. Didn't say it was offshore. Said it took over an hour and a half to intercept. Longer than the time they had on 9/11. Or maybe that part wasn't jogged in your memory?

I guess all I meant to show was the article's explanation was weak.

"in the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999 […] it took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach the stricken jet. […] Prior to 9/11, all other NORAD interceptions were limited to offshore Air Defense Identification Zones (ADIZ). [...] "Until 9/11 there was no domestic ADIZ," FAA spokesman Bill Schumann told the magazine."

So was there no intercept protocol over the mainland at all? They don't really say. Just it only happened over the cntinent once, otherise only in offshare ADIZ, and there's no continental ADIZ. This shows little in itself, whatever other sources may explain it better. The pilots knew to get suitd up tho to intercept, if not shoot down, a trans-continental flight that was hijacked. Was he just guessing at this response?

Otis ppilot on ready status 9/11, "Duff"

“they said the Tower calling and something about a hijacking. It was flight American 11, a 767, out of Boston going to California. At the time we ran in and got suited up… It's just peacetime. We're not thinking anything real bad is going to happen out there.”

The mag's implication I guess is that the Stewart case was just improvised up to and including shoot-down talk, but when weaponized airliner/missiles are prowling to sky, they can't think of any such things? All just baffled about how new and unprecedented it is? They did get fighters up in a matter of minutes, and they could've been there in a matter of minutes, informed what was going on, and given the authorization to fire. one of these happened.
ETA: Typo - I meant none of these happened.

And are you suggesting that had they shot down the planes that you wouldn't think there was a conspiracy? Somehow I seem to think a lot of people here would be claiming it was shot down on purpose as part of a conspiracy. Either way you get to win right?

Fair enough - it is kind of a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario. Many people would see sinister motives even in a shoot-down, if the Powers That Be leveraged it like they did the fully realized 9/11. It wouldn't go as far psychologically, so they'd be damned less but also blessed less, and many would be wondering how it got to that point where we had to shoot down airliners and then go confron the terrorist threat. I'd think the first and probably second impcts were too fast to have stopped, but the Pentagon's not being defended is what's truly odd, and I think most people would have understood after the towers were hit.

It would be great if Snafu could chime in again since he was an ATC working on 9/11 and understands very well how these things work. He's done a great job of explaining it in the past.

I'd value any input. I'm still open-minded.

[edit on 18-6-2007 by Caustic Logic]

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Payne Stewart's plane was intercepted because there happened to be an F-16 in the area, they weren't talking to the tower, and they were WAY off course.

Really? then why did it take an hour and a half to get there? (see other counter-arguments). And when they discussed shoot-down in that case, was this protocol for derelict craft? Or was it an on-the fly improvised strategy?

At the time they got the alert fighters ready to launch on 9/11 they already KNEW the plane was hijacked, the pilot even said "We had a hijacked airliner" in his quote, so the response would have been different in that situation.

Different like escort to the nerest runway? Might've been true until 8:46 when we knew we were dealing with impact-destined suicide hijackings. So what's the respons then? None? No foresight? No plans? No protocol or improv like in the Stewart case? I don't have the nswers here, just the questions.

There really WEREN'T many, if any, intercepts over the mainland prior to 9/11. The only one that I know for certain of, or could find any information on was Payne Stewart. It's actually VERY common to have to scramble to intercept in the ADIZ zone. We used to have them go off 2-3 times a month during a slow month when we lived near Hickam AFB.

I have no doubt of that, but I find it at least as likely that intercepts were more common over the mainland than once, but remained discrete, from distance, and were usually not reported. PM being geared towards aviation in both content and sponsorship, might want to continue this trend. To help keep the flying public from panicking, possibly to help keep some shoot-down related secret of 9/11 covered up, or for whatever motive, they may have chosen to downplay the issue to the point of irrelevance.

There's been a lot of confusion on the time it took for them to finally intercept the Lear in the Payne Stewart incident. Everyone says an hour and a half, but it was only four hours from take off to crash. They crashed in North Dakota, but were intercepted in the Alabama area. I don't see how it could have taken them 1 1/2 to get to Alabama, and then less than 2 1/2 to get to North Dakota. The plane should have been farther North than that by 1 1/2 hours.

As for them talking about shooting it down, they were looking at where it might come down. They were more concerned about it crashing into a populated area and killing a lot of people than anything else with the plane.

Yeah, like escorting them to where they landed. Once they knew they were going to crash them, then things DID change, but the time they had between crashes was pretty small, with the exception of 93.

Intercepts over the mainland were usually of the "You're flying into restricted airspace" kind. Many of them as soon as ATC got after the pilot they turned, a few actually had to be intercepted and immediately turned away and landed somewhere, and were met by the FAA.

since there's a lot of back & forth about the 'intercept' protocols


take a look back to the Flight 800 'explosion' off NY , back in 1996

also look at the Egypt Air 990 'intentional crash' off Mass, back in 1999


both those incidents were determined to Not have been 'shoot-downs...but i'm convinced that the official versions were fabrications...

and there were procedures to be followed when known hijackings were
in progress,
it just happens the 2 incidents cited (flights 800, 990) were over the ocean,
so that took away the restraint of felling a plane over populated areas !

there are contingency plans for just about every imaginable scenario out there................its a matter of 'mild' cover-up, to just claim bureaucratic
communication fowl-ups and such for the "CYA" that was the operative 'watch-word' for the day!

They didn't think of suicide hijackings, because they had never happened before. The only ones that were planned, they tried to take over the planes on the ground and they never got airborne.

Christmas Eve 1994 - GIA takes over and flies a plane from Algiers to Marseilles, killed as they re-fueled, but the plane was to keep flying right to Paris and into the Eiffel Tower. Ethipoia - '96? Suicide hijackers fly a plane with pilots still present, towards a resort but pilts manage to drive the plane into the water instead. Most onboard die. Many other attempts thwarted earlier, on the ground or before the plane, dating back decades and all over the world.

The most unique thing about 9/11 in this regard is that it was in fact NOT thwarted at all by anyone except apparently in the case of Flight 93.

And it's just oops, oops, no imagination, cold war mindset, oops, intel "wall," bureaucracy, oops. oops. New American Century. Ah well, here we go.

Sorry Caustic, but as much as I enjoy discussing things with you I'm gonna have to put this one on hold a day or two. I was on my feet a lot this weekend (first time for any length of time in two weeks. I'm not bouncing back nearly as well as we hoped) and it's catching up to me today. I'd rather wait until I'm feeling well enough to put more than a token effort into things.

[edit on 6/18/2007 by Zaphod58]

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Sorry Caustic, but as much as I enjoy discussing things with you I'm gonna have to put this one on hold a day or two. I was on my feet a lot this weekend (first time for any length of time in two weeks. I'm not bouncing back nearly as well as we hoped) and it's catching up to me today. I'd rather wait until I'm feeling well enough to put more than a token effort into things.

[edit on 6/18/2007 by Zaphod58]

Sorry, I forgot about that. Hope you're well, meant to U2U you but remembered this was open with the ball in my court. I might've let it go, but that descriptor "thread killer extraoaordinaire" kept egging me on. I fancy myself a threadkiller too to some extent, and we've often been on the same side. I always knew it's get serious if we came to a disagreement.

Anyway, I could be wrong anyway, just letting you know where I'm coming from. Let's let it sit for now. Rest up. Protein and citrus. And Qi. Or Chai. Or whatever. Ninja wisdom, and you will heal perfectly and then perhaps help me understand.

It is getting very uninteresting to read this forum these days. I mean, this PM article dates from march 2005 and has been discussed to death. There's even a book about it.

Does the OP really believe he is bringing anything new to the debate? It's like that guy on another thread who is summarising Loose Change. Come on people. Please read a little on the subject before posting and wasting everybody's time.

Just my 2 cents.