tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23873592.post8398895284776527073..comments2024-03-13T21:36:56.949-04:00Comments on StevenWarRan: The Earliest Matthew Wald in the New York Times on Flight ControlStevenWarRanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18193717919946639619noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23873592.post-65298992572787867422009-01-08T22:34:00.000-05:002009-01-08T22:34:00.000-05:00Am I reading this right? You guys are responding/ ...Am I reading this right? You guys are responding/ commenting on an article written for a paper back in 2001? Yes?<BR/>You do realize that it was all mis/disinformation, weather purposely or not by the reporter. If you want to look into something, look into who had access to the FAA computer systems the year prior. There were no planes involved.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23873592.post-9808064586679347972009-01-07T20:54:00.000-05:002009-01-07T20:54:00.000-05:00Binoculars from La Guardia? Impossible! Just look ...Binoculars from La Guardia? Impossible! Just look at a map. Kennedy? Perhaps.<BR/><BR/>I'll start working on a "StevenWarRan For Dummies" synthesis at once sir, thank you very much for the suggestion.StevenWarRanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18193717919946639619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23873592.post-59647935512577689082009-01-06T20:22:00.000-05:002009-01-06T20:22:00.000-05:00The line about flight 93 being headed for the Pent...The line about flight 93 being headed for the Pentagon is rather cryptic-- not clear if it's a mistake or an insinuation that they thought 93 was headed for the Pentagon. I've seen that line referenced before with regard to flight 93 research. It's basically intriguing but not proof of anything.<BR/><BR/>There are some other interesting points-- the binoculars witnessing flight 175-- a lie? Or were they just fooled by a fly-by?<BR/><BR/>I certainly agree with you about Israel--- nasty shit going on.<BR/><BR/>Btw, do you have any sort of summary of what you've found in your Pentagon research- putting all the stuff together in one place?spookedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08266697181345871878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23873592.post-3534276093851091462009-01-05T22:20:00.000-05:002009-01-05T22:20:00.000-05:00Well, spooked, how about the third paragraph? Wald...Well, spooked, how about the third paragraph? Wald's central poin---the one that goes,<BR/><BR/>"In contrast, controllers at the Washington Air Route Traffic Control Center had much more warning that something was wrong. Those controllers, who handled American Airlines Flight 77, which dived into the Pentagon, knew about the hijacking of the first plane to crash, even before it hit the World Trade Center, those involved said. That was more than an hour before they watched another hijacked plane, United Flight 93, cross their radar screen on its way to the Pentagon."<BR/><BR/>Don't you think that time frame's spaciousness indicts whatever supposed system was in place pre-9/11? <BR/><BR/>Of course, the mix up between 93/77 only adds to the allure of the mystery, because the real Flight 93 was over an hour and 15 minutes from its terminal descent. Wald, in his article from the 15th has Flight 77 crashing at 9:45am, fact remnants from the big event/little event scenario, which is how many if not most Pentagon employees experienced the attack---as multi sraged. <BR/><BR/>Then I like it when they get testy:<BR/><BR/>"Another controller said: 'They dove into the airspace. By the time anybody saw anything, it was over.'"<BR/><BR/>As if a commercial jetliner could fly high enough above the average to remain undetected by the usual methods, (maybe? I don't know,) then effect a perilous dive bombing descent pattern, only to level off to hit the building, maybe even with a slight up-tick to its attitude, judging by the immaculate ground floor slab (and we know what lies underneath that, don't we?) <BR/><BR/>Then, there's the New York area controllers, who's first sight was through a pair of binoculars, or a television screen? Don't they have high-tech radar to monitor? Even as their field was so compartmentalized, can an errant aircraft (big, now. BIG) just fly into their airspace without notice, let alone comment?<BR/><BR/>And yes, the Camp David angle is as yet still properly unplumbed. I should think Jewish and Neo-con elements, both within and without the government, tried to co-opt the enterprise from the Enron/Afghani pipeline/heroin/mid-Asia bases, Bush/Cheney plan to some sort of leverage vis-a-vis the Palestinians. Actually, it's impossible to get my head around Jewish thinking---I find it so patently insane, as evidenced by Israel's recent performance. They no longer care what the world thinks of them. I think that presupposes some pretty heavy end-time scenarios afoot. <BR/><BR/>Sorry to go on, but you asked.StevenWarRanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18193717919946639619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23873592.post-52735348943475476832009-01-05T20:55:00.000-05:002009-01-05T20:55:00.000-05:00The Camp David bit is fascinating, but beyond that...The Camp David bit is fascinating, but beyond that, it's not clear what you find so striking here.spookedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08266697181345871878noreply@blogger.com