New 9/11 Timeline Entries: Nuclear War Exercise on 9/11, NORAD Commanders’ Delayed Response to Attacks, and More

From the History Commons Groups blog:

Numerous new entries have been added to the Complete 9/11 Timeline at History Commons, many of which deal with the US military’s actions around the time of–and in response to–the 9/11 attacks, while other new entries provide important information about the military’s responses to suspicious aircraft prior to 9/11.

New timeline entries describe how NORAD–the military organization responsible for defending US airspace–regularly launched fighter jets in response to suspicious aircraft in the years before 9/11, with fighters able to take off within minutes of a scramble order.

Other new entries describe a large Russian military exercise that began the day before 9/11 and was monitored by NORAD fightersthat were deployed to Alaska and Northern Canada. The Russians promptly called off their exercise in response to the attacks in the US on September 11. As well as monitoring this Russian exercise, on September 11, personnel at the NORAD operations center in Cheyenne Mountain, Colorado, were participating in the annual training exercise Vigilant Guardian, which has been described as a “full-blown nuclear war” exercise.

New timeline entries also examine in detail the actions on September 11 of two key NORAD officials: Robert Marr, the battle commander at NORAD’s Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS), and Larry Arnold, the commander of the Continental United States NORAD Region (CONR). After these two men spoke over the phone about the day’s exercise, Arnold joined a teleconference with other NORAD officials. This, however, meant he was unavailable when Marr tried calling him to get authorization to launch fighters in response to the hijacked Flight 11. After leaving the teleconference, Arnold learned of Marr’s call but wondered if the report of a hijacking was part of the exercise. Arnold soon called Marr back and told him to go ahead and launch fighters in response to the hijacking.

Arnold then called the NORAD operations center about the hijacking and the request for fighters. However, when operations center personnel saw television reports about the first crash at the World Trade Center, minutes later, they did not realize it involved the hijacked plane they’d just been alerted to. The operations center was in fact in an “information void” during the course of the attacks, according to officers there that day. It was also receiving many reports of hijackings from the FAA that turned out to be incorrect.

Other timeline entries describe how the US military was placed on an increased state of alert on September 11. Following the terrorist attacks, installations around the world were placed on the highest state of alert, known as Force Protection Condition Delta (FPCON Delta). Soon after that, the defense readiness condition was raised to Defcon 3, the highest level since 1973. News of the increased defense readiness condition was soon communicated within NORAD, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld notified President Bush of the raised threat level. The military stayed at Defcon 3 until September 14, when the defense readiness condition was lowered one notch, to Defcon 4.



Kurt Haskell Decides Underwear Lawsuit Futile

Christmas Day Two Years Later and the Current State of the U.S.

by Kurt Haskell

It has now been two years since the Underwear Bomber attack. Once again, Lori and I find ourselves reflecting during the holidays about what happened on Flight 253. The attack, which comprised only two minutes of our lives, continues to shape our thoughts and beliefs. Although the criminal case has ended (except for sentencing which will happen in January 2012), the laws of Michigan allow for a two year period statute of limitations in order for the injured to bring a civil lawsuit. The time period to file such a lawsuit lapses tomorrow. Lori and I have had the plan to file a civil suit at the conclusion of the criminal case, which ended in October 2011. The plan was for me to file the civil case on my own in order to keep her out of the inevitable attacks and aggravation that would come from such a suit. I have talked to several attorneys to represent me in such a case, but none of them were willing to take on the U.S. Government. I made the decision that I would represent myself in such a case. I have spent a great deal of time researching the suit and have worked on writing the complaint to initiate the case. Even though I have spent a great deal of time researching the civil case, I don’t feel that I have spent enough time on the case. I have come to the conclusion that becoming involved in such a case would be an overwhelming constraint on my time. As I am a very busy attorney, this would be time that I don’t have to give up. I have been willing to give up my nights and weekends in order to work on the case to further expose evidence to prove that the U.S. Government was behind the staged attack.

Over the past few weeks, I have reconsidered my decision to file a civil case, and I will instead, begrudgingly, let the statute of limitations lapse. There are several reasons I have reconsidered my decision. The purpose of my civil lawsuit would not have been to obtain compensation, but would have been to obtain further evidence that the U.S. Government perpetrated the attack. Personally, I don’t need any further evidence to prove the matter to myself. I have laid out my case in numerous prior postings on this blog. I have convinced the vast majority of people that have chosen to look at all of the evidence that I’ve presented. I don’t believe I can convince anyone else. Those that choose to deny the obvious will still not be convinced even if they watched the Schiphol airport video and audio showing what I have indicated. What then would be the purpose of my civil suit? I could possibly obtain further evidence, but that would only further convince those that already believe the U.S. Government is behind the attack. I also believe that obtaining such evidence would be nearly impossible. We now have a U.S. Government so drunk with its own power that it believes it is o.k. to kill U.S. citizens without a trial and/or to detain them forever without a hearing before a judge.……

Would the U.S. Government willingly turn over evidence to me to show conclusively that it was behind the Underwear Bombing attack when it believes it can kill or detain American citizens indefinitely? Not a chance in hell. It is much more likely that the U.S. Government would declare me a person that “substantially aided” a terrorist under the new defense authorization bill and detain me indefinitely without a trial. However, that was not really a concern that led to my decision to not file a civil case. What did play a factor was the reaction, or lack thereof, of Americans in relation to the passing of this bill. Why are Americans not outraged and protesting by the millions in Washington over this law? It has just further confirmed to me that the vast majority of Americans just don’t care what the U.S. Government does in relation to “terrorism”. I can’t tell you how many times people have told me that they are o.k. to let the U.S. Government do whatever it wants to do against terrorists in order to make them safe. I have news for these people, if there are terrorists everywhere; there is nothing that can be done to make you entirely safe. I live very close to the largest population of Muslims in the U.S. If terrorism were as bad as the U.S. Government makes it out to be, car and suicide bombings would occur in my area on a regular basis. The fact that they never occur is very telling. It is my belief that the war on terror is nothing but a fraudulent U.S. Government creation designed, in part, to take away all of the rights of Americans and to further enrich and consolidate the power of those in control.

Our Constitutional rights are currently under attack and are being rapidly taken away. In case you haven’t been paying attention, the definition of “terrorist” is slowly changing to one that means “a person that doesn’t agree with the U.S. Government”. When those that have given away all of their rights to combat terrorism suddenly discover that they are in fact terrorists, it will be too late. If I filed and won my lawsuit and proved that the U.S. Government staged the Underwear Bomber attack, would these people care? No they wouldn’t. Would it stop the U.S. Government’s assault on our Constitutional Rights? No it wouldn’t. Would anyone do anything if I was labeled a terrorist and detained indefinitely without a trial? Not a chance. These people comprise the vast majority of the American population. The corruption is so entrenched that 93 out of 100 senators voted for the recent law that allows for the indefinite detention of Americans without a trial. Can anyone think of any recent law that had that had such a vast majority of approval by both Democrats and Republicans? I can’t think of any. The question I have is why would this bill obtain such vast approval? The answer to me is an obvious one. The U.S. as we know it is on the edge of complete collapse due to an out of control national debt. This collapse will lead to an economic collapse that will make the Great Depression look like a fun time. The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility, an 18 member bi-partisan commission created by President Obama, recently indicated that the financial collapse will occur within two years.…

Obviously, the vast majority of senators that voted in support of the authorization to detain Americans indefinitely are worried that Americans may turn their anger from a financial collapse onto their political representatives. The approval of such a law was made in order to protect the politicians themselves from unruly mobs of Americans that are angry from the financial collapse. These Americans will be the new “terrorists”. The new “terrorists” will find indefinite “housing” in FEMA camps that are being built throughout the U.S.

What other explanation could there be for the large bipartisan support for such an unconstitutional law? There is none. It is also shocking that a president that is a supposed Constitutional law expert would approve of a law that is such a direct violation of the Constitution. This is the sad state of affairs that is prevalent in the U.S. today.

What also had an effect on my decision to not file a civil case was the indication by the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility that the U.S. economy will collapse within the next two years. Lori and I have had a multi-year plan (Going back to 2006) to retire and move out of the U.S. Our current plan is to move abroad at the end of 2013. Apparently, according to the commission, this would coincide with the U.S. economic collapse. If I were to file a civil suit, the time and money I would need to put into such a case would delay our move out of the U.S. For obvious reasons, we don’t want to be in the U.S. when it collapses and definitely, don’t want to be considered “wealthy” when millions of out of control Americans look for scapegoats for their economic problems.

Make no mistake, my decision to not file a civil case was not due to intimidation. If it was, I never would have spoken out against the U.S. Government in the first place. My decision rests on two conditions that have become increasingly clear over the past two months:

1. The vast majority of Americans don’t care or will never believe that the U.S. Government is staging false terror attacks against its own citizens.

2. The U.S. is facing imminent economic collapse for which I need to devote as much time and save as much money as possible in order to financially prepare to leave the U.S. permanently.

On a side note, I saw that a fellow Underwear Bomber passenger has filed a civil suit.…
Note that Mr. Maranga has sued the airline and not the U.S. Government agents that were behind the attack. I have spoken to Mr. Maranga on several occasions and he is not convinced that the U.S. Government was involved. Don’t expect anything earth shattering to come out of this lawsuit. I originally read this story on the Detroit Free Press website, which I have been unable to locate. The comments section of that article contains many posts attacking Mr. Maranga for wanting compensation for his emotional injuries. Such is the sad state of the mind of the standard American. By the way, in order to sue an airline for an injury received on an international flight, you must have a physical injury and not just emotional trauma. What is interesting to me is that the U.S. was responsible for this provision in the Montreal Convention (the current law on international airline travel). Most nations wanted passengers to be able to sue for strictly emotional injuries, but the U.S. wouldn’t allow it. As I didn’t suffer a physical injury, I am prohibited from suing the airline.

I know that many people will be disappointed in my decision to not sue the members of the U.S. Government that were behind the fraudulent, false, threat known as the Underwear Bomber attack. I understand your feelings. I don’t want to let it go myself, but I have to look at the reality of the situation. The vast majority of Americans are not willing to believe that their government is as corrupt and evil as it is. No significant change will occur until this changes, and likely, even then, won’t occur without an overthrow of the government. Such a time will not occur without prior significant financial hardship happening to the vast majority of Americans. That time is coming, but it is not yet here. A cost benefit analysis regarding the filing of a civil suit indicates that there is no real upside to filing such a case, but there is significant downside. Nonetheless, I will continue to speak out against the corrupt and fraudulent U.S. Government and will continue to support those Americans that are paying attention and want their country to return to the free country that it once was.

Happy Holidays to all.

New Report: “Recording Everything” Details How Governments Can Change the Dynamics of Dissent

“Recording Everything” PDF

Brandon Turbeville

A recent Brookings Institution report has now confirmed what many have suspected for some time – that the United States government (and virtually every other government in the world) has the capability to monitor and record nearly every interaction that occurs within its national borders.
For years, those individuals who have tried to warn others of the creeping surveillance state were met with denials and catcalls of “conspiracy theory,” as well as the famous claims that it was not physically possible to monitor everyone.

This new report, however, shatters into a million pieces the delusional rationalities of the uninformed.

The Brookings Institution report entitled, “Recording Everything: Digital Storage as an Enabler of Authoritarian Governments” (.pdf) discusses the increasing capacities for surveillance due to the improvement in technology and the sinking costs of its procurement, along with the implications for human rights and authoritarianism that come along with it.
The report begins by stating:
Within the next few years an important threshold will be crossed: For the first time ever, it will become technologically and financially feasible for authoritarian governments to record nearly everything that is said or done within their borders – every phone conversation, electronic message, social media interaction, the movements of nearly every person and vehicle, and video from every street corner. Governments with a history of using all of the tools at their disposal to track and monitor their citizens will undoubtedly make full use of this capability once it becomes available.

Although the study suggests that governments will make use of this technology “once it becomes available,” anyone who has done even cursory research into the technological and intelligence capabilities of major governments is aware that, when technologies are announced to the general public, the actual capabilities of these governments to harness that technology are light years ahead of what is being announced. Indeed, the technology itself is almost always already obsolete before it’s theoretical presentation is even offered up for digestion by the mass population.

It is also interesting to note that John Villasenor, the author of the study, makes continual reference to the “world’s remaining authoritarian regimes,” specifically those of Syria, Iran, Burma, and China, but completely leaves out those of the United States, Australia, Israel, and Great Britain to name a few. This is no doubt an intentional propaganda move. However, the reader should not dismiss reality in the same manner as Villasenor.
Obviously, Villasenor and the Brookings Institution know full well that the United States and virtually the entire Western World has become an authoritarian surveillance society, yet the Western nations are left out of the description due to the fact that the report functions more as a promotion of the technology than a warning. The Brookings report is an introduction flyer to the professorial, foundational, and cultural working class (those individuals who gradually implement the totalitarian system consciously, but often unconsciously as well). In this sense, the report is clearly not a study.
It is for this reason that the report focuses on oppressive governments in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. But it is also because these nations are to be the next target of direct military action by the Anglo-American empire. The Libyan tragedy is referenced repeatedly in the report, but only in the context of Ghaddafi’s surveillance capabilities within his own country.
Without seeking to reinforce the lies told about the Ghaddafi regime or the status of the Libyan people over the last year, it is nevertheless interesting to mention the surveillance capabilities of the regime as they are summed up by the Brookings report. Villasenor cites a Wall Street Journal article that claims Ghaddafi’s intelligence agencies were able to “capture and archive “30 to 40 million minutes of telephone conversations every month and to regularly read emails exchanged among activists.” All of this by a regime that was relatively weak, particularly in its ability to stave off an outside invasion of NATO bombing and foreign intelligence subversion conducted by much more sophisticated nations.
Villasenor goes on to say, “The Ghadaffi regime was unusual among dictatorships only in that its internal spying activities were so thoroughly unmasked, not that they were occurring.” This much is true.
However, the reader must turn this reasoning back toward his own country and ask, If a weak Ghaddafi regime was capable of so much surveillance of its own people, and if these types of spying activities are commonplace amongst governments, would it not stand to reason that the United States government, which is light years more advanced than the Libyan one, can and is conducting surveillance against its own citizens as well? Not only that, since the capabilities of the U.S. government are so much more than that of Ghadaffi and Ghadaffi-like regimes, it would also stand to reason that U.S. government surveillance is being conducted at immensely more sophisticated levels. The same goes for any Western nation.
If the Libyan government is unique only in that its surveillance has been unmasked, what then of the Bush-era domestic surveillance program or the openness of the American government in monitoring Twitter feedssocial networking sites, or even the legal declarations of surveillance carried in the PATRIOT Act, theTelecommunications Act, and Patriot Act 2? These programs have not been unmasked. They are freely admitted. Is it even imaginable, then, the true capabilities that exist in the recesses of the military and intelligence communities in our own nation?
Although Villasenor limits his discussion to the next targets of the Anglo-American empire, his statements are easily transposed to apply to those nations who currently have such capabilities and who have already implemented them under the cover of popular acceptance and “democratic” methods — meaning, simply, the lack of resistance from the general public by virtue of their lack of knowledge or their lack of concern.
Villasenor writes:
 . . . the evolving role of digital storage in facilitating truly pervasive surveillance is widely recognized. Plummeting digital storage costs will soon make it possible for authoritarian regimes to not only monitor known dissidents, but also to store the complete set of digital data associated with everyone within their borders. These enormous databases of captured information will create what amounts to a surveillance time machine, enabling state security services to retroactively eavesdrop on people in the months and years before they were designated as surveillance targets. This will fundamentally change the dynamics of dissent, insurgency, and revolution.
That is, if the information isn’t already available publicly on the “revolutionaries’” Facebook page. Indeed, something similar has already been used in England after the bizarre riots that overtook the country months ago. Facial recognition software was able to identify (or so it was claimed) many of the rioters who were arrested after the riots had subsided.
However, what Villasenor is describing is the ability to build detailed digital dossiers on individuals, full of incriminating evidence gleaned through everyday, normal, social interactions, that can be called on at any minute to build a case against an individual for daring to question the State. All of it, of course, will be there. The angry Facebook post made in a fit of rage against the government; the email to Monsanto that seems “threatening;” or the telephone conversation where one procured an illegal substance for a weekend of fun.
But the question still remains for some, “How would it be possible to monitor and store so much information?”
Villasenor provides some interesting analysis in regards to the declining costs of storage technology and also the increase in the capability of that technology. In terms of cost, he writes:
Over the past three decades, storage costs have declined by a factor of 10 approximately every 4 years, reducing the per-gigabyte cost from approximately $85,000 (in 2011 dollars) in mid-1984 to about five cents today. In other words, storage costs have dropped by a factor of well over one million since 1984. Not surprisingly, that fundamentally changes the scale of what can be stored.
In terms of storage capability, the analysis is quite shocking, especially to those who may have doubted the technological advancements available to major governments, militaries, and intelligence agencies. Villasenor writes:
So what, exactly would it take to store everything? The answer depends in part on the nature of the information. Location data is far less voluminous than audio from phone calls, which in turn requires much less storage than video.
Location data, which is readily obtained from mobile phones, Wi-Fi connections, and GPS receivers, can already easily be archived. It takes fewer than 75 bits (ones and zeros) to pinpoint a person’s location anywhere on the earth to an accuracy of about 15 feet. The information identifying the location of each of one million people to that accuracy at five-minute intervals, 24 hours a day for a full year could easily be stored in 1,000 gigabytes, which would cost slightly over $50 at today’s prices. For 50 million people, the cost would be under $3,000.
The audio for all of the telephone calls made by a single person over the course of one year could be stored using roughly 3.3 gigabytes. On a per capita basis, the cost to store all phone calls will fall from about 17 cents per person per year today to under 2 cents in 2015.
The current prices of such technology, much less the projected prices a few years from now, are shockingly low considering the scale of surveillance that would be, and probably is, taking place. Given the figures above, if the United States population is 300 million, the cost of storing the location data of everyone in the country for a year would be approximately the cost of a low-wage job, around $18,000. This is hardly a large sum of money for any government.
Ignoring, for a moment, Villasenor’s obvious bias against Syria and Iran, his estimate surrounding the costs of these governments’ surveillance programs are somewhat revealing if for nothing else than their relation to our own government’s ability and potential to implement the same type of program.
He continues:
For a country like Syria, which has a population of 15 million people over the age of 14, the current cost to purchase storage sufficient to hold one year’s worth of phone calls for the entire country would be about $2.5 million – a high number but certainly not beyond governmental reach. If historical cost trends continue, the annual cost in 2011 dollars to purchase enough storage for Syria’s government to record all calls made in that country will fall to about $250,000 by 2016 and to about $25,000 by 2020. Iran has an over-age-14 population of 59 million, so the corresponding cost to the Iranian government to record all calls in Iran would be about four times higher than in Syria. Cost will soon be no object for internal security services wishing to store everything said on a telephone in Syria, Iran, or even in a much more populous nation such as China.
Or the United States, one might add. Or Great Britain. Or Australia . . . add your country of choice here. By now, you should be getting the point.
In regards to video surveillance, Villasenor’s predictions are not much different after taking into account the difference in the type of surveillance data being absorbed and retained.
The report states:
By 2020 the cost to store, in high resolution, all of the video acquired by the Chongqing network [Chinese surveillance that equals one camera for every 24 people in an area of 12 million] will drop to a much more practical $3 million per year. On a per capita basis this corresponds to about 25 cents per person per year, an amount that can easily be budgeted or even extracted from the population being monitored through a euphemistically worded ‘public safety tax.’
Keep in mind, the costs presented here are those to which the public would be subjected if they were to engage these systems in the marketplace, which, of course, they will not be doing. These figures are, essentially, mark-up value. They do not take into account where these surveillance technologies were originally developed, such as institutions within the government, military, and intelligence communities themselves which would, by definition, give governments cheaper and greater access to them.

DARPA immediately comes to mind in the context of this discussion. Such an agency is full of money black holes, black budgets, and secret projects that not only would aid in the development of such technology, but also its implementation without the knowledge of the citizenry. Such has been the case many times before. Must the national collection of blood at birth be mentioned again in order to jog the reader’s memory?

The implications for stifling dissent need not be summed up at this point in this article. It is fairly obvious that such broad and far-reaching surveillance would necessarily significantly damage the ability of the general public to resist, be it planned or out-of-the-blue, any form of tyranny the regime wishes to place upon them.
Nevertheless, consider the report’s extensive comments on the effects that such surveillance would have on dissent, revolution, and “insurgency.”
But the ability to record everything will tilt the playing field back in favor of repressive governments by laying the foundation for a plethora of new approaches to targeting dissent. When all of the telephone calls in an entire country can be captured and provided to voice recognition software programmed to extract key phrases, and when video footage from public spaces can be correlated in real time to the conversations, text messages, and social media traffic associated with the people occupying those spaces, the arsenal of responses available to a regime facing dissent will expand. Some changes will be immediate and tactical. Instead of implementing broad social media or Internet shutdowns in response to unrest, governments in possession of complete communications databases will be able to conduct more selective censorship or alteration of message traffic during periods of instability. This will provide a great capability to shape or quell dissent.
The report also mentions the ability to go back in time and build a detailed case against the dissenter, even if the evidence compiled is somewhat circumstantial.
Pervasive monitoring will provide what amounts to a time machine allowing authoritarian governments to perform retrospective surveillance. For example, if an anti-regime demonstrator previously unknown to security services is arrested, it will be possible to go back in time to scrutinize the demonstrator’s phone conversations, automobile travels, and the people he or she met in the months and even years leading up to the arrest.
Villasenor correctly asserts that the implementation of such open surveillance will have a chilling effect on activism and dissent. This goes without saying since activists and dissenters are now aware that anything they say is being listened to and recorded for purposes of prosecution.
Thus, the report reads:
There are also longer-term consequences that include a thinning of the ranks of regime opponents. By definition, organized dissent requires that dissenters have the ability to exchange information. Prominent opponents of repressive governments have learned to expect tracking of their movements and interception of their phone calls and other forms of electronic communications. But when technology enables an entire country’s worth of communications to be intercepted, the circle of people whom dissidents will be able to recruit to their ranks will narrow.
In addition, knowledge that communications are archived will reduce the willingness of dissidents to speak frankly even over encrypted communications. . . . Awareness of the likelihood that all messages – including those that are encrypted – will eventually be read by security services will chill dissent.
No doubt, in light of this new Brookings Institution report, along with other means of surveillance such as palm scansvein scans, iris scans, voice and facial recognition as well as emotion detectors, we are entering an era in which dissent will truly require an individual to make a decision whether or not his principles are worth his freedom or even his life.
We, as American citizens — or any other citizen for that matter — must make our voices heard and our presence felt while we still can. It is up to us whether or not the Brave New World we enter into will be marked by courage and consciousness, or the grip of a scientific dictatorship. 

Brandon Turbeville is an author out of Mullins, South Carolina. He has a Bachelor’s Degree from Francis Marion University where he earned the Pee Dee Electric Scholar’s Award as an undergraduate. He has had numerous articles published dealing with a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, and civil liberties. He also the author of Codex Alimentarius – The End of Health Freedom7 Real Conspiracies and Five Sense Solutions.

Yes, We Are Bailing Out Europe

Federal Reserve chair Ben Bernanke told Congress that the Fed would not bail out Europe.

But he might have been less than forthcoming.

Former Vice President of the Federal Reserve bank of Dallas, Gerald ODriscoll, says that the Fed is secretly bailing out Europe:
O’Driscoll wrote in a Wall Street Journal editorial:

America’s central bank, the Federal Reserve, is engaged in a bailout of European banks. Surprisingly, its operation is largely unnoticed here.

The Fed is using what is termed a “temporary U.S. dollar liquidity swap arrangement” with the European Central Bank (ECB). There are similar arrangements with the central banks of Canada, England, Switzerland and Japan. Simply put, the Fed trades or “swaps” dollars for euros. The Fed is compensated by payment of an interest rate (currently 50 basis points, or one-half of 1%) above the overnight index swap rate. The ECB, which guarantees to return the dollars at an exchange rate fixed at the time the original swap is made, then lends the dollars to European banks of its choosing.


The two central banks are engaging in this roundabout procedure because each needs a fig leaf. The Fed was embarrassed by the revelations of its prior largess with foreign banks. It does not want the debt of foreign banks on its books. A currency swap with the ECB is not technically a loan.

Implications of September 11 Flight Transponder Signal Losses

Since September 11, 2001, it has generally been accepted by the media and the 9/11 Commission itself, that the loss of Secondary Surveillance Radar (SSR) information for three of the four September 11 flights was caused by accused hijackers who allegedly seized control of the aircraft flight decks and manually turned off each plane’s Mode S (Mode Select) transponder, for the purpose of evading detection and interception by U.S. air defense systems. However, this conclusion appears to be based only on circumstantial information – the simple loss of SSR flight data to Air Traffic Control (ATC) – and seems unsupported by conclusive information. Moreover, ATC was nevertheless still able to tag and track three flight’s primary radar returns and estimate their location, direction, ground speed and even altitude changes.

Perhaps the most significant consequence of lost September 11 flight SSR data to ATC was a circumstantial impression of accused hijacker flight deck takeovers. As can be shown, aircraft Mode S transponder SSR information can be caused to vanish from ATC radar displays by other documented means. Coincidentally or not, the only September 11 flight with a continuously operative transponder (United 175), was also the only flight with a transponder able to warn away the only other flights in serious danger of colliding with a September 11 flight, thus facilitating it’s subsequent impact with World Trade Center 2 (WTC 2).

From the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA):

“The secondary radar uses a second radar antenna attached to the top of the primary radar antenna to transmit and receive area aircraft data for barometric altitude, identification code, and emergency conditions. Military, commercial, and some general aviation aircraft have transponders that automatically respond to a signal from the secondary radar by reporting an identification code and altitude … The primary surveillance radar uses a continually rotating antenna mounted on a tower to transmit electromagnetic waves that reflect, or backscatter, from the surface of aircraft up to 60 miles from the radar.” [1]

Just prior to year 2000, a major modernization of the FAA’s entire Air Route Traffic Control Center computers in the continental United States was scheduled to be completed.

From the FAA:

“The computers receive, process, coordinate, distribute, and track information on aircraft movement throughout the nation’s airspace that includes oceanic international air traffic. The computers provide data interfaces to all types of FAA facilities … and the military.” [2]

In the case of UA 175, although its transponder-broadcasted flight ID number reportedly changed several times following its alleged hijacking, the transponder itself continued to broadcast unlike the other three flights, making it known to the Traffic Collision Avoidance Systems (TCAS) of nearby aircraft. TCAS avionics will warn aircraft flight crews of mid-air collision risks posed by similarly equipped aircraft.

Of the four wayward September 11 flights, only UA 175 experienced serious near mid-air collisions with other non-wayward commercial flights. These were Delta Flight 2315, US Airways Flight 542 and Midwest Airlines Flight 7. [3] Coincidentally or not, UA 175 was also the only September 11 flight with a transponder that continued to operate following its unauthorized course change, helping it avoid at least one mid-air collision with a TCAS equipped flight and thus facilitating its own impact with WTC 2.

Referring to UA 175 and US Airways Flight 542:

“Shortly after that, the hijacked plane was headed straight for a US Airways flight. The US Airways plane’s collision-avoidance system detected the approaching plane and advised the US Airways pilot to descend, which he did, averting a collision.” [4]

Delta Flight 2315 and US Airways Flight 542 were TCAS compatible Boeing 737s. Midwest Airlines Flight 7 was a TCAS compatible DC-9. The role played by TCAS during UA 175’s conflicts with the Delta and Midwest flights is unclear.

Interestingly, the FAA’s “Host” ATC computer system provided an ability to anticipate route conflicts like those experienced between UA 175 and Delta 2315, US Airways 542 and Midwest 7, based on filed aircraft flight plans:

“HCS is the key information processing system in FAA’s en route environment. It processes radar surveillance data, processes flight plans, links filed flight plans with actual aircraft flight tracks, provides alerts of projected aircraft separation violations (i.e., conflicts).” [5]

UA 175’s transponder was reportedly unique to at least the United Airlines fleet, but could nevertheless be turned off. Interestingly, much of the source document for this fact regarding September 11 flight transponders has been redacted.

“An Air Traffic Control supervisor at New York Center opined that the transponder on United 175 was a newer model peculiar to the United-operated B767 fleet that could not be turned off. That was the supervisor’s possible explanation of why the transponder on United 175 changed code as opposed to being turned off. A senior pilot from both United and American Airlines, familiar with cockpit details, each separately demonstrated how transponders were manipulated in the cockpit and conclusively demonstrated that the transponder in United 175 could have easily been turned off.” [6]

The four September 11 flights reportedly contained what are known as Mode S transponders:

“The Mode S transponders aboard Boeing 767 and 757 aircraft, such as those used on 9/11 as “flying bombs,” deliver aircraft identification and altitude and can supplement FAA’s radar by “providing ATC and traffic alert collision avoidance system (TCAS)-equipped aircraft the ability to determine position and heading information,” according to DoT.” [7]

“Mode S transponders transmit information about the aircraft to the Secondary Surveillance Radar (SSR) system, TCAS receivers on board aircraft … This information includes the call sign of the aircraft and/or the transponder’s permanent ICAO 24-bit address in the form of a hex code.” [8]

According to a safety bulletin published by the International Civil Aviation Authority (ICAO), a given Mode S transponder broadcast can be suppressed or “jammed” by another transponder broadcasting via the same unique ICAO 24-bit aircraft address already assigned to the given aircraft, causing the given aircraft’s SSR flight information to disappear from ATC radar displays, not unlike the disappearance of SSR information for all but one of the September 11 flights. The same circumstances can also cause a given aircraft’s transponder to become invisible to the TCAS systems of other aircraft.

“When two (or more) aircraft with the same (duplicate) ICAO 24-bit aircraft address are operating within range of a specific Mode S interrogator, then potentially hazardous situations can arise: One (or more) of the aircraft involved may be assessed by the Mode S interrogator to be a false or reflected echo, and subsequently ignored. These aircraft will not then be displayed to air traffic controllers.” [9]

To date, only military aircraft seem to be capable of mid-flight changes of the 24-bit aircraft address that is contained within its Mode S transponder broadcasts:

“Military use of 24-bit aircraft addresses: The relatively large number of aircraft addresses for military use allows rotating the assignments of 24-bit addresses on military aircraft on a frequent basis. This rotation of 24-bit addresses however must not be done during flight. SSR Mode S Interrogators & Radar trackers: The uniqueness property of the 24-bit aircraft address is important for the unambiguous identification of the aircraft. Effects of duplicate addresses are unpredictable. This can cause synchronous garbling, radar track swapping or dropping.” [10]

Despite September 11 flight transponder signal losses, ATC was still able to track these flights, complicating the official assumption that September 11 flight transponders were manually turned off by hijackers to evade detection and interception by U.S. air defenses.

Regarding ATC coverage of American Airlines flight 77 on September 11, 2001:

“The radar track is untagged, so he attaches a data box to it with the word “LOOK” in it. This will allow other controllers to quickly spot the aircraft. It also causes its ground speed to appear on the screen.” [11]

In fact, all of the references to deactivated September 11 flight transponders within the “9/11 Commission Report” only seem to infer that the losses of SSR ATC data was due to a theorized conclusion that the transponders were manually deactivated by accused hijackers following the alleged seizures of their respective flight decks. No additional evidence is provided to support the view that September 11 flight transponders were manually turned off by hijackers.

“At 8:54, the aircraft deviated from its assigned course, turning south. Two minutes later the transponder was turned off and even primary radar contact with the aircraft was lost.” [12]

“On 9/11, the terrorists turned off the transponders on three of the four hijacked aircraft. With its transponder off, it is possible, though more difficult, to track an aircraft by its primary radar returns. But unlike transponder data, primary radar returns do not show the aircraft’s identity and altitude. Controllers at centers rely so heavily on transponder signals that they usually do not display primary radar returns on their radar scopes. But they can change the configuration of their scopes so they can see primary radar returns. They did this on 9/11 when the transponder signals for three of the aircraft disappeared.” [13]

“At 8:21, American 11 turned off its transponder, immediately degrading the information available about the aircraft. The controller told his supervisor that he thought something was seriously wrong with the plane, although neither suspected a hijacking. The supervisor instructed the controller to follow standard procedures for handling a “no radio” aircraft.” [14]

“Because the hijackers had turned off the plane’s transponder, NEADS personnel spent the next minutes searching their radar scopes for the primary radar return. American 11 struck the North Tower at 8:46.” [15]

“At 8:51, the controller noticed the transponder change from United 175 and tried to contact the aircraft. There was no response.” [16]

“The failure to find a primary radar return for American 77 led us to investigate this issue further. Radar reconstructions performed after 9/11 reveal that FAA radar equipment tracked the flight from the moment its transponder was turned off at 8:56.” [17]

“On American 11, the transponder signal was turned off at 8:21; on United 175, the code was changed at 8:47; on American 77, the signal was turned off at 8:56; and on United 93, the signal was turned off
at 9:41.” [18]


[1] Airport Surveillance Radar
[2] Fact Sheet – Host and Oceanic Computer System Replacement (HOCSR) Program
[3] September 11, 2001: Flight 175 Nearly Collides with Two Other Planes…
[4] A Sky Filled With Chaos, Uncertainty and True Heroism…
[5] Air Traffic Control: FAA Plans to Renlace Its Host Commuter System
[6] COMMISSION SENSITIVE UNCLASSIFIED MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD: Interviews of United Airlines and American Airlines Personnel
[7] The Post 9/11 Transponder
[8] Aviation Transponder Interrogation Modes
[9] Mode S Transponder – Incorrect Setting of ICAO 24-Bit Aircraft Address
[10] Mode S – Assignment of 24-bit Aircraft Addresses to State Aircraft….
[11] Reagan Airport Controllers Notified of Unidentified Aircraft Approaching Washington…
[12] The 9/11 Commission Report, Page 9
[13] The 9/11 Commission Report, Page 16
[14] The 9/11 Commission Report, Page 18
[15] The 9/11 Commission Report, Page 20
[16] The 9/11 Commission Report, Page 21
[17] The 9/11 Commission Report, Page 25
[18] The 9/11 Commission Report, Page 454

Standing up for unpopular truths about 9/11 comes at a personal cost


By Craig McKee

Is standing up for what you believe worth losing friends over?

Sometimes those friends don’t give you a choice. Other times, you can decide to stay away from certain subjects with certain people.

Recently I parted ways with two people I’ve known for more than a quarter of a century. Admittedly, we haven’t hung out for some time, but we do have a history. I don’t think we’re going to be adding to it, though.

In fact, there are five people I connected with on Facebook who are no longer among my online friends. The short version of the story is that they don’t much like my opinion that 9/11 was an inside job and a false flag operation. But they took it further.

Over the weekend of September 8-11, I was attending the Toronto 9/11 Hearings when I made this comment on FB: “So, according to the U.S., a “specific” and “credible” threat has emerged about a terror attack in NY. But there’s a “great deal of uncertainty” and the warning is being done “out of an abundance of caution.” When are people going to see this bullshit for what it is?? Social control and manipulation through fear!”

So far so good. One of my buddies retorted: “Yup, yet another grand scheme by American authorities. Maybe you should spend just a little of your time this weekend considering the 2700+ dead and their families?”

It was the old, “How can you disrespect the victims and their families by questioning 9/11?” argument. It’s not enough that these friends think I’m wrong, they also think that at long last I have left no sense of decency. Or something like that.

It got worse: “Craig, I consider myself open minded and have read up on the conspiracy theories (Griffin and feel that the authors (sorry but this includes you) have a bizarre agenda to create so called ‘fact’ out of conjecture. I have yet to read anything really compelling –it all seems like acute paranoia. Sorry if you feel insulted by my comments.”

I love it when people add an apology after they’ve just trashed you. It’s as if they only meant the trashing in the nicest possible way. Of course, I’m flattered to share a “bizarre agenda” with David Ray Griffin, although I’m not sure he’s thrilled to be sharing one with me.

This exchange ended here, but this person, who I’ll call unfriend #1, would make a return on the back of an even more colourful full frontal attack from another longtime friend-like person. We’ll call him unfriend #2.

I posted a link last week showing that the FAA monitoring system on Sept. 11, 2001 was indicating that Flight 175 was still airborne after it was alleged to have crashed into the South Tower of the World Trade Center.

I suggested that this was further evidence that commercial airliners with passengers did NOT hit the WTC. Someone I used to work with wrote back, “Get real.” He unfriended me immediately (we would call him unfriend #3, but he doesn’t actually come back into the story). Unfriend #2 called my comment “reprehensible,” which got a “like” from unfriend #1.

Unfriend #2 went on: “It is an irresponsible and dangerous opinion, I believe. Luckily you live in a country that you are allowed opinions no matter how ridiculous and not be thrown in jail. I know exactly why you were unfriended – you bully anyone who thinks differently than you and my blood pressure goes up when I read your conspiracy ‘stuff’ I consider you a friend from way back but I think you have become obsessed and unhealthy.”

Yes, how lucky we all are not to be thrown in jail. How nice to be “allowed” our opinions. On old high school friend, who I’ve connected with again through FB, came to my rescue: “Craig has never ‘bullied” me or anyone I know. He expresses and discusses his opinions but does not “impose” them. The people that feel pressured could just be reacting with immaturity because they do not want others to have differing opinions from their own.”

Maybe there’s hope after all, I thought.

Unfriend #2 ended with this announcement: “To me you have unfortunately become obsessed and any obsession is very unhealthy. I am de-friending you for no other reason except my health. I cannot stand your opinion and yes, you do have a right to your opinion. It’s just that I really do feel sick when I think of you and others actually believing some of this stuff.”

So now I’m dangerous, obsessed and suffering from acute paranoia (very unhealthy indeed) I’m already down two friends, and I decide that I’m disgusted enough with both unfriend #1 and #2 that I officially “unfriend” #2 and then block them both. Three down.

Actually, it’s really five down. Last fall there was another exchange.

From an acquaintance I obviously didn’t know well enough: “Not long ago the conspiracy theorist came out from whatever rock they live under concerning 9/11 towers being blown up by the government……… opinion is it is utter nonesense and hurtful to people who lost loved ones that day. Besides if if if it was the government do you really think all the people involved in doing such a horific event could keep such a secret……….surely one of those people now no longer in government, someone in cia fbi nsa………hasn’t written a book in order to cash in and become a bmillionaire !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Next you’ll be telling me Saddam Insane was really a nice guy, who cared about humanity and the greater well being of our planet………..and was not really hung and lives in Akron Ohio working in a walmart…………so Craig take your theories and shove them where the sun don’t shine.”

Okay, he’s not William F. Buckley, but he makes up for it with sheer dull-witted venom. (I got a laugh out of “nonesense” at least.)

Another FB friend joined in: “When you fear mongers attack peoples emotions and psyche, expect to be targetted in return, cause in the long run you guys are just as evil as the governments you try to attack. When theories are debunked, you call them closed mind yet you want them all to accept the shit you spew.”

I told him to apologize for calling me evil; he didn’t, so he’s now unfriend #4. In person, however, we are now “friendly.”

Should I treat 9/11 just like any other subject I’m interested in, and mention it only once in a while? At one time maybe, but, as Geena Davis said near the end of Thelma and Louise, “Something has crossed over in me, and I can’t go back.”

Learning about 9/11, especially since starting this blog, has changed me forever, because it has helped me to connect so many dots I couldn’t connect before. It has helped me to see how so much chaos, violence, and misery is artificially caused by the very powerful elite that runs a good chunk of the world.

9/11 is like the doorway to a shadowy world of control, manipulation and deception. The elites revealed themselves to us with this atrocity, kind of like when the Klingons have to de-cloak to fire on their enemies. But most of us weren’t paying attention when it happened. We’re still not.

This destructive event was the work of people who have a cynical contempt for all of us, for freedom and decency. We’re cattle, or more likely sheep, to these people. They hold all the cards. They have most of us believing that anyone who questions how freedom and human decency are being corrupted is a wack job or doesn’t care about victims. The elites have successfully made the word “conspiracy” seem like a synonym for delusional fantasy.

I have a friend in Toronto who I visited while I was there in September. I met this person while we were both attending York University, and we’ve been close friends ever since. She was someone who opened my eyes to a lot of injustice in the world – my safe, middle-of-the-road political views have never been the same.

But in Toronto I got a rude shock. Not only did my progressive and brilliant friend not agree with me about 9/11, she didn’t even think it mattered that much. Ya, the U.S. might have found out about the plot and let it happen, she allowed, but so what?

I spent a good part of our visit, too much of it really, trying to convince her she was wrong. But in the end, she maintained that I was wasting much time I could be spending making the world better in some concrete, practical way.

This taught me a hard truth. If I really believe in what I’m saying and writing about, then I’m going to have to be prepared to go there alone at times. I’m going to have to decide when to put away what I care about to get along and when to put truth ahead of everything. Sure, many friends are supportive (even if they don’t agree), and I’ve met new friends from all over the world who believe as I do.

But in the end, the passion I have for exposing what I believe to be the truth about 9/11 comes with no guarantee of moral support or any other kind of support.

Many around the world have paid an infinitely higher price for 9/11. Those killed that day, those killed in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Millions of lives have been destroyed based on a massive and obscene lie. And freedoms we all take for granted are being stolen away right under our noses.

Losing a few friends isn’t such a great price to pay.

Plaintiff’s Reply Brief Before U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for FBI 9/11 Records


On December 12, 2011, the appellant’s reply brief was entered before the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in the matter of Monaghan v. Department of Justice, dismissed earlier this year by the U.S. District Court of Nevada. This action seeks the release of numerous FBI records regarding the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, including the actual audio recording obtained from the cockpit-voice-recorder for United Airlines Flight 93, plus Pentagon and Shanksville, PA crash scene evidence collection records.

Much thanks to those who have generously donated to this effort.

(Open entry to view court filing)

9th Circuit FOIA Reply FBI Records