911 Radar Data -- US fascism
By Mark H. Gaffney (Chiloquin, OR USA)
July 15, 2008
I have been studying Lynn Spencer's book through the lens of the RADES radar data from 9/11, now freely available thanks to a FOIA release in 2007. The radar data is an equal opportunity employer. It has no agenda and does not discriminate. For this reason it is a powerful tool and could have been used as a "fact check" to confirm the testimony of Spencer's witnesses. Unfortunately, it seems the author did not make use of it.
It is well known that as time passes, memory fades. There is a tendency for eyewitnesses to embellish or exaggerate what happened, and 9/11 is no different. I exchanged several emails with the author, all of them cordial. I was interested to learn if Spencer had interviewed Laura Brown, the FAA official who in 2003 told the 9/11 Commission that the FAA set up phone bridges to the Department of Defense shortly after the first WTC impact.The Brown memo flatly refutes the official story that the DoD was out of the loop. The memo was even read into the official record, but it never appeared in the 9/11 Commission Report. Spencer replied that she did NOT interview Brown. Then she volunteered the following editorial comments: "it seems that two years after the fact, she [Brown] remembered the bits and pieces but not in a cohesive way. Sometimes in such circumstances, they blend (like Mineta's inadventant [sic] comments regarding AAL 77 - he was actually referring to UAL 93)."
In short, Spencer discounted the testimony of Brown and Mineta for the reasons I cited above. All of this is ironic, because Spencer conducted her own interviews with the pilots and NEADS staffers in 2006, that is, FIVE YEARS AFTER 9/11. She informed me of this in an email.
Well, what does the radar data show? It shows that Spencer's own witnesses embellished and/or confused the facts---the very thing she accused Brown and Mineta of doing. From the 9/11 radar data it is possible to calculate the flight speed of the NORAD fighters. The radar data shows that the flight speed of the Langley F-16s was NOT 700 mph as they approached Washington, as Spencer states in her book (p. 182), but only 400 mph. The reader gets the impression that the fighters were burning leather, but in fact they were poking along. In another case, Spencer writes that one of the Otis pilots broke the sound barrier en route to NY (p. 43). But the radar data proves otherwise. We must conclude that parts of Spencer's book are just as much fable as the 9/11 Commission Report. Spencer needs to listen to her own counsel. By her own reasoning the testimony of Laura Brown and Norman Mineta, given only two years after 9/11, is more credible than the testimony she collected five years down the road.
Spencer's book has even more serious problems, but space here is short. For a full critique of Touching History see my forthcoming book, THE 9/11 MYSTERY PLANE, to be released this September. Among other disclosures, the book will feature the first published analysis of the radar data from 9/11.
and here is another EXCELLENT book review by the same author...
AMERICA'S SECRET WAR is a blow by blow account of the Bush regime's "war on terrorism." And while several chapters do offer valuable insights -- particularly the author's discussion of the war in Afghanistan -- overall, the book is a mine field. I cannot recommend it because the author, George Friedman, is either incredibly stupid in believing that a rag tag bunch of 19 jihadists using cell phones outsmarted the most sophisticated security establishment in the world on 9/11 -- or he is just downright devious.
In the intelligence world deception is a finely honed art. The game is played by subtly spicing truth with falsehood -- and there are enough examples in AMERICA'S SECRET WAR for us to suspect that George Friedman is spinning yarns. Allow me to be blunt: He is quite skillful in the art of lying.
Here are some examples:
Friedman mentions the US-Iran discussions that followed 9/11 -- but he fails to acknowledge that in 2003 Iran made a bona fide peace offer to the US that could have resulted in a comprehensive Middle East peace settlement -- IF the US had responded. Iran offered to cooperate in the Gulf, to disarm Hezbollah, to accept stringent IAEA oversight of its nuclear program, and even signed onto the 2002 Arab peace offer, indicating that Tehran was willing to live in peace with Israel -- provided the Palestinians received a measure of justice -- in the form of a state.
As we know, the National Intelligence Estimate in November 2007 provides strong evidence that the 2003 Iranian offer was genuine. The NIE concluded that Iran abandoned work on its BOMB program in 2003, which -- notice -- coincides with the date of the peace offer. The real question, which Friedman never mentions, is why the US rejected the Iranian peace offer out of hand.
Friedman also poo-poohs the 2002 Saudi peace offer, characterizing it as nothing but political posturing. He writes: "The Saudis had consulted nobody about the idea. which meant that this radical proposal didn't even have the backing of [prince] Abdullah's own government." (p. 244)
This is total BS. In fact, the 2002 Arab peace offer had the backing of every member of the Arab League -- and again -- could have become the basis for an Isareli-Palestinian peace settlement -- IF Israel and the US had responded favorably. Both, however, simply ignored it.
The Saudi Prince Abdullah actually went so far as to personally confront Bush about the Palestinian issue during his June 2002 visit to Crawford Texas. At that meeting Bush promised Abdullah that he would take steps to solve the Palestinian question. Of course, as we know, Bush did nothing of the kind -- because his idol Ariel Sharon opposed a peace settlement.
Friedman is also dishonest when he writes about an Iranian BOMB --as if Iran already had nuclear weapons. When in fact they did not -- and do not. There is no excuse for his getting this wrong. As a self-described intelligence expert Friedman should have known this. We must interpret this "error" as a case of calculated deception on his part.
Friedman's confused analysis of why the neo cons invaded Iraq fails to persuade -- and again -- we must conclude that the author is simply fibbing to us. Friedman fails to mention the obvious: that the war was largely about controlling Iraq's oil -- and had nothing to do with fighting terrorism. I would argue: It was also about destroying Iraq as a nation -- leaving Iraq prostrate so that it could never again challenge Israeli hegemony in the region. Now why couldn't an expert like Friedman simply tell the truth and state the obvious? Clearly, he has an agenda.
Friedman gives a really bizarre justification for the US policy of arming BOTH Iran and Iraq during the bloody war which raged between these two nations between 1980-1986. He states that if either Iran or Iraq gained "the upper hand in the region it would try to sieze part or all of Saudi Arabia." (p 253) Which, again, is total nonsense. Why couldn't the author simply state the obvious: The US pursued a wicked policy of bleeding and weakening both nations for its own selfish reasons -- and also to divert attention from Israel's continuing illegal occupation of Palestinian lands. It had nothing to do with protecting Saudi Arabia.
Friedman also repeats the lie that Saddam Hussein kicked out the UNSCOM inspectors in 1998. This lie has been told so frequently that it has taken on a life of its own. But Scott Ritter, the chief UNSCOM weapons inspector, knows what actually happened because he was there. According to Ritter it was Bill Clinton who ordered out the UN inspection team, on the eve of a major US bombing campaign in late 1998, Operation Desert Fox, which was an attempt by the US to assassinate Saddam Hussein. Indeed, this is why the Iraqi leader then refused to allow the inspectors to return. He correctly accused the US of using the UN inspection effort to gather intel about Saddam's whereabouts in an attempt to take him out. Ritter affirms this is what actually happened. Now, why couldn't Friedman get this right?
What is Friedman's agenda? We get a clue from the author's discussion about the Madrid bombings in March 2004, which he attributes to al Qaeda. Yet, today, we know al Qaeda had nothing whatever to do with that attack, which ocurred shortly before major elections in Spain. The bombing was almost certainly staged by operatives of the ultraconservative Spanish government then in power -- as a way of terrorizing the Spanish people into re-electing that same government. They blamed it on Basque separatists. Fortunately, the false flag attack failed. The Spanish people saw through it -- and voted out Bush's allies -- in the process, electing a new populist government that immediately fulfilled its promise to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq -- consistent with the strongly anti war sentiment in Spain. Here, again, by misfiring, the author shows his true colors.
Friedman is the founder and chairman of STRATFOR -- which claims to be an independent intelligence agency. However, I suspect he has links to the Israeli Mossad and maybe even to the CIA. The reader should beware: Read the book with a discerning eye -- because the author weaves many falsehoods between the lines. He is a liar
Some Mental Midgets have found flaws.. but cannot express them like real men, they nag and moan like little children:
Paul Worcester says:
This is not a book review - it's an attack for self-serving reasons. This critique smells of 9/11 conspiracy theorism. The tip off was the denial of Spencer's investigatory work without supportive data - radar tapes are not conclusive. Cockpit tapes (for those of us privileged to see them) tell the truth. The pilots Spencer interviewed stand by their story as do those of us that know it from the "inside."
Posted on Jul 20, 2008 9:08 AM PDT
Jeff Peirce says:
I agree that this is not a book review, its an attempt to sell a conspiracy based book on 9/11.
Posted on Jul 23, 2008 11:35 PM PDT
M. Kirkpatrick says:
Go figure that he rips on this book, then promotes his own. If you look at the other books that he has reviewed, it tells the whole story of his thoughts about 9/11.
my answer would be:
Yes, lets forget 9/11! The arabs got everything they wanted, and what did we get? Iraq, Afghanistan, airbases, domestic control worthy of the STASI, electoral corruption, unsolved anthrax, bank bail outs, record profits and not a single challenge to the status quo. Nope, 9/11 was just coincidentally convenient for this power-grab. We are the good guys, we'd never do that. We honestly wanted to save the world from Saddam. We don't need the Oil, honestly!
It's just a coincidence that Bush was hell-bent to invade iraq before 911 ... just google 3 words bush iraq 2000. OK? No! Conspiracies do not exist. Our agencies and their billions do not think, never mind conspire.. they just bumble along. The Joint Chiefs of Staff have never planned deceptive psy-op wet jobs. Nobody ever thought of using civilian airliners to deceive (WIKIPEDIA Operation Northwoods ... "Casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."). Nobody ever could image civilian airliners crashing into buildings.. (google PENTAGON MASCAL). Nobody was rehearsing the 911 scenario on 911 (google APOLLO GUARDIAN). Rest ... assured, we are the good guys. Now go shopping, the devil may care!