Oy Vey, Did Stan Goff

Borba100 at aol.com Borba100 at aol.com
Fri Dec 7 11:24:26 MST 2001


In a message dated 12/7/01 8:05:25 AM Eastern Standard Time,
sherrynstan at igc.org writes:

<< Do we know what the alert status is at Andrews or don't we?  Do we know
the alert procedures or don't we?  These are real questions that go to the
very heart of your presentation of evidence. >>

What kind of response time is involved in intercepting drug smugglerss planes
(part of official DCANG mission, see DC military website at tenc.net)?  Techs
we spoke to at Andrews AFB say 15 minutes. The text below, which Stan should
read, answers his 'question' in a more thorough fashion. - Jared

The problem with Stan Goff is that behind his "this is depressing but I luv
ya" attempt at condescension and his CAPITALIZATION WHICH IS AN ATTEMPT TO
BULLY PEOPLE BY YELLING, a) he has not read what we wrote; or worse, he is
taking advantage of what he hopes is list members' resistance to considering
our evidence.

Either way (ignorance or manipulation or whatever) he has taken some
introductory sentences and "refuted" them on the absurd basis that they do
not constitute the evidence that is in fact presented later. Wow.

In other words, this logician has read and refuted the introduction to a
summary of evidence. Following that introduction, the rest of Section 1, as
well as the Update to Section 1, and also Section 2, provide actual evidence.
None of that evidence is dealt with in Goff's
CAPITALIZE-THE-LETTERS-AND-SHOUT-LOTS-OF-NONSENSE attempt to bully the facts
into submission.

"Sound and fury, signifying boobkas." That's Yiddish, Stan, a working class
language. It translates, roughly: Like Du-uh.

The epitome of Stan's logic is his response to our introductory remark that:

"The sabotage of routine protective systems, controlled by strict
hierarchies, would never have been contemplated let alone attempted absent
the involvement of the supreme U.S. military command."  Goff replies:

"STANDING ALONE, THIS STATEMENT CAN NOT BE PROVED."  Slick logic, Stan. Of
course, any one introductory sentence could not constitute proof. And in
fact, the issue of "hierarchies and procedures" is, as we promise in the
introduction, covered in Section 2. In about 2700 words.

Similarly, we state: "Their job [i.e., Andrews] was to protect the skies over
Washington D.C."

Stan shouts: "DO YOU HAVE DOCUMENTATION THAT STATES THIS IS THEIR MISSION?"

Brother, "I luv ya" too, but shucks, is it to much to ask an ***ole "army
instructor" to read?

One of the links we've posted is to the website of the Washington, DC Air
National Guard (DCANG) . Here's what the DCANG (which is at Andrews Air Force
Base) used to say on their website about their mission. It's been pulled (out
of embarrassment or so as not to contradict the official story) from the
current version of the website but is still readable on Emperor's Clothes or
at archive.org. Concerning their mission:

"DCANG MISSION To provide combat units in the highest possible state of
readiness."  Now what might "combat units in the highest possible state of
readiness" mean in English if not that they have airplanes and pilots ready
to scramble in emergencies?

One more, and then enough.

We say in the introduction: "The FAA, NORAD and the military have cooperative
procedures by which fighter jets automatically intercept commercial aircraft
under emergency conditions. These procedures were not followed."

Sergeant Speed-Reader Goff barks: "THIS NEEDS TO BE FAR MORE SPECIFIC BEFORE
IT CONSTITUTES PROOF. AGAIN, WHAT SPECIFIC ROLE DOES ANDREWS PLAY HERE, IF
ANY? WHAT ARE THE CAPABILITIES OF THIS NORAD-USAF-FAA PROCEDURE? WHAT IS THE
SEQUENCE OF THE PROCEDURE(S)?"

A) DCANG's role is stated clearly by DCANG website, above, and in DC
Military's descriptions, posted in part I, though, it is true, after the
introduction to which Goff has limited his remarks. These mission statements
include: providing planes in emergencies on the highest possible state of
combat readiness. Moreover, as we know Cheney and Myers (then acting head of
the Joint Chiefs) stated (as quoted in Section 1 and Section 2) that after
the Pentagon was hit they decided planes should be scrambled and scrambled
them. Eyewitnesses report that planes were scrambled immediately. Not two
hours later, immediately. Since the accused have confessed, why do we need to
speculate? And keep in mind, the NY Times and other sources confirm that the
military and FAA knew that Flight 77 had been hijacked before 9 am.

B) As for the NORAD Procedures, these are summarized with very good
documentation in Part II. The FAA states that planes can be scrambled from
NORAD bases and also from non-NORAD military sites. Andrews is the Main Air
National Guard base in the US.

We provide an example of non-NORAD scrambling - the scrambling of various
aircraft including a training plane when Payne Stewart's Lear Jet broke radio
contact and went off course.

Since planes were scrambled from Andrews (on short notice - but after the
Pentagon was hit); since DCANG's mission is to have combat units in the
highest state of readiness, obviously the FAA could have called on Andrews to
scramble planes during the 50 minutes when Flight 77 was, we are told, flying
back to Washington, DC. And note that Vice President Cheney (see Section 2)
never argues that they didn't have planes ready to scramble before the
Pentagon was hit, but only that scrambling required Presidential approval,
which is a lie.

By the way, Stan, your comments are far more of an apology for the cover-up
than anything we have received from any person actually in the military,
diplomatic corps, customs service, and FAA - and we've had lots of responses,
including confirmation from people who work at Andrews.

Jared Israel www.tenc.net Emperor's Clothes



~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.



More information about the Marxism mailing list