The next example comes in two parts. Firstly, there are some untruthers whose grip on reality is so tenuous that they make the ludicrous claim that no-one died on 9-11, that all the dead were "faked".
This is a good example of the often bizarre claims made by the untruth movement, and indicates the callous disregard they have for those affected by the events of 9-11. One has only go visit some of the families of 9-11 victims to disprove this lie.
The second part shows not only disrespect but the disinformation, the lies, that untruthers like to deal in. This one come from a notorious untruther named Jack White on a forum which is known as a disinformation clearing house. Here he questions the 9-11 Victims Fund and claims it is being used as some type of "hush fund", that those who benefit from it are "...with the PROVISO THAT THEY WOULD ANSWER NO QUESTIONS REGARDING THEIR RELATIVES...".
So, is this true? Quite simply, no it is NOT true. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence and a desire to seek factual information - traits often absent from untruthers - could discover such a claim was false:
VICTIM COMPENSATION FUND FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
(Updated July 11, 2002)
Section 9 – Waiver/Certification
9.1 What does it mean to waive rights to file a lawsuit?
- If you are an injured Victim, you will, once your claim is submitted and deemed substantially complete, waive your right to file a lawsuit against any entity seeking compensation for the injury sustained by the September 11 attacks. This waiver does not apply to a civil action to recover collateral source obligations or to a civil action against any person who is a knowing participant in any conspiracy to hijack any aircraft or commit any terrorist act.
- If the Victim is deceased, the claimant will waive his or her rights to file an action seeking compensation for the Victim's death. This waiver does not apply to a civil action to recover collateral source obligations or to a civil action against any person who is a knowing participant in any conspiracy to hijack any aircraft or commit any terrorist act. The statute may be interpreted to mean that the submission of a claim for a deceased Victim will waive the rights of other beneficiaries of that Victim to file a lawsuit.
9.2 Whose rights are waived by filing a claim?
The claimant’s rights are waived. The statute may be interpreted to mean that the submission of a claim for a deceased Victim will waive the rights of other beneficiaries of that Victim to file a lawsuit
9.3 If I apply for compensation for an Advance Benefit, do I give up my rights?
Yes, once you submit the Eligibility and Application for Advance Benefits part of the new Compensation Form (or the previously published Eligibility Form and Application for Advance Benefits) and it is deemed substantially complete you will have waived your rights. The Act provides that upon the submission of a claim under the Fund, the claimant waives the right to file a civil action (or to be a party to an action) in any Federal or State court for damages sustained as a result of the terrorist-related aircraft crashes of September 11, 2001, except that this limitation does not apply to civil actions to recover collateral source obligations or to a civil action against any person who is a knowing participant in any conspiracy to hijack any aircraft or commit any terrorist act.
9.4 When do I give up my rights to file other claims in court?
You waive your rights once your submission of a claim is deemed substantially complete based on the determination of a Claims Evaluator. If you apply for an Advance Benefit and the Special Master determines that you have submitted a substantially complete Eligibility and Application for Advance Benefits part of the new Compensation Form (or the previously published Eligibility Form and Application for Advance Benefits) you will have been deemed to have filed claim and will be giving up your rights to bring a lawsuit. If you do not request Advance Benefits, you will be deemed to have filed and will be giving up your rights to bring a lawsuit if the Special Master determines you have submitted a substantially complete Personal Injury Compensation Form or Compensation Form for Deceased Victims, as well as the Eligibility and Application for Advance Benefits (form or part).
9.5 Will submission of a claim to the Fund affect other benefits I get?
That will depend on the particular benefit program. You should check with the administrators of the programs from which you receive benefits. If you are receiving workers compensation benefits, you should check with your carrier or union or employer to make sure you have obtained all the necessary information, agreements or waivers.
9.6 Is a notice of claim or intent filed with the Port Authority, the City of New York, or a Workers' Compensation carrier considered a civil action that would bar a claim with the Victim Compensation Fund?
No. A notice of claim or intent filed with the Port Authority, the City of New York, or a Workers' Compensation carrier does not constitute a civil action in federal or state court. If you have filed such notices, you may still file a claim with the Victim Compensation Fund. However, if you proceed with a lawsuit (or are made a party to a lawsuit) in state or federal court for damages as a result of the crashes, you will not be able to claim from the Victim Compensation Fund, unless it is a civil action to recover collateral source obligations or a civil action against any person who is a knowing participant in any conspiracy to hijack any aircraft or commit any terrorist act.
9.7 I’ve filed a claim, and one of my family members objected because he wants to file a lawsuit. Will my claim be processed?
The Fund will process the claim if it is filed by an eligible personal representative and that claimant is not a party to an action in state or federal court seeking damages as a result of the September 11th terrorist attacks and if there is no legitimate objection to the claim. We cannot advise on how the court will address the issue of waiver or whether the family member will be permitted to pursue a lawsuit.
9.8 Q&As Regarding Lawsuits Against Terrorist Conspiracy Participants
Question A
Q: If I file a claim under the Fund, may I also file or be a party to a lawsuit against someone who "is a knowing participant in any conspiracy to hijack any aircraft or commit any terrorist act?"
A: Yes.
Question B
Q: What happens if I file a claim with the Fund and also file a lawsuit against someone who is not a "knowing participant in any conspiracy to hijack any aircraft or commit any terrorist act?"
A: Section 4059(c)(3)(B)(i) states that a claimant to the Fund "waives the right to file a civil action (or to be a party to an action) in any Federal or State court for damages sustained as a result of the terrorist-related aircraft crashes of September 11, 2001," and makes exceptions only for lawsuits "to recover collateral source obligations" and lawsuits against a defendant that is a "knowing participant in any conspiracy to hijack any aircraft or commit any terrorist act." If you file a claim with the Fund and also file a lawsuit against someone who is not a "knowing participant in any conspiracy to hijack any aircraft or commit any terrorist act," you are still eligible for compensation from the Fund, but your lawsuit will be dismissed. This rule applies regardless of whether you file your claim with the Fund before or after filing the lawsuit.
Question C
Q: Who will decide whether a defendant is in fact a "knowing participant in any conspiracy to hijack any aircraft or commit any terrorist act?"
A: In all cases, regardless of whether you file your claim with the Fund before or after filing the lawsuit, the court will decide the issue whether a defendant is a "knowing participant in any conspiracy to hijack any aircraft or commit any terrorist act." If the court determines that the plaintiff has submitted a claim to the Fund and that a defendant is not a "knowing participant in any conspiracy to hijack any aircraft or commit any terrorist act," then it must dismiss the lawsuit against that defendant (unless the lawsuit is one to recover collateral source obligations).
Source: http://www.usdoj.gov/archive/victimcompensation/faq9.pdf
But it means they can't sue the Government, or Bush, etc, if they were shown to have been involved in a MIHOP / LIHOP, right?
NO.
Q: If I file a claim under the Fund, may I also file or be a party to a lawsuit against someone who "is a knowing participant in any conspiracy to hijack any aircraft or commit any terrorist act?"
A: Yes.
So, once again the 'truth movement' shows that truth is the last thing it wants.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Bobcat bother
The first example is typical. It displays a number of the most common untruther traits:
http://www.shoestring911.blogspot.com/
Now, questioning is fine. Problem is, they won't listen to answers. What answers can we find? Well, with a small amount of research, we can find plenty.
Firstly, what units use that callsign prefix?
http://www.the-guide.nl/callsign/country/us/11/
http://www.henney.com/chm/callsign.htm
http://www.fencecheck.com/forums/index.php?topic=10944.70;wap2
http://www.monitoringtimes.com/MilitaryCallsignList-Sep09.txt
http://members.cox.net/giantkiller-1/callad.htm
So we have a number of possible identities. Note that some untruthers are saying that it could be F-22 Raptors with the 27FS; these people fail to realise that the 27FS did not receive the F-22 until after 9-11; they were flying F-15Cs at the time. Similarly, some squadrons were re-equipped with newer aircraft after 9-11.
What other evidence is there to help us determine what those aircraft were? The original "shoestring" post gives a report, which contains scan of what are called 'flight progress strips'. The strips are used by air traffic controllers, giving them data about the flight in a concise format.
Note the letters circled in red. What are these? Well, they are the aircraft type. How do I know this? Well, I have previously worked as an air traffic controller. How do YOU know what I'm saying is correct?
http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/ATC/atc0203.html
So we know the aircraft type was a T2. The "/P' suffix tells us that the aircraft is equipped with TACAN only and had a Mode 3 SSR transponder. The T2 tells us that the aircraft type was a Rockwell T-2 Buckeye (source: http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/ATC/atcapda.html#vZH2f8JACK)
So we now know the aircraft were two T-2 Buckeye jet trainer aircraft. Does that match any of the known callsigns? Yes. VT-9 operated the T-2 Buckeye in 2001, and was used for pilot training. It carried no weapons.
Rockwell T-2C Buckeye jet trainer
(Photo: U.S. Navy photo by Ensign Darin K. Russell)
So we know the aircraft type and the operating unit. What were the aircraft doing there? The flight strip also tells us the details of what route the aircraft planned to fly, and a few other details. Let's look at the strip for BOBCAT 17.
The "A" represents the location of the Ronald Regan Washington National Airport.
Let's compare that to what was flown, as shown by radar data from the 84th Radar Evaluation Squadron (84th RADES)
Not too dissimilar. Why the difference? Air traffic took them off of their planned route and placed them on a radar heading. This took them south of their planned route. Reference to the ATC transcript shows they were kept on a heading for a short while, probably for separation purposes, then turned towards Montebello navigation aid. They were perhaps within 20 nautical miles of Washington at closest, unarmed and unable to assist with any interception. Being training aircraft, they may even have had students as the pilots.
So no mystery. Yet does "shoestring" tell you this? No. Are they aware of this? Yes - I and others have made them aware of these facts. Do they allow comments explaining this on their blog? No - they only allow comments which perpetuate the myth which they want to advance.
So remember: don't expect untruthers to give you the full story, all the facts. Examine what they - or anyone else (like me!) - say and verify all the claims for yourself. If it's a technical claim beyond your understanding, then check with several experts and get a consensus (so you ensure that the opinion is sharded by all those professionals).
- Censor discussion
- Omit and repress facts
http://www.shoestring911.blogspot.com/
Now, questioning is fine. Problem is, they won't listen to answers. What answers can we find? Well, with a small amount of research, we can find plenty.
Firstly, what units use that callsign prefix?
- C-21 (Learjet): USAF VIP ferry flight
- CT-43 (B737): USAF 200th Airlift Squadron (200AS)
- T-43 (B737): USAF 172nd Airlift Group (172AG), Colorado Air National Guard, Buckley AFB, Colorado
- F-15C: USAF 27th Fighter Squadron, Langley AFB, Virginia
- T-45: USN Training Squadron 19 (VT-19), NAS Meridian, Mississippi
- T-2C: USN Training Squadron 9 (VT-9), NAS Meridian, Mississippi
http://www.the-guide.nl/callsign/country/us/11/
http://www.henney.com/chm/callsign.htm
http://www.fencecheck.com/forums/index.php?topic=10944.70;wap2
http://www.monitoringtimes.com/MilitaryCallsignList-Sep09.txt
http://members.cox.net/giantkiller-1/callad.htm
So we have a number of possible identities. Note that some untruthers are saying that it could be F-22 Raptors with the 27FS; these people fail to realise that the 27FS did not receive the F-22 until after 9-11; they were flying F-15Cs at the time. Similarly, some squadrons were re-equipped with newer aircraft after 9-11.
What other evidence is there to help us determine what those aircraft were? The original "shoestring" post gives a report, which contains scan of what are called 'flight progress strips'. The strips are used by air traffic controllers, giving them data about the flight in a concise format.
Note the letters circled in red. What are these? Well, they are the aircraft type. How do I know this? Well, I have previously worked as an air traffic controller. How do YOU know what I'm saying is correct?
http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/ATC/atc0203.html
So we know the aircraft type was a T2. The "/P' suffix tells us that the aircraft is equipped with TACAN only and had a Mode 3 SSR transponder. The T2 tells us that the aircraft type was a Rockwell T-2 Buckeye (source: http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/ATC/atcapda.html#vZH2f8JACK)
So we now know the aircraft were two T-2 Buckeye jet trainer aircraft. Does that match any of the known callsigns? Yes. VT-9 operated the T-2 Buckeye in 2001, and was used for pilot training. It carried no weapons.
Rockwell T-2C Buckeye jet trainer
(Photo: U.S. Navy photo by Ensign Darin K. Russell)
So we know the aircraft type and the operating unit. What were the aircraft doing there? The flight strip also tells us the details of what route the aircraft planned to fly, and a few other details. Let's look at the strip for BOBCAT 17.
- It was assigned the SSR code 7017 (7017)
- It was scheduled to depart Dover AFB (DOV) at 1230 UTC (1230)
- It requested Flight Level 260 or 26,000 feet (260)
- Depart Dover for the Smyrna VORTAC at Kenton, Delaware (+ENO)
- thence direct to Baltimore VORTAC (BAL)
- thence to a position 303 degrees magnetic at 30 nautical miles from the Baltimore VORTAC (BAL 303020)
- thence to a position 246 degrees magnetic at 80 nautical miles from the Washington VOR/DME (DCA 246080)
- thence direct to the Montebello (Virginia) VOR/DME (MOL+)
The "A" represents the location of the Ronald Regan Washington National Airport.
Let's compare that to what was flown, as shown by radar data from the 84th Radar Evaluation Squadron (84th RADES)
Not too dissimilar. Why the difference? Air traffic took them off of their planned route and placed them on a radar heading. This took them south of their planned route. Reference to the ATC transcript shows they were kept on a heading for a short while, probably for separation purposes, then turned towards Montebello navigation aid. They were perhaps within 20 nautical miles of Washington at closest, unarmed and unable to assist with any interception. Being training aircraft, they may even have had students as the pilots.
So no mystery. Yet does "shoestring" tell you this? No. Are they aware of this? Yes - I and others have made them aware of these facts. Do they allow comments explaining this on their blog? No - they only allow comments which perpetuate the myth which they want to advance.
So remember: don't expect untruthers to give you the full story, all the facts. Examine what they - or anyone else (like me!) - say and verify all the claims for yourself. If it's a technical claim beyond your understanding, then check with several experts and get a consensus (so you ensure that the opinion is sharded by all those professionals).
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
What I am about
There is a lot of misinformation out there regarding 9-11. Most all of it comes from people who hypocritically call themselves "truthers". Truth is the last thing they seek.
Truther groups are good at some things - making things sound convincing is one of them. What they count on is people not investigating their claims, not doing research, not thinking for themselves.
So what I'll be doing here is pointing out some of the lies and hypocrisy. I'll give my opinion.... and I'll give links to resources so you can determine for yourself what is correct and what is not.
Oh - and unlike most 'truther' blogs, I won't prevent people posting comments I disagree with. My only rule is no bad language, and no excessive abuse.
Truther groups are good at some things - making things sound convincing is one of them. What they count on is people not investigating their claims, not doing research, not thinking for themselves.
So what I'll be doing here is pointing out some of the lies and hypocrisy. I'll give my opinion.... and I'll give links to resources so you can determine for yourself what is correct and what is not.
Oh - and unlike most 'truther' blogs, I won't prevent people posting comments I disagree with. My only rule is no bad language, and no excessive abuse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)