The Dog That Did Not Bark: SS at Booker Elem.
Page 1 of 3

Author:  Catherine [ Fri Jul 01, 2005 5:17 pm ]
Post subject:  The Dog That Did Not Bark: SS at Booker Elem.

The Secret Service at Booker Elementary:
The Dog That Did Not Bark

Inspector Gregory: "Is there any other point to which you would wish to draw my attention?"

Holmes: "To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time."

"The dog did nothing in the night time"

"That was the curious incident," remarked Sherlock Holmes.

From "The Adventure of Silver Blaze" by Arthur Conan Doyle

We've all seen the video. It figures prominently in Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11". It is the video of George Bush at Booker Elementary School being informed by Andy Card of the second impact of a passenger jetliner into the World Trade Center, then sitting there for several minutes reading about goats.
What damns the Bush administration is not what is in this video, but what SHOULD be in the video and is not. Ostensibly, Bush and Card are reacting to a surprise attack, but Bush does not act surprised, and Andrew Card does not act like a man delivering an unexpected piece of news but instead is merely delivering a progress report to which he already knows Bush will not have an immediate response.

There is one more thing that should be in this video and isn't, and that is the Secret Service, the protective detail whose one and only job is the President's safety.

The fictional Sherlock Holmes solved the crime in "Silver Blaze" deducing that it is the owner of the house who is the criminal. How does he know? Because the dog did not bark. The only criminal who could could carry out the crime and not arouse the dog was a criminal the dog already knew as a friend, the dog's owner.

Now let us turn our Sherlockian logic on 9-11. Hijacked aircraft were wandering across the eastern half of the country. In theory nobody could have known how many there are or if more planes were not in the process of being hijacked. How could they? Two of the planes had crashed into the World Trade Center. There is an airport only four miles from Booker Elementary School, and Bush's presence at the school was in the news media days in advance. The Sarasota Herald Tribune announced Bush's visit to Booker on September 8th, given the 9-11 planners three days to include Bush as a target for a diving jetliner. Nobody could have safely assumed he was not a target.

And yet the Secret Service did not rush in and remove the President to a secure location, or at least to the safety of the armored Presidential Limousine. That's their job. That's what they do in the case of a real surprise attack with so many unknowns. They don't do anything else.

But the Secret Service did nothing. The dog did not bark.

Bush defenders try to explain away Bush's inaction as not wanting to upset the children. Michael Moore explains away Bush's inaction by suggesting he hadn't been told to leave. But Michael Moore failed to follow that line of reasoning through to its logical conclusion; where were the people whose job it is to get the President to a place of safety in event of attack, the people who would have, SHOULD have, pulled Bush out of there, children and public appearances be damned! And as long as the children remained in that room, their lives were also at risk from a potential crashing plane. Let me repeat that last part. Keeping those people in that class room risked all of their lives, children included, from a potential inbound threat.

The Secret Service did nothing. The dog did not bark.

If the events of 9-11 were really a surprise to the United States Government, then there is no way that the Secret Service could know there wasn't a hijacked or stolen plane headed towards Booker Elementary School that very second. The Secret Service could not know that Bush wasn't in danger. The Secret Service could not know that all those teachers and children weren't in danger.

The Secret Service did nothing. The dog did not bark.

The Secret Service should be in that video but they are not. From their inaction, it is clear that the Secret Service KNEW FOR A FACT THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS NOT A TARGET OF ONE OF THE HIJACKED PLANES. And the only way anyone could know that for a fact at that particular moment is to have known what the targets of the hijacked planes were, at that particular moment, standing there in the school.

The Secret Service did nothing. The dog did not bark.

Quod Erat Demonstradum, the Bush Administration was part of the 9-11 plot.

Link: ... rvice.html



Author:  DO.g's [ Wed Jul 20, 2005 11:15 pm ]
Post subject:  Guilty as F#@K

Sic this d.OG's on them and I'd be a barkin'. This is a damning article, and damn good.

Well I remember the early footage and saw Bush as his dogs leaned over and whispered in their masters ear, and nary a whimper from the chief dog himself, as he is obedient to his master g.OD's. I always thought that this was a strange reaction to a man being told his house is on fire and he doesn't feel the need to run for his life.

Remember that one plane did crash. It was the legitimate plane that was hijacked and was known by intelligence, set up by the administration and was allowed as the red herring. Imagine the surprise of the hijackers when a missile was coming in, ordered to shoot it down, by Cheney. How did they know?

Then there's the cell phone calls from people on board. It has been pointed out that cell phones don't work on planes and recently on CNN I saw that they now have the technology to allow cell phones to work on airplanes! Wasn't CNN reporting that cell phones were being used by people on the second plane into the second tower and on board the plane intended for the White House? The story on CNN was that the hijackers told the people to call their families and say goodbye or something. That the 'HEROS' overpowered the hijackers and forced it down into a field?

Elementary my dear Watson, The dog has fleas and should have run, and it's a 'tick'ing time bomb ready to explode in their faces. Someone needs to piece all the facts together and run that bastard out of his elementary school style plot. It's a simple rhebus that any schoolkid should get. The dogs of the media are barking with muzzles on up the wrong tree. Only the ignorant are listening and so Bush gets away with his adolescent style mystery. Most of his listeners and public are obviously no more intelligent than children - and that is what he knows.

One more thing. After advertising where he'd be, imagine IF the terrorists flew into the school full of children to kill a legitimate target AND all those children! What a horrible thought. Oklahoma and the CIA target, hiding behind daycares. Why would the terrorists try to make a hit on the White House if it was known that he wasn't even there? Were the real terrorists in the plane shot down unaware of where Bush really was? Did intelligence know they were uninformed or made sure they were so they continued their mission on the White House? Too many unanswered questions to just ignore. Bush was hiding behind innocent children. Coward.

Author:  Catherine [ Wed Jul 20, 2005 11:24 pm ]
Post subject: 

When I saw Farenheit 9/11one of the most telling things about Bush's complete inadequacy was his sitting there, in that school, for minute after minute after minute. Even though I knew it wasn't going to happen, I willed him with all my strength to get up out of that chair, excuse himself, and get on with dealing with a crisis situation taking place in our country.

Instead, he just sits there, staring... rather glassy-eyed, at nothing. The man was brain-dead for several minutes...I truly believe that.


Author:  Lew [ Thu Jul 21, 2005 12:52 am ]
Post subject: 


Cell phones do in fact work on Planes......Ive read the experiment by Germar Rudolf and yes I guess his didnt work...but that doesnt mean they cant work on planes

Think about it, If they couldnt work at all why are they forbidden in the first place? :scratch: Why not say hey your phones arent going to work so dont try...

The Cnn report is about making the airplanes more cell phone friendly so the service is better and reception.....not that you could never make a cell phone call.

here's a link that shows that it wouldnt have been impossible for these phones to work on the planes ... e-en.shtml

Author:  JayHawk [ Thu Jul 21, 2005 3:31 am ]
Post subject: 

Lew, I'm not gonna bother going through details and debates on singular inssue revolving around 9/11 with you here .....yet...but if you could please just answer one question to start with ...........

do you think they let it happen ?

Author:  Lew [ Thu Jul 21, 2005 3:58 am ]
Post subject: 

fair question.

Did they let it happen, In some ways I'd say yes of course they did by not heeding warnings ahead of time. But then again, that is hindsight and speculation.

If you mean did they let it happen( as in they knew for a fact that these events would occur) no, i dont think they did.

Author:  DO.g's [ Thu Jul 21, 2005 5:54 am ]
Post subject:  So what are YOU saying- BY CELLPHONE in a plane at 10,000

Cell phones may cause instruments to malfunction, and they only work near airports on landing and take off under 2000 feet under 250 mph. The satellites they work with lose their signals when flying faster. DUH. ... e-en.shtml
From your article QUOTE-"Passengers react differently on this warning, someone switches off the phone, and someone thinks that it is only a precaution. In this case people make calls during take-offs and landings, they don't pay attention to requests of neighbors or even crewmen. And it is so, despite the fact that all airlines prohibit to use cell phone during the flight. This ban, which was appeared as an extra insurance, is of vitally importance today. We've already known instances in which equipment and navigation equipment, in particular, was affected by a cell phone. At least one air crash was occurred because of a working mobile phone and it is a forcible argument to ban all wireless phones aboard the plane. ...Look, a one-minute call in the air was much more expensive than a usual cell phone call and, naturally, people used a cheaper service when they had a choice.....Specialist in equipment negatively took this announcement and in 1996 U.S. Federal Aviation Administration asked nonprofit organization to research this problem. As a result of their study was an article, where the specialists said that cell phones didn't operate on airplane systems. They also confirmed that all the bans shouldn't be repealed because theoretically such interference could take place.....First alarm was set when cell phones became widely spread and equipment errors became more often but still there were no direct evidences. Till 2000 some of the countries didn't joint to the ban against cell phones but an air crash of the flight number LX 498 Crossair (Saab 340) considerably changed the situation. It was not far from Zurich on the 10. of January 2000. Ten passengers and a whole crew perished in that air crash. For a long time the results of flight recorders decoding were not announced but at last it was a sensation. One of the reasons of the crash was an SMS message, which was received by one of the passengers, and a next cell phone conversation. Navigation monitoring devices showed wrong data at that moment, what led to a crash. Comments of independent experts were not comforting, they said that crew could improve the situation but it also made a mistake and crash was inevitable. Everybody agreed that an airplane fortune depended on crew actions and crew professionalism after electrical systems stopped working. Those countries which hadn't joint to the ban before, hurried on to do it. After that this air crash was forgotten."

DUH- maybe the people using the phones on the plane at gunpoint forced by terrorists, inadvertently brought down the plane by screwing up the instruments the terrorists that had learned to fly Cessnas were trying to fly at supersonic speeds into buildings did it. DUH.

I'll excuse you because maybe you haven't advanced beyond grade 3 reading comprehension, but read on, sonny.
Read this article, Lew, the whole thing.

As for the original Flight 93, this was perhaps little more than a decoy flight, though its passengers have entered modern folk-lore as the plucky American heroes who took on evil Muslim terrorists with their bare hands. This myth is based on the cell phone calls allegedly made from the stricken plane but, as Professor Dewdney and others have pointed out, it is not actually possible to use cell phones on aircraft flying at altitudes above 2000 feet and at speeds in excess of 230 mph. Since Flight 93 was at cruising speed and altitude when the calls are alleged to have been made, it is likely they were made from the ground if they were made at all. This of course means we must treat with some suspicion either the people who allegedly made them, the relatives who reported them, or both.

There is another reason why the four original planes might well have had no bona fide innocent civilian passengers on board and that's to do with what we might, with some irony, call the 'Flight 93 Syndrome', i.e., the excessive and uncontrolled use of cell phones. They may not be much use above 2000 feet, but cell phones can be used at airports and on planes that are taking off or landing.

Want more DUH? ... cle&sid=48

"The cell phone calls from the aircraft could not have happened. I am a National Security Agency trained Electronic Warfare specialist, and am qualified to say this. My official title: MOS33Q10, Electronic Warfare Intercept Strategic Signal Processing/Storage Systems Specialist, a highly skilled MOS which requires advanced knowledge of many communications methods and circuits to the most minute level. I am officially qualified to place severe doubt that ordinary cell phone calls were ever made from the aircraft.

It was impossible for that to have happened, especially in a rural area for a number of reasons.

When you make a cell phone call, the first thing that happens is that your cell phone needs to contact a transponder. Your cell phone has a max transmit power of five watts, three watts is actually the norm. If an aircraft is going five hundred miles an hour, your cell phone will not be able to 1. Contact a tower, 2. Tell the tower who you are, and who your provider is, 3. Tell the tower what mode it wants to communicate with, and 4. Establish that it is in a roaming area before it passes out of a five watt range. This procedure, called an electronic handshake, takes approximately 45 seconds for a cell phone to complete upon initial power up in a roaming area because neither the cell phone or cell transponder knows where that phone is and what mode it uses when it is turned on. At 500 miles an hour, the aircraft will travel three times the range of a cell phone's five watt transmitter before this handshaking can occur. Though it is sometimes possible to connect during takeoff and landing, under the situation that was claimed the calls were impossible. The calls from the airplane were faked, no if's or buts. "

DUH- how about more- DUH ... anes_x.htm
Posted 12/16/2004 11:15 PM Updated 12/22/2004 4:50 PM
"There are so few places these days where we can escape cell phones, pagers, BlackBerrys and CNN. Please let my airline flight be the last comfortable, quiet cocoon that is left to me where I can get lost in my own thoughts."
Silverman's wish is at least several years from being granted, because the movement to end the ban on airborne cell phones still faces several hurdles.
few airlines already offer moderately fast Internet connections, and the commission moved Wednesday to permit high-speed Internet connections. Air travelers could be routinely surfing the Web by 2006.

Passengers are now allowed to use electronic devices without radio transmitters — such as video games, CD players and laptops — above 10,000 feet. Some airlines also offer satellite TV. But things like cell phones and pagers are banned from takeoff to touchdown.

The only way passengers on domestic flights can communicate with the ground is on a type of phone found on about 1,500 jets, usually built into seat backs. The phones aren't very popular because of complaints about high cost and poor reception.

Cell phones usually don't work at high altitudes. When they do, they simultaneously communicate with hundreds of cell towers on the ground, clogging networks.
But it's now possible to place a small cell phone tower on each airplane to receive signals from passengers' cell phones and relay them, directly or by satellite, to designated towers on the ground.
The new cell systems would cost about $100,000 per plane but might give the financially-pressed airlines a new source of revenue based on a per-call surcharge.

If the FCC eventually approves passenger use of cell phones, the FAA still must rule on their safety.

The issue of radio frequency interference has become more critical as jets rely increasingly on sophisticated computers and electronic devices. For example, many planes now use the Global Positioning Satellite system, and the weak signal from satellites in space is easily distorted by other radio broadcasts.

There, I hope I answered all your stupid answers. Remember, there are no stupid questions, but a lot of uninformed stupid answers from people who can barely read. Just like bucky used to do, he shot himself too often in his own toes, until he blowed both his pins off and didn't have a leg left to stand on.

LEW says-Cell phones do in fact work on Planes......Ive read the experiment by Germar Rudolf and yes I guess his didnt work...but that doesnt mean they cant work on planes

Think about it, If they couldnt work at all why are they forbidden in the first place? Why not say hey your phones arent going to work so dont try..."

Best read that article and especially the parts I underlined sos' yu kin git thu gist of wut German Rudolf the red faced raindear said, DUH.

Author:  Lew [ Thu Jul 21, 2005 6:00 am ]
Post subject: 

I'll excuse you because maybe you haven't advanced beyond grade 3 reading comprehension, but read on, sonny.

I will excuse you too, for being tactless, rude, obnoxious and for just being led around by your nose by conspiracy websites......

Cell phones usually don't work at high altitudes. When they do, they simultaneously communicate with hundreds of cell towers on the ground, clogging networks

what does usually mean....???

Heres something for you to think about, have you ever done your OWN research on 9/11? And not just regurgitate conspiracy website's propaganda?

Author:  JayHawk [ Thu Jul 21, 2005 6:09 am ]
Post subject: 

Lew wrote:
fair question.

Did they let it happen, In some ways I'd say yes of course they did by not heeding warnings ahead of time. But then again, that is hindsight and speculation.

If you mean did they let it happen( as in they knew for a fact that these events would occur) no, i dont think they did.

Okay, thanks for the reply. We're almost there. I did my own research and thinking on 9/11 and I came up with one solid piece of evidence that should be more than enough to put Dubya and a few of his friends in jail for a long long time. Next step, please read this article and check out the links. It kind of wraps it all up - without so-called conspiracy theories :

Get back with me once you've read this and let it sink in some. On 9/11, I had to ask myself, how did the planes get past NORAD. But that's going into detail - which is not necessary to come to the conclusion they let it happen. Read up. Check back and we'll go from there. The cell phone detail is good for later. The big chunk is the hardest to swallow....or so I have found.

Author:  Lew [ Thu Jul 21, 2005 6:16 am ]
Post subject: 

thanks JayHawk

I think I know what your driving at with Norad and the war games held on that day (Northern Vigilance) and such.

I'll read it a bit later....

But here is another article about cell phone use on planes ... hones.html

here's some interesting reading..

Most travelers have heard the warnings that cell phones can interfere with a plane's navigation or communications equipment.

But just this once, the Federal Communications Commission gave special permission for the flurry of in-flight phone calls as part of a demonstration by American Airlines and San Diego-based Qualcomm.

Despite the well-known warnings to passengers, the real reason cell phones are banned from planes is that they can jam cellular towers on the ground.

A cell phone signal from thousands of feet above ground can be picked up by dozens of towers, causing them to block or drop calls from other callers.

The FCC initiated the ban, which is supported by the Federal Aviation Administration because of its concerns over the phones' possible interference with planes' electronic systems.

The idea behind yesterday's test was to prove that it wouldn't be disruptive to use cell phones 25,000 feet above ground – at least those using Qualcomm's wireless technology on a plane equipped with a Qualcomm-built cellular base station.

"Of the literally hundreds of thousands of airline flights that occur every year, there's probably only about three or four identified interference events, and those events are not really extremely hazardous," said former committee chairman John Sheehan, president of Professional Aviation Inc., an airline safety consulting firm.

One of the biggest tests of cell phone use on planes occurs on flights every day.

"It's fairly common knowledge that there are probably no less than five cell phones left on for almost every flight," Sheehan said. "And there are literally thousands of cell phone calls made from the air every day. Every one of them is illegal, but we haven't had any airplane crashes that we know of that are due to cell phone use."

yes, I know it doesnt come from serendipity or WRH or even prisonplanet so I guess DO won't except it.

No hard feelings Do.g's, if namecalling is what you want I can run with the best of them. Although I'd like to think we can a civil discussion about it...

But I think this kinda proves that those cell phone calls on 9/11 were not impossible as you(sorry,) as would like to say

Author:  JayHawk [ Thu Jul 21, 2005 6:19 am ]
Post subject: 

thx Lew. I'll check that out....that detail.

Hey, be sure to read up on "Rebuilding America's Defenses" linked to on that page I mentioned above.



Author:  Lew [ Thu Jul 21, 2005 6:50 am ]
Post subject: 

ok sorry for hopping on this cell phone deal, but another thing bothers me about this idea that cell phone calls were impossible...

remember when they let the families listen to the transcripts? ... index.html

"'Mom, this is Mark Bingham. I just want to tell you that I love you. I am on a flight from Newark to San Francisco. There are three guys on board who have taken over the plane and they say they have a bomb. You believe me don't you, Mom? I'm calling you from the air phone.' And then we were disconnected," Hoaglan said, her voice breaking

im just wondering how many other were from the air phone in the first place

Author:  JayHawk [ Thu Jul 21, 2005 7:12 am ]
Post subject: 

very heart-touching. I remeber that. Okay, no more details, no more phone calls no more no more.

Dig into the link I provided. Read the Document, check out the links....only a few....and most "Rebuilding America's Defenses". Before you do this my friend, I see no point in going any further with you on 9/11.

Author:  Lew [ Thu Jul 21, 2005 8:57 pm ]
Post subject: 

Ok JayHawk Im starting to read the link you provided and the links within that one.

My initial reaction, is sorry to say, and I'd hope you agree that this coming from a very bias anti Bush at the get go.

President was against an open investigation....true, to the sense that he didnt want leaks on intelligence gathering techniques etc....Just look at what we have now the Democrats are up in arms about the apparent Leak of the CIA agent Plame by Karl Rove....we cant have it both ways......

more on it later...

Author:  mga [ Thu Jul 21, 2005 9:23 pm ]
Post subject: 

i have some questions.....

first, if you made this call, why would you ask if she believed you (about the bombs?) that doesn't sound like something i'd be saying if i was making the call. i mean, why would you bother to ask if your mom doubted you??

You believe me don't you, Mom?

next, why would you ever emphasize that you were calling from the "air phone"? was this the plane's phone or his own? if this was your call, what would you be saying and why bother emphasizing that you were using the "air phone"?

I'm calling you from the air phone.

really, if you were making that call, what would you be saying??

Page 1 of 3 All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group