Where did the bodies go? 3,000 "deaths" from 9/11 not in Social Security death index

[Ed Jewett]

It seems to me whenever Jeffrey Orling posts here he encounters a hostile response bordering at times on hysteria. All he did was make the entirely reasonable point that it would seem unnecessarily extravagant to fake the deaths and fake the attendant publicly visible mourners. In response to that question you post links, amongst other things, to a hundred page military document. Are we supposed to read it to find out the answers? Why don't you just tell us in plain English what you think? I haven't a clue what an OODA loop is but I suspect it wouldn't take very long to explain it.

I did explain in plain English years ago.. Mar 21 2006, to be precise.

"Cheney, the OODA Loop and 9/11"
http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/f...wentry=601

and four days later... where it was noted that the operational tempo is measured in milli-seconds.

http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/f...wentry=605

This is followed by the blog series "Is This Real-World or Exercise?", posted on April 14th, 2007 and mirrored: http://911blogger.com/node/7874

If the OODA loop is easy to explain, give me a 150-word synopsis of its progenitor "Destruction and Creation" before the end of the week: http://www.goalsys.com/books/documents/D...EATION.pdf

Back in 2006, I wrote: "The OODA loop appears to be a relatively simple cycle. However, given the multiple feedback loops, it is actually very complex....

"Here is the explanatory text that Boyd used under the OODA loop diagram:

"Note how orientation shapes observation, shapes decision, shapes action and, in turn, is shaped by the feedback and other phenomena coming into our sensing or observing window."

Also note how the entire "loop" (not just orientation) is an ongoing many-sided implicit cross-referencing process of projection, empathy, correlation, and rejection."

In simpler English, if someone can get you to "see" certain things and understands how you will "forecast" forthcoming events based on what you "see", how you will feel emotionally about what you "see", how you will put two and two together to get five, and how you can be led to reject or disbelieve what you think you see, then you can be led by the nose to a certain action....."

From Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War, Robert Coram, Back Bay Books, Little Brown & Co., Boston 2002, p. 335-6:

"Understanding the OODA Loop is difficult. First, even though it is called a "loop", it is not. A drawing of the Loop shows thirty arrows connecting the various ingredients, which means hundreds of possible "loops" can be derived….Even Boyd's Acolytes do not always agree with what Boyd meant by the OODA Loop… The OODA Loop briefing contains 185 slides. "

The OODA loop is based on Boyd's earlier thesis entitled "Destruction and Creation", which links Godel's Proof, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, and the second law of thermodynamics.

"…Boyd spent four years researching and writing and then distilling his [thesis] down to eleven pages; the result has the specific gravity approaching that of uranium. It is thick and heavy and ponderous, filled with caveats and qualifiers and arcane references that span theories never before connected. To read [it] is to fully appreciate the term "heavy sledding". [Page 323]"

**

"For a time, Boyd and Spinney were reluctant to fully explain the OODA loop; it was far too dangerous.

If someone truly understands how to create menace and uncertainty and mistrust, then how to exploit and magnify the presence of these disconcerting elements, the Loop can be vicious, a terribly destructive force, virtually unstoppable in causing panic and confusion and Boyd's phrase is best "unraveling the competition".

This is true whether the Loop is applied in combat, in competitive business practices, in sports, or in personal relationships.

The most amazing aspect of the OODA Loop is that the losing side rarely understands what happened."



The OODA loop stands for a rapid, repeated cycle. Keep in mind that Cheney was briefed by Boyd on all of this when Cheney was the Secretary of Defense, that he was the titular head of all defense-related drills and drill process and results for many months prior to 9/11, that he had already run a "lessons learned" debriefing for Iran-Contra, and keep in mind that the author, who was also responsible for the design of the energy/maneuverability engineering for the F-15, has developed those engineering studies using computer time stolen from the US Air Force without their knowledge. Keep in mind that the US lowered its military computer security on the evening of 9/10/01: http://911blogger.com/news/2010-09-25/us...-night-911



From WikiPedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network-centric_warfare ):

Network centric warfare can trace its immediate origins to 1996 when Admiral William Owens introduced the concept of a 'system of systems' in a paper of the same name published by the Institute National Security Studies. Owens described the serendipitous evolution of a system of intelligence sensors, command and control systems, and precision weapons that enabled enhanced situational awareness, rapid target assessment, and distributed weapon assignment.

Also in 1996, the Joint Chiefs of Staff released Joint Vision 2010, which introduced the military concept of full-spectrum dominance. Full Spectrum Dominance described the ability of the US military to dominate the battlespace from peace operations through to the outright application of military power that stemmed from the advantages of information superiority.
[edit] Network Centric Warfare

The term "network-centric warfare" and associated concepts first appeared in the Department of Navy's publication, "Copernicus: C4ISR for the 21st Century." The ideas of networking sensors, commanders, and shooters to flatten the hierarchy, reduce the operational pause, enhance precision, and increase speed of command were captured in this document. Many of these ideas were further refined and developed through models developed by the consulting firm Booz Allen Hamilton working with the Joint Staff in the Pentagon in the mid to late 1990s.

As a distinct concept, however, network-centric warfare first appeared publicly in a 1998 US Naval Institute Proceedings article by Vice Admiral Arthur K. Cebrowski and John Gartska. The concepts were later given greater depth in the book, Network Centric Warfare coauthored by Gartska, David S. Alberts (Director of Research, OASD-NII), and Fred Stein of The MITRE Corporation.

Published by the Command and Control Research Program (CCRP), the book derived a new theory of warfare from a series of case studies on how business was using information and communication technologies to improve situation analysis, accurately control inventory and production, as well as monitor customer relations.
[edit] Understanding Information Age Warfare

Network-centric warfare was followed in 2001 by Understanding Information Age Warfare (UIAW), jointly authored by Alberts, Gartska, Richard Hayes of Evidence Based Research and David S. Signori of RAND. UIAW pushed the implications of the shifts identified by network-centric warfare in order to derive an operational theory of warfare.

Starting with a series of premises on how the environment is sensed, UIAW posits a structure of three domains. The physical domain is where events take place and are perceived by sensors and individuals. Data emerging from the physical domain is transmitted through an information domain.

Data is subsequently received and processed by a cognitive domain where it is assessed and acted upon. The process replicates the "observe, orient, decide, act" loop first described by Col. John Boyd of the USAF.

snip

Network-centric warfare/operations is a cornerstone of the ongoing transformation effort at the Department of Defense initiated by former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. It is also one of the five goals of the Office of Force Transformation, Office of the Secretary of Defense.

See Revolution in Military Affairs for further information on what is now known as "defense transformation" or "transformation".....

###

"Data is subsequently received and processed by a cognitive domain where it is assessed and acted upon."

Puts a new wrinkle on the phrase "cognitive infiltration" and "crippled epistemology", doesn't it?

****

"...we no longer take effective action, because it has become impossible to identify what we might do to change anything. Instead, we react to events. That is what the ruling class wants, because if we are reactive, then outcomes can be controlled by controlling the stimuli. Keep 'em dazzled with foot work. So the stimuli keep coming at us faster than we can think. And they are presented as fate, or the result of "fast changing world events," or a banking collapse no one could have predicted -- things to which we must respond immediately. Most of us just give up. Which again, is what the ruling class wants us to do -- become a uniformly pliant mass."

~ Joe Bageant