ABC Shows Us Just How Little Anti-Terrorism The Homeland Security Apparatus Does

Reality TV junkie? Also a State-worshipper? Then you’re in luck!

Every day the men and women of the Department of Homeland Security patrol more than 100,000 miles of America’s borders. This territory includes airports, seaports, land borders, international mail centers, the open seas, mountains, deserts and even cyberspace. Now viewers will get an unprecedented look at the work of these men and women while they use the newest technology to safeguard our country and enforce our laws, in “Homeland Security USA,” which debuts with the episode “This is Your Car on Drugs,”

How much of this “epic” TV show will actually have to do with terrorism? Will this finally belie the claim that the Department of Homeland Security was created with purely “keeping us safe from evildoers” as it’s mandate, or will it be another dose of soma “reality television” for the unquestioning masses. Bear in mind, that’s a rhetorical question, we all know the answer is the latter.

  • Akston
  • Barry May

    I would like to see a good inside look at our security apparatus and how homeland security is working to make our quality of life safe. There is too much assumption on the part of the American public that our government will keep us safe and we can go about our everyday business.

    The truth is, we lack awareness of our surroundings and our own security. We need to be partners with homeland security to help deter any future terroristic attacks.

    Our first responders do a fine job and will be there in the event of an attack but the government cannot see everything that goes on. The public needs to be the eyes and ears to alert police to suspicious activity.

    We as a people need to prepare so another Katrina does not happen.

  • Jason Lightner

    Re: Barry

    “The public needs to be the eyes and ears to alert police to suspicious activity.”

    No we don’t. The police need to do their jobs, by the law, and stop acting as revenue bodies for the State.

    “We as a people need to prepare so another Katrina does not happen.”

    Katrina had nothing to do with homeland security and everything to do with the government underestimating the destructive force of a hurricane on land that is below sea level and failing to provide adequate RESPONSE after the disaster happened.

  • Brad Warbiany

    We as a people need to prepare so another Katrina does not happen.

    Okay, so if I see any big hurricanes barreling down on Newport Beach, I’ll make sure to let a first-responder know…


  • Quincy

    “The public needs to be the eyes and ears to alert their fellow citizens to suspicious police activity.”

    There, Barry. Fixed that for you.

  • Matt Ausman

    For some reason, I remember Fahrenheit 451 — the scene where Guy Montag is escaping. The establishment loses track of him, so they do a TV chase of some innocent bystander and kill him. Same reality TV, huh?

  • Norm
  • Tom Human

    The truth of the matter is that *terrorism in the US is not a problem at all*.

    If the government had simply been doing its job, 9/11 would not have happened. They were clearly warned, they were obsessed with Iraq and ignored it; NORAD is supposed to catch planes that stop communicating with the ground.

    Since 9/11, over *ten times as many Americans* have died behind the wheel of their cars than have died in all acts of terrorism in America, ever!

    Over *one hundred times as many Americans* have died of heart attacks and circulatory in that time.

    We’ve completely thrown away the Constitution and for nothing. We lost more soldiers in Iraq than we lost people in 9/11.

    To live free, we need to accept certain small risks – it’s unavoidable – but you have at least 100 times the chance of dying from falling in the shower than you do being killed by a terrorist.

  • tarran


    I mostly agree with you. I do however take issue with you claim regarding NORAD. There is no way to track aircraft which have turned off their transponders. There is no entity in the U.S. with that capability.

    Oh, after the fact, the tapes from various air-search radars can be analyzed and aircraft tracked that way (this was done with JFK jr’s aircraft), but that sort of analysis can take weeks.

    The only way to prevent 9/11 would have been to encourage the citizenry to fight off hijackers instead of cooperating with them. Even so, it is doubtful that such a doctrine would have saved the aircraft and their passengers.

  • Akston

    The only way to prevent 9/11 would have been to encourage the citizenry to fight off hijackers instead of cooperating with them. Even so, it is doubtful that such a doctrine would have saved the aircraft and their passengers.

    Locking the cockpit doors would probably have been another way to prevent it (as long as I’m considering options to change the past).

    As for the present and future, woe be to any aspiring hijacker who expects passive American passengers now. If you were on a plane and the box cutters came out, what would you do now? I have an idea about my own actions.

  • Tom Human

    “There is no way to track aircraft which have turned off their transponders. There is no entity in the U.S. with that capability.”

    What?! Where did you get that idea?! Air traffic controllers track planes with and without transponders – in fact, before 9/11, this happened quite a bit and was often used as evidence for UFOs :-D.

    First Google hit:

    People were tracking planes using radar 60 years ago, long before transponders. And the systems are MUCH better these days.

    “The only way to prevent 9/11 would have been to encourage the citizenry to fight off hijackers instead of cooperating with them.”

    ARG – breathtaking!


    I’m sorry for the caps but President Bush was clearly told, as a matter of public record in a Presidential Daily Briefing, that terrorists were intending to fly planes into buildings in Lower Manhattan.

    By the time terrorists were sitting in a plane with weapons, we’d already had multiple failures. The “screening” done by underpaid, lowly-paid, badly-treated workers had failed; our intelligence had succeeded inasmuch as several different intelligence workers sounded the alarm; but all of these alarms were silenced by upper Bush-appointed management.

  • tarran

    Tom, sweetie,

    The FAA radar system is incapable of tracking aircraft that are not using a transponder. PERIOD.

    Yes, a human being can look at the screen and manually track the movement of a dot accross it. However, as the screens are usually cluttered with several hundred aircraft at a time, not to mention whatever weather or atmospheric phenomena are bouncing radar signals, it is unlikely that a human will find an aircraft in the noise, especially when they are tasked with monitoring aircraft that are actually using their transponders and requesting clearences etc.

    The air defense network, on the other hand, can track aircraft that are not using transponders. However, they are designed to pick up bomber streams or surveilance aircraft coming in from the ocean. Again, they would have trouble separating out an aircraft that was flying in the continental U.S. from a hijacked commercial airliner.

    BTW, you are wrong about the screening failing; nothing the hijackers brought on board was contraband.

  • Travis

    System Planning Corporation designs, manufactures and distributes highly sophisticated technology that enables an operator to fly by remote control as many as eight different airborne vehicles at the same time from one position either on the ground or airborne. For those looking for an extraordinarily interesting hobby, please see photos and specs of this hardware (about the size of a small refrigerator)at

    Also, System Planning Corporation markets the technology to take over the controls of an airborne vehicle already in flight. For example, the Flight Termination System technology could hijack hijackers and bring the plane down safely. The Flight Termination System can be used in conjunction with the CTS technology that can control up to 8 airborne vehicles simultaneously. see

    The possibility of nefarious use of these brilliant technologies developed and deployed by Systems Planning Corporation certainly deserves careful consideration in any full and impartial investigation of what actually took place on 9/11.

    In the context of 9/11 it also needs to be pointed out that Rabbi Dov Zakheim was Chief Executive Officer of System Planning Corporation’s International Division until President George W. Bush appointed him Undersecretary of Defense and Comptroller of the Pentagon. Not long before Rabbi Zakheim rose to power over the Pentagon’s labyrinthine, bottomless accounts, he co-authored an article entitled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century” which was published by The Project for a New American Century in September 2000, exactly a year before 9/11; in this article, on page 51, it is stated that “the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor”!

    Voila! 9/11!

    Well, there you have it! Motive, means and opportunity all rolled into one and existing between Rabbi Dov Zakheim’s ears. The motive was that a false flag intelligence operation would trigger a response by the USA that would be good for the Zionist state. The means consisted of the aforementioned remote control of airborne vehicle technologies as well as the nurturing, creative accounting at the Pentagon to pay for such an operation. The opportunity was Zakheim’s closeness to the Command/Control/Communications in our nation’s capital and its interwoven cousin network of psychopathic Zionist Neo-Cons all hell-bent on provoking a war with Saddam Hussein.

    Also remember that on Sept. 10th 2001, Donald Rumsfeld held a press conference to announce that $2.3 TRILLION could not be accounted for. The next day……The Pentagon gets hit. Anyone want to guess which office got hit? Yup, the accounting firm trying to track where the money went. The guy in charge of watching the money when it disappeared? Dov Zakheim.

  • Tom Human

    “Tom, sweetie.”

    I’ll thank you to keep a civilized tone.

    “The air defense network, on the other hand, can track aircraft that are not using transponders.”

    From your previous message:

    “There is no way to track aircraft which have turned off their transponders. There is no entity in the U.S. with that capability.”

    So which is it? Since neither time have you posted any links, I assume *you are making it up as you go along*.

    “BTW, you are wrong about the screening failing; nothing the hijackers brought on board was contraband.”

    Again, CITATION NEEDED. The hijackers brought a chemical spray as well as boxcutters. Blades longer than 2″ have always been prohibited in your carry-on luggage, to the best of my knowledge, though I can only find post-9/11 results.

    I’m perfectly prepared to be wrong. I’m not prepared believe some random rude person on the Internet without proof.

  • tarran


    You are correct: I am guilty of sloppy language. I will clarify:
    1) The only entity that has the capability to track aircraft with no transponder is the U.S. air defense radar network. This radar network, however, was only capable of tracking aircraft reliably over the ocean. To start tracking something inside the continental U.S. is hard sicne there is a great deal of clutter.
    when it comes to intercepting commercial aircraft, the U.S. Air force needs a track from the FAA controllers to acquire the track on their own systems. Without it, they are looking for a needle in a haystack. The good track record the U.S. Air Force has in intercepting hijacked aircraft, the Payne Stewart aircraft etc are all due to the fact that those aircraft continued to use their transponders. One of the aircraft that was hijacked did keep its transponder on (albeit they changed to identity string it was squawking) and was tracked by the FAA. The rest were lost in the clutter.

    My knowledge is based on my officer training in the Navy – admittedly three years our of date in 2001, over ten years out of date now.

    As to the contraband issue, this is based on articles I read in 2002 in newspapers. I remember multiple news reports reporting in horror that people could take the boxcutters used by the hijackers to slit throats on board legally. A boxcutter is really an exacto knife. The blades are typically no longer than an inch or so.

    If this issue is important to you, you are welcome to contact some expert like Bruce Schneier for the definitive answer.

  • tarran

    Oh baloney, Travis!

    In case you don’t recall, up to 9/11, the U.S. govenrment was trying to provoke China – remember the P-3 patrols just off their airspace?

    That was the sort of crisis they were trying to engineer. The notion that they took control of aircraft and flew them into buildings without despite the pilots wishes is arrant nonsense!

    1) Automated landings depend on the use of radi beacons at the end of the runway the aircraft is flying toward. No beacons in tbe WTC or the pentagon!

    2) Automated systems can only be engaged by the pilot. A pilot who is convinced that the autopilot is malfunctioning need only turn it off. And yes, all those systems are tied into the autopilot.

    3) The complee mess that is the U.S. governemnt’s accounting system predates the Bush administration and has been a hot issue in the financial community for 2 decades now. It wasn’t a secret then, it isn’t a secret now. It’s not like anyone was going to go to jail absent a 9/11

    What you are doing is taking a narrative that sounds right in your head, and hammering the facts to fit that narrative. 9/11 was not a false flag operation. Yes, 19 guys with little knives and some mace took over some aircraft and tried to fly them into buildings. 3 of the four teams succeeded.

    Such is life.

  • Brad Warbiany

    Travis & Tom,

    I’ll borrow a page from a radio show I used to listen to when I had time, Free Talk Live…

    Let’s say, for a momemnt, that you are correct — that 9/11 was a deliberate false flag operation in order to achieve some political end for power-hungry new world order types (insert your nefarious masterminds here).

    So, if it’s true, what are you going to do about it? It’s clear that the cover-up is working well enough, and unless one of the top guys decides to blow the cover, you appear to the world as nothing more than a fringe wacko. Nothing you’re doing is gaining any traction in the real world. Obama’s not going to do anything about it, because the last thing he wants is for the entire country to be focusing on his predecessor. The people operating the levers of government aren’t going to do anything about it, because I’m sure there’s too much risk in biting the hand that feeds you… If there is a conspiracy this large, it would undoubtedly crush anyone who opposed it.

    So what’s the plan? Troll around on blogs looking for arguments with people who don’t have the desire or connections to actually cause the government to do anything about it?

    Even if you’re right, you’re going to have to actually do something a lot more meaningful to make anyone listen to you, and to get anyone in government to actually respond, you’re nearing the impossible.

    So what’s the plan? Because if all you want to do is argue over what NORAD knew and when, there are all sorts of places other than here to do it.

  • Travis


    If you could point me to an original passenger manifest with the hijackers names on them I would be really happy. Where is the airport security camera footage of the other 17 hijackers? Oh, trust me, I don’t “taking a narrative that sounds right in my head, and hammer the facts to fit that narrative”. I use plain facts that can be researched by a 10 year old if they take the time.

    You are trying a little too hard to convince me and others that 19 Arab’s who could not manage to pass simple flight school (but piloted 737’s at 500 mph into 3 of 4 targets), could not fly a 2 seater Cessna and armed with nothing more than box cutters went 3 for 4 on a day when our multi-TRILLION dollar defense system failed us?!?!? Seriously? I can rip apart ANY argument within 5 mins that the Govt or you may have about the 19 Arab hijackers. lol!!–Phony_trail_and_deductive_logiic.htm

    I can go on all day about why the original story is COMPLETE B.S. and anyone who believes it is either on the Govt payroll or a complete sucka.

  • Travis

    Brad Warbiany:

    It looks as though this site and the people who post here are trying to do 2 things.

    1.) Tarran is trying his hardest to convince us that 9/11 was by 19 Arabs with boxcutters.

    2.) Brad is trying to convince us to move onto other sites to discuss the 9/11 attack. Just not HERE, which I find quite troubling.

    You dont have to try too hard to convince the dumbed-down American public of anything. Flashy graphics, constantly beat into their brains “Al Qaeda” and “Bin Laden”. Most Americans are too busy watching ‘Dancing With The Stars’ or a million other entertaining things to do and have no time or desire to know the truth.

    I am thinking that someone as smart as you 2 guys should know these things already, which leads me to the only one conclusion left.

  • Brad Warbiany


    The simple point is that the original post, which I wrote, was a criticism of ABC and the Department of Homeland Security for worrying more about the “scourge” of drugs than actually following their mandate. It wasn’t about 9/11, and had nothing to do with 9/11.

    Then Tom came in and started going on about 9/11, tarran responded, which attracted your involvement as well. It was off-topic to the post.

    Now, I’m not typically one to worry that much about a spurious off-topic thread here and there, but the typical behavior I’ve seen from the 9/11 “truther” crowd is to go look for fights such as this. And that despite anything anyone actually says, there’s nothing we can say that’s going to change your mind.

    So again I ask… What’s the point? What are you trying to accomplish by trolling a thread that had nothing to do with 9/11 and trying to get into debates about NORAD and Zionist world-domination conspiracies?

    I’m not going to tell you to completely avoid the topic of 9/11. From time to time, contributors here do post something related to 9/11, and if you want to respond to one of THOSE posts, you’re more than welcome to. But I’d appreciate it if you don’t come to my threads and post what is almost 100% certain to be a completely fruitless debate.

    So to answer your points:

    1) tarran isn’t trying to convince you. He’s not going to a “truther” site arguing with them about what happened that day. You came here to have this debate (a little more due to Tom Human than yourself, admittedly, you jumped in after the initial salvo). tarran is trying to rebut the points of Tom and yourself, not actively trying to engage you. I doubt tarran would choose to look for folks to be debating this topic if you two weren’t here.

    2) Again, I’m asking that if a post on The Liberty Papers comes up that is 9/11 related, you are welcome to respond in that thread. My request of you is to not engage in this debate in the comments to other posts, because it is a distraction from the discussion of those topics.

  • Quincy

    Travis –

    Brad is asking you not to hijack a thread on our site. If that troubles you, tough.

    This is a privately-owned website run by the contributors, and we’re perfectly within the bounds of decorum to ask that comments remain somewhere in the neighborhood of the original post. No one is trying to silence you or tell you not to post your views on your own forum. All we ask is that you respect the fact that this is our forum.


  • Tom Human

    Wait. When did I ever, ever say 9/11 was a false flag operation?

    My claim is that terrorism is a hugely overhyped phenomenon, and anyway we probably could have avoided 9/11 *if our public servants and elected officials had simply been competent at their jobs*. Hardly the same.

  • Tom Human

    and I didn’t intend to derail to 9/11.

    I just wanted to point out that simple competence and systematic intelligence is what is needed, not this bipolar madness, today “SHOES! Everyone, take off your shoes!”, tomorrow “WATER!!!”

  • tarran


    I agree 100%. I merely took issue with the idea that once the hijackers put their plan in motion , that the government could be expected to have stopped it, since shooting down airplanes requires extensive lead time to set up (The time it takes from deciding to arm and launch an aircraft to wheels leaving the ground can easily take an hour if everything goes smoothly. Air intercepts can also be very tricky in an environment with lots of potential targets/frinedlies flying around).

    I honestly don’t think it is possible to prevent attacks such as those. There will always be vulnerabilities.

    For example, consider the effect of several suicide bombers wearing vests that generate massive amounts of shrapnel setting off their bombs simultaneously in the screening line at Chicago O’Hare at 6PM the night before Thanksgiving. It does not matter where you do your screening: the point where people queue up to be screened allows an unscreened person to get close to a bunch of people.

    I think we were far safer in the days when airlines were advertising that passengers bringing their rifles into the cabin could store them in gunracks in the forward section of the plane.

    Making airplanes liable for securing their aircraft would go a long way towards introducing customer service and rational calculation to air travel.