No problem there: it's simply your opinion. The fact is Lynn Cheney's account matches up with the testimony of the Secret Service, the White House alarm records, the Secret Service logs, Dick Cheney, and the notes of the White House as well as Mary Matalin. Minetta simply has his timeline wrong. PS: you keep making an erroneous reference to the shoot down order. Why do you keep doing that?
Once again you make the assumption that the target is a land based one. You're neither looking at evidence nor thinking like an aviator. Oh ... wait ... you LIED about that part and admitted as such. (Why can't 'truthers' tell the truth?) Let me help you out there, son. As reported in the Washington Post, a shoot down order was issued and passed down the line. So what you have is a military aide reporting the distance of a fighter to an airborne target and as the fighter closes, the aide keeps badgering Cheney about the order to shoot down a civilian aircraft full of people. The story lines up with Minetta's testimony, but on a different timeline. (More proof that Minetta is wrong about the time.) The civilian aircraft is not identified in either testimony. It may or may not have been UA93. One thing is certain, however: AA77 had already crashed into the Pentagon, so they were NOT tracking it.
Oh brother, you really do not get it.. 1. TSD does not correlate to RADAR, primary nor secondary. It's a stand alone system which projects flight plans. Linda Justice put UAL93 into the TSD system as a flight plan for HGR to DCA. The TSD system projected a target for UAL93 tracking towards DCA. 50 miles, 30 miles, 10 miles. It was a projected target. It has no correlation to radar. If you had ever bothered listening to the ATC recordings, you can hear the controllers clearly saying the TSD system is tracking United 93, but no primary radar targets are on the scope. Monte Belger was looking at TSD, not radar. 2. You never worked your way through either of my links. 3. "small hole" REALLY??? Jesus it's 2014 and you're still saying there was only a small hole in the facade of the Pentagon? 4. My blog explains everything you have tried to swing here: http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/ Go there.
No amount of facts will sway a true believer of a conspiracy theory so you are just pissing in the wind. Great blog by the way.
How does this: Bring you to the conclusion of this: Is it your interpretation or someone else's? Either way, logically, it doesn't follow what was quoted in the Washington Post.
My own logical conclusion. The main point is: It couldn't have been AA77 that was being tracked. (See the last paragraph of that post.)
It is not my opinion. It is how White House Protocol has worked for a very long time and it is also common sense. I know how this works. No kidding. Cannon fodder. Post them for review. Hand written years later after the fact by a former COINTEL officer and never were an official document of the Secret Service Agency - ever. You've got to be kidding me. The word of a principal neocon operative who slithered his way into the White House and a no bid contract miracle worker, is not the witness I would ever consider reliable on a witness stand. Dick Cheney, has made so many inconsistent and slithering statements both before and after 911, that either a Defense Attorney or a Prosecutor (I prefer the latter) would have a field day with his public statements on direct, cross, re-direct and re-cross. He'd walk off the witness stand riddled with holes and useless as a witness for the Official Story Tellers. Better hope Dick, never has to take the stand. I would pay real money to watch the examination unfold. Cannon fodder. Post them for review. Unreal, that you would use Mary Matalin, a completely unbiased source as a corroborative witness for Mrs. Cheney. Why am I not surprised. Actual History. The actual record of this thread says otherwise: Followed by: PS - Why do yo insist on making statements that are not true? I've multiple times now that the so-called "Shoot Down Order" is completely moot. How many more times must I say it, before you stop saying that I'm referencing the "Shoot Down Order" as being relevant? This entire thread demonstrates that the so-called "Shoot Down Order," being discussed in Congress was entirely moot and that the real questions Congress should have been asking on that day were about the government's ability to track an airborne vehicle that nobody on earth was supposed to know existed as being in-bound on the DC/Arlington area. That was the real missed opportunity by Congress on that day and that is what this thread is about. The very first post in this thread tells you that. The alleged "Shoot Down Order" has never had anything to do with this thread. It was mentioned as a way of describing a red herring that avoided the question of being able to track Flight 77, when both Henderson and NEADS could not - according to the "official story."
Yet you've admitted that your very premise to this thread was a lie. You now have no credibility to any of your claims. Minetta was wrong about the timeline. The evidence supports this. The order was obviously a shoot-down order. Your dismissing it as 'moot' has no bearing whatsoever: you're simply attempting to cover your own lack of evidence.
I'm done here. I've provided two links which explains everything Primus has bought up here. He only looked at the first post in my Mineta thread and went on a ad hominem attack against its source, and never looked at the second link (the one with over 150 items which shows his theory is bunk). It's 2014. I've been doing this bantering back-and-forth crap too long. Unless you are prepared to correct your mistakes, I'm not going to bother with this **** any more. I no longer have patience for the wilfully ignorant. See ya.
Why would you not want to respond to this person's posts? Seems quite reasonable in the approach the poster takes.
I've stalked this forum often (especially the 9/11 section), and you've inspired me to join Primus, and I thank you. Your perspective is quite refreshing, and I wholeheartedly agree with most of your posts. Awesome posts. Keep at it. I enjoy them.
You cannot vector for the intercept without a positive track on a boggy. At the end of this post, I am going to expose one of the critical lies the 911 Commission Report tells about the Langley fighters being sent back to Washington at 9:36am. One of the biggest obstacles to understanding all of this is that the 911 Omission Report tells so many outright fables that contradict those who were directly involved in responding to 911, that most people having read the commission's report, unless they have done outside research, don't really have a full grasp of how our military actually responded. There were several ANG bases who began calling NORAD/NEADS asking how they could help. The reason they called is because they were not receiving orders to do anything until after it was believed that Flight 175 was involved in a broader attack by air, on the United States, with the focal point of the assault being in New York. Otis pilots were put on battle stations but then held on the ground. Langley pilots were put on battle stations and also held on the ground. This took place after Flight 175 connected with its target and BEFORE Flight 77 allegedly connected with the Pentagon. It was Major General Larry Arnold, who was at the Continental US NORAD Region (CONR) headquarters in Florida, who ordered “battle stations only at Langley.” Mineta, had not yet made the phone call to dropped all civilian aircraft from U.S. airspace until after the alleged Flight 77 struck the Pentagon. This is yet one more example of why the official story tellers are so afraid of Mineta and try to sweep his timeline into question by claiming he got confused. Mineta, says that he was in the PEOC before the alleged Flight 77 struck the Pentagon. Congress confirmed that Mineta was testifying to the alleged Flight 77. Mineta, has for years consistently stated the exact same thing in public, many times over. Thus, there were still hundreds of aircraft throughout U.S. airspace still airborne when Langley finally launched the alert fighters. Flight 11 and 175 were done and accounted for by this time. But, Flight 93 and Flight 77, were unaccounted for at the time the Langley and Otis fighters were launched. Otis was launched to deal with New York, but remained outside of FAA controlled airspace until NORAD declared Now, let's get to your theory. You theorize that a fighter got of the ground and was vectored for the intercept and that this is what the 50/30/10 miles out chatter in the PEOC was all about. That's impossible for the reasons clearly outlined below. Flight 11, strikes the first tower and no fighter is launched. Flight 175, strikes the second tower and no fighter is launched immediately. After Flight 11 strikes, Langley OM/SOF Captain Borgstrom, receives an unofficial call from his girlfriend off base, informing him that an aircraft just hit a building in New York. Captain Borgstrom, then gets a call from his unit's intelligence officer letting him know that the ND ANG 119 pilots at Langley need to "get ready." Still, no F-16 is launched and Borgstrom, doesn't even man the Battle Cab. If the SOF is not Battle Cab ready, no F-16 will be launched hot with orders. Capt. Borgstrom, replies to his girlfriend's statement with: "Probably some idiot out sightseeing or someone trying to commit suicide in a Cessna 172.” Capt. Borgstrom, then receives a call at Langley, from Darrin Anderson, the unit’s intelligence officer who tells Capt. Borgstrom, “We think there might be more to this, so you guys get ready.” Capt. Borgstrom, then heads to the alert hangers to inform the pilots. Still, no F-16 is launched. Langley, Alert pilot, Major Dean Akmann, receives his first notification of a plane hitting a Tower in New York. Major Dean Ackmann's response was: "Poor, dumb sucker. I hope no one in the building got hurt." Some time after that Flight 175 slams into the second tower and shortly after that, the Klaxon sounds at Langley, where the alert pilots go to battle stations at 9:09am (911 Commission). But, by Still, no F-16 is ever launched at this time. NEADS finally takes control of New York airspace with AFIO declaration at 9:12am. However, Mineta, has not yet shut down all remaining U.S. airspace to civilian traffic. New York airspace is not being run by NEADS, but the rest of the country's airspace is still under the control of the FAA by this time. Again, Mineta, had not yet put all civilian aircraft on the ground at this time. So, there were still hundreds of potential bogeys for for these fighters and no way to determine which one to intercept. Then, NEADS decides to keep the Otis F-15s just outside the New York area in the MOA Whiskey 105. At 9:23am (911 Commission), Ackmann, Borgstrom and another ND ANG 119th pilot (who were all based at Langley at the time - not North Dakota) are ordered to scramble their F-16s towards the D.C. area (911 Commission, pg. 27). This puts Langley in a very awkward position. First, when NEADS order Borgstrom, to "get suited up and go fly," that meant that there would be no SOF for the scramble and no officer on the ground at Langley - highly unusual. Second, it meant that the three (3) F-16s had orders to scramble, but nothing traceable and airborne to defend against as neither NEADS nor the FAA had a track on Flight 77. After they launch, NEADS actually changes the vector for the Langley F-16s from D.C. to the Baltimore, MD.[/B] area. But, according to the 911 Omission Report, the Langley F-16s never made it to Baltimore, because they were out on station over the Atlantic ocean on a "090 heading for 60 miles" (911 Commission, pg 27). This bizarre set of events places 2 Otis F-15s and 3 Langley F-16s in two different boxes off the northeast coast of the United States, while Flight 77 allegedly bears down on the Pentagon, and Flight 93 allegedly fights for its life between Ohio and Shanksville. The interceptors are nicely all tucked away from the real action. How convenient for the "terrorists." According to the 911 Omission Report, after 9:36, the Langley F-16s are order from 60 miles east of New Jersey over the Atlantic, back to Washington airspace as a result of NEADS having received notice from the FAA, that an "unidentified aircraft" was "closing in on Washington." The Pentagon was then struck at 9:37am. Mineta, finally shuts down all U.S. airspace to civilian aircraft. The military now owns the skies - literally. Now, this is where we PROVE the 911 Commission Report lied to the American People. In the following video, you will see Porter Goss, being interviewed near the Capital building. Pay close attention to what you hear in the background because that proves the 911 Commission Report lied about WHEN the Langley F-16s were ordered from 60 miles off the coast of New Jersey, back to Washington D.C. airspace on page 27, of their false report to the American People. Listen VERY carefully: [video=youtube;QQY5PSmZFq8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQY5PSmZFq8[/video] That boom you hear was the Pentagon being struck by an airborne vehicle. Mere seconds after that loud boom, you hear TWO (2) distinctly different things: 1) The highly distinctive sound of multiple large diameter turbofan jet engines passing over-head in very close proximity. 2) The high distinctive sound of at least one (1) military turbofan jet engine passing over-head in very close proximity. How does that prove beyond any doubt that the 911 Commission Report flat out lied about the re-direct of three (3) F-16s 60 miles off the coast of New Jersey? Here's why: - Distance from 60 miles off east coast of New Jersey to D.C. airspace is 235 miles. - Time for an F-16 to reach D.C. from 60 miles off east coast of New Jersey is 18.5 minutes. - Time NEADS re-directed F-16s back to D.C. from 60 miles off east coast of New Jersey is 9:36. - Otis F-15s have already left MOA Whiskey 105 headed for New York. Thus, not a factor in D.C. There is no doubt that neither Falcon went supersonic nor reached an altitude where the sonic boom would not have been heard along the flight path to DC, as there has never been a report of any sonic booms in all of 911 over the North East between New Jersey and D.C. Given those two facts, it is very safe to assume that these two aircraft never exceeded 661kts IAS. It also takes and F-16 configured for intercept approximately 52 seconds to reach M1. But, there are other variables including what thrust setting was used, when it was used, what altitude it was used at, atmospheric conditions, etc. And, here is where the 911 Commission Report hands itself. At the very bottom of page 27 is reads the following: Bingo. Just like that, the 911 Commission Report is uncovered as a bald face lie. The video clearly tells you that there at least one (1) fighter in the air over Arlington and at least one (1) more closely hovering large diameter turbofan jet aircraft in the same proximity. Everybody attending the Porter Goss, outdoor interview heard it, they all looked up at the exact same time and that is what prompted Porter Goss, himself to end the interview. Now, as far as Flight 93 is concerned, according to the official story in the 911 Commission Report, no U.S. fighter ever came near that aircraft. Not 50 miles from it. Not 30 miles from it. Not 10 miles from it. This proves the 911 Commission Report lied and it proves that the Official Story does not support in any way, the idea that they had a fighter closing in on the track of any commercial aircraft involved in September 11th, 2001. Just a little more study would have shown you this fact. Thus, the references to 50/30/10 miles out can only be one thing: the alleged Flight 77 that Mineta has been talking about all these years. It is the only aircraft that allegedly penetrates the D.C. airspace. Otis, is over New York, searching for ghosts. Langley, is deep sea fishing in the Atlantic. Fighters out of Ohio and Michigan, are barely mentioned in the 911 Omission Report, and they are assigned Flight 1989 without incident, so they are nowhere near the aircraft actually involved. Isn't it very eerie hearing actual military turbofan jet engines passing over the skies near Arlington on September 11th, 2001, when the official story tellers have always said that no military fighters were in the area at that time? That last video should wake up ALL official story promoters to the lies that have been told in the name of patriotism.
Changing topics, fine, let me give you points where you are wrong. False. NEADS were informed of hijackings at 0837 Joe Cooper from Boston TMU informs NEADS of hijacking activity. 0841 NEADS places Otis on battlestations. This is the first action anyone has to do; get pilots to their jets. 0846 they were given the order to scramble. 0852 Otis jets are airborne. They were never held on the ground, it took them just 11 minutes from the time the call to battlestations came through, to they were wheels up off the runway. "held on the ground"; yet just another completely unfounded accusation. False. They were never "held on the ground". They were ordered to battlestations so that at a later time, if they were required to scramble they could be with little delay. As it turns out, they were scrambled by the report of AAL11 heading towards WDC at 0920. To say they were "held on the ground" is yet another false and unfounded accusation. And this is yet another thing Mineta is confused about. He may have thought the order land all civilian traffic came from his authority, be it was actually Ben Sliney at the ATCSCC (Air Traffic Control System Command Center) who ordered all aircraft down. Misleading. Otis were scrambled by then, just because they hadn't made it to wheels up by this stage, doesn't mean that "no fighter is launched". To say otherwise is deliberately misleading. If you are referring to Langley, why would DC launch fighters when as far is known, a single hijacker airliner has hit a single target in a completely different state? And is the reason why Langley is put to Battlestations, so that they are prepared and ready to go if they are needed. They were not aware that there were any more than two aircraft hijacked at this stage. They SOF ended up flying one of the 3 F-16's. To try and claim no hot order could reach them because he wasn't in the battle cab is ludicrous. t They weren't scrambling for AAL77, they were scrambling for a report that AAL11 was still flying and heading towards WDC. Come on this is basic stuff.. NEADS did not send them on that heading. NEADS scrambled them to head on a northwards heading, and told the Navy (who was taking the hand off after Norfolk) that they were to tell the F-16's to go direct to Baltimore. The F-16's made the decision to fly east. [video=youtube;I2jDWkj-v_g]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2jDWkj-v_g[/video] Baseless conjecture derived from ignorance. NEADS did not know of either of those two aircraft. You're looking in hind sight. You refuse to put yourself into their position on that day. They did not know. The rest of the post is pure bunk. There were no fighters of DC at the time AAL77 hit the Pentagon. All ATC recordings and radar data are available from all areas around the Pentagon and anybody can get their hands on it. I've had that information from years, and know it thoroughly. And you are wrong. Nothing show fighters over DC. No one mentions anything about fighters on the ATC recordings. Only one primary target is visible on radar (AAL77). All secondary targets belong to commercial aircraft or helicopters. You have written half a page of pure horse crap. As for the video you link, the interview was done well after the Pentagon was attacked. The noise is indeed a fighter jet, as for the boom sound, I would suspect an aircraft perhaps broke the sound barrier for the briefest of moments, but not positive. More here: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=211446 And I'm done.
Mr. Minetta was referring to the 'alleged' Flight 77, and no other. This entire false flag event was THE most successful since Operation Northwood. Primus speaks the truth.
The topic was not changed and your questions were answered. Not liking the answers you were given doth not mean the topic was changed. It simply means you did not like the truth of the answers provided. Now, kindly show me where I am wrong. You need to start paying attention to the 911 Omission Report and stop making up your own "I" Won Won Revision Report. I'm looking directly at a copy of the 911 Commission Report in .pdf format and that is the "official" document to which I draw all of my points. Note: Hereinafter, the 911 Omission Report will be simply referred to as 911CR page & paragraph. Each time you print one of this false flag statements, I have no choice but to correct it. Here we go. 0841hrs shows up nowhere in the official 911CR pg 20. That is where the scramble order take place and that time is simply nowhere in the official record. Thus, you just made it up. The whole point of this exercise is to reveal precisely where the Omission Report contradicts itself and the events as they actually unfolded. Here is yet another glaring example. 911CR pg 20 par 6 states: 911CR pg 20 par 7 states: 8:53 - 8:46 = 7 minutes. The definition of battle stations is the physical occupation and preparation of the aircraft for launch. The definition of scramble is to take-off - typically in afterburner. It does not take an F-15 seven (7) minutes to go from battle stations to scramble and become airborne. The 911CR is a very sloppy report, unworthy of the paper it was spilled on. The 911CR assume that you won't be able to add 2 + 2 together to come up with 4 on our own. So, they take these leaps of faith in logic and consistency and then pray you don't see through the attempt to snow you. They have done this throughout the entirely of the 911CR. This is but one (1) of many examples that I am exposing for you right now. The entire sequence of battle stations to scramble could take 7 minutes. But, that is not what happened. The pilots had already been battle stationed and were sitting inside their aircraft waiting to be scrambled. A thorough reading of the 911CR (as shown right here) demonstrates that fact clearly. You can't find your 0841hrs anywhere on page 20, where they mention the scrambling of the Otis F-15s and the 911CR contradicts itself just as I have shown here with two statements that don't add up. You have just contradicted yourself, just like the 911CR does on many occasions. In your above statement you said: Which means they were ordered to go to their aircraft and engage their initial start-up list but do not start the engines. That means the pilot is sitting inside the cockpit with the engine cold awaiting further orders. That is called "being held" in battle stations condition. Thy certainly did not launch! If they are sitting inside the cockpit and not even starting the engines, then by definition they are being "held" in position until further orders. Arguing silliness for the sake of just argumentation is pointless. Battle stations is useless unless it is followed by scramble with vector orders. That did not happen when the Langley F-16s were placed on battle stations at 9:09. Both you and the 911CR are wrong on this count. You will not find the time "0920" anywhere in the 911CR page 27, where the scramble of Langley F-16s is being discussed. In 911CR pg 27 and par 1, it says the following: Once again, the Langley pilots were already at battle stations sitting in their aircraft awaiting launch orders with a vector. It does NOT take an Alert Ready F-15, 6-7 minutes to get down the runway after being scrambled. The ENTIRE sequence from battle stations, to scramble and to becoming airborne could take anywhere from 5-10 minutes depending on the conditions of the alert. When you label something as unfounded, you should try posting directly from the source as I am doing here, to make your case. Otherwise, it is just your opinion amidst hard facts. In this case, facts that don't add up in the official account of the events. All Official Story Tellers want to make Mineta out to be a forgetful old man with Alzheimer's. Why? Because Mineta, buries the official hack job that Cheney, knew nothing in advance. That's the bottom line. So, the Official crowed has been out to make Mineta, look unstable the entire time. That's unreal. Wow! Let's be clear about this - the FAA is one of many Federal Government Agencies that receives its authority from the Executive Branch of Government - in this case, the President's Cabinet Officers and in specific, the FAA is ultimate under the Department of Transportation. On September 11th, 2001, the Norman Mineta, was Transportation Secretary. That is the highest ranking official within the FAA authority structure. And, you say that I am the one that is misleading? Geepers. You really should do better homework. I should not be the one to have to sort this out for you. You are an official "Official Story Believer." That means that you should no better than to make a statement like this. Once again, let's revisit the 911CR. NORAD is responsible for all air defense operations in the United States. On September 11th, 2001, calls to put Alert Pilots on battle stations ran through NEADS given the north eastern seaboard physical location in which it was believed they hijackings took place and/or the flight originated. On September 11th, 2001, the NORAD sector directing all Alert Pilot battle stations decisions was NEADS based in Rome New York. The very first scramble came out of Otis, two F-15s, but they WERE put on "hold" which is just as good as not scrambling them at all because you run the risk of running into fuel starvation problems. These are 4th generation tactical fighters, not intercontinental commercial aircraft. They don't have extended long range. The 911CR pg 20, par 7 states the following: Thus, they were not "scrambled with vectors." This seems to be a concept that you are having difficulty with. The opening headline in my initial reply to you was that you cannot scramble anything WITHOUT vectors to a target. Else, it is not and effective scramble with vectors and you could be doing more harm than good, which is precisely what the 911CR reveals, as both Otis and Langley fighters are up in the air and out over the Atlantic Ocean, while commercial aircraft are slamming into buildings in New York and allegedly Arlington as well. So, please - drop the red herring circus of rebuttals without meaning. You cannot scramble an interceptor without vectors. All you are doing is putting an aircraft in the air and you could very well be placing that asset well out of REACH of the actual threat. During a scramble, it is the SOF’s responsibility to monitor the jets and work the local controllers to ensure priority handling and to make sure that the pilots are receiving lawful launch orders. The SOF stays in close communication with NEADS to get any and all information about the mission to pass on to his pilots who are airborne, and assesses weather, airfield status, and spare alert aircraft status in case of an abort by one of the primary fighters. If the SOF launches, then there will be no SOF in control on the ground where he belongs. What I was referring to here, was the actual reason for their scramble, not the figment in someone's imagination about Flight 11 still being involved, after the Langley 3-ship had already launched with its scramble orders at 9:24, and after Flight 11 had already slammed into the first tower at 8:46, a full 38 minutes prior. 38 minutes was plenty enough time to figure out that Flight 11 was done. The first Tower was on fire and smoking. Reports began coming into the FAA that the Tower had been struck. NEADS began getting report that the Tower had been struck. By 8:46, all contact and all radar returns from Flight 11 had ended. There was simply no more reason to conclude that Flight 11 was still in the hunt. That is what I refer to in my post. Wrong answer. The 911CR tells you one thing, yet you seem to want to abandon the official story when it suits your needs. Once again, 911CR pg 27, par 4 states the following: Again, had you paid more attention to what your own Official Story is all about, you would have known that what you typed was incorrect before you typed it. Really? Well, that just means that those of you in the Official Story Teller camp can agree on the facts. You allowed Hannibal to throw this theory on the wall to see if it would stick and you said nothing to correct him: Now, which one of you is right? You both can't be right. NEADS knew about Flight 11 and Flight 175 by the time Flight 77 and Flight 93 came into focus for the FAA. Much more importantly is this question. Why on earth, after the FAA knew that Flight 175 hit the second tower at 9:03, was there no effort on the part of the FAA to urge NEADS to assist with what it knew about Flight 93? At 9:27, after having been in the air for 45 full minutes, Flight 93 communicates with Cleveland Center, allegedly for the last time (911CR pg 28, par 3). At 9:32 and then again at 9:39, Cleveland gets radio comms from Flight 93, that are allegedly of a highjacking nature. Yet no one at the FAA makes an attempt to get NEADS to scramble fighters??? Why not - they already knew what happened to Flight 11 and Flight 175! Cleveland Center allegedly locates Flight 93 in primary radar and uses eyewitness sightings from other airborne flights to get a track on Flight 93, even without its transponder signal. By 9:42, the FAA learns that that Pentagon has just been struck. At 9:46, Command Center updates FAA headquarters that Flight 93 is now 29 miles out of Washington, DC. Still no attempt to get NEADS to scramble an intercept??? How can that be possible! There are THREE (3) commercial aircraft that are down on U.S. soil by this time and Cleveland does not urge NEADS to assist!?!? This is what the 911CR wants you to believe and some of you have eaten it up, hook, line and sinker. According to the "official story," were are told that from 9:27am through 10:03am, no one at the FAA talked to anyone in the military about scrambling on Flight 93, even when the FAA through Cleveland ADMITS THAT IT HAD A TRACK on Flight 93, all the way until they lost that track somewhere over Pittsburgh. That means that Flight 93 was tracked for more than 30 minutes while we had interceptors in the sky from Langley, Otis, Ohio and Michigan. And, you can sit here and proclaim that NEADS knew nothing about all that for more than 30 full minutes AFTER Flights 11, 175 and 77 had allegedly self-terminated? Really? Did you watch the video I just posted of the Porter Goss, interview showing otherwise? The secondary turbines that you distinctly hear coming after the large diameter turbines are in fact low-bypass pass jet noise. Anyone familiar with military fighters knows darn well what's in the video. There is a much larger multi-engine turbofan jet aircraft passing at low altitude. Immediately afterwards and moving a higher rate of speed, you easily can hear the low-bypass turbines as they make their pass. Now, where did that low-bypass jet noise come from, if there were no fighters over DC at the time Flight 77 allegedly struck the Pentagon? You have to understand the weapons that were used in 911, if you are going to be able to handle these kinds of questions. I know full well what I'm hearing in that video and it darn sure is NOT civilian. Really? Are you ears lying to you too? I have plenty of hours flying many different types of turbine powered aircraft, both civilian and military jets and turbo-props. I know damn well what I hear. Low-bypass ratio jet engines have a very distinctive roar to them and anyone knowing anything about military fighters knows precisely what I mean. Now, consider the source of the information you obtained. You got it from the Government. Who wants nothing more than for this problem to go away, other than the Government? Wake up! No one mentions anything about Porter Goss' outdoor interview either in those ATC recordings. Come on man, wake up! You can't sit here and DENY the Porter Goss interview video. Here it is again: [video=youtube;QQY5PSmZFq8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQY5PSmZFq8[/video] The louder, sharp, searing type noise comes from a Hi-Bypass turbofan jet engine. The deeper, more penetrating roar you hear after that comes from a Low-Bypass turbofan jet engine. The Hi-Bypass is likely attached to a larger and heavier aircraft, while the Lo-Bypass is likely attached to a fighter. Nonsense. Listen to what Porter Goss, actually says: Why would he say that if the Pentagon had already been hit as you suggested? Where there any other grand explosions after the Pentagon got struck, that would have snapped that many heads, that far away? Of course, not. Therefore, this interview had to have been started after New York had been hit and before the Pentagon had been struck. That is not the sound of anything breaking the sound barrier. That's the sound of the Official Story coming to and end. Period. I heard the sound barrier being broken many times before. I've been physically on the ground when the sound barrier is broken by aircraft at various altitudes and this was not it. Much more importantly, in the video, you can clearly see people in the background ALL looking in the exact same directly nearly eye level with the horizon. If this were sonic boom, heads would be snapping in all directions because the Boom comes from ABOVE, not at ground level which is where these people were looking - directly behind Porter Goss and virtually level with the horizon. That is in the video, if you had bothered to analyze it properly. Indeed.
I don't take my information from the 9/11 Commission Report. I take my information from raw data. From sources, not summaries. I take my information from the 600GB of FOIA data I have on my hard drive, which include all NEADS tapes and ATC recordings. All of which I have listened to. 0841 is when Otis was put on Battlestations. 0846 is when the scramble was given. 0852 was when they were wheels up. According to the tapes. You say it takes less than 7 minutes? Pure conjecture. Baseless. And total nonsense according to the pilots own words in several interviews, as well as former military pilots I have spoken to. "As we were walking out the door ... Order to Battlestations ... Proceed to the jets don't start them yet ... At that point we jumped in the pickup truck and drove as fast as we could out to the jets ... We got in the jets and as soon as we got strapped into the jets we were given the scramble order ... We start the jets as soon as we can, taxi out, and take off". - Lt. Colonel Dan Nash https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7lAJN1rmHk You can say what you want about NEADS re. AAL11, the report came through from Colin Scoggins at 0920 (who I have spoken to as well) and they followed that up by scrambling Langley. Again, it is well noted that Ben Sliney grounded all flights on 9/11. And unless you find a time stamp for the interview with Porter Goss, then all you have is noise. Find a time stamp. [video=youtube;-1oXDMEzZWM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1oXDMEzZWM[/video] [video=youtube;bhJFZCqOoAk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhJFZCqOoAk[/video] [video=youtube;3Jb2jWl1ELM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Jb2jWl1ELM[/video] I suggest you spend some time doing your homework.
It is important to note that the F-15's scrambled out of Otis when taking off head out to sea as this is the standard flight intercept protocol as it is by design assuming any threat would be coming either from the Atlantic or incoming from the North over the Polar region. These F-15 were headed in the WRONG DIRECTION before they were ordered to turn around and head towards New York. AboveAlpha
AAL11 report audio: [video=youtube_share;VrxqlroYvyw]http://youtu.be/VrxqlroYvyw?t=59m30s[/video] 59 minutes, 30 seconds
The ELB sitting on my HDD dedicated to my aviation career says otherwise. For this post, I have gone back through my personal log books (including electronic logs) and noted each type of aircraft I have ever flown in my life as a pilot. Fixed Wing: Total Time = 8,879 hours Total PIC Time = 7,749 hours - NA Recip. hrs = 19.8% - Turboprop hrs = 14.2% - Jet = 66.0% - Type: Part 121/135/Military/Private/Experimental Exhibition/FSDO Waiver (airshows, special events, etc.) Tiger Grumman AA5B (my very first flight) Cessna 172 Cessna 152 Cessna 182RG Cessna T210 Super Decathlon Citabria 7ECA Extra 200 North American P-51D Mustang North American T-6 Texan Beechcraft T-6 Texan II Pilatus PC-7 Mooney 201 Cessna Caravan 206 Cessna Caravan 208 Cessna 310 Cessna Conquest 441 Piper PA 28 Piper PA 31 Piper PA 31T Mooney 201 Beechcraft King Air C90 Beechcraft King Air 200 Beechcraft King Air 350 Cessna Citation CJ1 Cessna Citation CJ2 Cessna Citation CJ4 L-39C L-39ZA Alpha Jet A Alpha Jet E Learjet 35 Learjet 45xr Learjet 60 Global Express BD700 Gulfstream GII Gulfstream GIII Gulfstream GIV ERJ 145 CRJ 700 CRJ 800 Boeing 737-300 Boeing 737-500 Boeing 737-800 Boeing 757-200 C5-B Galaxy Cessna T-37 Tweet Northrup T-38 Talon F-15C F-15E Rotor: (Not as PIC) Bell Jet Ranger 206 (no rotor license) Eurocopter EC130 (no rotor license) Kits Built and Flown: Lancair Legacy 2000 Glasair III Test Pilot Program Participation (various roles from PIC to Program Director/Coordinator): Adam A700 Eclipse 500 Javelin Jet MK-II 3 - Turbine Legend builds 2 - Lancair Legacy 2000 builds 1- Vans RV-10 build 1- Vans RV-9 build 1 - Lancair 360 build 1 - Thunder Mustang build Aircraft Owned: B60 Duke (undergoing Rocket Engineering, PT6A Royal Turbine Duke modifications) Extra 200 (excellent condition & looking to sell soon - if interested let me know) Future Projects: Embraer Phenom 300 -or- Pilatus PC-24 (no firm decision made as of yet) ZAI Edge 540 (replacement for Extra 200) Airbus/Eurocopter EC135 Hermes (tickles my fancy right now as a future project - no financial planning as of yet) If you wish to attack me on things "aviation" then that fine. Just make sure you understand what you are attacking and that your attack makes sense. Thank you, Brother. TSD is another type of DST and a core component of the ETMS. Every DST (such as the TSD) in existence is predicated on the management of real air traffic. Real air traffic is the production of real radar scans & returns as well as transponder replies. The underlying data fed to DST systems comes from real underlying radar & transponder returns. The fact that you don't understand this fundamental architectural principle of the ETMS air traffic handling and routing system is very telling on the surface about your ability to discuss this particular subject. This singular statement of yours above says all I need to know about your knowledge of the traffic situation display. It would obviously be a total waste of my time to whiteboard for you exactly how this particular DST works from a technology standpoint - though I could very well do that. Suffice it to say that ALL such traffic monitoring/routing and predictive air handling technology is derived from real airborne traffic. That's what the entire system is designed for - the handling of real air traffic, whether target based or predictive. The traffic situation display system is a DST that fits within the CDM program and that program is all about optimizing air handling, weather prediction and aircraft routing. Now, the real question is what screen was this person observing and under what Menu item at the top of the screen? Do you know that information because I sure don't. Were they looking at the Alert screen, the Maps screen, Flight screen. etc.? Simply saying that someone was looking at the TSD doesn't really say much at all. Were they looking at the Monitor-Alerts and if so, what kind of Visual Alert did they get on the aircraft being tracked? The predictions only come in 15 minute increments, so where they observing an entire ARTCC through the TSD, or a particular Airport? Did they have a national screen up, or a regional screen? With the transponders allegedly off for Flight 77 and Flight 93, how did they know which TSD screen to use? Either know what you are talking about, or try sitting back and learning while asking intelligent questions, please - Brother. Nonsense. There are no such things as "stand-alone" traffic situation displays. That's simply false. And, it does not project "flight plans." It makes predictions about airway routing (whether victor or jet routes) of IFR traffic in 15 minute intervals using actual radar and transponder returns and it compares that to the known flight plan That's how the system "knows" about meaningful deviations of flights. You are seriously missing the point. Flight 93 followed a specific path to Shanksville and it did after Flight 77 allegedly hit the Pentagon at 9:37. Flight 77 allegedly struck at 9:37. Flight 93 allegedly crashed in Shanksville at 10:03. Mineta and Cheney, were in the PEOC together between 9:20 and 9:27. The first evacuation of the White House was in progress when Mrs. Cheney, arrived at the White House and when Mineta, arrived at the White House. Video of the White House during this so-called "slow evacuation" shows that in fact there were plenty of people actually RUNNING, not walking. So, this red herring nonsense about Mineta coming in later merely because he saw people running, is pure fantasy. If Linda Justice, did alter Flight 93's plan in the system, then she could not have done it before 9:27. How do we know? Because the 911CR tells us precisely when the "last normal transmission from Cleveland Center," came in from Flight 93, and that time was 9:27. Now, that sets the stage for this earth shattering NEW FLASH for YOU. Pay close attention to what happens next. Using the 911CR itself on pg. 29 par. 1 it makes the statement the ENDS this debate forever: Now, turn back one page to 911CR pg. 28. It reads as follows: This means that a Boeing 757, climbed 40,000ft in just 7-9 minutes. That's an RoC of between 5,714 to 4,444 fpm from near sea level (700 ft ISA standard) which is outside the Boeing 757's flight performance envelope, Brother. Even at max EPR, this aircraft was carrying at least a 60% fuel load (and that's being very conservative for such a flight), dragging the RoC even lower and extending the time to reach FL470 beyond that which the 911CR claims in its own pages. But, way beyond the flight performance profile not matching that of a Boeing 757, is the fact that if this aircraft was at 700ft at 9:27 and then FL470 at 9:38, that means Flight 77, allegedly struck the Pentagon WHILE Flight 93 was performing this physically impossible climb, which means the chatter going on inside the PEOC could not possibly have been about Flight 93, as it was on its way UP to FL470 right when the Pentagon was being struck by an airborne vehicle. So, when guys come down off of cloud 9 and start putting 2+2 together for yourselves and rationally thinking your way through bull that you are reading in the Omission Report, then you will be able to see clearly into the lies and deceit contained in its pages. This slams the door on Flight 93 being the topic of conversation in the PEOC. But, I'm going to really slam the door on this nonsense even harder with the following. Here's the video of the alleged events involving Linda Justice: [video=youtube;qbyGV_yhPPI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbyGV_yhPPI[/video] Notice her very last words? She said: You do not change a flight plan to IN-BOUND if you believe your target to be headed OUT-BOUND. Who do you think you are kidding here? They already knew that Flight 93, never made it south east of Shanksville, which would have been an IN-BOUND track. When was this recording originally released? Years after 911? As a bizarre side note to this red herring discussion, you will not find the name "Linda Justice," anywhere inside the 585 pdf pages of the 911CR. Why? Nor, will you find anywhere amongst those 585 pages, the name "Hagerstown." Why? The words "Reagan National," only appear in the 911CR on page 25 (3 instances) in relation to Flight 77; page 39 (2 instances) in relation to Flight 77; page 457 (1 unofficial end or report note) related to Flight 93. If this was so important, why did the 911CR fail to mention "Linda Justice" and her very important actions, the name of Hagerstown as the initiation point of the new flight plan, or that fact that Flight 93's flight plan had a termination point of Reagan National? It makes no darn sense. So called "facts" that comes years after the actual facts, are not very compelling at all. What is there in your links to work through that matters? That's why this thread exists. Do you have some reasonable alternate theory for how you climb a Boeing 757 on a course heading that was completely opposite of the heading established by the new flight plan and its heading, from 700ft through FL470 in 7-9 minutes (then get it back down to near sea level again and changing its course heading nearly 180-dgrees) at the very same time Flight 77 was allegedly slamming into the side of the Pentagon? It is a Boeing 757, not an F-15. You can have all the links you desire, but it won't change the 911CR and the contradictions that it makes throughout its pages. Now, either the 911CR is lying or the video has been faked years after the fact. That video and its contents never made it into the 911CR, and it was release well after the Official Story had been sold to the American People. Now, the Official Story Tellers, want to change their story, yet again. Searching for ways to glue this mess together so that it makes sense, it not the way to handle it. Just admit that 911 was an inside job and seek ways to heal this country. Common sense should tell anyone looking at the physical and logical evidence that comes out of 911, that something is desperately wrong with the Official Story. Is that an actual rebuttal, or a cop out? Can you show me a whole here commensurate with the diameter of the Boeing 757 fuselage? Or, here: Or, here: The last photo is one of the most telling as the measurements relative to the building as compared to the total diameter of the Boeing 757's fuselage, as well as the height above ground the aircraft was alleged to have struck the building, make it very clear that the entire Vertical Stabilizer which is roughly 37 feet total as measured from the bottom of the fuselage, never made an impact above the level which should have been the top side of the fuselage in the earliest photos. In other words, subtract "G" from "K" in the Ground Clearances reference sheet and you get 37 feet. Add 37 feet to an estimated height above ground where the aircraft was alleged to have made impact and you get a minimum 47 foot high impact area where the Vertical Stabilizer assembly should have caused either significant damage higher up in the structure of the Pentagon, or it should be laying on the ground just outside the Pentagon. Neither of those things happened on September 11th, 2001. There are a billion reasons why no Boeing 757 ever struck the Pentagon on 911. The impact geometry not being commensurate with the Boeing 757, is merely one of the billion reasons. Your blog starts with error as I have clearly pointed out in this thread. Thus, if you start out with the wrong premise, you cannot end up in the right place. Thus, I will ask the question again: How on earth was the "young man" able to know what nobody else was supposed to have known about Flight 77, because it has been demonstrated here that Flight 93, was being flown on a westbound course (outbound) from 700ft to 40,700ft, through an amazing flight envelope that does not exist for a Boeing 757, and while the Pentagon was being struck in the exact opposite direction?
Precisely, and the biggest conspiracy theory going is the official story. Frankly, I don't have a theory of events and I've always been consistent about that over the years. What I have are unanswered technical questions based on my own experience with two of the aircraft involved in 911 and my overall experience in aviation and aerospace in general terms. Questions that the official story does not answer and have even tried to answer. No. It was you who concluded on your own that the premise was a lie. Anyone having read the OP already knows why the photos were given and was told that they relate to 911. If you had read the OP, you would know why the experiment was made and its purpose. It showed clearly one of the key principles behind a well conducted PSYOP and the explanation for that was outlined for you. But, of course, you wish to pretend otherwise, because you were FOOLED yourself. You thought the pictures showed an A-4 being photographed in a formation flight. Yes, that WAS indeed intentional to demonstrate one of the key reasons why the Story Tellers have gotten away with 911. Go read it. It is right here in this thread. You got DUPED - just like with 911. That was the purpose behind the A-4. So, stop pretending that you all of a sudden cannot read plain English and that you do not understand why the A-4 and the story was posted. Your brain filled in the missing links incorrectly. You were given a particular context with purpose. You were basically told what to think and guess what - you did exactly what you were told to do and your brain helped you do it. That's how 911 happened. You don't need a million people being in on a big secret. All you need is to provide the context, set the psychological trigger with a real event that you plan and then sit back and watch people fulfill your plan, doing exactly what you know they will do. Then continue to drive that PSYOP to the next stage by fabricating false go to war evidence against a country that did not attack you. Make up very convincing stories about "Mushroom Clouds," "Botulinum Toxin," "Mustard Gas, "Anthrax" and "Aluminum Tubes." Terrify the crap out of everybody on the planet and then college your free Invasion Pass to future oil production you did not own and legal had no right to claim. After that, set-up your own Interim Government and temporary post-invasion Oil Counsel to divide the profits through PSA contracts that make Halliburton's no-bid contract fiasco pale in comparison. Oh, and be sure to load that temp council with all the former Oil Executives you can find - because they have such a genuine interest in helping the poor Women and Children who suffered so much loss as a result of the destruction they endured which paved the way for your arrival. Then, of course, let the Oil flow and the PSA contracts stack up, while the Iraqi People get taken to the cleaners on the entire deal. Did I miss anything important? Because, if I did, I want to know. What evidence? The conjured up evidence that somehow Linda's change of a flight plan for an aircraft that was outbound and climbing from 700ft to 40,700ft while heading in the opposite direction and at the exact same time the 911CR says the Pentagon was being attacked? You don't change the flight plan for an aircraft going away from the target while it is climbing to FL470. The 911CR is clear, is it not? You trust the 911CR, do you not? Then why does your story need to step outside that same 911CR, just so you can widget the most amusing tidbit that somehow Linda's actions change both the heading and altitude of Flight 93, which that same exact 911CR says never came southeast of Shanksville? Your underlying premise makes no sense to anyone knowing anything about commercial aviation. Who cares? Shoot Down, or Moot Down, its all the same thing when the aircraft you are claiming years after the fact came nowhere near the target you feared would be struck. At what point do you accept the performance limitations of the Boeing 757? 40,000ft in 7-9 minutes? Really? Who are you selling that too - me? Are you trying to convince someone having an actual history as a Boeing 757 PIC, on the idea that 40k is possible from 700ft in 7-9 minutes? Or, are you trying to sell me on the idea that the FAA would alter a flight plan for an aircraft that was outbound the reference target area with an opposing heading? Flight 93 did not make the turn until it was over Ohio at 9:39am. So, what's the point of altering a flight plan because you fear the D.C. area is the target, of an aircraft that is heading away from your feared target? By the time Flight 93 was making its turn over the Ohio area, Flight 77 has allegedly already slammed into the Pentagon at 9:37. This is taken directly from the 911CR, not some after thought of a video that popped-up on YouBoob, years after the fact. I'm using the very same document that you say you rely upon and I'm showing you exactly where they lied. My evidence is the 911 Omission Report and I've given you chapter and verse inside this thread from that exact document.
Then remain blind, blind folded and blinded by the Omission Report. It is your choice - it always has been.
Ahhh northwoods was never a so called 'false flag event',and neither was 9/11 Primus keeps regurgitating the understandable confusion that went on that day
