[Merged] E-4B flying around pentagon / Norman Mineta timeline [Archive]

Reheat

7th December 2009, 06:15 PM

It's about as pointless as denying the existence of Air Force One. Anyone with internet access or a library card can access basic facts about this aircraft. By remaining silent, they did nothing but fuel the conspiracy theorists.

It's as silly as the days when the CIA exit on the George Washington Parkway didn't have a sign.

You're not absorbing what I've said. If schedules and flight paths were published (even after the fact) a pattern could possibly be determined. For example under what circumstances do they launch. Can their flight path be predicted, etc.

Stuff that can be accessed via the Internet or a Library Card is not sensitive information, what we are discussing are things such as schedules and flight paths whether it's prior to or after the event. It simply is not the business of anyone else what they do or when they do it.

Again, common sense is not so common as you seem to presume. Espionage agent look for patterns and little bits of information accumulated over time can lead to establishing a pattern.

I could care less about conspiracy theorists. They will develop delusions no matter what is said or done. If you want to continue to argue, do it with some one else as I'm not inclined to beat dead horses. In that you are continuing to argue is indicative that you've never had any experience dealing with sensitive National assets. I have, and the policy regarding them is sound whether you agree with them or not.

Kestrel

7th December 2009, 06:24 PM

You're not absorbing what I've said. If schedules and flight paths were published (even after the fact) a pattern could possibly be determined. For example under what circumstances do they launch. Can their flight path be predicted, etc.

Confirming that the aircraft spotted over Washington, DC on 9/11 shortly after the Pentagon attack was an Air Force plane does nothing of the sort.

Reheat

7th December 2009, 06:33 PM

Confirming that the aircraft spotted over Washington, DC on 9/11 shortly after the Pentagon attack was an Air Force plane does nothing of the sort.

Do you have a source for who has asked the right question? You seem to know already, so what's the problem? Do you want it published in the NY Times or would some other publication be more satisfactory?

triforcharity

7th December 2009, 06:37 PM

For the same reason that the grocery bills for cubmarines are classified.

They can be used to determine approx. how long a sub will be underway and underwater.

Kestrel

7th December 2009, 06:44 PM

Do you have a source for who has asked the right question? You seem to know already, so what's the problem? Do you want it published in the NY Times or would some other publication be more satisfactory?

See John King's CNN report in the Anderson Cooper video linked above.

Rather than leave it as conspiracy fodder, the Air Force could have simply issued a press release saying "Yes, that was an Air Force plane" without going into any real details of what it was doing.

ETA: This aircraft probably rated a footnote in the 9/11 Commission Report.

gumboot

7th December 2009, 09:16 PM

Rather than leave it as conspiracy fodder, the Air Force could have simply issued a press release saying "Yes, that was an Air Force plane" without going into any real details of what it was doing.

You really think it's good use of government personnel time to address every single stupid little Conspiracy Theory? Should NASA have issued a press release stating there were no satellite-mounted space lasers over the WTC on 9/11? :rolleyes:

ETA: This aircraft probably rated a footnote in the 9/11 Commission Report.

Why, exactly?

Here's the problem. Conspiracy Theorists want to credit some sort of significance to this aircraft, because it happened to be in the area. They can't actually come up with what that significance might be. That's because there isn't any. On 9/11 you can be pretty sure there were hundreds of US military aircraft in the air. Should the DOD be required to issue press releases for each of them? Should the 9/11 Commission have mentioned all of them?

The E-4Bs were on standby for the Guardian exercises. Almost certainly they were activated as part of COG, which I believe was initiated on 9/11. From memory the Commission Report doesn't mentioned the blast doors of Cheyenne Mountain being closed on 9/11 either - another COG measure.

Kestrel

7th December 2009, 10:16 PM

You really think it's good use of government personnel time to address every single stupid little Conspiracy Theory? Should NASA have issued a press release stating there were no satellite-mounted space lasers over the WTC on 9/11? :rolleyes:

The aircraft was real and did cause concern. It wasn't a fantasy, or pure invention. It was noted on TV while the events of 9/11 were going on. It was in the restricted airspace over Washington DC where aircraft are seldom seen. Our government was asked and refused to answer, pulling out the National Security card when it wasn't really needed.

ETA: Your attempt at argument by ridicule wan't really appropriate.

Sam.I.Am

7th December 2009, 10:28 PM

You really think it's good use of government personnel time to address every single stupid little Conspiracy Theory? Should NASA have issued a press release stating there were no satellite-mounted space lasers over the WTC on 9/11? :rolleyes:

Why, exactly?

Here's the problem. Conspiracy Theorists want to credit some sort of significance to this aircraft, because it happened to be in the area. They can't actually come up with what that significance might be. That's because there isn't any. On 9/11 you can be pretty sure there were hundreds of US military aircraft in the air. Should the DOD be required to issue press releases for each of them? Should the 9/11 Commission have mentioned all of them?

The E-4Bs were on standby for the Guardian exercises. Almost certainly they were activated as part of COG, which I believe was initiated on 9/11. From memory the Commission Report doesn't mentioned the blast doors of Cheyenne Mountain being closed on 9/11 either - another COG measure.

Or all of the naval units surged out of ports that morning. There's a lot of things that happen automatically when the THREATCON goes up suddenly from Alpha or Bravo to Delta. That's one of the reasons I wasn't all that surprised when I found out that Rumsfeld was helping out survivors at the Pentagon soon after the attack on it. After the THREATCON was raised he didn't really have anything else to do for the next few hours.

It only takes one simple order to get everyone kicking the tires and lighting the fires heading towards a defensive posture. As it filters down to the various commands and they start giving orders from a prepared checklist there's not a lot for the higher ups to do. They know this and generally keep out of the way so that the orders can be given and accomplished as quickly as possible. It took about six hours before everything and everyone around the globe was up to speed. This also didn't surprise me because you usually can't (with a very few exceptions) just turn a key and get underway from a cold iron condition.

Hornit

7th December 2009, 10:46 PM

The aircraft was real and did cause concern. It wasn't a fantasy, or pure invention. It was noted on TV while the events of 9/11 were going on. It was in the restricted airspace over Washington DC where aircraft are seldom seen. Our government was asked and refused to answer, pulling out the National Security card when it wasn't really needed.

ETA: Your attempt at argument by ridicule wan't really appropriate.

After watching the video which includes the aircraft's ground track it is evident that this aircraft DID NOT penetrate P-56 (The Whitehouse). Watch the video for yourself, you don't need to take our word for it.

I agree with others here. National Command authority assets such as the E-4B do not require explanation. It may seem silly to you, but it is done for good reason. It is not your call, nor anyone elses in the public domain to decide if and when the "National Security card" gets pulled.

gumboot

7th December 2009, 11:02 PM

The aircraft was real and did cause concern.

Only for the mentally unbalanced.

It was noted on TV while the events of 9/11 were going on.

So what?

It was in the restricted airspace over Washington DC where aircraft are seldom seen.

No it wasn't.

Our government was asked and refused to answer, pulling out the National Security card when it wasn't really needed.

Wasn't it? Answering such questions would set a bad precedent and make it difficult to argue the "National Security" card at later dates.

High security assets of this nature are not discussed as a matter of policy, and this is done for a very good reason. The British as well as NZ and Australian governments, for example, do not discuss the activities of their SAS units. To this day, the New Zealand government does not officially acknowledge SAS involvement in the Vietnam War, even though it's common knowledge that they were there. This is for a very good reason. Likewise, the US Government will not officially acknowledge the existence of SFOD-D, despite the fact that their existence is widely known.

By having a blanket "do not discuss" policy you avoid situations where refusal to comment can be seen as an indicator or something significant going on. The E-4B, for example, is regularly seconded to FEMA for Disaster Response. There's no obvious security reason for not discussing this, but if you do discuss it, any time you refuse to discuss E-4B activities, it can be taken that their activity was military and secret in nature.

Kestrel

8th December 2009, 06:31 AM

Only for the mentally unbalanced.

Argument by insult.

So what?

No it wasn't.

Wasn't it? Answering such questions would set a bad precedent and make it difficult to argue the "National Security" card at later dates.

A classic slippery slope argument.

All they needed to do was confirm that this was an Air Force plane. A simple statement of fact. They didn't have to discuss the details of it's mission, or the capabilities of this aircraft. The President and others below him have the power to make such a decision. They certainly felt free to release classified information on more serious matters when it was in their own political interest.

The public interest is not served by the government keeping secrets where there is no need for secrets. Nor it is served by a government that lies about what happened. Those actions lead to public mistrust of government and serve and help to spread conspiracy theories.

BigAl

8th December 2009, 06:52 AM

Argument by insult.

A classic slippery slope argument.

Precisely. That's what governemnt officials won't comment on certain aspects of nation defense.

All they needed to do was confirm that this was an Air Force plane. A simple statement of fact.

What part of "no comment" do you not understand?

Pinch

8th December 2009, 07:05 AM

Before the flight, that makes sense. After the flight, there is no reason to keep it secret.

I agree with Reheat. TTPs, or "tactics, techniques and procedures" and "What is their standard operating procedure" information for anything can be gleaned from any piece of data, provided it is examined by the right set of eyes.

Just because something happened in the past does not mean critical information, data and can not be gleaned by what *was* done. Taking a look at the Venus flight, things like departure procedures in an emergency situation, rate-of-climb, initial altitudes, on-station procedures, etc can all provide info to individuals who can cause harm.

Plus, just because some of this information is available through publicly-available web sites or through FOIA requests, there is no reason to make the information easy to get to in the first place. Who the heck cares what the Venus flight was doing up there and how it got there and what it did? I know it is there and why it is there - that's good enough for me.

bill smith

8th December 2009, 07:55 AM

Well, since the take-off time and general route of flight was posted earlier it is obviously no longer secret. The transcripts of ATC communications and the radar track are available to everyone who is interested.

In case you don't know the only FOIA request to DoD (of which I am aware) was for the aircraft that violated P-56 airspace. Since this aircraft or any other did not violate P-56 airspace DoD indicated they had no knowledge of any such aircraft. That was a true statement.

In case you want to pursue this further, perhaps you should first learn about espionage techniques employed by our enemies instead of depending on what might at superficial perusal be common sense. For any sensitive asset owned and operated by DoD, in this case the Air Force, the established policy is to not discuss it via the technique of neither affirming or denying that it even exists. This is a policy based on many years of experience and it is not going to be changed by the whining of conspiracy theorists or the expression of curiosity from a citizen. You or I simply do not have a need to know and it is best for National Security to keep it that way.

It would have been smart if they had encrypted the radio communications with one pf their most secret aircraft too. Lessons learned for the future I hope.lol

bill smith

8th December 2009, 09:36 AM

Argument by insult.

A classic slippery slope argument.

All they needed to do was confirm that this was an Air Force plane. A simple statement of fact. They didn't have to discuss the details of it's mission, or the capabilities of this aircraft. The President and others below him have the power to make such a decision. They certainly felt free to release classified information on more serious matters when it was in their own political interest.

The public interest is not served by the government keeping secrets where there is no need for secrets. Nor it is served by a government that lies about what happened. Those actions lead to public mistrust of government and serve and help to spread conspiracy theories.

Yes the way they behaved it was almost as if they were deliberately trying to get conspiracy theories going wasn't it ?

Cheap Shot

8th December 2009, 12:04 PM

It's as silly as the days when the CIA exit on the George Washington Parkway didn't have a sign.
I beleive you mean the NSA, CIA was in Langley, VA.

I have to agree with most everyone here, it is a need to know only basis. Little bits of information may seem not important at all, but putting all of those bits of information together and you can uncover vital information.

njslim

8th December 2009, 01:07 PM

The attacks on Sept 11 triggered the COG (continuity of government) plans,
one of the most secret operations in the government. COG is often called by
conspiracy types "the shadow government" envsioning bunch of invisible sinister types pushing buttons and pulling levers of power unaccountable to
anybody. The secret command sites at Mt Weather in Virginia and Raven
Rock (Site R) in Pennsylvania were activated and staffers from various
departments and bureaucracies manning them . This was the famous undisclosed location where Dick Chaney was hiding out in. The launch of the
E4B, a flying command and control center, was part of theis plan to allow
Pentagon to run operations even if land based centers were destroyed.

Kestrel

8th December 2009, 01:31 PM

I beleive you mean the NSA, CIA was in Langley, VA.

I know what I am talking about. Look it up on Google Maps.

CIA headquarters is just off the George Washington Memorial Parkway in Virginia. No Such Agency is on the other side of DC.

I have to agree with most everyone here, it is a need to know only basis. Little bits of information may seem not important at all, but putting all of those bits of information together and you can uncover vital information.

In this specific case, what is the risk?

Myriad

8th December 2009, 02:13 PM

In this specific case, what is the risk?

You just quoted the explanation of what the risk is: that little bits of information that may seem not important at all, might be put together to uncover vital information.

Which little bits, you ask? Well, know one knows for sure. That's why you don't release anything if you can avoid it. That's the whole point.

"You're locking your front door when you leave the house? Who, specifically, do you expect would enter your house and damage or take things?"

Respectfully,
Myriad

Kestrel

8th December 2009, 02:27 PM

You just quoted the explanation of what the risk is: that little bits of information that may seem not important at all, might be put together to uncover vital information.

Which little bits, you ask? Well, know one knows for sure. That's why you don't release anything if you can avoid it. That's the whole point.

"You're locking your front door when you leave the house? Who, specifically, do you expect would enter your house and damage or take things?"

The bad guys don't have superhuman powers, they use the same tools for logic and deduction that we do. In the specific case of the aircraft seen over DC on 9/11, there is zero risk in confirming that it did indeed belong to the Air Force.

Try thinking for yourself instead of just repeating the mantra.

BigAl

8th December 2009, 02:30 PM

The bad guys don't have superhuman powers, they use the same tools for logic and deduction that we do. In the specific case of the aircraft seen over DC on 9/11, there is zero risk in confirming that it did indeed belong to the Air Force.

Try thinking for yourself instead of just repeating the mantra.

What airplane?

(What part of SECRET do you not understand?)

Kestrel

8th December 2009, 02:42 PM

What airplane?

(What part of SECRET do you not understand?)

A modified 747 known as a Boeing E-4.

It's not a big secret that these aircraft exist.

BigAl

8th December 2009, 02:45 PM

A modified 747 known as a Boeing E-4.

It's not a big secret that these aircraft exist.

What part of "no comment" do you not understand?

Even if your point about "it doesn't matter" stands, the guy answering the questions was sworn to secrecy and had no authority to deviate from orders. The comment would have to be officially declassified.

Kestrel

8th December 2009, 03:05 PM

What part of "no comment" do you not understand?

Even if your point about "it doesn't matter" stands, the guy answering the questions was sworn to secrecy and had no authority to deviate from orders. The comment would have to be officially declassified.

The events of 9/11 made it a special case, not business as usual. The policy should have been let the public know except for specific bits of information that had to be kept secret. If running it up the chain of command is required for release, do a review and run it up to get the proper signature.

Sam.I.Am

8th December 2009, 04:42 PM

You still run into the issue of an enemy taking little pieces of seemingly harmless information and putting them all together and finding out that which you don't want them to know. Triforcharity already mentioned an example I used a few months ago about the food stores a submarine takes out to sea. Who cares, I mean it's not a secret that people need to eat food right? Well then why not have the "Grocery bill" available to the general public?

The reason is that you can infer how long that boat intends to be out to sea by how much food they bring along. From there you can infer what their mission might be. A larger than normal stores loadout usually means that they intend to not pull into a friendly port and that usually means that they aren't planning on being near a friendly port. You then might decide to heighten your security around areas that a boat might be interested in sitting at collecting information for a long period of time thereby jeopardizing the mission and the lives of the crew.

All from a grocery bill*.

That's why seemingly mundane bits of information are routinely classified Confidential/NOFORN.

*this actually happened back in the 1980's to a boat headed to the Barents Sea to monitor Soviet missile testing

Kestrel

8th December 2009, 05:06 PM

Still waiting for one of you guys to think up a real reason why confirmation of the sighting this specific aircraft on 9/11 would damage national security.

bill smith

8th December 2009, 05:07 PM

You just quoted the explanation of what the risk is: that little bits of information that may seem not important at all, might be put together to uncover vital information.

Which little bits, you ask? Well, know one knows for sure. That's why you don't release anything if you can avoid it. That's the whole point.

"You're locking your front door when you leave the house? Who, specifically, do you expect would enter your house and damage or take things?"

Respectfully,
Myriad

I started a file early in my 9/11 researches called 'big fat clues '. In it were things like the E4 and Bush staying in the school. These were Keystone -cop style pointers to a conspiracy. No other possible explanation I reckon.

Kestrel

8th December 2009, 05:27 PM

I started a file early in my 9/11 researches called 'big fat clues '. In it were things like the E4 and Bush staying in the school. These were Keystone -cop style pointers to a conspiracy. No other possible explanation Ireckon.

I don't see a conspiracy.

Denying the E-4 is simply slavish adherence to simple minded rules. Never mind that this is a situation where full disclosure of the facts is a key to retaining public confidence. The E-4 showing up above DC after the Pentagon attack was a reasonable military response to the events of that day.

As for Bush staying in the school, that was simple incompetence. The situation required Bush to think on his feet and he is lost without a script. If he had been in on a conspiracy, he would have had a script to follow and wouldn't have looked like a complete dolt.

BTW - I would like to see the photos of the Pentagon taken from that E-4, but in this case I do understand the reasons why they are kept under wraps.

Sam.I.Am

8th December 2009, 05:30 PM

Still waiting for one of you guys to think up a real reason why confirmation of the sighting this specific aircraft on 9/11 would damage national security.

It's not that that discussing that particular sighting (or any other one for that matter) is going to be some ground breaking revelation. It's more along the lines of they don't discuss anything that it does at all. This is common practice in almost everything the military does regarding strategic assets. "Loose lips sink ships." and all of that.

bill smith

8th December 2009, 05:52 PM

I don't see a conspiracy.

Denying the E-4 is simply slavish adherence to simple minded rules. Never mind that this is a situation where full disclosure of the facts is a key to retaining public confidence. The E-4 showing up above DC after the Pentagon attack was a reasonable military response to the events of that day.

As for Bush staying in the school, that was simple incompetence. The situation required Bush to think on his feet and he is lost without a script. If he had been in on a conspiracy, he would have had a script to follow and wouldn't have looked like a complete dolt.

BTW - I would like to see the photos of the Pentagon taken from that E-4, but in this case I do understand the reasons why they are kept under wraps.

Give me one possible worthwhile thing an E4 circling the Whitehouse on 9/11 could do other than arouse suspicion ?

triforcharity

8th December 2009, 06:45 PM

Figure out what an E-4 does, then it might give you a clue.

JoeyDonuts

8th December 2009, 07:58 PM

Anyone to access to Jane's in 2001 had the ability to learn what the E-4 was, and its general mission profile WRT continuity-of-government plans.

What isn't public knowledge and for good reason is a fundamental cornerstone of OPSEC called EEFI (Essential Elements of Friendly Information.) These rules are second nature to anyone that works with the military in a C4ISR capacity. While the existence of the E-4 and general descriptions of its mission does not compromise EEFI, information vital to the conduct of its mission is. We're talking about things like flight profile plans, receiver sensitivity/frequencies transmitted/crypto gear used, specific EMI/EMP hardening defenses, personnel manning, and other similar information.

The airspace over Washington DC is not restricted for the E-4B or any other USG aircraft engaged in performance of its duties.

It was supposed to be there, and any warfighting organization in the world would be simply daft if they were to bloviate on specific operational contingency plans to assuage nervous nellies and Internet sleuths.

None of you need to know where the E-4B goes or the specific methods it uses to accomplish its task. You are not owed that explanation.

Dog Town

8th December 2009, 08:26 PM

These were Keystone -cop style pointers to a conspiracy. No other possible explanation I reckon.

I reckon? Do you get this...at all? :jaw-dropp

gumboot

8th December 2009, 10:19 PM

Denying the E-4 is simply slavish adherence to simple minded rules. Never mind that this is a situation where full disclosure of the facts is a key to retaining public confidence. The E-4 showing up above DC after the Pentagon attack was a reasonable military response to the events of that day.

It wasn't a military response, it was a government response. And it didn't "show up above DC". It was based near DC, and by virtue of that fact had to pass over DC in order to leave.

As for denying? Please provide evidence of any US government official ever denying the presence of the E-4B. All they ever did was refuse to discuss it, which is a blanket policy applied by every government and military in the world to every sensitive asset. There is nothing even remotely interesting or noteworthy in this situation.

You've had the reasoning for this policy explained to you numerous times, so if you cannot grasp it perhaps the problem does not lie with those explaining it, but with you.

gumboot

8th December 2009, 10:23 PM

Figure out what an E-4 does, then it might give you a clue.

Except it doesn't. The E-4B is essentially an airborne command and control centre. It's designed for situations in which static ground-based command and control centres might be compromised. Given any sort of US government involvement in 9/11, there's no plausible reason for using the E-4B because a static ground-based command centre would not only provide a far superior service, but would avoid attracting attention.

There are a whole host of issues that arise if you attempt to use something like an E-4B to stage an attack, and doing so offers no benefit whatsoever. Further, the notion is compromised by the fact that the E-4B didn't turn up until after the attacks took place.

JoeyDonuts

8th December 2009, 10:54 PM

There are a whole host of issues that arise if you attempt to use something like an E-4B to stage an attack, and doing so offers no benefit whatsoever.

Such as once again bloating the Impossibly Large ConspiracyTM to now include the officers/enlisted crew of the E-4B. And the secure R/T talkers on the other end of the circuits coordinating the "attack." And whoever they passed that on to. And whoever they tasked with executing the...

Oh, **** it. I'm tired of thinking.

CTers must think all military personnel are androids with no conscience whatsoever.

bill smith

9th December 2009, 03:43 AM

I reckon? Do you get this...at all? :jaw-dropp

The Keystone Cops strike again. ARE YOU GETTING THE PICTURE ? HERE-IS-A-C-O-N-S-P-I-R-A-C-Y..!..lol

Remember the van they found on 9/11 at the WTC with the mural of the plane crashing into the WTC on the side and the two guys who ran away from it when approached ?

http://www.whale.to/b/mm6dlz.jpg

Harpo

9th December 2009, 03:52 AM

The Keystone Cops strike again. ARE YOU GETTING THE PICTURE ? HERE-IS-A-C-O-N-S-P-I-R-A-C-Y..!..lol

Remember the van they found on 9/11 at the WTC with the mural of the plane crashing into the WTC on the side and the two guys who ran away from it when approached ?

http://www.whale.to/b/mm6dlz.jpg

That picture is a badly photoshopped fake and without a source is completely worthless anyway. Try again!!

(and by source I don't mean a truther forum, blog or Youtube channel)

bill smith

9th December 2009, 03:53 AM

That picture is a badly photoshopped fake and without a source is completely worthless anyway. Try again!!

Suppose I can prove it ? Can you explain it then ?

Harpo

9th December 2009, 04:30 AM

Provide proof first bill - you know how it works by now.

This forum has a "Put up or shut up" policy on evidence - seemingly you have none to support this fake photo.

bill smith

9th December 2009, 04:32 AM

Provide proof first bill - you know how it works by now.

This forum has a "Put up or shut up" policy on evidence - seemingly you have noen to support this fake photo.

Well I'll see if i can locate it a bit later. In the meantime your fellows may help you to the Truth.

Oliver

9th December 2009, 04:43 AM

DGM

9th December 2009, 05:28 AM

Suppose I can prove it ? Can you explain it then ?
So U-haul had advance knowledge now. Why don't you just include everyone BUT you, It would make it easier.

Kestrel

9th December 2009, 05:41 AM

It wasn't a military response, it was a government response. And it didn't "show up above DC". It was based near DC, and by virtue of that fact had to pass over DC in order to leave.

As for denying? Please provide evidence of any US government official ever denying the presence of the E-4B. All they ever did was refuse to discuss it, which is a blanket policy applied by every government and military in the world to every sensitive asset. There is nothing even remotely interesting or noteworthy in this situation.

You've had the reasoning for this policy explained to you numerous times, so if you cannot grasp it perhaps the problem does not lie with those explaining it, but with you.

What I have been saying is this policy does not have to be static. Confirming that the E-4 B belonged to the Air Force in this specific case best serves the interests of our nation. In this case, the overriding concern is providing the public with a complete and accurate account of what happened on 9/11. Keeping secrets where there is no need for secrets, especially when it involves 9/11, fosters conspiracy theories and mistrust.

BigAl

9th December 2009, 05:46 AM

fosters conspiracy theories and mistrust.

Only in a handful of loons on the Internet.

Reheat

9th December 2009, 05:49 AM

Keeping secrets where there is no need for secrets, especially when it involves 9/11, fosters conspiracy theories and mistrust.

Are you really so delusional to believe that no matter what is said or done there wouldn't still be conspiracy theories? Mistrust by whom? Oh yea.....conspiracy theorists! :rolleyes:

Kestrel

9th December 2009, 05:56 AM

Except it doesn't. The E-4B is essentially an airborne command and control centre. It's designed for situations in which static ground-based command and control centres might be compromised. Given any sort of US government involvement in 9/11, there's no plausible reason for using the E-4B because a static ground-based command centre would not only provide a far superior service, but would avoid attracting attention.

The E-4Bs normal mission during the Cold War would be to fly over the interior of the US. In this case, it's a reasonable assumption that it loitered in the DC area so it could use it's radar and other surveillance equipment to observe what was happening. A good use of an available asset during an emergency.

bill smith

9th December 2009, 06:12 AM

Provide proof first bill - you know how it works by now.

This forum has a "Put up or shut up" policy on evidence - seemingly you have noen to support this fake photo.

So are your friends helping you to establish the Truth about the van with the mural of a plane diving into the Twin Towers being stopped at the WTC on 9/11 and the occupants running away ?

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5393096&postcount=53 Hyperlink to pic

If they do not tell you it is true (and these guys know all there is to know about 9/11) what can that mean readers ? Many of these guys know about it yet they do not want you to know about it as would happen if they enlightened poor Harpo here. .Why is that do you think ?

Reheat

9th December 2009, 06:13 AM

In this case, it's a reasonable assumption that it loitered in the DC area so it could use it's radar and other surveillance equipment to observe what was happening. A good use of an available asset during an emergency.

Just what kind of radar do you think an E4B has? It is not an AWACS. It is primarily a communications platform, not a surveillance asset.

It didn't loiter in the DC area, it made one pass around P-56 A and B and then orbited in the Richmond, VA area. The most plausible explanation I've seen is that it launched to facilitate the POTUS' return to DC. That didn't happen, so it eventually returned to Andrews.

bill smith

9th December 2009, 06:23 AM

Just what kind of radar do you think an E4B has? It is not an AWACS. It is primarily a communications platform, not a surveillance asset.

It didn't loiter in the DC area, it made one pass around P-56 A and B and then orbited in the Richmond, VA area. The most plausible explanation I've seen is that it launched to facilitate the POTUS' return to DC. That didn't happen, so it eventually returned to Andrews.

One of those hanging ladders to the roof of the Whitehouse I suppose ?

Kestrel

9th December 2009, 06:31 AM

Are you really so delusional to believe that no matter what is said or done there wouldn't still be conspiracy theories? Mistrust by whom? Oh yea.....conspiracy theorists! :rolleyes:

There will always be a few on the fringes. But what helps them sell their case to others is evidence that the government has not been completely open and honest about the events of 9/11.

bill smith

9th December 2009, 06:35 AM

There will always be a few on the fringes. But what helps them sell their case to others is evidence that the government has not been completely open and honest about the events of 9/11.

But now you are praising them with faint damnation.

Far from neing mildly complicit as you would suggest they were into it right up to the back teeth. Orchestration and all.

Jack by the hedge

9th December 2009, 06:40 AM

Denying the E-4 is simply slavish adherence to simple minded rules.

I suspect slavish adherence to simple-minded rules is a really excellent security measure. There must be people all over the world in charge of their own company's data security who wish there was a way to make their own colleagues slavishly adhere to simple-minded rules.

Never mind that this is a situation where full disclosure of the facts is a key to retaining public confidence.Do you think it is that big a deal? I mean, I have no idea, but how many Americans do you think currently lack confidence in their government, but would have it restored by hearing an announcement that a 747 they may have seen or heard about in the Washington area on 9/11/2001 was a government aircraft? Seriously, do you have a number in mind?

triforcharity

9th December 2009, 06:41 AM

bill smith

9th December 2009, 06:51 AM

What does it matter if CT's think it is something to be suspecious about? The govenment isn't going to publish information about something that concerns National Security just to silence a few crazy-tin-foil-hatters.

Sorry, they are smarter than that. Just like much of Air Force One's capabilities and such are classified. Like, what type of countermeasures it has. Its a matter of National Security.

Submarine grocery bills are also classified. Does it mean that they don't want you to knnow that the crew eats? No, of course not.

The USG doesn't give a damn about some CT's little dilusions.

Yes they do. Remember when the conspiracy theories were not catching on fast enough despite Rumsfeld and his'missile hit the Pentagon' and again when he said that flight 93 had been shot down ? Even with these and more clues the conspiracy theories did not really catch on. In the end desperation drove Bush to the UN that November to make a public speech about it. Remember ?....' Let us not tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories'. That was he first time I and most other people had ever heard anything about 9/11 conspiracy theories.

BigAl

9th December 2009, 06:54 AM

Do you think it is that big a deal? I mean, I have no idea, but how many Americans do you think currently lack confidence in their government, but would have it restored by hearing an announcement that a 747 they may have seen or heard about in the Washington area on 9/11/2001 was a government aircraft? Seriously, do you have a number in mind?

One (1), you.

Actually make that zero since if you get this answered, I expect you will just find something to "just ask questions about".

DGM

9th December 2009, 07:12 AM

Several times in the days after 9/11 I saw government/military aircraft flying around. Not once did I wonder why they were there, I assumed they were doing their job, and that made me happy.

Life is so much nicer when your not paranoid.:D

Jack by the hedge

9th December 2009, 07:14 AM

One (1), you.

Actually make that zero since if you get this answered, I expect you will just find something to "just ask questions about".

Can't be me - I'm not American.
I think you mistook my meaning. I was being sarcastic. There's no point whatever in the US administration telling conspiracy nuts something they already know (that this E4 was stooging around near Washington on 9/11). It's not as if any would suddenly decide they didn't believe in conspiracies any more. It would just generate a demand for whatever was the next drip of information, and the next, and the next. (None of which would be believed if they didn't confirm what the conspiracy nuts already "know".)

Edit to add: Unless "One (1), you" was aimed at Kestrel. In which case just ignore me. Carry on.

triforcharity

9th December 2009, 07:15 AM

Bill,

Then by your logic, why haven't they said what the airplane in question was doing?

Stop taking my posts out of context.

The USG is not going to release classified documents to shut your merry band of dumb***** up. Sorry, not going to happen.

BigAl

9th December 2009, 07:16 AM

Can't be me - I'm not American.
I think you mistook my meaning. I was being sarcastic.

Sorry, I thought I was responding to Kestrel.

bill smith

9th December 2009, 07:28 AM

Senenmut

9th December 2009, 04:50 PM

there may have been 2 e-4b's that departed from andrews AFB. the name of the second e-4b that took off before venus 77 was SWORD 31.

from gaffney's new book the 911 mystery plane:
http://the911mysteryplane.com/

"The staffer acknowledged that he knew about VENUS 77 (and also SWORD 31, a second E-4B that departed from Andrews AFB at 9:26 AM) but did not investigate either of these command and control flights because he was told by his supervisor, Daniel Marcus, that the US Air Force had already briefed the commissioners about these departures. The staffer assumed the flights had been covered and focused on other issues. Marcus served as the general counsel for the 9/11 Commission and when I contacted him at American University, where he currently teaches law, he confirmed that “sensitive briefings” had indeed taken place. Marcus refused to elaborate, however."

JoeyDonuts

9th December 2009, 08:23 PM

And even if there HAD been two E-4B that departed from Andrews, what would the significance be with regards to whether or not there was a government orchestrated conspiracy on 9/11?

triforcharity

9th December 2009, 08:33 PM

To set the conspiracy hounds running Tri. I thought that would be obvious.

Yeah, and jeoperodize national security, great thinking!!

Well, we know who should NEVER have ANY kind of government clearance, EVER.

Senenmut

10th December 2009, 04:21 AM

And even if there HAD been two E-4B that departed from Andrews, what would the significance be with regards to whether or not there was a government orchestrated conspiracy on 9/11?

wouldnt ya like to know what plane produced this track? or was it an "inject". i think gumboot was tried to pass it off as the TSD of flight 93. didnt make much since though.

MINETA: "Well, the question was where is it coming. And so as I was asking Monte, it was following pretty much the DRA, the down river approach, and it had not crossed over towards the White House or towards the Capitol. It was staying on its line towards what would normally be the traffic pattern into National Airport.
And in fact, later on, in looking at the radar track, the plane had actually over-passed the Pentagon, then turned around and then came back into it, and it never took a wide sweep to cross over to the east side of the White House."

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Norman_Mineta

gumboot

10th December 2009, 08:11 PM

wouldnt ya like to know what plane produced this track? or was it an "inject". i think gumboot was tried to pass it off as the TSD of flight 93. didnt make much since though.

What on earth are you talking about?

Senenmut

10th December 2009, 08:20 PM

What on earth are you talking about?
well you and boone870.
gumboot said-

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=130731&highlight=Mineta+thread

"It's probably worth explaining to people what you mean by "course update".

The FAA has a system called the Traffic Situational Display (TSD) which is a map of all logged flight paths. The various centres can update this display when they change an aircraft's flight path for whatever reason.

The TSD is an independent system which is not updated by radar data, nor is it based on radar data.

The data from the TSD is used in the central operations centre and also by the USSS, who do not have direct access to radars.

On 9/11, because aircraft were disappearing from radars, some centres started to use the TSD to track flights, however obviously this is problematic when flights are changing course. It was also used by centres to monitor aircraft outside their airspace. A false second track was created for AA11, which was the cause of the phantom AA11 report.

Meanwhile, UA93 was not cleared from the TSD after it crashed, so the USSS continued to track its progress towards DC.

What Boone 870 is presenting above is the TSD track for UA93 which remained in the system well after the aircraft crashed."

gumboot

10th December 2009, 08:29 PM

well you and boone870.
gumboot said-

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=130731&highlight=Mineta+thread

"It's probably worth explaining to people what you mean by "course update".

The FAA has a system called the Traffic Situational Display (TSD) which is a map of all logged flight paths. The various centres can update this display when they change an aircraft's flight path for whatever reason.

The TSD is an independent system which is not updated by radar data, nor is it based on radar data.

The data from the TSD is used in the central operations centre and also by the USSS, who do not have direct access to radars.

On 9/11, because aircraft were disappearing from radars, some centres started to use the TSD to track flights, however obviously this is problematic when flights are changing course. It was also used by centres to monitor aircraft outside their airspace. A false second track was created for AA11, which was the cause of the phantom AA11 report.

Meanwhile, UA93 was not cleared from the TSD after it crashed, so the USSS continued to track its progress towards DC.

What Boone 870 is presenting above is the TSD track for UA93 which remained in the system well after the aircraft crashed."

What has any of that got to do with the E-4Bs flying over Washington DC?

JoeyDonuts

10th December 2009, 08:38 PM

Even if this was relevant, where does TSD pull its geolocation data from? What's its expected Area of Uncertainty/Bearing Error/Latency/Refresh and such?

gumboot

10th December 2009, 08:55 PM

Even if this was relevant, where does TSD pull its geolocation data from? What's its expected Area of Uncertainty/Bearing Error/Latency/Refresh and such?

Given that the TSD is nothing more than a pre-plotted flight path, and has no bearing on, nor connection with real time events at all, its expected uncertainty is probably rather high when things stop going according to plan.

Senenmut

10th December 2009, 08:58 PM

What has any of that got to do with the E-4Bs flying over Washington DC?

tell me more about what you meant about this:
"On 9/11, because aircraft were disappearing from radars, some centres started to use the TSD to track flights, however obviously this is problematic when flights are changing course. It was also used by centres to monitor aircraft outside their airspace. A false second track was created for AA11, which was the cause of the phantom AA11 report."

gumboot

10th December 2009, 09:07 PM

tell me more about what you meant about this:
"On 9/11, because aircraft were disappearing from radars, some centres started to use the TSD to track flights, however obviously this is problematic when flights are changing course. It was also used by centres to monitor aircraft outside their airspace. A false second track was created for AA11, which was the cause of the phantom AA11 report."

It seems pretty straight forward to me. What exactly about it doesn't make sense to you?

The TSD is the "Traffic Situational Display" which is a computer program that displays the logged flight path of all aircraft in controlled airspace. The display is manually updated by ARTCCs so that it accurately reflects the real world. As such, individual ARTCCs can edit the display quite extensively, including creating new flight paths.

Because only the ATC centres have direct access to radar, the display is vital for operation of other facilities that monitor the National Airway System, such as the national ATC command centre and FAA HQ. In addition, the display is accessible to some non-FAA organisations that have an interest in air traffic such as the Secret Service and presumably airports and so on.

Obviously, because the TSD is a manually logged display, it will only ever be as accurate as the data being fed into it. On 9/11 some erroneous data was fed into it by ARTCCs in an effort to track the hijacked flights, and this created issues. These issues were compounded by ATC relying heavily on the TSD due to loss of radar contact with some flights.

Senenmut

10th December 2009, 09:08 PM

Even if this was relevant, where does TSD pull its geolocation data from? What's its expected Area of Uncertainty/Bearing Error/Latency/Refresh and such?

gumboot made the TSD remarkes regards to the mineta statments and flight 93. ask him. im wondering what plane or if an "inject" made this track that mineta looked at after the fact.

gumboot

10th December 2009, 09:09 PM

gumboot made the TSD remarkes regards to the mineta statments and flight 93. ask him. im wondering what plane or if an "inject" made this track that mineta looked at after the fact.

AA77 did, obviously.

Senenmut

10th December 2009, 09:16 PM

It seems pretty straight forward to me. What exactly about it doesn't make sense to you?

The TSD is the "Traffic Situational Display" which is a computer program that displays the logged flight path of all aircraft in controlled airspace. The display is manually updated by ARTCCs so that it accurately reflects the real world. As such, individual ARTCCs can edit the display quite extensively, including creating new flight paths.

Because only the ATC centres have direct access to radar, the display is vital for operation of other facilities that monitor the National Airway System, such as the national ATC command centre and FAA HQ. In addition, the display is accessible to some non-FAA organisations that have an interest in air traffic such as the Secret Service and presumably airports and so on.

Obviously, because the TSD is a manually logged display, it will only ever be as accurate as the data being fed into it. On 9/11 some erroneous data was fed into it by ARTCCs in an effort to track the hijacked flights, and this created issues. These issues were compounded by ATC relying heavily on the TSD due to loss of radar contact with some flights.

would you like to elaborate on "why" and "who" feed the erroneous data into the artccs? also, what path would the "phantom 11" take after it had already hit the tower?

i understand that the TSD is a few mins behind the radar from what ive read.

Senenmut

10th December 2009, 09:19 PM

AA77 did, obviously.

am i missing something. AA77 did NOT head into washington with a DRA ( down the river approach)??????

gumboot

10th December 2009, 09:23 PM

would you like to elaborate on "why" and "who" feed the erroneous data into the artccs? also, what path would the "phantom 11" take after it had already hit the tower?

The erroneous data was plotted in because AA11 had totally vanished from radar, and the FAA needed to be able to plot the general area it would be in at its last known heading and speed, so that they knew where the fighters should be looking, where ATC should be looking for unknown aircraft, etc.

i understand that the TSD is a few mins behind the radar from what ive read.

The TSD and radar are totally unrelated. The TSD can be perfectly aligned with the radar if controllers update it accurately, or it can be hours and hours out of date with radar if they do not.

Senenmut

10th December 2009, 09:23 PM

read what mineta said again. and he states that looking at the flight path again (later on) that the plane passed over passed the pentagon, turned around, and came back into it. is this the TSD of flight 93 like you stated in the other thread? or something else entirely....

MINETA: "Well, the question was where is it coming. And so as I was asking Monte, it was following pretty much the DRA, the down river approach, and it had not crossed over towards the White House or towards the Capitol. It was staying on its line towards what would normally be the traffic pattern into National Airport.
And in fact, later on, in looking at the radar track, the plane had actually over-passed the Pentagon, then turned around and then came back into it, and it never took a wide sweep to cross over to the east side of the White House."

gumboot

10th December 2009, 09:26 PM

am i missing something. AA77 did NOT head into washington with a DRA ( down the river approach)??????

I know. And?

gumboot

10th December 2009, 09:30 PM

read what mineta said again. and he states that looking at the flight path again (later on) that the plane passed over passed the pentagon, turned around, and came back into it. is this the TSD of flight 93 like you stated in the other thread? or something else entirely....

In your quote, the first bit, talking about the DRA, as described by FAA HQ to Mineta on the day of 9/11, is the TSD for UA93.

The second bit, where he describes looking at a radar track, he is talking about the radar track for AA77.

Mineta thinks they're one and the same, because Mineta got his times wrong. I hope that clears things up.

Senenmut

10th December 2009, 09:31 PM

The erroneous data was plotted in because AA11 had totally vanished from radar, and the FAA needed to be able to plot the general area it would be in at its last known heading and speed, so that they knew where the fighters should be looking, where ATC should be looking for unknown aircraft, etc.

The TSD and radar are totally unrelated. The TSD can be perfectly aligned with the radar if controllers update it accurately, or it can be hours and hours out of date with radar if they do not.

so give me a flight path of that data!!! and who plotted that dataafter it supposedly crashed!! are you saying that it would be heading towards washington from its last know heading and speed.

from what ive read, the tsd is up to date if the transponder is woking.

Senenmut

10th December 2009, 09:39 PM

In your quote, the first bit, talking about the DRA, as described by FAA HQ to Mineta on the day of 9/11, is the TSD for UA93.
and you know that how?

The second bit, where he describes looking at a radar track, he is talking about the radar track for AA77.
no, he is describing the DRA approach and the pentagon getting hit all in one.
Mineta thinks they're one and the same, because Mineta got his times wrong. I hope that clears things up.
read what he said again:
MINETA: "Well, the question was where is it coming. And so as I was asking Monte, it was following pretty much the DRA, the down river approach, and it had not crossed over towards the White House or towards the Capitol. It was staying on its line towards what would normally be the traffic pattern into National Airport.
And in fact, later on, in looking at the radar track, the plane had actually over-passed the Pentagon, then turned around and then came back into it, and it never took a wide sweep to cross over to the east side of the White House."

gumboot

10th December 2009, 09:51 PM

so give me a flight path of that data!!!

Ask the FAA.

and who plotted that dataafter it supposedly crashed!!

The second flight path (AA11A) was created before AA11 crashed. It was created when AA11 turned its transponder off, I believe.

are you saying that it would be heading towards washington from its last know heading and speed.

They decided it was probably heading south towards larger airports.

from what ive read, the tsd is up to date if the transponder is woking.

Hrm, this might be true, if there is a matching transponder and flight path. However transponder alone wouldn't be enough as when UA175 changed its transponder code the TSD got out of wack with the real flight.

For what it's worth the AA11 track on the TSD continued on its intended flight path and eventually landed at its destination (LAX, I think). I'm not sure what ended up happening with the AA11A track.

Cheap Shot

11th December 2009, 11:19 AM

from what ive read, the tsd is up to date if the transponder is woking.

The TSD gets it info from one source flight plan data. If the radar is interogating the transponder correctlly, and the transponder shows the aircraft in certain parameters then the TSD will continue to update. The ARTCC HOST trackking system has to show the target in what is called a "FLAT TRACK", it is now updating. If it is not in a "FLAT TRACK" it can be in what is called a "FREE TRACK" which means the transponder is still being interogated, but the target has fallen outside of parameters. If it is in a "COAST TRACK" then there is no interogation of the transponder.

In the TSD if a aircraft goes into FREE TRACK or COAST TRACK the aircraft will continue on it's route of flight based on the last time it was under FLAT TRACK.

AAL11 continued on its flight path to LAX. AAL11A never had a route of flight assigned as far as I know, maybe DCA or somewehre else south, since it was never FLAT TRACKED it continued on what ever it's last heading was or it could have even floated, which does happen sometimes.

Cheap Shot

11th December 2009, 11:30 AM

gumboot

11th December 2009, 08:01 PM

Thanks for the info Cheap Shot. :)

gumboot

11th December 2009, 08:04 PM

and you know that how?

Because every other explanation has been eliminated. Based on the known facts, the only plausible explanation is that it was UA93's TSD track.

no, he is describing the DRA approach and the pentagon getting hit all in one.

No he isn't. Your clue here is the words "later on". First he talks about what, at the time, he thought was happening. Then he talks about what it turned out was actually happening, once they looked at the radar data. Of course he still got it wrong, because he had his times wrong.

read what he said again:

I don't need to. I understand what he said perfectly. Perhaps you should read it again?

gumboot

11th December 2009, 08:22 PM

Centers would never use a TSD to track a flight. THey did use them to monitor aircraft outside of our airspace.

That's my fault for poor choice of words. I should have considered that "track" has a very specific meaning in ATC terms. "Monitor" is a better way of putting it.

What I meant was that there were clear instances on 9/11 of NORAD receiving info from the FAA that NORAD clearly assumed was radar data, but was actually derived from the TSD. The Phantom AA11 is a prime example.

Senenmut

12th December 2009, 08:16 AM

Because every other explanation has been eliminated. Based on the known facts, the only plausible explanation is that it was UA93's TSD track.

No he isn't. Your clue here is the words "later on". First he talks about what, at the time, he thought was happening. Then he talks about what it turned out was actually happening, once they looked at the radar data. Of course he still got it wrong, because he had his times wrong.

I don't need to. I understand what he said perfectly. Perhaps you should read it again?

so a tsd track can do this:

MINETA: "Well, the question was where is it coming. And so as I was asking Monte, it was following pretty much the DRA, the down river approach, and it had not crossed over towards the White House or towards the Capitol. It was staying on its line towards what would normally be the traffic pattern into National Airport.
And in fact, later on, in looking at the radar track, the plane had actually over-passed the Pentagon, then turned around and then came back into it, and it never took a wide sweep to cross over to the east side of the White House."

so TSD tracks can turn around and "came back into it". the "it" he is referring to is the pentagon.

think logically. do you really think the peoc would be notified right when the pentagon got hit or 30 mins later? what time was the pentagon hit. what time did flight 93 crash. how far away from washington was flight 93 when it crashed. how long would that TSD take to get to washington. it just doesnt add up.

any comments about what mineta saw from his interview with msnbc interview cheapshot.

Senenmut

12th December 2009, 08:28 AM

The TSD gets it info from one source flight plan data. If the radar is interogating the transponder correctlly, and the transponder shows the aircraft in certain parameters then the TSD will continue to update. The ARTCC HOST trackking system has to show the target in what is called a "FLAT TRACK", it is now updating. If it is not in a "FLAT TRACK" it can be in what is called a "FREE TRACK" which means the transponder is still being interogated, but the target has fallen outside of parameters. If it is in a "COAST TRACK" then there is no interogation of the transponder.

In the TSD if a aircraft goes into FREE TRACK or COAST TRACK the aircraft will continue on it's route of flight based on the last time it was under FLAT TRACK.

AAL11 continued on its flight path to LAX. AAL11A never had a route of flight assigned as far as I know, maybe DCA or somewehre else south, since it was never FLAT TRACKED it continued on what ever it's last heading was or it could have even floated, which does happen sometimes.

thanks for the info. if i remember right, that how you guys got delta 1989, from looking at the tsd's.

do you have any comments on dave canoles.

dave wrote about "rebirth of 11....dont remember...doubt about whether 11 hit tower..."

http://www.911myths.com/images/b/bf/DanaHyde_Box2_DaveCanoles_FAA-WOC.pdf

why would he think that?

Myriad

12th December 2009, 09:44 AM

dave wrote about "rebirth of 11....dont remember...doubt about whether 11 hit tower..."

In that case he also wrote about "11... don't... doubt... 11 hit tower..."

So, I guess that settles it.

(Or not, which is why I prefer to see quotes that average a little more than 4 words per ellipsis.)

Respectfully,
Myriad

Myriad

12th December 2009, 09:54 AM

Senenmut

12th December 2009, 10:28 AM

The actual written passage (broken into lines as in the original):

JZ — re Rebirth of 11
don't remember doubt about whether
11 had hit tower

I think the most likely reason he wrote that is that he did not remember doubt about whether Flight 11 had hit a tower. But that's just me and my wild, imaginative interpretations.

Respectfully,
Myriad

just to give ya an idea why i brought that up. scoggins mentioned dave canoles in this interview. so i looked at that pdf file i linked earlier and saw the "rebirth of flight 11." so dave canoles must of seen or heard something. it would be nice if 911myths intervied dave to find out the time frame here and what kind of path that plane was taking.

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Phantom_flight_11

911myths: Why did you believe that Flight 11 may still be in the air?

Colin Scoggins:..............
I think this ended up on the telcon as AAL 11 is still airborne. From my point of view the aircraft was heading south at low altitude and we had lost radar, my only guess was he was heading for Washington DC. I found out years later and I am 99% certain the person who made that call on the telcon was Dave Canoles, he has since retired. I took the information I received and called NEADS almost instantly, can't tell you who I told that to, I talked with so many people there the whole day.

911myths: Several 9/11 researchers authors have reported that the “phantom flight 11” was spotted on radar. Is that true?

Colin Scoggins: I have no idea where that came from. Once we lost the aircraft we never even had a hint of another target. I even called FACSFAC VACAPES which has radar up and down the coast, to look for targets, they didn't come up with any.

911myths: If it was never on radar, why say it was going to Washington?

Colin Scoggins: Again it was just my hunch, as where they were heading. The aircraft would have enough gas to get there even at low altitude, but if the aircraft was heading to Cuba, it would never make it at low altitude. Couldn't think of any other important targets on the east coast, so that was where my mind was. I also tried to guess where the aircraft would be at the speed it was traveling.

gumboot

12th December 2009, 12:37 PM

so a tsd track can do this:

MINETA: "Well, the question was where is it coming. And so as I was asking Monte, it was following pretty much the DRA, the down river approach, and it had not crossed over towards the White House or towards the Capitol. It was staying on its line towards what would normally be the traffic pattern into National Airport.
And in fact, later on, in looking at the radar track, the plane had actually over-passed the Pentagon, then turned around and then came back into it, and it never took a wide sweep to cross over to the east side of the White House."

so TSD tracks can turn around and "came back into it". the "it" he is referring to is the pentagon.

No that wasn't the TSD, that was AA77's radar track, as I have already told you several times. Did you not read the bit where he said "looking at the radar track"?

Seriously, if you're not even going to bother reading what I am telling you, why should I bother responding to your questions? This is exactly why I stopped being involved in 9/11 topics. You don't deserve my time.

think logically. do you really think the peoc would be notified right when the pentagon got hit or 30 mins later?

Actually I think it's more like 40 minutes.

what time was the pentagon hit.

0937EDT.

what time did flight 93 crash.

1003EDT.

how far away from washington was flight 93 when it crashed.

About 150 miles.

how long would that TSD take to get to washington.

About 20 minutes.

it just doesnt add up.

It actually fits almost perfectly. I've been over the Mineta timeline extensively, and considered a variety of possibilities, and a UA93 TSD track is the only plausible one. I've previously explained many times why it's impossible for Mineta to have been hearing of the approach of AA77.

Senenmut

12th December 2009, 01:15 PM

No that wasn't the TSD, that was AA77's radar track, as I have already told you several times. Did you not read the bit where he said "looking at the radar track"?

Seriously, if you're not even going to bother reading what I am telling you, why should I bother responding to your questions? This is exactly why I stopped being involved in 9/11 topics. You don't deserve my time.

Actually I think it's more like 40 minutes.

0937EDT.

1003EDT.

About 150 miles.

About 20 minutes.

It actually fits almost perfectly. I've been over the Mineta timeline extensively, and considered a variety of possibilities, and a UA93 TSD track is the only plausible one. I've previously explained many times why it's impossible for Mineta to have been hearing of the approach of AA77.

i knew all those answers already.....and i also read what you have said. did flgiht 77 have a DRA approach? did it over pass the pentagon? i was showing you how ridiculous the flight 93 tsd scenario sounds. so the peoc wouldnt be informed for 40 mins after the pentagon attack?? my my, that does sound like govt work!! haha.... or were they informed like mineta said:
mineta: "And then pretty soon he said, "Oh-oh, we just lost the target." And so a few moments later, someone came in and said, "Mr. Vice President, there's been an explosion at the Pentagon."

that makes a hell of alot more since than 40 mins after the pentagon got hit that the peoc was informed!!

and the track he mentions is the one monte was calling the DRA. whatever flight it was went down the river, past the pentagon, turned around then went towards the pentagon, then disappeared.

Senenmut

12th December 2009, 01:25 PM

i doubt anyone can tell me this but since SWORD 31 was already in the air, would that also mean an AWAC or AWAC's would be in the air providing a birds eye view of the situation?

also, would the E-4B actually let the faa know that it was in the air. i would assume that only the military would know since we do have spies!!

are these planes painted with that special paint that makes it hard for radar to pick them up? i would assume that these planes would be somewhat stealth and that the coordinates when flying would be secret on a need to know basis only.

would they have a transponder on?

Reheat

12th December 2009, 02:15 PM

i doubt anyone can tell me this but since SWORD 31 was already in the air, would that also mean an AWAC or AWAC's would be in the air providing a birds eye view of the situation?

Sure, there was an AWACs up navigating for Sword 31. You know, to keep him from getting lost on his way to Omaha.

also, would the E-4B actually let the faa know that it was in the air. i would assume that only the military would know since we do have spies!!

Of course they don't tell. Airline pilots know by intuition when another 747 type aircraft is airborne and just dodge them if they can (see further explanation below). It's usually works, but it's not % 100. National Security is quite important, you know.

are these planes painted with that special paint that makes it hard for radar to pick them up? i would assume that these planes would be somewhat stealth and that the coordinates when flying would be secret on a need to know basis only.

Well, it's not just paint, they also have a cloaking device that gives them the appearance of Superman. That's makes other pilots, particularly Airline Pilots less suspicious. Only folks with a GPS that has a kryptonite detector know the route of flight. Fortunately those are rare.

would they have a transponder on?

Of course not. How in the heck would Superman power a transponder? Can't you think, man. That would give away the cloaking device, you tool.

funk de fino

12th December 2009, 02:25 PM

i knew all those answers already.....and i also read what you have said. did flgiht 77 have a DRA approach? did it over pass the pentagon? i was showing you how ridiculous the flight 93 tsd scenario sounds. so the peoc wouldnt be informed for 40 mins after the pentagon attack?? my my, that does sound like govt work!! haha.... or were they informed like mineta said:
mineta: "And then pretty soon he said, "Oh-oh, we just lost the target." And so a few moments later, someone came in and said, "Mr. Vice President, there's been an explosion at the Pentagon."

that makes a hell of alot more since than 40 mins after the pentagon got hit that the peoc was informed!!

and the track he mentions is the one monte was calling the DRA. whatever flight it was went down the river, past the pentagon, turned around then went towards the pentagon, then disappeared.

Mineta's timings are demonstrably incorrect. You are conflating statements by someone who has no clue about what times he thinks things happened. The first part of the statement is talking about what he heard at the time. the second part is about the radar track of 77 he saw later.

Flight 77 radar track is readily available. The coast track for 93 continued onwards towards Washington. Mineta heard the call outs about the coast track as 77 had already crashed into the Pentagon before he got to the PEOC. While he was in the PEOC they got confirmation there had been an explosion caused by something hitting the Pentagon.

gumboot

12th December 2009, 03:03 PM

Sure, there was an AWACs up navigating for Sword 31. You know, to keep him from getting lost on his way to Omaha.

Of course they don't tell. Airline pilots know by intuition when another 747 type aircraft is airborne and just dodge them if they can (see further explanation below). It's usually works, but it's not % 100. National Security is quite important, you know.

Well, it's not just paint, they also have a cloaking device that gives them the appearance of Superman. That's makes other pilots, particularly Airline Pilots less suspicious. Only folks with a GPS that has a kryptonite detector know the route of flight. Fortunately those are rare.

Of course not. How in the heck would Superman power a transponder? Can't you think, man. That would give away the cloaking device, you tool.

I was going to answer seriously, but I much prefer your answers. :)

Senenmut

12th December 2009, 03:05 PM

Mineta's timings are demonstrably incorrect. You are conflating statements by someone who has no clue about what times he thinks things happened. The first part of the statement is talking about what he heard at the time. the second part is about the radar track of 77 he saw later.

Flight 77 radar track is readily available. The coast track for 93 continued onwards towards Washington. Mineta heard the call outs about the coast track as 77 had already crashed into the Pentagon before he got to the PEOC. While he was in the PEOC they got confirmation there had been an explosion caused by something hitting the Pentagon.

coast track or TSD?

i would take norman mineta's testimony more serious than anything that cheney and his neocon cabal say!!

tell me your thoughts on the Office of Special Plans?

funk de fino

12th December 2009, 03:17 PM

coast track or TSD?

Did you read Cheapshots posts? It tells you this.

i would take norman mineta's testimony more serious than anything that cheney and his neocon cabal say!!

It is not only Cheney who proves Mineta wrong but Minetas own statements. He says he arrives when everyone is running across the street because they have been evacuated. this happened afte the attack at the Pentagon. He says that when he arrived that Lynn Cheney was there with hubby Dick. She only arrived after the Pentagon attack. She was downtown and was whisked to the PEOC when the attack took place. If she was in the PEOC when Mineta arrived then it was after the Pentagon had been hit. He said they had a countdown to the aircraft approaching. This is impossible for flight 77 because they were only informed a few minutes before it hit that there was an aircraft approaching DC. The controllers had only just spotted it again. This is all shown in the controllers statements.

Thanks for proving this is political for you and not based on facts.

tell me your thoughts on the Office of Special Plans?

why?

Senenmut

12th December 2009, 03:38 PM

Did you read Cheapshots posts? It tells you this.

It is not only Cheney who proves Mineta wrong but Minetas own statements. He says he arrives when everyone is running across the street because they have been evacuated. this happened afte the attack at the Pentagon. He says that when he arrived that Lynn Cheney was there with hubby Dick. She only arrived after the Pentagon attack. She was downtown and was whisked to the PEOC when the attack took place. If she was in the PEOC when Mineta arrived then it was after the Pentagon had been hit. He said they had a countdown to the aircraft approaching. This is impossible for flight 77 because they were only informed a few minutes before it hit that there was an aircraft approaching DC. The controllers had only just spotted it again. This is all shown in the controllers statements.

Thanks for proving this is political for you and not based on facts.

why?

cheapshot was talking about flight 11. one would think monte knew some basic signs if flight 93 went into coast track all the way there.

cheapshot stated at pft:

"It takes a couple of minutes for a track to switch to a coast track, it will free track for a little bit then switch to caost, very recognizable though when it does. Where the digitized target symbol is the coast track will show a # sign, when in free track a triangle will appear over the target symbol, free tracks occur when the aircraft is outside of its flightplan limitations. When it is flat tracked it will show a diamond shape over the target."

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=17089

as for why i would bring up the Office of Special Plans....maybe you need to do some research yourself concerning the neocons and the way the OSP conducted business.

funk de fino

12th December 2009, 03:50 PM

cheapshot was talking about flight 11. one would think monte knew some basic signs if flight 93 went into coast track all the way there.

You have no idea who was watching the coast track do you? I suggest you read his interviews for the commission along with Mineta's. They had to assume the coast track was the real aircraft because they had lost the real aircraft. Stop being dense.

cheapshot stated at pft:

"It takes a couple of minutes for a track to switch to a coast track, it will free track for a little bit then switch to caost, very recognizable though when it does. Where the digitized target symbol is the coast track will show a # sign, when in free track a triangle will appear over the target symbol, free tracks occur when the aircraft is outside of its flightplan limitations. When it is flat tracked it will show a diamond shape over the target."

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=17089

So? Mineta is wrong and you are avoiding the subject now. Please try and prove Mineta times are correct given the information I have provided. The coast track was the track that was being relayed to the PEOC. They did not know that Flight 93 had already crashed. Flight 77 was only spotted again by the controllers very near Dulles going at a high rate of knots towards DC. This was not the 50-40-30-20 call out aircraft. This information regarding Flight 77, and when it was spotted again, is in the controllers interviews, I suggest you read them also.

as for why i would bring up the Office of Special Plans....maybe you need to do some research yourself concerning the neocons and the way the OSP conducted business.

Off topic, political claptrap and irrelevant. Stick to Mineta please.

funk de fino

12th December 2009, 03:57 PM

Heres a link to Minetas testimony courtesy of 911myths. If you want to waste 45 mins of your life to see he is wrong about the times, then fill your boots.

http://911myths.com/index.php/Norman_Mineta_testifies

Senenmut

12th December 2009, 04:28 PM

You have no idea who was watching the coast track do you? I suggest you read his interviews for the commission along with Mineta's. They had to assume the coast track was the real aircraft because they had lost the real aircraft. Stop being dense.

So? Mineta is wrong and you are avoiding the subject now. Please try and prove Mineta times are correct given the information I have provided. The coast track was the track that was being relayed to the PEOC. They did not know that Flight 93 had already crashed. Flight 77 was only spotted again by the controllers very near Dulles going at a high rate of knots towards DC. This was not the 50-40-30-20 call out aircraft. This information regarding Flight 77, and when it was spotted again, is in the controllers interviews, I suggest you read them also.

Off topic, political claptrap and irrelevant. Stick to Mineta please.

so now a coast track track and tsd can have the DRA (down the river approach), over-pass the Pentagon, then turn around and then came back into it? you are really reaching!!

now your saying mineta wasnt informed the pentagon was hit until 40 mins later even while being in the peoc?

gumboot

12th December 2009, 06:34 PM

so now a coast track track and tsd can have the DRA (down the river approach), over-pass the Pentagon, then turn around and then came back into it? you are really reaching!!

How many times do you have to be told that the DRA Mineta heard the reports about, and the radar data of the flight turning and hitting the Pentagon are two totally different aircraft tracks?

Seriously, are you even reading this thread? I've told you about four times, and I'm not the only one.

now your saying mineta wasnt informed the pentagon was hit until 40 mins later even while being in the peoc?

Mineta wasn't informed of anything. He heard staff at the PEOC being informed of it. For all we know they already knew something had happened at the Pentagon (having been told before Mineta arrived), and all Mineta witnessed was the confirmation that it was an airliner (the initial reports were of an explosion, a car bomb, or a helicopter crash). Of course to Mineta, it would have been the first news he heard of anything happening at The Pentagon at all.

gumboot

12th December 2009, 06:38 PM

cheapshot was talking about flight 11. one would think monte knew some basic signs if flight 93 went into coast track all the way there.

Why would you think that? In the USA the senior positions in the civil service are political appointments. Often the person appointed to head a government agency has never worked in that agency in their life.

What makes you think the Deputy Administrator of the FAA would have any knowledge of the TSD whatsoever? Jane Garvey (head of the FAA at the time) had never worked for the FAA before. The closest she had come to such a job was Director of Logan International Airport. Her lower level work experience was as a teacher.

gumboot

12th December 2009, 06:40 PM

i would take norman mineta's testimony more serious than anything that cheney and his neocon cabal say!!

The primary physical evidence alone totally refutes Mineta's testimony. No need to rely on the statements of other politicians.

Senenmut

12th December 2009, 07:06 PM

How many times do you have to be told that the DRA Mineta heard the reports about, and the radar data of the flight turning and hitting the Pentagon are two totally different aircraft tracks?

Seriously, are you even reading this thread? I've told you about four times, and I'm not the only one.

Mineta wasn't informed of anything. He heard staff at the PEOC being informed of it. For all we know they already knew something had happened at the Pentagon (having been told before Mineta arrived), and all Mineta witnessed was the confirmation that it was an airliner (the initial reports were of an explosion, a car bomb, or a helicopter crash). Of course to Mineta, it would have been the first news he heard of anything happening at The Pentagon at all.

can a tsd or a coast track pass over the pentagon, turn around and come back into it (the pentagon). mineta makes it sound like they are one and the same. what are you suggesting made that track?

Senenmut

12th December 2009, 07:07 PM

Why would you think that? In the USA the senior positions in the civil service are political appointments. Often the person appointed to head a government agency has never worked in that agency in their life.

What makes you think the Deputy Administrator of the FAA would have any knowledge of the TSD whatsoever? Jane Garvey (head of the FAA at the time) had never worked for the FAA before. The closest she had come to such a job was Director of Logan International Airport. Her lower level work experience was as a teacher.

somebody was watching that track very closely.

Senenmut

12th December 2009, 08:00 PM

Algebra34

12th December 2009, 08:05 PM

The primary physical evidence alone totally refutes Mineta's testimony. No need to rely on the statements of other politicians.

Gumboot you need to stop trying to bully people and thinking it's debunking. Especially about topics and details you could not possible know the complete facts about.

gumboot

12th December 2009, 08:33 PM

sounds pretty much like primary radar to me. would a coast track or a tsd move from radar sweep to radar sweep? maybe cheapshot could explain?

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Norman_Mineta

He said, "Well, we have a target, bogey, on the radar, but the transponder's been turned off, so we have no identification of this aircraft. We don't know who it is. We don't know what altitude it's at, speed or anything else. All we're doing is watching with the sweep of the radar, the dot moving from position to position."

So then someone came in, the same person came in and said, "Mr. Vice President, it -- the plane's 30-miles out." So I said, "Monte, can you see it, and where is it in relationship to the ground?"

Hi Senenmut,

Mineta's account of 9/11 is wrong.

Regards,
Gumboot

gumboot

12th December 2009, 08:34 PM

Gumboot you need to stop trying to bully people and thinking it's debunking. Especially about topics and details you could not possible know the complete facts about.

If you see any fault in my assessment of the evidence, please provide it. Myself and others on these forums have exhaustively analysed Mineta's testimony and the corresponding evidence. His account just does not stand up to scrutiny, and even the most cursory glance makes this clear.

gumboot

12th December 2009, 08:37 PM

sounds pretty much like primary radar to me. would a coast track or a tsd move from radar sweep to radar sweep? maybe cheapshot could explain?

It wouldn't actually update via radar sweep (because the data isn't coming from radar) but it does update periodically, and displays a history of the last few positions of the aircraft, just like a radar does.

Monte Berger was at FAA HQ. FAA HQ does not receive a radar feed. This is a fact. Berger cannot have been looking at a radar screen. Heck, even the ARTSCC doesn't receive radar.

Reheat

12th December 2009, 08:53 PM

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Norman_Mineta

He said, "Well, we have a target, bogey, on the radar, but the transponder's been turned off, so we have no identification of this aircraft. We don't know who it is. We don't know what altitude it's at, speed or anything else. All we're doing is watching with the sweep of the radar, the dot moving from position to position."

So then someone came in, the same person came in and said, "Mr. Vice President, it -- the plane's 30-miles out." So I said, "Monte, can you see it, and where is it in relationship to the ground?"

My better judgment tells me to ignore this obstinate twoofer, but I suspect Gumboot has lost patience and won't respond again.

For those who are interested Monte Berger was located at FAA Headquarters where THEY HAVE NO RADAR. So, quite obviously information was being passed to him or he was looking at a TSD Display (which is available at FAA Hqs). As Gumboot explained he likely wouldn't know the difference.

In order for your implications to be true Mineta (who is not a toofer) and Berger as well as several hundred people within the FAA would have to be in on the conspiracy and have kept their mouths shut for over 8 years now. In addition to the FAA, the USAF 84th RADES Squadron would be implicated too because there is NO RADAR RECORD of this radar track.

If you don't understand that, it means there is NO EVIDENCE of this supposed radar track. All that exists is the twoofer misinterpretation of of a discussion of issues they know absolutely nothing about. It is simply twoofer "cherry picking" a conversation that occurred during a period of intense anxiety and confusion.

I will not respond to any other twoofer delusions in this thread as it is pure unadulterated nonsense.

ETA: Gumboot beat me to it...... Good-Bye twoofers, I have no more time for you on this subject.

funk de fino

13th December 2009, 01:04 AM

so now a coast track track and tsd can have the DRA (down the river approach), over-pass the Pentagon, then turn around and then came back into it? you are really reaching!!

Pay attention, two different tracks. One real, one coast.

now your saying mineta wasnt informed the pentagon was hit until 40 mins later even while being in the peoc?

The important word is confirmed.

ETA - You did not watch the video did you? Utterly pathetic, some researcher you are.

funk de fino

13th December 2009, 01:08 AM

sounds pretty much like primary radar to me. would a coast track or a tsd move from radar sweep to radar sweep? maybe cheapshot could explain?

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Norman_Mineta

He said, "Well, we have a target, bogey, on the radar, but the transponder's been turned off, so we have no identification of this aircraft. We don't know who it is. We don't know what altitude it's at, speed or anything else. All we're doing is watching with the sweep of the radar, the dot moving from position to position."

So then someone came in, the same person came in and said, "Mr. Vice President, it -- the plane's 30-miles out." So I said, "Monte, can you see it, and where is it in relationship to the ground?"

The controllers were watching the coast track and calling this out to their superiors who were calling it out over the phone which was being passed to the PEOC. For gods sake read the controllers signed statements it is all in there. Mineta could not see anything at the time. Monte was getting the info over the phone.

funk de fino

13th December 2009, 01:11 AM

Gumboot you need to stop trying to bully people and thinking it's debunking. Especially about topics and details you could not possible know the complete facts about.

Unfortunately for you Mineta's statements, Belger's statements and the signed statements from the controllers debunk the claims made by Senenmut.

I can see why he is reluctant to go read them. Perhaps you might want to try?

MikeW

13th December 2009, 01:38 AM

now your saying mineta wasnt informed the pentagon was hit until 40 mins later even while being in the peoc?
The balance of evidence clearly shows that Mineta's timeline is wrong: he wasn't in the PEOC at 9:20, & in fact didn't arrive until some time after the Pentagon had been hit.

Senenmut

13th December 2009, 05:50 AM

It wouldn't actually update via radar sweep (because the data isn't coming from radar) but it does update periodically, and displays a history of the last few positions of the aircraft, just like a radar does.

Monte Berger was at FAA HQ. FAA HQ does not receive a radar feed. This is a fact. Berger cannot have been looking at a radar screen. Heck, even the ARTSCC doesn't receive radar.

monte said "we're". that means there was more than one person looking at that radar. and you are wrong with the coast track. they might have their own "secret bunker", who knows at faa headquaters! it would be nice to interview monte now wouldnt it!!!

from a cheapshot quote at pft:
"Someone watching the actual radar display would first see a free track with no target, loss of altitude infromation, and eventually the track would turn into a coast track, and just float until the edge of the scope."

and you still havent expained how a coast track or tsd could pass the pentagon come back and into the pentagon and mineta stated.

Senenmut

13th December 2009, 06:05 AM

Pay attention, two different tracks. One real, one coast.

The important word is confirmed.

ETA - You did not watch the video did you? Utterly pathetic, some researcher you are.

so are you saying flight 77 came DRA passed the pentagon, turned around and came back into it?

Senenmut

13th December 2009, 06:29 AM

The balance of evidence clearly shows that Mineta's timeline is wrong: he wasn't in the PEOC at 9:20, & in fact didn't arrive until some time after the Pentagon had been hit.

well, you know how uninfored the national security council guys are if mineta did get there 20 mins after the pentagon got attacked. even though by then it was all over the news!! maybe the peoc should of had a tv on to get "confirmation"!!!!

mineta:
"When I got to the White House it was being evacuated, I met briefly with Richard Clark, a National Security Council staff member who had no new information, before the Secret Service escorted me down to the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC).

funk de fino

13th December 2009, 06:36 AM

so are you saying flight 77 came DRA passed the pentagon, turned around and came back into it?

No, Flight 77 track is flight 77 track. It was never a coast track as the controllers could see the real radar track they knew roughly what speed it was going and roughly how low it was. It flew the track as given in the NTSB report.

funk de fino

13th December 2009, 06:40 AM

monte said "we're". that means there was more than one person looking at that radar. and you are wrong with the coast track. they might have their own "secret bunker", who knows at faa headquaters! it would be nice to interview monte now wouldnt it!!!

from a cheapshot quote at pft:
"Someone watching the actual radar display would first see a free track with no target, loss of altitude infromation, and eventually the track would turn into a coast track, and just float until the edge of the scope."

and you still havent expained how a coast track or tsd could pass the pentagon come back and into the pentagon and mineta stated.

Monte says "we're" as in the controllers. He was not with them and he could not see it. It was being called to him over the phone from the ATC supervisor. I have already told you where to find this information. Go and read the statements and stop being an idiot.

As for being nice to interview him, his interview is available. Read it.

The coast track did not turn around the Pentagon that was the real radar track from Flight 77 that was produced later. The only people who watched that were the controllers. Mineta saw this later.

funk de fino

13th December 2009, 06:43 AM

well, you know how uninfored the national security council guys are if mineta did get there 20 mins after the pentagon got attacked. even though by then it was all over the news!! maybe the peoc should of had a tv on to get "confirmation"!!!!

mineta:
"When I got to the White House it was being evacuated, I met briefly with Richard Clark, a National Security Council staff member who had no new information, before the Secret Service escorted me down to the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC).

When he arrived Lynn Cheney was already there and she was only evacuated to the PEOC after flight 77 hit the Penatgon. The evacuation only happened after the Pentagon was hit. There was a TV in the tunnel near the PEOC and smoke was seen to be coming from the Pentagon. At this point they had no confirmation what had happend, they got this later when a policeman phoned it in and this confirmation was what Mineta heard.

You need to read the sources and stop repeating crap.

funk de fino

13th December 2009, 06:51 AM

Let me see if this makes it easier for you.

MINETA: "Well, the question was where is it coming. And so as I was asking Monte, it was following pretty much the DRA, the down river approach, and it had not crossed over towards the White House or towards the Capitol. It was staying on its line towards what would normally be the traffic pattern into National Airport"

This part is what was being called out from the coast track from Flight 93. Monte was getting this info from the controllers. It was heading on Flight 93 last known heading towards DC from about 10 miles north west of Manassas airport.

Mineta: "And in fact, later on, in looking at the radar track, the plane had actually over-passed the Pentagon, then turned around and then came back into it, and it never took a wide sweep to cross over to the east side of the White House."

This part is when he looked at the radar track for Flight 77 at a later date it showed the turn that Hani Hanjour flew. This was not the coast track this was the real radar return for 77. Mineta is mixing them up because his times are wrong.

MikeW

13th December 2009, 11:12 AM

mineta:
"When I got to the White House it was being evacuated, I met briefly with Richard Clark, a National Security Council staff member who had no new information, before the Secret Service escorted me down to the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC).
The first part of that sentence reinforces the point, doesn't it? Elsewhere he describes scenes of people running out of the buildings and moving over to Lafayette Park, scenes that absolutely no-one else at all says happened until some time after the Pentagon was hit.

A W Smith

13th December 2009, 11:43 AM

The balance of evidence clearly shows that Mineta's timeline is wrong: he wasn't in the PEOC at 9:20, & in fact didn't arrive until some time after the Pentagon had been hit.

there's no mention of a white house evacuation at wikileaks until 9:42 am.

http://911.wikileaks.org/files/messages_2001_09_11-09_40_2001_09_11-09_44.html

Senenmut

13th December 2009, 01:13 PM

The first part of that sentence reinforces the point, doesn't it? Elsewhere he describes scenes of people running out of the buildings and moving over to Lafayette Park, scenes that absolutely no-one else at all says happened until some time after the Pentagon was hit.

i know it does:
The White House Has Been Evacuated

Aired September 11, 2001 - 09:52 ET

Just moments ago they started slowing evacuating the White House about 30 minutes ago. Then, in the last five minute people have come running out of the White House and the old executive office building, which is the office building right directly across from the White House.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.06.html

MikeW

13th December 2009, 01:30 PM

i know it does:
The White House Has Been Evacuated

Aired September 11, 2001 - 09:52 ET

Just moments ago they started slowing evacuating the White House about 30 minutes ago. Then, in the last five minute people have come running out of the White House and the old executive office building, which is the office building right directly across from the White House.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.06.html

I don't believe you would "slowly" evacuate the White House in an emergency. I don't think CNN do, either, because in later timelines they said the White House wasn't evacuated until after the Pentagon was hit. And even if they're correct, that's not early enough. 9:52 - 30 minutes = 9:22; Mineta still needs to drive up, go through security, get to the situation room, spend 4 or 5 minutes with Clarke and get to the PEOC, all for 9:20.

Still, as you brought it up, let's use that source. Here's more of what King said (same link):

JOHN KING, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESP.: Aaron, I'm standing in Lafayette Park, directly across the White House, perhaps about 200 yards away from the White House residence itself. The Secret Service has pushed most people all the way back to the other side of the park. I'm trying to avoid having that done to me at the moment.

Just moments ago they started slowing evacuating the White House about 30 minutes ago. Then, in the last five minute people have come running out of the White House and the old executive office building

So: according to your source, the initial evacuation was slow (I'll say). Then, since roughly 9:47 people have come running out of the White House and the Old Executive Building. In this report he mentions for the first time that people are being moved across Lafayette Park, so it's reasonable to assume that's happened recently, too.

Now here's Mineta:

we drove into the White House on West Executive Drive. People were coming out of the White House, pouring out of the Executive Office Building, running over towards Lafayette Park, and I said to my driver and security person, I said, "Hey, is there something wrong with this picture, cause here we are driving in and everybody else is running out."
web archive (http://web.archive.org/web/20071102131924/http://www.msnbc.com/modules/91102/interviews/mineta.asp?0cb=-31a105678&cp1=1)

It's a very good match for what King said has happened around 9:47 to 9:52, isn't it? Or are you going to claim that's just a coincidence?

Senenmut

13th December 2009, 01:56 PM

there's no mention of a white house evacuation at wikileaks until 9:42 am.

http://911.wikileaks.org/files/messages_2001_09_11-09_40_2001_09_11-09_44.html

and wiki also has that there was a plane down at the pentagon between 0940-0942. do you think the peoc wasnt notified or confirmed until 30 mins later? especially with the links the vice pres has at his disposal?

also---i belive this was 5 days after 911.
BEGIN MEET THE PRESS EXCERPT
VICE PRES. CHENEY: …The president was on Air Force One. We
received a threat to Air Force One--came through the Secret Service...
MR. RUSSERT: A credible threat to Air Force One. You're convinced of
that.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: I'm convinced of that. Now, you know, it may
have been phoned in by a crank, but in the midst of what was going on,
there was no way to know that. I think it was a credible threat, enough for
the Secret Service to bring it to me. Once I left that immediate shelter,
after I talked to the president, urged him to stay away for now, well, I went
down into what's call a PEOC, the Presidential Emergency Operations
Center, and there, I had Norm Mineta...

MR. RUSSERT: Secretary of Transportation.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: ...secretary of Transportation, access to the FAA.
I had Condi Rice with me and several of my key staff people. We had
access, secured communications with Air Force One, with the secretary of
Defense over in the Pentagon. We had also the secure videoconference
that ties together the White House, CIA, State, Justice, Defense--a very
useful and valuable facility. We have the counterterrorism task force up on
that net. And so I was in a position to be able to see all the stuff coming in,
receive reports and then make decisions in terms of acting with it.
But when I arrived there within a short order, we had word the Pentagon's been hit.

Senenmut

13th December 2009, 02:01 PM

I don't believe you would "slowly" evacuate the White House in an emergency. I don't think CNN do, either, because in later timelines they said the White House wasn't evacuated until after the Pentagon was hit. And even if they're correct, that's not early enough. 9:52 - 30 minutes = 9:22; Mineta still needs to drive up, go through security, get to the situation room, spend 4 or 5 minutes with Clarke and get to the PEOC, all for 9:20.

Still, as you brought it up, let's use that source. Here's more of what King said (same link):

So: according to your source, the initial evacuation was slow (I'll say). Then, since roughly 9:47 people have come running out of the White House and the Old Executive Building. In this report he mentions for the first time that people are being moved across Lafayette Park, so it's reasonable to assume that's happened recently, too.

Now here's Mineta:

It's a very good match for what King said has happened around 9:47 to 9:52, isn't it? Or are you going to claim that's just a coincidence?

let norman mineta tell ya what he thinks about the 10 oclock scenario. he worked just right down the street.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-5PKQTUz5o&eurl=http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/260607_mineta.html

MikeW

13th December 2009, 02:19 PM

let norman mineta tell ya what he thinks about the 10 oclock scenario. he worked just right down the street.
Sure, he thinks he arrived at 9:20. His own testimony tells us he's wrong.

But as you bought this up, Mineta also says here that Cheney's wife was there when he arrived. She's consistently said she arrived after the Pentagon was hit, for example here:

Q Well, let's go, if we can, then, to the morning that it happened. Tell me where you were and what you were doing as this event happened.

MRS. CHENEY: I was downtown. And the Secret Service let me know when one plane had hit, and when the second plane went in. But when the Pentagon was hit, they decided I should be out of downtown, and moved me rather briskly into a car, which went at rather high speed toward the Vice President's house.

When we got partway there, a decision was made -- and I don't know why or how -- that, no, the right thing for me-to do was not go to the Vice President's house, but to go to the White House and to go down into the bunker.

And so we made a rather dramatic U-turn in the middle of the street and headed toward the White House. I can remember that I could see smoke. And I was feeling somewhat alarmed because I thought the smoke -- even though it was from the Pentagon and I knew the Pentagon had been hit -- it sure looked to me like the smoke was coming from the White House.

When we got there, I arrived just as the White House was being evacuated. So the guards had no idea who we were and were confused that somebody would want to be coming in, and wouldn't lower the barriers. The Secret Service people who were with me drove onto the sidewalk. And at that point, a fire engine tried to block our way --

Q Wow. _

MRS. CHENEY: -- going into the White House. But I finally got in...
http://911myths.com/index.php/Image:NYC_Box10_FarmerMisc-MrsCheneyInterview.pdf

That's November 2001, before this was even an issue, so I see no reason for her to be making this up.

Cheap Shot

13th December 2009, 05:32 PM

from a cheapshot quote at pft:
"Someone watching the actual radar display would first see a free track with no target, loss of altitude infromation, and eventually the track would turn into a coast track, and just float until the edge of the scope."

and you still havent expained how a coast track or tsd could pass the pentagon come back and into the pentagon and mineta stated.
First of all coast tracks are on radar displays that the controller see's. The TSD does not distinquish this the same way. There is somewhere if you click on the Data Block on the TSD it will let you know if it is updating or not, but if it was last on a flight plan it will continue on the flight plan. Where as on our Radar displays it could continue on a present heading, or it may just float, but either way it stops at the end of our scopes, we call it under the rubber, the old M1 concoles had a rubber piece around the scope. At the end of the day you could expand your range to 400 NM, and you would see all of the data blocks at the end of our adaped sort boxes and they would be sitting there blinking. These were either tracks that were manually handed off to Canada that someone forgot to delete, or in the case of AAL11 no handed it off so it continued under the rubber.

Other questions, I couldn't really get much from the Dave Canoles paper work, a lot of notes scribbled. I wish I would have kept mine but they got tossed. I wish someone would interview Dave. That was the Telcon I was on, it may not have been him who told me AAL11 was still airborne but it came from his office. I beleive he had several people in his office.

As far as E-4B's taking off of ADW they squawk like everyone else, you don't sneak a B747 off ADW without anyone knowing about it. Don't know if you are aware of it but it has been going on for years, but there are bird watchers at most military bases. They sit at the end of the runways and log tail numbers of every departure, and track them. If they don't return they get online with all of their buddies and try to find where it went. It's a game for them, but it is also a way for our enemies to track the where abouts of certain aircraft. Can pretty much guarantee they are active at ADW.

funk de fino

13th December 2009, 11:41 PM

and wiki also has that there was a plane down at the pentagon between 0940-0942. do you think the peoc wasnt notified or confirmed until 30 mins later? especially with the links the vice pres has at his disposal?

also---i belive this was 5 days after 911.
BEGIN MEET THE PRESS EXCERPT
VICE PRES. CHENEY: …The president was on Air Force One. We
received a threat to Air Force One--came through the Secret Service...
MR. RUSSERT: A credible threat to Air Force One. You're convinced of
that.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: I'm convinced of that. Now, you know, it may
have been phoned in by a crank, but in the midst of what was going on,
there was no way to know that. I think it was a credible threat, enough for
the Secret Service to bring it to me. Once I left that immediate shelter,
after I talked to the president, urged him to stay away for now, well, I went
down into what's call a PEOC, the Presidential Emergency Operations
Center, and there, I had Norm Mineta...

MR. RUSSERT: Secretary of Transportation.

VICE PRES. CHENEY: ...secretary of Transportation, access to the FAA.
I had Condi Rice with me and several of my key staff people. We had
access, secured communications with Air Force One, with the secretary of
Defense over in the Pentagon. We had also the secure videoconference
that ties together the White House, CIA, State, Justice, Defense--a very
useful and valuable facility. We have the counterterrorism task force up on
that net. And so I was in a position to be able to see all the stuff coming in,
receive reports and then make decisions in terms of acting with it.
But when I arrived there within a short order, we had word the Pentagon's been hit.

What part of confirmed do you not understand? He knew prior to this something had happened as he saw smoke rising from the Pentagon on a TV in the bunker pror to the PEOC.

funk de fino

13th December 2009, 11:43 PM

let norman mineta tell ya what he thinks about the 10 oclock scenario. he worked just right down the street.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-5PKQTUz5o&eurl=http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/260607_mineta.html

Please explain how he saw Lynn Cheney when he arrived, as she arrived later as has been shown to you already?

Have you read the controllers statemnts yet or are you just jackin off here?

Senenmut

14th December 2009, 04:37 AM

Sure, he thinks he arrived at 9:20. His own testimony tells us he's wrong.

But as you bought this up, Mineta also says here that Cheney's wife was there when he arrived. She's consistently said she arrived after the Pentagon was hit, for example here:

That's November 2001, before this was even an issue, so I see no reason for her to be making this up.

she tells a totally different scenario. if you read the interview, she states when the plane was 60 miles out that it was downed. then another plane was 10 miles out and that that plane hit the ground. then a plane 5 miles out. she doesnt say what happened there.

this part was pretty funny i read over at historycommons.
"But Army Major Mike Fenzel, who is also in the PEOC, complains to him, “I can’t hear the crisis conference [that Clarke has been leading] because Mrs. Cheney keeps turning down the volume on you so she can hear CNN… and the vice president keeps hanging up the open line to you.” Clarke later describes that Lynne Cheney is, like her husband, “a right-wing ideologue,” and is offering her advice and opinions while in the PEOC."

so your really trying to tell me that even though lynn cheney knew the pentagon got hit (like in her interview) went to the peoc, was watching cnn, and the vice pres didn know the pentagon got hit? and norman mineta didnt know the pentagon got hit!! your really stretching!

what did the vice pres say agian:
" And so I was in a position to be able to see all the stuff coming in, receive reports and then make decisions in terms of acting with it.
But when I arrived there within a short order, we had word the Pentagon's been hit."

that short order according to yall would be in the 1035-11 oclock range. doesnt make any since. they knew a plane hit (according to wiki) a few mins after the attack.

Senenmut

14th December 2009, 04:41 AM

Please explain how he saw Lynn Cheney when he arrived, as she arrived later as has been shown to you already?

Have you read the controllers statemnts yet or are you just jackin off here?

"But Army Major Mike Fenzel, who is also in the PEOC, complains to him, “I can’t hear the crisis conference [that Clarke has been leading] because Mrs. Cheney keeps turning down the volume on you so she can hear CNN… and the vice president keeps hanging up the open line to you.” Clarke later describes that Lynne Cheney is, like her husband, “a right-wing ideologue,” and is offering her advice and opinions while in the PEOC."

a right wing idealogue...!! she took one out of joseph goebbels playbooks!!

MikeW

14th December 2009, 06:30 AM

she tells a totally different scenario.
Once again you ignore the point. Mineta says Lynne Cheney was at the PEOC when he arrived. Lynne Cheney has said from the beginning that she arrived after the Pentagon was hit, has provided a very detailed account of that, and because this wasn't even an issue at the time, had no reason to lie.

so your really trying to tell me that even though lynn cheney knew the pentagon got hit (like in her interview) went to the peoc, was watching cnn, and the vice pres didn know the pentagon got hit? and norman mineta didnt know the pentagon got hit!! your really stretching!

what did the vice pres say agian:
" And so I was in a position to be able to see all the stuff coming in, receive reports and then make decisions in terms of acting with it.
But when I arrived there within a short order, we had word the Pentagon's been hit."

that short order according to yall would be in the 1035-11 oclock range. doesnt make any since. they knew a plane hit (according to wiki) a few mins after the attack.
Why look at "wiki" when we can see a copy of Lynne Cheney's notes (http://911myths.com/index.php/Image:DanaHyde_Box1_OVP_Notes.pdf)?
The fact is there was confusion about what had happened at the Pentagon. There was in the media and you see the same thing here: 9:55 there's a call saying a plane has hit the Pentagon; 10:12 they think it's a helicopter; 11:23 they're questioning "was it a helicopter into Pentagon" and talking about Flight 77.

This matches up with what Cheney said in the interview that you quote. Here's more:

The third one we didn't know what had happened to it. It turned out it had hit the Pentagon. But the first reports on the Pentagon attack suggested a helicopter, and then later, a private jet, and it was only after we got ahold of some eyewitnesses that we knew it was an American Airlines flight.

They didn't immediately know what had happened at all, and received different information as the day progressed.

But again, we don't need insubstantial speculation: we already have the facts.

Mineta says he arrived as the White House was being evacuated, and described a scene that no-one else says happened until after 9:45.

Mineta says Lynne Cheney was present at the PEOC when he arrived. She said she arrived after the Pentagon was hit.

Mineta says Jane Garvey called the DoT before he left the office to report that Delta Airlines had said they'd lost track of some of their aircraft. Garvey has said this happened between the third and fourth crashes.

A 9/11 Commission email even gives us the log time for Mineta's arrival:

http://www.911myths.com/images/thumb/c/cd/Mineta_peoc.png/600px-Mineta_peoc.png

And there's plenty of more general indicators, all supporting the same thing: Mineta's 9:20 arrival time is a fiction. It did not happen.

funk de fino

14th December 2009, 08:51 AM

"But Army Major Mike Fenzel, who is also in the PEOC, complains to him, “I can’t hear the crisis conference [that Clarke has been leading] because Mrs. Cheney keeps turning down the volume on you so she can hear CNN… and the vice president keeps hanging up the open line to you.” Clarke later describes that Lynne Cheney is, like her husband, “a right-wing ideologue,” and is offering her advice and opinions while in the PEOC."

a right wing idealogue...!! she took one out of joseph goebbels playbooks!!

Irrelevant. Mineta is wrong. She was only taken to the PEOC because flight 77 had hit the pentagon. At the time they did not know exactly what had happened but they knew the Pentagon had been attacked. Mineta says that she was there when he arrived. She did not arrive until after 77 crashed.

Therefore Mineta is wrong about his arrival. And you have just Godwinned the thread.

fail.

The third one we didn't know what had happened to it. It turned out it had hit the Pentagon. But the first reports on the Pentagon attack suggested a helicopter, and then later, a private jet, and it was only after we got ahold of some eyewitnesses that we knew it was an American Airlines flight.

And this was phoned in by a policeman and this is what was relayed to Cheney when Mineta was there. They got confirmation an AA jet had hit the Pentagon.

funk de fino

14th December 2009, 08:54 AM

And someone has still not read the controllers statements that prove his claims wrong. I wonder why?

Senenmut

14th December 2009, 06:54 PM

Once again you ignore the point. Mineta says Lynne Cheney was at the PEOC when he arrived. Lynne Cheney has said from the beginning that she arrived after the Pentagon was hit, has provided a very detailed account of that, and because this wasn't even an issue at the time, had no reason to lie.

Why look at "wiki" when we can see a copy of Lynne Cheney's notes (http://911myths.com/index.php/Image:DanaHyde_Box1_OVP_Notes.pdf)?
The fact is there was confusion about what had happened at the Pentagon. There was in the media and you see the same thing here: 9:55 there's a call saying a plane has hit the Pentagon; 10:12 they think it's a helicopter; 11:23 they're questioning "was it a helicopter into Pentagon" and talking about Flight 77.

This matches up with what Cheney said in the interview that you quote. Here's more:

They didn't immediately know what had happened at all, and received different information as the day progressed.

But again, we don't need insubstantial speculation: we already have the facts.

Mineta says he arrived as the White House was being evacuated, and described a scene that no-one else says happened until after 9:45.

Mineta says Lynne Cheney was present at the PEOC when he arrived. She said she arrived after the Pentagon was hit.

Mineta says Jane Garvey called the DoT before he left the office to report that Delta Airlines had said they'd lost track of some of their aircraft. Garvey has said this happened between the third and fourth crashes.

A 9/11 Commission email even gives us the log time for Mineta's arrival:

http://www.911myths.com/images/thumb/c/cd/Mineta_peoc.png/600px-Mineta_peoc.png

And there's plenty of more general indicators, all supporting the same thing: Mineta's 9:20 arrival time is a fiction. It did not happen.

describe for us how lynne cheney describes the evacuation in the interview you posted....

Senenmut

14th December 2009, 07:07 PM

Irrelevant. Mineta is wrong. She was only taken to the PEOC because flight 77 had hit the pentagon. At the time they did not know exactly what had happened but they knew the Pentagon had been attacked. Mineta says that she was there when he arrived. She did not arrive until after 77 crashed.

Therefore Mineta is wrong about his arrival. And you have just Godwinned the thread.

fail.
And this was phoned in by a policeman and this is what was relayed to Cheney when Mineta was there. They got confirmation an AA jet had hit the Pentagon.

heres a good interview from mineta-
"Then they came in and said it was 10 miles out. Soon after that, I was talking to the deputy director of the FAA, and he told me they had lost the target off the screen. Soon after that, then, the vice president was informed that there was an explosion at the Pentagon. So I was trying to relate with the air traffic controllers where that plane went to see whether it was close to the Pentagon. The radar is very difficult to pinpoint it to a ground location.

But while I was talking to the FAA, someone broke into the conversation and said, 'Mr. Secretary, we have just had confirmation from the Arlington County Police Department that they saw a commercial airliner-an American airline-go into the Pentagon.

have ya looked through wikileaks yet. just try doing a control F for find and type in "pentagon". tell me about the times you find!!

so according to mrs cheney, she already know the pentagon had been attacked. i guess she forgot to tell her hubby!! because of his quote here:
cheney: "But when I arrived there within a short order, we had word the Pentagon's been hit."

i guess GOFER06 would not of made a good confirmation? multiple lines of confirmation would have been available very quickly....NOT 40 mins after flight 93 crashed.

Sam.I.Am

14th December 2009, 07:58 PM

But while I was talking to the FAA, someone broke into the conversation and said, 'Mr. Secretary, we have just had confirmation from the Arlington County Police Department that they saw a commercial airliner-an American airline-go into the Pentagon.

The highlighted part is what you're overlooking. Today, in hindsight, we know what it was that hit the pentagon but on that morning it wasn't quite so clear right off of the bat. It was reported as a truck bomb, a helicopter crash and an airplane crash in the first hour or so. So in that light they knew something had happened but they didn't know what exactly caused it.

Senenmut

14th December 2009, 08:09 PM

The highlighted part is what you're overlooking. Today, in hindsight, we know what it was that hit the pentagon but on that morning it wasn't quite so clear right off of the bat. It was reported as a truck bomb, a helicopter crash and an airplane crash in the first hour or so. So in that light they knew something had happened but they didn't know what exactly caused it.
i get what your saying. but...
we have the explosion and the confirmation right here.
http://www.dailycal.org/printable.php?id=8072

heres a good interview from mineta-
"Then they came in and said it was 10 miles out. Soon after that, I was talking to the deputy director of the FAA, and he told me they had lost the target off the screen. Soon after that, then, the vice president was informed that there was an explosion at the Pentagon. So I was trying to relate with the air traffic controllers where that plane went to see whether it was close to the Pentagon. The radar is very difficult to pinpoint it to a ground location.

But while I was talking to the FAA, someone broke into the conversation and said, 'Mr. Secretary, we have just had confirmation from the Arlington County Police Department that they saw a commercial airliner-an American airline-go into the Pentagon."

just think about gofer06 and check out the wikileaks and see for yourself how it would be hard to believe that the peoc would not of had confirmation for 40 mins after the fact.

Sam.I.Am

14th December 2009, 08:39 PM

The first people on the scenes job is to save lives and their first calls will be to request assistance, not inform someone that it was an airplane vs. a truck bomb or helicopter. For them the cause is moot, something really bad happened and they have to deal with it right now. Investigations are for later. After the scene is under control. If you get in a bad car wreck the EMTs and firemen isn't going to care what kind of car it was that hit you. The cop investigating the accident will write it up later, after you are on the way to the hospital. That's how it works in the real world. People are always first.

Now then, I agree that it was important information for the PEOC to have at the time but the people in the middle of the mass casualty scene didn't know that at the time and there's no reason for them to pass on (what was to them) irrelevant information and clogging up the radio waves that were better served for saving lives.

CORed

14th December 2009, 11:18 PM

To set the conspiracy hounds running Tri. I thought that would be obvious.

So you're saying that the government wanted to encourage conspiracy theories? For what purpose? Identifying morons for extermination to facilitate a eugenics program?

JoeyDonuts

15th December 2009, 01:42 AM

Identifying morons for extermination to facilitate a eugenics program?

*jots down notes for his handlers at FEMA Funtime Death Camps, L.L.C.*

MikeW

15th December 2009, 02:30 AM

describe for us how lynne cheney describes the evacuation in the interview you posted....
Ah, so you want to ignore the log reference? Of course you do: you've no answer, beyond I suppose hoping that it's forged.

Unfortunately for you, the log agrees with Mineta's statement of seeing the evacuation (9:45+); with Garvey's statement of hearing about Delta problems between the third and fourth crashes; with Lynne Cheney's account of only arriving after the Pentagon was hit.

It also agrees with this story about the 9:45 "bring down all the planes" order, where they say Mineta didn't call in to the FAA from the PEOC until at least 15 minutes after the order went out:

Phillips told his audience he felt it necessary to make a "historical correction," although FAA officials had begged him to maintain the fiction. Phillips proposed, charitably, that Mineta's order was a simple misunderstanding; that the secretary was unaware that "[f]or at least 15 minutes before Mineta's conversation with the FAA, controllers were bringing the planes down ... at the nearest airport." Phillips continued:
http://www.slate.com/?id=2063935

It also agrees with the content of Clarke's book, if not his timing, that shows Mineta hadn't arrived when his 9:40+ conversations with the FAA were taking place.

It also agrees with Garvey's comment in one of her MFRs that Mineta needed to be brought more into the decision-making process, suggesting he'd been out of the loop for a while (something Clarke confirms): makes no sense for a 9:20 arrival, perfect sense if it was after 10.

And what are you countering this with - the PEOC awareness of the Pentagon crash. Which, even if we say you are right, doesn't prove Mineta's timeline at all.

So we're back with what I said earlier: the balance of evidence clearly shows Mineta arrived after the Pentagon was hit. Clearly. Your ignoring this evidence won't make it go away.

funk de fino

15th December 2009, 03:37 AM

heres a good interview from mineta-
"Then they came in and said it was 10 miles out. Soon after that, I was talking to the deputy director of the FAA, and he told me they had lost the target off the screen. Soon after that, then, the vice president was informed that there was an explosion at the Pentagon. So I was trying to relate with the air traffic controllers where that plane went to see whether it was close to the Pentagon. The radar is very difficult to pinpoint it to a ground location.

But while I was talking to the FAA, someone broke into the conversation and said, 'Mr. Secretary, we have just had confirmation from the Arlington County Police Department that they saw a commercial airliner-an American airline-go into the Pentagon.

have ya looked through wikileaks yet. just try doing a control F for find and type in "pentagon". tell me about the times you find!!

so according to mrs cheney, she already know the pentagon had been attacked. i guess she forgot to tell her hubby!! because of his quote here:
cheney: "But when I arrived there within a short order, we had word the Pentagon's been hit."

i guess GOFER06 would not of made a good confirmation? multiple lines of confirmation would have been available very quickly....NOT 40 mins after flight 93 crashed.

You are being ignorant or you do not speak English as your first language because even a child can understand this. Mrs Cheney was speaking after the fact. His quote is about the confirmation. He had seen the smoke from the Pentagon area already.

Mineta says Mrs Cheney was there when he arrived. She did not arrive until after flight 77 crashed therefore Mineta is wrong.

Stick to the point please. Go and read the controller statements.

funk de fino

15th December 2009, 03:44 AM

describe for us how lynne cheney describes the evacuation in the interview you posted....

certainly

As soon as the plane began to put the White House in danger, the plane that eventually went into the Pentagon, the Secret Service decided I shouldn't be downtown anymore, and we rushed toward the vice president's house. That plane that going into the White House then, as you remembered, or I think that's where it was headed, did a big circle and headed to the Pentagon. As soon as that plane was down, tragically, at the Pentagon, the Secret Service decided that the best place for me to be safe would not be at the vice president's house but down beneath, in the hardened part of the White House.

she was moved to the PEOC after the plane was down then.

On 9-11, for example, she [Lynne Cheney] was spirited away by Secret Service agents who decided to bring her to the White House's underground bunker. But she arrived just as the White House was being evacuated. With everybody heading for the exits, security people were suspicious of anybody trying to get in. "And they weren't sure who this might be, to the point of blocking the entrance with a fire engine so we couldn't get in," says Cheney. She eventually joined her husband in the bunker. The VP still spends many nights away from home for security reasons. Asked which of the undisclosed locations her husband likes best, Cheney said, "The ones that come stocked with quail."

She arrived as the evacuation was being carried out and had to argue with the security to get in.

game over

Senenmut

15th December 2009, 04:34 AM

Ah, so you want to ignore the log reference? Of course you do: you've no answer, beyond I suppose hoping that it's forged.

Unfortunately for you, the log agrees with Mineta's statement of seeing the evacuation (9:45+); with Garvey's statement of hearing about Delta problems between the third and fourth crashes; with Lynne Cheney's account of only arriving after the Pentagon was hit.

It also agrees with this story about the 9:45 "bring down all the planes" order, where they say Mineta didn't call in to the FAA from the PEOC until at least 15 minutes after the order went out:

It also agrees with the content of Clarke's book, if not his timing, that shows Mineta hadn't arrived when his 9:40+ conversations with the FAA were taking place.

It also agrees with Garvey's comment in one of her MFRs that Mineta needed to be brought more into the decision-making process, suggesting he'd been out of the loop for a while (something Clarke confirms): makes no sense for a 9:20 arrival, perfect sense if it was after 10.

And what are you countering this with - the PEOC awareness of the Pentagon crash. Which, even if we say you are right, doesn't prove Mineta's timeline at all.

So we're back with what I said earlier: the balance of evidence clearly shows Mineta arrived after the Pentagon was hit. Clearly. Your ignoring this evidence won't make it go away.

ignore the evidence...something that could have been altered for national security reasons.

you still didnt describe what lynn cheney said about the evacuation at the white house.

Senenmut

15th December 2009, 04:37 AM

certainly

she was moved to the PEOC after the plane was down then.

She arrived as the evacuation was being carried out and had to argue with the security to get in.

game over

page 3. she states they were leaving "rather calm" when she arrived.

MikeW

15th December 2009, 05:21 AM

ignore the evidence...something that could have been altered for national security reasons.
Mineta said he arrived during the evacuation. He's said so all along. No-one altered it. Therefore he arrived after the Pentagon was hit.

Lynne Cheney said she arrived during the evacuation. She's said so all along. No-one altered it. There was no reason to lie.

Mineta said he arrived after Lynne Cheney. No-one altered that (you pointed us to the video).

Mineta said Garvey called him before he left for the White House to report Delta couldn't track all its aircraft. Garvey has said this happened after the Pentagon was hit. Therefore Mineta arrived at the PEOC after the Pentagon was hit.

You can pretend that the log time is faked, if you like. Trouble is, you've no evidence for that, and the fact is that the log isn't contradicting anything here. The only account that doesn't make sense here, that is proven incorrect by the weight of the other evidence, is Mineta's 9:20 arrival time. It did not, and could not have happened that way.

you still didnt describe what lynn cheney said about the evacuation at the white house.
What, you ignore everything I put forward, yet I'm supposed to jump whenever you call? Don't think so. If you want to make a point, then make it. Don't forget to explain how that point proves Mineta was in the PEOC at 9:20 and overrides all the other evidence, though.

BCR

15th December 2009, 05:26 AM

If you want to make a point, then make it. Don't forget to explain how that point proves Mineta was in the PEOC at 9:20 and overrides all the other evidence, though.

Yes, I wish he would. Somehow I lost how Mineta is connected to the E4B OP of the thread. So please, hurry up and connect the 'point' of all this.

MikeW

15th December 2009, 05:39 AM

Yes, I wish he would. Somehow I lost how Mineta is connected to the E4B OP of the thread. So please, hurry up and connect the 'point' of all this.
Welcome back!

You're right, this is just a diversion really - the fork started here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5397242&postcount=81) & so Mineta's timeline is relevant to that post. Trouble is, that post doesn't bear much relation to the real E4B arguments. And as I'm getting bored with repeating myself Mineta-wise, then as you say, now is probably a good time to get back on track.

BCR

15th December 2009, 05:59 AM

As some may know, I worked with Gaffney on the 911 Mystery Plane book putting together the RADES and FAA radar data (among other things). If I recall correctly, WORD31 took off before the arrival of AAL77 and headed pretty much straight towards Offutt AFB with a standard Camp Springs One departure (followed by GOFER06). Nothing sinister about that since Offutt is where the plane was based. Also, another E4B was 'stuck' on the ground which we have ATC audio for (I don't recall the AFB off hand).

So after the Pentagon was hit, it made sense that they would want to get the 'stand by' E4B in the air as rapidly as possible. Once airborne and flying in unrestricted airspace (it never did enter restricted airspace), it was diverted south to support AF1 which was originally headed back to DC from Florida. However, that plan changed when AF1 changed course to the west, at which time VENUS77 took up a holding pattern south of DC over NC. When AF1 headed on to Offutt, VENUS77 followed.

At no point was an E4B 'flying around the Pentagon'. With 4 local ASR's and 3 ARSR radars covering the DC area, it would be close to impossible to cover up a 747 (even with anti-reflective paint) signature. Not to mention the plane would have to talk to the ATC at Andrews and/or DCA at some point.

I know it is fun to speculate, but the truth is rather mundane. Command and control was under attack, so airborne command and control was put up ASAP. I would be more alarmed if they had not put up the E4B.

funk de fino

15th December 2009, 06:29 AM

page 3. she states they were leaving "rather calm" when she arrived.

Before Mineta then? People were running when Mineta arrived.

Please explain how Mineta saw Mrs Cheney with Dastardly Dick when he arrived if she was there after the crash of 77?

gumboot

15th December 2009, 11:43 AM

Senenmut

15th December 2009, 08:25 PM

Mineta said he arrived during the evacuation. He's said so all along. No-one altered it. Therefore he arrived after the Pentagon was hit.

Lynne Cheney said she arrived during the evacuation. She's said so all along. No-one altered it. There was no reason to lie.

Mineta said he arrived after Lynne Cheney. No-one altered that (you pointed us to the video).

Mineta said Garvey called him before he left for the White House to report Delta couldn't track all its aircraft. Garvey has said this happened after the Pentagon was hit. Therefore Mineta arrived at the PEOC after the Pentagon was hit.

You can pretend that the log time is faked, if you like. Trouble is, you've no evidence for that, and the fact is that the log isn't contradicting anything here. The only account that doesn't make sense here, that is proven incorrect by the weight of the other evidence, is Mineta's 9:20 arrival time. It did not, and could not have happened that way.

What, you ignore everything I put forward, yet I'm supposed to jump whenever you call? Don't think so. If you want to make a point, then make it. Don't forget to explain how that point proves Mineta was in the PEOC at 9:20 and overrides all the other evidence, though.

the thing is, your telling me mineta could not have been there before the "official evacuation" because he stated people were running. and the article i linked shows that the whitehouse was "slowing evacuating the White House about 30 minutes ago" which would put it at about 920ish. now lynn cheney comes in and says that people were going in the direction in a rather "calm" way.
your telling me she arrived when it was being evacuated but she describes it as being calm?? and the way she describes the whole "the plane is 60 miles out" scenario is totally different and time wise different than minetas.

BCR

15th December 2009, 08:30 PM

the thing is, your telling me mineta could not have been there before the "official evacuation" because he stated people were running. and the article i linked shows that the whitehouse was "slowing evacuating the White House about 30 minutes ago" which would put it at about 920ish. now lynn cheney comes in and says that people were going in the direction in a rather "calm" way.
your telling me she arrived when it was being evacuated but she describes it as being calm?? and the way she describes the whole "the plane is 60 miles out" scenario is totally different and time wise different than minetas.

Have you watched the archived video of the evacuation from CNN? Both cases are true depending upon which time a person arrived. I have a copy of the entire video which I would share, but copyright prevents me from doing so. But I think it is still available in segments online at the CNN archives. The evacuation began just before the Pentagon was hit. If you listen to the conversations in the background, you'll get a better understanding of when the evac began, and that people only slowly learned what the evac was all about and that the Pentagon had been hit.

Senenmut

15th December 2009, 08:48 PM

BCR

15th December 2009, 08:53 PM

If you have a copy of Mark's book, I generated an RS3 plot for the book. If not, buy a copy.

Senenmut

15th December 2009, 08:56 PM

Before Mineta then? People were running when Mineta arrived.

Please explain how Mineta saw Mrs Cheney with Dastardly Dick when he arrived if she was there after the crash of 77?

try reading one of my posts again.

we have the explosion and the confirmation right here.
http://www.dailycal.org/printable.php?id=8072

heres a good interview from mineta-
"Then they came in and said it was 10 miles out. Soon after that, I was talking to the deputy director of the FAA, and he told me they had lost the target off the screen. Soon after that, then, the vice president was informed that there was an explosion at the Pentagon. So I was trying to relate with the air traffic controllers where that plane went to see whether it was close to the Pentagon. The radar is very difficult to pinpoint it to a ground location.

But while I was talking to the FAA, someone broke into the conversation and said, 'Mr. Secretary, we have just had confirmation from the Arlington County Police Department that they saw a commercial airliner-an American airline-go into the Pentagon."

just think about gofer06 and check out the wikileaks and see for yourself how it would be hard to believe that the peoc would not of had confirmation for 40 mins after the fact.

maybe even watch this clip of norman mineta if ya havent seen it. there is a space of time between the 10 mile out story and at 1030ish mineta states that is when they were informed about flight 93. there is a logical flow to minetas timeline. your trying to tell me that at 1040 is when the 10 mile out story took place. does not make since!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suKKhDWbnSk

Senenmut

15th December 2009, 09:38 PM

If you have a copy of Mark's book, I generated an RS3 plot for the book. If not, buy a copy.

is this 911 files? how have ya been....if it is. anyway, from what im reading, its from the washington national tower TYSON departure control position.

im trying to figure out what kind of manuever this guy did.
it says word31 was traveling 270 then at 1330 he was issued to 190 then about 1 1/2 min later, got issued 360. then 3 1/2 mins later issued to join j149.

i think i got this pdf off of aa77.com. that would place him close to the pentagon when he got issued to turn south then north.

what would that south then north heading look like?

BCR

15th December 2009, 09:43 PM

Then you should have the flight plan info. All of what you describe is in the flight plan (except perhaps a minor detour for traffic) straight to Offutt.

beachnut

15th December 2009, 10:05 PM

is this 911 files? how have ya been....if it is. anyway, from what im reading, its from the washington national tower TYSON departure control position.

im trying to figure out what kind of manuever this guy did.
it says word31 was traveling 270 then at 1330 he was issued to 190 then about 1 1/2 min later, got issued 360. then 3 1/2 mins later issued to join j149.

i think i got this pdf off of aa77.com. that would place him close to the pentagon when he got issued to turn south then north.

what would that south then north heading look like?

Why does it matter? He was over 3,000 feet. He flew west (MAGNETIC!) then turned left 80 degrees to 190 degrees (like south plus 10 magnetic) then he turned right 170 degrees to 360 degrees (north) then to intercept J149. Looks like he never flew around the Pentagon, but he did fly near in a relative way. Why does it matter? Why is Mineta and a E-4 connected? Is the Mineta stuff off topic?

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/pilotJunkDCAJ149.jpg

Andrews is on the right, J149 goes out the left; this kind of pilot junk discussion is one method of birth control. What does Mineta have to do with an E-4?

Sam.I.Am

15th December 2009, 10:12 PM

im trying to figure out what kind of manuever this guy did.
it says word31 was traveling 270 then at 1330 he was issued to 190 then about 1 1/2 min later, got issued 360. then 3 1/2 mins later issued to join j149.

i think i got this pdf off of aa77.com. that would place him close to the pentagon when he got issued to turn south then north.

what would that south then north heading look like?

Without having the turn right or turn left added to those headings it was either all over the sky roughly heading west or it was a holding pattern. If you assume that the headings were the most direct route then it was all over the place but if you assume that the turns were the long way around to the next heading it forms a sloppy figure 8 holding pattern.

So turning right to 190 from 270 makes the top half of the eight and turning left to 360 from 190 makes up the 3/4 of the bottom half of the eight.

beachnut

15th December 2009, 10:30 PM

Without having the turn right or turn left added to those headings it was either all over the sky roughly heading west or it was a holding pattern. If you assume that the headings were the most direct route then it was all over the place but if you assume that the turns were the long way around to the next heading it forms a sloppy figure 8 holding pattern.

So turning right to 190 from 270 makes the top half of the eight and turning left to 360 from 190 makes up the 3/4 of the bottom half of the eight.
The controller would expect you to turn the shorter distance or direct the turn direction. Issued a turn from 270 to 190 would be a left turn to the south. Then directed from 190 to 360 would be a right turn and J149 is north of his position and heading west. The label for the jet route J149 is at the far left on the chart above.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/Flightpathjunk.jpg
The path could look like this. I do not know what ATC issued verbatim, only what was posted.

Sam.I.Am

15th December 2009, 10:49 PM

I don't know what the procedures are for aircraft, I only know what they are for submarines and there's always a left or right (full or some degree less than full) rudder order followed by a heading. I assumed that it would be the same for an aircraft. My mistake.

Just for clarification I saw it as possibly something like this:

http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/3338/e4btrack1.jpg
Or this:

http://img682.imageshack.us/img682/5070/e4btrack2.jpg

beachnut

15th December 2009, 11:22 PM

I don't know what the procedures are for aircraft, I only know what they are for submarines and there's always a left or right (full or some degree less than full) rudder order followed by a heading. I assumed that it would be the same for an aircraft. My mistake.

You did not make a mistake. ATC could have said turn right to 190, and left to 360. Usually the turns are made the shorter direction. The left turn would not be likely for leaving west from Andrews, there is restricted airspace that direction. Since their goal was to go west, if ATC issued the right to 190 and then a left to 360 I would be upset we are going the wrong direction. I assumed it was left to 190 and right to 360. And I am opting to drink some wine instead of researching it further, but you are right it would be Beachnut 11 turn left to 190... beachnut 11 turn right to 360... Beachnut 11 cleared to intercept J149 contact... Or was it right and left. You are right, most likely ATC preceded the heading with turn left or right.

tsig

15th December 2009, 11:46 PM

MikeW

16th December 2009, 12:57 AM

the thing is, your telling me mineta could not have been there before the "official evacuation" because he stated people were running.
Not just that, no. There are four points of similarity: he said people were running, he said everyone was coming out, he said they were coming from the White House and the Executive Office Building, he said they were moving over to Lafayette Park. You're minimising the similarities because you want to pass this off as a "coincidence", but it's not going to work. No-one describes this scene as happening until after the Pentagon was hit.

and the article i linked shows that the whitehouse was "slowing evacuating the White House about 30 minutes ago" which would put it at about 920ish. now lynn cheney comes in and says that people were going in the direction in a rather "calm" way.

your telling me she arrived when it was being evacuated but she describes it as being calm?? and the way she describes the whole "the plane is 60 miles out" scenario is totally different and time wise different than minetas.

Your earlier source - the CNN report - described all four points Mineta mentioned - lots of people, Executive Office Building, running, moving over to Lafayette Park. These were occurring at 9:52. No-one, absolutely no-one says they happened before the Pentagon was hit, and in fact we have reports that say they didn't (everything was normal until then).

Lynne Cheney now says "calm" instead of "running". So what? Maybe she arrived from a different direction. Maybe she arrived three minutes later. Cheney's account doesn't change Mineta's accurate description of the evacuation scene - he's already told us when he arrived. And they're both clearly describing events after the Pentagon was hit.

gumboot

16th December 2009, 01:23 AM

Not just that, no. There are four points of similarity: he said people were running, he said everyone was coming out, he said they were coming from the White House and the Executive Office Building, he said they were moving over to Lafayette Park. You're minimising the similarities because you want to pass this off as a "coincidence", but it's not going to work. No-one describes this scene as happening until after the Pentagon was hit.

Your earlier source - the CNN report - described all four points Mineta mentioned - lots of people, Executive Office Building, running, moving over to Lafayette Park. These were occurring at 9:52. No-one, absolutely no-one says they happened before the Pentagon was hit, and in fact we have reports that say they didn't (everything was normal until then).

Lynne Cheney now says "calm" instead of "running". So what? Maybe she arrived from a different direction. Maybe she arrived three minutes later. Cheney's account doesn't change Mineta's accurate description of the evacuation scene - he's already told us when he arrived. And they're both clearly describing events after the Pentagon was hit.

Mike, there's no real need to debate. Even his source agrees on the time for the evac, it's just Truthers can't seem to distinguish between ET and EDT. They forget to add an hour to the CNN report time. Kind of reminds me of the Payne learjet incident...

funk de fino

16th December 2009, 01:43 AM

try reading one of my posts again.

we have the explosion and the confirmation right here.
http://www.dailycal.org/printable.php?id=8072

heres a good interview from mineta-
"Then they came in and said it was 10 miles out. Soon after that, I was talking to the deputy director of the FAA, and he told me they had lost the target off the screen. Soon after that, then, the vice president was informed that there was an explosion at the Pentagon. So I was trying to relate with the air traffic controllers where that plane went to see whether it was close to the Pentagon. The radar is very difficult to pinpoint it to a ground location.

But while I was talking to the FAA, someone broke into the conversation and said, 'Mr. Secretary, we have just had confirmation from the Arlington County Police Department that they saw a commercial airliner-an American airline-go into the Pentagon."

just think about gofer06 and check out the wikileaks and see for yourself how it would be hard to believe that the peoc would not of had confirmation for 40 mins after the fact.

maybe even watch this clip of norman mineta if ya havent seen it. there is a space of time between the 10 mile out story and at 1030ish mineta states that is when they were informed about flight 93. there is a logical flow to minetas timeline. your trying to tell me that at 1040 is when the 10 mile out story took place. does not make since!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suKKhDWbnSk

Stop avoiding the point. Mineta says that he saw Lynne Cheney with dick when he arrived. She was already there, this is in his own interview. She was only evacuated to the PEOC after Flight 77 crashed. She arrived when they were evacuating due to Flight 77. Mineta was not there at this point.
It is simple logic. You are avoiding the issue. I suspect it is for dishonest reasons as no-one can be as dumb as to still think Mineta times are correct after all the posts in this thread. You keep moving to irrelevant crap. The coast track is what the discussion was about. Belger says he did not know about Flight 93 until after it crashed. All they knew about was a coast track that was heading to DC. This was after flight 77 had already crashed which was not a coast track. The controllers were tracking it on radar. They watched it turn around and dissappear over the Pentagon. Read their statements, its all in there.

MikeW

16th December 2009, 02:04 AM

Mike, there's no real need to debate. Even his source agrees on the time for the evac, it's just Truthers can't seem to distinguish between ET and EDT. They forget to add an hour to the CNN report time. Kind of reminds me of the Payne learjet incident...
I agree on the debating point, I've said all that's necessary I think & if not then there are plenty of other people to take care of things.

Re: ET and EDT, though, I'm no expert on US time zone protocols but I don't think there's any need to add an hour here - the times quoted in the CNN transcripts are correct. For example, we know CNN were reporting the first WTC crash within minutes, and sure enough the first transcript (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.01.html) shows a time of 8:48 ET. Likewise the main evacuation report times (from CNN) were at 9:45 and 9:52 which matches with other reports: adding an hour would throw them out.

BCR

16th December 2009, 03:34 AM

The controller would expect you to turn the shorter distance or direct the turn direction. Issued a turn from 270 to 190 would be a left turn to the south. Then directed from 190 to 360 would be a right turn and J149 is north of his position and heading west. The label for the jet route J149 is at the far left on the chart above.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/Flightpathjunk.jpg
The path could look like this. I do not know what ATC issued verbatim, only what was posted.

Here is an image with the flight strip and RADES path. Of course it matches pretty much what you said.

WORD 31 (http://zoesflight.com/files/word31.jpg)

Senenmut

16th December 2009, 04:33 AM

Stop avoiding the point. Mineta says that he saw Lynne Cheney with dick when he arrived. She was already there, this is in his own interview. She was only evacuated to the PEOC after Flight 77 crashed. She arrived when they were evacuating due to Flight 77. Mineta was not there at this point.
It is simple logic. You are avoiding the issue. I suspect it is for dishonest reasons as no-one can be as dumb as to still think Mineta times are correct after all the posts in this thread. You keep moving to irrelevant crap. The coast track is what the discussion was about. Belger says he did not know about Flight 93 until after it crashed. All they knew about was a coast track that was heading to DC. This was after flight 77 had already crashed which was not a coast track. The controllers were tracking it on radar. They watched it turn around and dissappear over the Pentagon. Read their statements, its all in there.

if ya want to believe lynn cheney and her "right wing" self.

mabe ya need to read this again, youll see an explosion and a confirmaion!!
mineta:
"Then they came in and said it was 10 miles out. Soon after that, I was talking to the deputy director of the FAA, and he told me they had lost the target off the screen. Soon after that, then, the vice president was informed that there was an explosion at the Pentagon. So I was trying to relate with the air traffic controllers where that plane went to see whether it was close to the Pentagon. The radar is very difficult to pinpoint it to a ground location.

But while I was talking to the FAA, someone broke into the conversation and said, 'Mr. Secretary, we have just had confirmation from the Arlington County Police Department that they saw a commercial airliner-an American airline-go into the Pentagon."

just think about gofer06 and check out the wikileaks and see for yourself how it would be hard to believe that the peoc would not of had confirmation for 40 mins after the fact.

funk de fino

16th December 2009, 05:32 AM

if ya want to believe lynn cheney and her "right wing" self.

mabe ya need to read this again, youll see an explosion and a confirmaion!!
mineta:
"Then they came in and said it was 10 miles out. Soon after that, I was talking to the deputy director of the FAA, and he told me they had lost the target off the screen. Soon after that, then, the vice president was informed that there was an explosion at the Pentagon. So I was trying to relate with the air traffic controllers where that plane went to see whether it was close to the Pentagon. The radar is very difficult to pinpoint it to a ground location.

But while I was talking to the FAA, someone broke into the conversation and said, 'Mr. Secretary, we have just had confirmation from the Arlington County Police Department that they saw a commercial airliner-an American airline-go into the Pentagon."

just think about gofer06 and check out the wikileaks and see for yourself how it would be hard to believe that the peoc would not of had confirmation for 40 mins after the fact.

Lets take this nice and easy without your political bias shall we?

Did Mineta say that Lynn Cheney was with Dick when he arrived?

PS - Why wont you read the controllers statements?

beachnut

16th December 2009, 10:27 AM

Here is an image with the flight strip and RADES path. Of course it matches pretty much what you said.

WORD 31 (http://zoesflight.com/files/word31.jpg)
It looks better than my word art. Thanks for the flight path.

if... just think about gofer06 and check out the wikileaks and see for yourself how it would be hard to believe that the peoc would not of had confirmation for 40 mins after the fact.
Why would it not take 40 minutes for the police in the field to make up channel reports that make it to some magical not used a lot peoc! The command post is always the last to know and the first to make stupid commands based on crap. They are not witnesses in the peoc, they are getting information third hand. It could take an hour to figure out what hit the Pentagon. You have to interview people and it takes days to get the confirmation of RADAR tapes, days to decode the FDR, etc. 40 minutes for information making to some basement command post! Who cares; it will not change 19 terrorists killing people on 911 and it has you unable to act or figure out 911 for 8 years.

gumboot

16th December 2009, 11:16 AM

I doubt informing the PEOC was very high in anyone's priorities that day. Everyone was a bit preoccupied with more important things.

Senenmut

17th December 2009, 07:28 AM

Stop avoiding the point. Mineta says that he saw Lynne Cheney with dick when he arrived. She was already there, this is in his own interview. She was only evacuated to the PEOC after Flight 77 crashed. She arrived when they were evacuating due to Flight 77. Mineta was not there at this point.
It is simple logic. You are avoiding the issue. I suspect it is for dishonest reasons as no-one can be as dumb as to still think Mineta times are correct after all the posts in this thread. You keep moving to irrelevant crap. The coast track is what the discussion was about. Belger says he did not know about Flight 93 until after it crashed. All they knew about was a coast track that was heading to DC. This was after flight 77 had already crashed which was not a coast track. The controllers were tracking it on radar. They watched it turn around and dissappear over the Pentagon. Read their statements, its all in there.

coast track? are ya sure about that. remember what cheapshot said. coast tracks are easily identifiable. he called it a target/bogey. they would have known it was a coast track.

plus check out what monte has to say:
"[U] Belger learned of the crash into the Pentagon shortly after it happened. He and
Garvey got on the phone with Norm Mineta who decided to bring everything down
(around 9:45) which was implemented. Belger continued to monitor the system as it
executed this order. All aircraft were down and the system grounded by 12:15 P.M."
http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00054.pdf

so now i guess youll say mineta was just driving down the road on his cell phone on his was to the white house and spoke with monte to bring everything down (around 945). and if he talked with monte already (before 945) and monte already knew the pentagon was hit mineta would have known about the pentagon as well.

minetas timeline makes since. your timeline does NOT. do you think a women would cover for her husband? especially a "right wing" women with the same ideals that her husband has.

think OFFICE OF SPECIAL PLANS.

Senenmut

17th December 2009, 07:37 AM

I doubt informing the PEOC was very high in anyone's priorities that day. Everyone was a bit preoccupied with more important things.

????????????? WHAT!! your kidding right?

Senenmut

17th December 2009, 07:44 AM

It looks better than my word art. Thanks for the flight path.

Why would it not take 40 minutes for the police in the field to make up channel reports that make it to some magical not used a lot peoc! The command post is always the last to know and the first to make stupid commands based on crap. They are not witnesses in the peoc, they are getting information third hand. It could take an hour to figure out what hit the Pentagon. You have to interview people and it takes days to get the confirmation of RADAR tapes, days to decode the FDR, etc. 40 minutes for information making to some basement command post! Who cares; it will not change 19 terrorists killing people on 911 and it has you unable to act or figure out 911 for 8 years.

did ya check out wikileaks. it just took a few mins for a confirmation...and gofer06 had a visual confirmation.

DGM

17th December 2009, 07:47 AM

????????????? WHAT!! your kidding right?
For the most part wouldn't people be more occupied with making sure plans that were well established being implemented then contacting the PEOC especially considering the POTUS was not there?

Senenmut

17th December 2009, 07:56 AM

Lets take this nice and easy without your political bias shall we?

Did Mineta say that Lynn Cheney was with Dick when he arrived?

PS - Why wont you read the controllers statements?

my political bias? thats the way clarke describes her:

But Army Major Mike Fenzel, who is also in the PEOC, complains to him, “I can’t hear the crisis conference [that Clarke has been leading] because Mrs. Cheney keeps turning down the volume on you so she can hear CNN… and the vice president keeps hanging up the open line to you.” Clarke later describes that Lynne Cheney is, like her husband, “a right-wing ideologue,” and is offering her advice and opinions while in the PEOC.

funk de fino

17th December 2009, 08:07 AM

my political bias? thats the way clarke describes her:

But Army Major Mike Fenzel, who is also in the PEOC, complains to him, “I can’t hear the crisis conference [that Clarke has been leading] because Mrs. Cheney keeps turning down the volume on you so she can hear CNN… and the vice president keeps hanging up the open line to you.” Clarke later describes that Lynne Cheney is, like her husband, “a right-wing ideologue,” and is offering her advice and opinions while in the PEOC.

Try again.

Did Mineta say in his interview that she was with Dick when he arrived?

funk de fino

17th December 2009, 08:12 AM

coast track? are ya sure about that. remember what cheapshot said. coast tracks are easily identifiable. he called it a target/bogey. they would have known it was a coast track.

Now you really are being dense. the controllers could see the coast track. It was all they had for the second plane heading to DC. The first radar return that they saw was for 77. This was a real radar track. Neither of the tracks could be seen by Belger or Mineta. Only the controllers could see them. They were shouting the coast track over the phone and this was being relayd to the PEOC. Flight 77 had crashed prior to this.

plus check out what monte has to say:
"[U] Belger learned of the crash into the Pentagon shortly after it happened. He and
Garvey got on the phone with Norm Mineta who decided to bring everything down
(around 9:45) which was implemented. Belger continued to monitor the system as it
executed this order. All aircraft were down and the system grounded by 12:15 P.M."
http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00054.pdf

so now i guess youll say mineta was just driving down the road on his cell phone on his was to the white house and spoke with monte to bring everything down (around 945). and if he talked with monte already (before 945) and monte already knew the pentagon was hit mineta would have known about the pentagon as well.

minetas timeline makes since. your timeline does NOT. do you think a women would cover for her husband? especially a "right wing" women with the same ideals that her husband has.

think OFFICE OF SPECIAL PLANS.

Dumb and dumber. You missed the " around" 09:45.

MikeW

17th December 2009, 08:42 AM

You missed the " around" 09:45.
I'm not getting back into this fully, but just an addition to your point... You've mentioned Belger, so what does Garvey say? Let's see:

After the fourth crash, the challenge was to determine what to do about the national airspace. Sec. Mineta and John Flaherty had left by this time to go to the White House, but were still in communication with the FAA. Belger told Ms. Garvey that Boston and New York ATC had already instituted a ground stop, and Garvey indicated to the Commission that she felt that this was a case of the controllers themselves taking the proper action and that part of the response worked well. At that point, Garvey and Belger felt that they needed to get the Secretary more into the decision-making loop. Mineta then called, and Belger expressed the view that the FAA needed to bring all of the planes down. After conferring with Vice President Cheney, Mineta ordered that action.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18775656/T7-B10-Team-7-MFRs-Garvey-Fdr-102103-Jane-Garvey-Interview-w-Notes-on-MFR

This isn't perfect: the real "bring the planes down" order was delivered by Sliney, earlier. Garvey does seem to think Mineta wasn't in the "decision-making loop", though, suggesting he'd been out of touch for a while (something Clarke also said) not on the phone since 9:20-ish; and she says he didn't call in until after the Flight 93 crash, which agrees with the PEOC shelter log and the Slate article I posted earlier.

beachnut

17th December 2009, 09:32 AM

did ya check out wikileaks. it just took a few mins for a confirmation...and gofer06 had a visual confirmation.
wikileaks - this is funny

Did you check outside? Did you check under the rock?

Have you ever worked in a command post in any capacity?

Will there be single integrated operation plan for you to tie your junk to the E-4?

carlitos

17th December 2009, 10:01 AM

Will there be single integrated operation plan for you to tie your junk to the E-4?
Seconded. Seriously, Senenmut, do you have a point to all of this?

BCR

17th December 2009, 12:49 PM

Seconded. Seriously, Senenmut, do you have a point to all of this?

I asked that several pages back and I still don't see what Mineta, Cheney or any of this has to do with the OP.

Senenmut

17th December 2009, 02:10 PM

I'm not getting back into this fully, but just an addition to your point... You've mentioned Belger, so what does Garvey say? Let's see:

This isn't perfect: the real "bring the planes down" order was delivered by Sliney, earlier. Garvey does seem to think Mineta wasn't in the "decision-making loop", though, suggesting he'd been out of touch for a while (something Clarke also said) not on the phone since 9:20-ish; and she says he didn't call in until after the Flight 93 crash, which agrees with the PEOC shelter log and the Slate article I posted earlier.

did ya read sliney's interview. he states at 945 that the order "to land all airborne aircraft" was given. belger said that mineta gave that order also around 945.

so:
"[u] Belger learned of the crash into the Pentagon shortly after it happened. He and Garvey got on the phone with Norm Mineta who decided to bring everything down (around 9:45) which was implemented. Belger continued to monitor the system as it executed this order. All aircraft were down and the system grounded by 12:15 P.M."

http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00054.pdf

then from garvey's interview:
[U] After the fourth crash, the challenge was to determine what to do about the national airspace. Sec. Mineta and John Flaherty had left by this time to go to the White House, but were still in communication with the FAA. Belger told Ms. Garvey that Boston and New York ATC had already instituted a ground stop, and Garvey indicated to the Commission that she felt that this was a case of the controllers themselves taking the proper action and that part of the response worked well. At that point, Garvey and Belger felt that they needed to get the Secretary more into the decision-making loop. Mineta then called, and Belger expressed the view that the FAA needed to bring all of the planes down. After conferring with Vice President Cheney, Mineta ordered that action.

as for that 4th plane, if ya read a couple of paragraphs up, she stated this:
"Shortly thereafter, there was a report of a 4th plane having gone down near the Ohio River, and with numerous repetitions became almost a fact."

it sounds like garvey is linking this as the "forth" plane.

and also from the sliney interview, he states that he ground stopped boston and new york BEFORE the second plane hit the towers. so from garvey's interview, not to much time later from those ground stops was when mineta made that order.

looks like minetas timeline holds up still. as for mrs cheney, would YOU trust a cheney?

carlitos

17th December 2009, 02:24 PM

I asked that several pages back and I still don't see what Mineta, Cheney or any of this has to do with the OP.

Well, there's no harm in repetition then.

Senenmut, do you have a point to all of this?

Could you kindly weave your cheney / mineta stuff into some kind of point? That relates to "E-4B flying around pentagon on 9/11?"

Thanks in advance! :)

tsig

17th December 2009, 02:40 PM

Well, there's no harm in repetition then.

Senenmut, do you have a point to all of this?

Could you kindly weave your cheney / mineta stuff into some kind of point? That relates to "E-4B flying around pentagon on 9/11?"

Thanks in advance! :)

I too am wondering what all this he said/she said has to do with the physical fact that an airliner struck the Pentagon or the E-4B flying around.

(the "ya", lack of capitalization and odd formatting makes her/his posts hard to read. Is this deliberate Senenmut?)

Cheap Shot

17th December 2009, 05:20 PM

and also from the sliney interview, he states that he ground stopped boston and new york BEFORE the second plane hit the towers. so from garvey's interview, not to much time later from those ground stops was when mineta made that order.
This doesn't sounf right to me, up until the second tower was hit we really didn't have a clue it was a terrorist act, why would have a ground stop been issued before the second tower was hit? Also you state that Mineta made not much time later. if Sliney made the ground stop before the 2nd Tower, and Mineta made the call shortly later, define shortly? 50 minutes later isn't shortly.

From what I remember that day our ground stop went out within about two minutes or less after the 2nd Tower was hit. I belive Terry Biggio made the call to ground stop before he got a call from Sliney or they talked and did it at the same time.

Sam.I.Am

17th December 2009, 06:09 PM

beachnut

17th December 2009, 06:29 PM

The leaky faucet of mineta crap that has no bearing on the E-4 continues with no sign of a plumber to fix the leak. I got some flux and a torch, I have the copper pipe and connectors for 1/2 inch; will that do?

E-4, how is it related to mineta?

dropzone

17th December 2009, 08:03 PM

Well, there's no harm in repetition then.

Senenmut, do you have a point to all of this?Doesn't need it. The post is tragicomic on its own.

gumboot

18th December 2009, 12:37 AM

Cheap Shot, a quick question. Is a ground stop only for preventing takeoffs or does it also mean immediate landing of any aircraft in the air in their control areas? I think it's the first but I just wanted a clarification.

I think it's important to make some clear distinctions here because multiple calls are being confused.

Two things were implemented on Sept 11.

The first was a ground stop. A ground stop prevents any aircraft from taking off in the affected airspace, but does not close the airspace, nor force aircraft out of the airspace.

The second is the declaration of "ATC Zero". This effectively closes the airspace, forcing all aircraft to leave immediately, and preventing any new aircraft entering.

Boston ARTCC declared a local ground stop at 0904, after UA175 hit WTC2. This was followed at 0905 by New York ARTCC taking the more significant step of declaring ATC Zero. This was significant as this declaration prevented the fighters scrambled from Otis ANGB from moving to their original holding position, which was inside NY airspace. Instead they had to hold in military airspace much further away.

On a national scale, Ben Sliney at the ATCSCC declared a national ground stop at 0925. At this point no aircraft anywhere in the USA were allowed to take off. At 0942 this was followed by Sliney declaring ATC Zero nationwide, thus closing US airspace and forcing all aircraft to land immediately.

Sliney did this entirely off his own back, and it's quite clear that no one at FAA HQ, let alone Mineta, had any hand in it, other than to approve it after the fact.

funk de fino

18th December 2009, 01:16 AM

*snipped reading comprehension junk*

then

looks like minetas timeline holds up still. as for mrs cheney, would YOU trust a cheney?

Stop avoiding the question. Did Mineta state that Mrs Cheney was with Dick in the PEOC when he arrived?

Yes or no will do.

Cheap Shot

18th December 2009, 07:37 AM

I think it's important to make some clear distinctions here because multiple calls are being confused.

Two things were implemented on Sept 11.

The first was a ground stop. A ground stop prevents any aircraft from taking off in the affected airspace, but does not close the airspace, nor force aircraft out of the airspace.

The second is the declaration of "ATC Zero". This effectively closes the airspace, forcing all aircraft to leave immediately, and preventing any new aircraft entering.

Boston ARTCC declared a local ground stop at 0904, after UA175 hit WTC2. This was followed at 0905 by New York ARTCC taking the more significant step of declaring ATC Zero. This was significant as this declaration prevented the fighters scrambled from Otis ANGB from moving to their original holding position, which was inside NY airspace. Instead they had to hold in military airspace much further away.

On a national scale, Ben Sliney at the ATCSCC declared a national ground stop at 0925. At this point no aircraft anywhere in the USA were allowed to take off. At 0942 this was followed by Sliney declaring ATC Zero nationwide, thus closing US airspace and forcing all aircraft to land immediately.

Sliney did this entirely off his own back, and it's quite clear that no one at FAA HQ, let alone Mineta, had any hand in it, other than to approve it after the fact.
For Sam.I.Am, Gumboot seems to have this information pretty much correct. When he made the final call to close all airspace, though he had been in contact with most of the center's that morning and I beleive everyone was in concert with him closing the airspace. There were some issues about ZNY not wanting the fighters over the city, but eventually they established the cap over the city.

Also ZNY declaring ATC Zero was there way of shutting off thier airspace prior to Sliney making the call. After our groundstop of Logan we initiated at other airports and began calling adjacent Canadian Centers and advised them we were cloing our boundaries. i made several of thos calls, and was quite surprised they didn't question it one bit.

Travis

19th December 2009, 06:18 AM

I'm trying to figure out how the political leanings of the person have anything to do with their truthfulness and reliability.

Senenmut

19th December 2009, 12:47 PM

First of all coast tracks are on radar displays that the controller see's. The TSD does not distinquish this the same way. There is somewhere if you click on the Data Block on the TSD it will let you know if it is updating or not, but if it was last on a flight plan it will continue on the flight plan. Where as on our Radar displays it could continue on a present heading, or it may just float, but either way it stops at the end of our scopes, we call it under the rubber, the old M1 concoles had a rubber piece around the scope. At the end of the day you could expand your range to 400 NM, and you would see all of the data blocks at the end of our adaped sort boxes and they would be sitting there blinking. These were either tracks that were manually handed off to Canada that someone forgot to delete, or in the case of AAL11 no handed it off so it continued under the rubber.

Other questions, I couldn't really get much from the Dave Canoles paper work, a lot of notes scribbled. I wish I would have kept mine but they got tossed. I wish someone would interview Dave. That was the Telcon I was on, it may not have been him who told me AAL11 was still airborne but it came from his office. I beleive he had several people in his office.

As far as E-4B's taking off of ADW they squawk like everyone else, you don't sneak a B747 off ADW without anyone knowing about it. Don't know if you are aware of it but it has been going on for years, but there are bird watchers at most military bases. They sit at the end of the runways and log tail numbers of every departure, and track them. If they don't return they get online with all of their buddies and try to find where it went. It's a game for them, but it is also a way for our enemies to track the where abouts of certain aircraft. Can pretty much guarantee they are active at ADW.

thanks for your input. ive had to work alot lately and havent been able to reply.

from your expert opinion, what do you think was seen here:

He said, "Well, we have a target, bogey, on the radar, but the transponder's been turned off, so we have no identification of this aircraft. We don't know who it is. We don't know what altitude it's at, speed or anything else. All we're doing is watching with the sweep of the radar, the dot moving from position to position."

of coarse that was from mineta. from what youve said before about a coast track, would they somehow be confused, especailly since they are calling it a target/bogey? it sounds like primary radar to me. ive read that the tsd's are on a different machine so i would assume its not a tsd they are talking about.

Senenmut

19th December 2009, 01:01 PM

The controller would expect you to turn the shorter distance or direct the turn direction. Issued a turn from 270 to 190 would be a left turn to the south. Then directed from 190 to 360 would be a right turn and J149 is north of his position and heading west. The label for the jet route J149 is at the far left on the chart above.
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/Flightpathjunk.jpg
The path could look like this. I do not know what ATC issued verbatim, only what was posted.

you are right according to a pdf file i found. they tell sword 31 to turn left then right. its interesting that at 9:35 :30 when he stops his U and heads west again that 77 has started his loop at 9:34 :26. i bet 911 files has a GIF or something we could see both flight paths at the same time!! its almost like he moved out of the way for flight 77??

Senenmut

19th December 2009, 01:31 PM

I asked that several pages back and I still don't see what Mineta, Cheney or any of this has to do with the OP.

in my opinion, mineta's timeline starts before the pentagon got attacked. im just wondering if cheny was ordering that e-4b (sword 31) to not engage. not a stand down but more along the lines of some COG (Continuity of government) thing. basically get that e4b out of here with whoever it is occupying. which would probably be classified and that is why mineta is being pushed aside. i remember beechnut i believe say the e4b's do not have radar themselves but rely on AWAC's. now if an AWAC or AWAC's were in the air, how the hell did they now "see" flight 77!! FOUR e4bs were suppose to be doing the wargame thing. if i remember right, steven obrien (that was flying the c130) didnt know that attacks in new york had happened. i wonder if some people that were engaged in the wargames didnt know the towers had been hit. i dont think much information has been put out even though there have been requests for this info (wargame info).

my last point is what peter jennings reported at 941, that a a plane is circling the whitehouse. i was wondering if gaffney is on to something. maybe this IS the forth e-4b. venus77 would still be on the runway. and vivi36 is accounted for and sword31 is off to the west.

does anyone know where the forth e-4b was that was suppose to be in wargames? or could this be it (the jennings plane).

also, do ya know what the e4b's were doing earlier in the day?

beachnut

19th December 2009, 01:38 PM

... im just wondering if cheny was ordering that e-4b (sword 31) to not engage. ...

I know Cheny did not order anything on 911 save breakfast, but Cheney said, "OK men don't use your E-4B super guns on those terrorists now, stand-down!".

How does an E-4B engage the terrorists? In conversation? Ram them?
What? got some more stuff?

you are right according to a pdf file i found. they tell sword 31 to turn left then right. its interesting that at 9:35 :30 when he stops his U and heads west again that 77 has started his loop at 9:34 :26. i bet 911 files has a GIF or something we could see both flight paths at the same time!! its almost like he moved out of the way for flight 77??
I have flown as a pilot since I was a kid in college, 1973. ... you gave me the flight path, "left out" left and right, but the shorter direction is the most likely turn direction.

I was on active duty, active flight status on 911 and there was no stand-down command on 911. All military personnel would have reported stand-down orders the second they occurred; the stand-down and do not engage crap is nonsense.

When some idiot is flying with his transponder off or on and they are being tracked, ATC vectors traffic around the UNKNOWN IDIOT so planes do not collide and crash on SHOPPING MALLS.

If Flight 77 is in the way (idiots off their flight plan, the murderers you seem to be apologizing for) ATC vectors other aircraft around the dolts you make excuses for.

If it was 77 in the way it is not INTERESTING, it is PROCEDURE to keep planes from hitting other planes!

Senenmut

19th December 2009, 02:06 PM

This doesn't sounf right to me, up until the second tower was hit we really didn't have a clue it was a terrorist act, why would have a ground stop been issued before the second tower was hit? Also you state that Mineta made not much time later. if Sliney made the ground stop before the 2nd Tower, and Mineta made the call shortly later, define shortly? 50 minutes later isn't shortly.

From what I remember that day our ground stop went out within about two minutes or less after the 2nd Tower was hit. I belive Terry Biggio made the call to ground stop before he got a call from Sliney or they talked and did it at the same time.

thats just what i read from his notes about the groundstops(on page 5 of 12). here they are.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/13723762/T8-B2-FAA-Command-Center-Ben-Sliney-52104-Fdr-Handwritten-Interview-Notes185

he also wrote in "aal 11 rebirth" on page 7? so maybe there is more to the story since he is the second guy i have seen write something in about the rebirth of 11.

Senenmut

19th December 2009, 02:15 PM

I know Cheny did not order anything on 911 save breakfast, but Cheney said, "OK men don't use your E-4B super guns on those terrorists now, stand-down!".

How does an E-4B engage the terrorists? In conversation? Ram them?
What? got some more stuff?

I have flown as a pilot since I was a kid in college, 1973. ... you gave me the flight path, "left out" left and right, but the shorter direction is the most likely turn direction.

I was on active duty, active flight status on 911 and there was no stand-down command on 911. All military personnel would have reported stand-down orders the second they occurred; the stand-down and do not engage crap is nonsense.

When some idiot is flying with his transponder off or on and they are being tracked, ATC vectors traffic around the UNKNOWN IDIOT so planes do not collide and crash on SHOPPING MALLS.

If Flight 77 is in the way (idiots off their flight plan, the murderers you seem to be apologizing for) ATC vectors other aircraft around the dolts you make excuses for.

If it was 77 in the way it is not INTERESTING, it is PROCEDURE to keep planes from hitting other planes!

from the vanity fair article:

"At what feels on the tapes like the moment of truth, what comes back down the chain of command, instead of clearance to fire, is a resounding sense of caution. Despite the fact that neads believes there may be as many as five suspected hijacked aircraft still in the air at this point—one from Canada, the new one bearing down fast on Washington, the phantom American 11, Delta 1989, and United 93—the answer to Nasypany's question about rules of engagement comes back in no uncertain terms, as you hear him relay to the ops floor."

10:10:31
NASYPANY (to floor): Negative. Negative clearance to shoot.… Godda_mit!…
FOX: I'm not really worried about code words at this point.
NASYPANY: F_ck the code words. That's perishable information. Negative clearance to fire. ID. Type. Tail.

then:
"President Bush would finally grant commanders the authority to give that order at 10:18, which—though no one knew it at the time—was 15 minutes after the attack was over."

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/08/norad200608?printable=true&currentPage=10

carlitos

19th December 2009, 02:16 PM

Senenmut, really. What is your point? What is supposed to be the 'more to the story?' Do you have a theory about this or what?

beachnut

19th December 2009, 02:53 PM

from the vanity fair article:

"At what feels on the tapes like the moment of truth, what comes back down the chain of command, instead of clearance to fire, is a resounding sense of caution. Despite the fact that neads believes there may be as many as five suspected hijacked aircraft still in the air at this point—one from Canada, the new one bearing down fast on Washington, the phantom American 11, Delta 1989, and United 93—the answer to Nasypany's question about rules of engagement comes back in no uncertain terms, as you hear him relay to the ops floor."

10:10:31
NASYPANY (to floor): Negative. Negative clearance to shoot.… Godda_mit!…
FOX: I'm not really worried about code words at this point.
NASYPANY: F_ck the code words. That's perishable information. Negative clearance to fire. ID. Type. Tail.

then:
"President Bush would finally grant commanders the authority to give that order at 10:18, which—though no one knew it at the time—was 15 minutes after the attack was over."

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/08/norad200608?printable=true&currentPage=10

There was no stand-down, there were no targets to shoot at. Not a single fighter closed or locked up any flights with terrorists on board.

The vanity fair article is great if you like after the fact tripe about people in impossible situation. The article confirms terrorists did 911 while you try to say terrorists did not do 911. You fail at each turn due to ignorance of flying procedures, reality, and an inability to take real evidence and form rational conclusions.

I don't need permission to shoot down a plane.
I promised, I took an oath, I can act to defend the United State, I was on active duty on 911 and could take action. Who gave the Passengers on Flight 93 the permission to attack the terrorists you defend so poorly?

"I" do solemnly swear /// that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States /// against all enemies, foreign and domestic /// that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same /// that I take this obligation freely /// without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion /// and that I will well and faithfully discharge /// the duties of the office which I am about to enter /// so help me God.

Me, a government loyalist, with those who fought with Washington, believe in Jefferson and Franklin, and respect Lincoln are with me; the 911 truth movement is composed of snake-oil salesmen fraud and cult like followers unable to think for themselves.

Who was the dumb pilot asking permission. But who could be sure which plane to stop? I would say positive ID of bad guys in the cockpit could be simplified by the idiots who look like the 19 dolts you apologize for weakly and without any mental reservation.

What is your point, your conclusion; what are you trying to say?

Have you found some guns on an E-4B yet? Maybe you think a F-117 could shoot down a terrorist plane?

What did you mean Cheney made the E-4 not engage? How does an E-4 engage another aircraft?

Sam.I.Am

19th December 2009, 03:05 PM

Maybe they had some of those NWO "Pods" installed... :D

funk de fino

19th December 2009, 03:50 PM

in my opinion, mineta's timeline starts before the pentagon got attacked.

I will repeat as you seem to be avoiding it.

Did Mineta state that Mrs Cheney was with Dick in the PEOC when he arrived?

Yes or no will do.

MikeW

21st August 2010, 12:08 AM

Dear, oh dear. Truthers still relying on the Mineta timeline. Which basically means assuming his 9:20 is more or less correct, hopefully interpreting Clarke's timeline, and then talking about Cheney a lot.

Unfortunately, he didn't reach the PEOC until after the Pentagon hit, and so the "do the orders still stand" conversion didn't take place until long afterwards. The evidence for that is clear, and all truthers desperate pretending won't make this unfortunate reality go away.

Senenmut

21st August 2010, 08:04 AM

page 6 of 18
ss wh 911 declassified
http://www.mediafire.com/?vydb4nxdmyy

0933 - the group entered the PEOC at which time information flow to the vice president and staff began.

MikeW

21st August 2010, 09:47 AM

page 6 of 18
ss wh 911 declassified
http://www.mediafire.com/?vydb4nxdmyy

0933 - the group entered the PEOC at which time information flow to the vice president and staff began.
Four problems with this, for you at least.

#1, if you want to tell us this is fact then it shows Cheney didn't arrive in the PEOC until 9:33, neatly debunking Mineta's claim that he was there before 9:20.

#2, the group contained Carl Truscott. What you've failed to mention is, on page 4 of this document, another version of the timeline has Truscott saying he didn't leave for the shelter until after 9:43. A contradiction. So which version is correct?

#3, Mineta isn't mentioned as a part of "the group" in the first version anyway. If this is because he arrived later, as the evidence shows, then this also means his timeline is incorrect.

And #4, page 8 of this document has the account of how Mrs Cheney got to the PEOC, after the Pentagon crash, and according to Mineta, before he did.

So, best case for you is that you've one version of events that puts Cheney in the PEOC proper earlier than the 9/11 Commission said. There's nothing here to support Mineta's account, though - only further indications that it's incorrect.

Senenmut

21st August 2010, 07:31 PM

>shrug< - most truthers have yet to even acknowledge the existence of the first document referring to logs of Mineta's arrival time, which I pointed out in February 2009:

http://911myths.com/images/thumb/c/cd/Mineta_peoc.png/600px-Mineta_peoc.png
(hotlinked from my own site)

So if anyone has significant site updates to make, I really don't think it's me.

so what your trying to say is that even though norman mineta decided to bring everything down about 945, he wasnt even at the peoc and wasnt aware of the crash into the pentagon?

from the monte belger fiel:

[U] Belger learned of the crash into the Pentagon shortly after it happened. He and Garvey got on the phone with Norm Mineta who decided to bring everything down (around 9:45) which was implemented. Belger continued to monitor the system as it executed this order. All aircraft were down and the system grounded by 12:15 P.M.

MikeW

22nd August 2010, 12:25 AM

so what your trying to say is that even though norman mineta decided to bring everything down about 945, he wasnt even at the peoc and wasnt aware of the crash into the pentagon?
Not what I'm saying, Senenmut - it's the evidence. You just provided in your previous document multiple sources showing that Mineta's timeline is incorrect.

He tells us again, himself: the White House was being evacuated when he arrived, everyone was running out and being moved over to Lafayette park. For Mineta to be correct that must have happened a few minutes before 9:15: there's not a single source anywhere that puts these events before the Pentagon crash (even the truther's beloved CNN account of an earlier evacuation).

He tells us, again, in one of his interviews: Garvey called before he left the office to tell him that Delta Airlines had warned that they couldn't account for all of their planes. Garvey tells Lynn Spencer this only happened after the Pentagon crash, so: Mineta was still in his office when the Pentagon was hit.

He tells us again, by placing Lynn Cheney in the PEOC at his arrival when everything else says she only got there after the Pentagon crash, including your own source.

Clarke tells us indirectly by saying Mineta hasn't arrived when he talks to Jane Garvey on the video conference. This needs to be at around 9:13 or even earlier for Mineta's 9:20 PEOC arrival to work, but a) there was no time for Garvey to get back to the office and be briefed on what was going on, and b) Clarke says she told him things that hadn't been confirmed that early, like identifying Flight 77, and c) Clarke's account clearly shows this took place later as, for example, he says the FAA had lost Mineta, didn't know where he was: makes no sense at all if Garvey was in his office only 10 minutes earlier, and had called him about Delta Airlines as well.

And there are plenty more, which...

from the monte belger fiel:

...you don't invalidate by trying to find other "anomalies". In this case, for instance, we know Mineta didn't give the order to bring down all the planes. Even Belger told the 9/11 Commission that (http://911myths.com/index.php/Mineta#Order_everyone_to_land). Mineta was told about it later.

So if you want to show Mineta is correct, then you actually have to tackle all the evidence that shows he is not. Start with the evacuation. When was everyone running out and being moved over to Lafayette park, for instance, as Mineta described? If this happened pre-9:15 then I think someone would have noticed. So go find them. Good luck!

Senenmut

22nd August 2010, 07:41 AM

mikew-
from your link-
sliney- "As to the order to land, that was the product of the men and women in the Command Center who gave me advice on that day, the supervisors and the specialists. We were searching for something more to do, and that was made and decided on, and the impetus for that of course was the crash into the Pentagon when we gave that order."

from the beler interview-

[U] Belger learned of the crash into the Pentagon shortly after it happened. He and Garvey got on the phone with Norm Mineta who decided to bring everything down (around 9:45) which was implemented.

sounds about right!!

mineta -
"Then they came in and said it was 10 miles out. Soon after that, I was talking to the deputy director of the FAA, and he told me they had lost the target off the screen. Soon after that, then, the vice president was informed that there was an explosion at the Pentagon. So I was trying to relate with the air traffic controllers where that plane went to see whether it was close to the Pentagon. The radar is very difficult to pinpoint it to a ground location.
But while I was talking to the FAA, someone broke into the conversation and said, 'Mr. Secretary, we have just had confirmation from the Arlington County Police Department that they saw a commercial airliner-an American airline-go into the Pentagon.
Well, its like anything else, if you see one of something occur you consider that an accident. But when you see two of the same thing occur then you know that there is a pattern or a trend. In this instant we had three of the same thing occur, and that is a program or a plan. So I then informed the FAA to bring all the airplanes down.

makes perfect sense!

MikeW

22nd August 2010, 11:09 AM

makes perfect sense!
As I said, the reality is that Mineta tells us clearly when he arrived: during the White House evacuation.

There's no ambiguity in that. No interpretation. No "matter of opinion", no bias. He describes everyone running out from the White House and Executive Office buildings and running over to Lafayette park, which all sources - all of them - say happened after the Pentagon attack.

And your response to these facts is... guessing and assumption. You simply repeat Mineta's:

"someone broke into the conversation and said, 'Mr. Secretary, we have just had confirmation from the Arlington County Police Department that they saw a commercial airliner-an American airline-go into the Pentagon"

...assuming it occurred right after the Pentagon was hit. But other accounts say there was much confusion immediately after the attack, and confirmation didn't come until the incident with the projected track of Flight 93, some time after 10 o'clock: Oh dear, yet another occasion when Mineta's timeline contradicts others...

Senenmut

22nd August 2010, 02:00 PM

As I said, the reality is that Mineta tells us clearly when he arrived: during the White House evacuation.
page 6-
0926 EEOB evacuation was initiated by OA staff and all personnel were departin the buildin in an orderly but expeditious fashion.

then on page 10
i then told....whom i assumed to be in the JOc by this time, to initite the Emerency Evacuation Plan. .......
I heard ... on then phone at his desk, acknowledin that we were activating the emerency evacuation plan.

then later down in the document, it states that the hijacked plane was approximately 5 minutes out of d.c which would put it around the above time of 0926 from pae 6. so it sounds like the eeob and members from the eeob that were in the whitehouse were evacuating.

There's no ambiguity in that. No interpretation. No "matter of opinion", no bias. He describes everyone running out from the White House and Executive Office buildings and running over to Lafayette park, which all sources - all of them - say happened after the Pentagon attack.
yep. read page 10.

And your response to these facts is... guessing and assumption. You simply repeat Mineta's:

"someone broke into the conversation and said, 'Mr. Secretary, we have just had confirmation from the Arlington County Police Department that they saw a commercial airliner-an American airline-go into the Pentagon"

...assuming it occurred right after the Pentagon was hit. But other accounts say there was much confusion immediately after the attack, and confirmation didn't come until the incident with the projected track of Flight 93, some time after 10 o'clock: Oh dear, yet another occasion when Mineta's timeline contradicts others...

i think gumboot wanted that "projected track" to be a TSD track. anyway, im not just repeating mineta's testimony but also sliney's and belger's. it makes logical sense.

fyi- GOFER06 reported that the unknown aircraft had crashed into the western side of the pentagon at 0938.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB165/faa7.pdf

read page 29.....read about who the faa was on the phone with!!

MikeW

22nd August 2010, 09:45 PM

page 6-
0926 EEOB evacuation was initiated by OA staff and all personnel were departin the buildin in an orderly but expeditious fashion.
As I mentioned earlier, Mineta said the evacuation was occurring as he drove up. He then had to a) get through security, b) get to the situation room, c) spend 4 or 5 minutes with Clarke, and d) get to the PEOC.

So, Mineta has the evacuation occurring at, what, 9:13 or earlier.

Meanwhile, the document you refer to has one timeline saying evacuation was initiated at 9:26, another after 9:43. You ignore the second time because it's inconvenient, and pick the first one instead, but the reality is that both show Mineta was clearly wrong.

...so it sounds like....
As I said, we don't have to interpret anything. Mineta and the evidence tells us when he arrived. You're simply pretending it doesn't exist. Unfortunately it does, and sticking your head in the sand doesn't make your case any more convincing.

fyi- GOFER06 reported that the unknown aircraft had crashed into the western side of the pentagon at 0938.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB165/faa7.pdf

read page 29.....read about who the faa was on the phone with!!
So know you have to make another assumption, that the GOFER06 statement somehow magically immediately made its way to the PEOC.

Then you're guessing that the positional update was the one Mineta heard.

And yet nothing here says where Mineta was, and your own sources show his timeline is incorrect.

Anyway, as you're not refuting evidence, just saying "yes but" and making more hopeful guesses and assumptions, there's really no point continuing. There's more Mineta-related points that truthers ignore on this page (http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Mineta), if anyone's interested, otherwise I'll leave you to it.

Senenmut

23rd August 2010, 06:55 AM

As I mentioned earlier, Mineta said the evacuation was occurring as he drove up. He then had to a) get through security, b) get to the situation room, c) spend 4 or 5 minutes with Clarke, and d) get to the PEOC.

So, Mineta has the evacuation occurring at, what, 9:13 or earlier.

Meanwhile, the document you refer to has one timeline saying evacuation was initiated at 9:26, another after 9:43. You ignore the second time because it's inconvenient, and pick the first one instead, but the reality is that both show Mineta was clearly wrong.

the 0943 says the white house was being evacuated, not when they intiated the emergeny evacuation. so it was already going on when they stuck this 0943 time into the doc.

As I said, we don't have to interpret anything. Mineta and the evidence tells us when he arrived. You're simply pretending it doesn't exist. Unfortunately it does, and sticking your head in the sand doesn't make your case any more convincing.
and your simply pretending that sliney's interview and belger's interview do not exist!

sliney- "As to the order to land, that was the product of the men and women in the Command Center who gave me advice on that day, the supervisors and the specialists. We were searching for something more to do, and that was made and decided on, and the impetus for that of course was the crash into the Pentagon when we gave that order."

that order was about 0945

from the belger interview-

[u] Belger learned of the crash into the Pentagon shortly after it happened. He and Garvey got on the phone with Norm Mineta who decided to bring everything down (around 9:45) which was implemented.

So know you have to make another assumption, that the GOFER06 statement somehow magically immediately made its way to the PEOC. they were talking to the white house secret service.....use your own brain. if you want to believe beleger and sliney (and even mineta, if you want him out of the peoc at this time, from belger's interview) knew of the crash before anyone in the peoc!!!

And yet nothing here says where Mineta was, and your own sources show his timeline is incorrect.

it makes a hell of alot more sense when looking at sliney and belger's interviews that mineta knew about the pentagon about 0945. it would make ZERO sense that mineta would know about the pentagon at 0945 and already bring the planes down and only then to enter the PEOC at 10.

Anyway, as you're not refuting evidence, just saying "yes but" and making more hopeful guesses and assumptions, there's really no point continuing. There's more Mineta-related points that truthers ignore on this page (http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Mineta), if anyone's interested, otherwise I'll leave you to it.

im not saying yes but..... im saying look at these interviews-

sliney- "As to the order to land, that was the product of the men and women in the Command Center who gave me advice on that day, the supervisors and the specialists. We were searching for something more to do, and that was made and decided on, and the impetus for that of course was the crash into the Pentagon when we gave that order."

that order was about 0945

from the belger interview-

[u] Belger learned of the crash into the Pentagon shortly after it happened. He and Garvey got on the phone with Norm Mineta who decided to bring everything down (around 9:45) which was implemented.

imo, mineta got to the peoc about 0930. that way when the plane was 50 miles out, it would have taken about 5 mins to make it to the pentagon and then two more mins for the loop de loop. that would make it 0937. then from there, they learn of the explosion and then the crash. by then its 0945 and the order to land all planes is given.

MikeW

23rd August 2010, 07:59 AM

Good grief. I'll probably regret this, however:

imo, mineta got to the peoc about 0930. that way when the plane was 50 miles out, it would have taken about 5 mins to make it to the pentagon and then two more mins for the loop de loop. that would make it 0937. then from there, they learn of the explosion and then the crash. by then its 0945 and the order to land all planes is given.

Okay.

Let's assume it's true that the White House evacuation took place at 9:26.

Let's assume no-one outside noticed.

Let's forget the log times. Let's forget issues like Garvey's call to him re: Delta Airlines, before he left the office, reportedly didn't occur until after the Pentagon was hit.

Let's assume that, even though every single source describing the evacuation talks only about people pouring out of the White House and the OEOB, and moving over the Lafayette Park AFTER the Pentagon was hit, they are all wrong, every single one, and it actually happened after this initiation, and it's this that Mineta saw.

So, when did Mineta arrive? 9:26 was the "initiation", it's asking a bit much for him to arrive then, it would take time for "everyone" to be running out. And actually your source says the evacuation was "orderly", which is not what he described.

Still let's be overly generous to you again, and say he did exactly that. He's rolling up at 9:26. Then what?

Then he has to get through security and reach the Situation Room. Flaherty, his Chief of Staff at the DoS said he had trouble getting in, so this didn't happen "just like that". But we'll be kind to you, let's say he's there at 9:28.

Mineta tells us he then spends four or five minutes with Clarke. Let's be generous to you again, say it was 3. He's still there at 9:31.

Then, he must be taken to the PEOC. It's the other side of the building, down a level or two, and Mineta's not a young man. Still, lets be kind to you again, and say he reaches the PEOC at 9:32.

Except, oh dear, Mineta says it's 5 or 6 minutes after his arrival that he hears the conversation between the "young man" and Cheney. This pushes it back to 9:38, around the time the Pentagon was hit.

And, uh-oh, you've missed something: one of the big pieces of evidence supposedly supporting Mineta's original timeline is that Flight 77 was around 50 miles away at about 9:26/ 27.

ETA: yes, here's a chart referenced by achimspok (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6164370&postcount=609):

http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/583/50milesout.png

So, even if Mineta arrived at the White House as early as 9:26 - something for which there is precisely no supporting evidence - then he was too late to hear the conversation this thread is about.

Still, I have a feeling you won't care, because ultimately you aren't after the truth - you want to prove "inside job". So, what now? Do you ditch the 9:26 evacuation time and say that was wrong, maybe it was 10 minutes earlier?

Senenmut

23rd August 2010, 06:44 PM

So, even if Mineta arrived at the White House as early as 9:26 - something for which there is precisely no supporting evidence - then he was too late to hear the conversation this thread is about.

Still, I have a feeling you won't care, because ultimately you aren't after the truth - you want to prove "inside job". So, what now? Do you ditch the 9:26 evacuation time and say that was wrong, maybe it was 10 minutes earlier?

the truth? i already showed your on page 10 when they initiated the emergency evacuation plan.
the thing is, imo, there were 2 different scenarios being played out about the same time. that is 1. the track that was latter identifed at 77 and then the one mineta describes as the down the river approach. im sure youve read it:
from a mineta interview:
And a little later on, someone said, "Mr. Vice President, there's a plane 50-miles out." So I was talking to Monte Belger, the Deputy Director of the FAA, and I said, "Monte, what do you have 50-miles out?"

He said, "Well, we have a target, bogey, on the radar, but the transponder's been turned off, so we have no identification of this aircraft. We don't know who it is. We don't know what altitude it's at, speed or anything else. All we're doing is watching with the sweep of the radar, the dot moving from position to position."

So then someone came in, the same person came in and said, "Mr. Vice President, it -- the plane's 30-miles out." So I said, "Monte, can you see it, and where is it in relationship to the ground?"

He said, "Well, that's difficult to really determine. I would guess it's somewhere between Great Falls and National Airport, coming what they call the DRA, the down river approach."

one does not call a TSD track a target or bogie? the strangest thing to me is when the e4b actually did a U-turn around the plane that was later thought to be flight 77. it started to head south when 77 was about 20 miles out??? very very strange is ya ask me. they would rather send a prop powered plane to explore instead of a multi-millon dollar jet powered plane with all sorts of electronics!! something smells fishy...

Reheat

23rd August 2010, 07:34 PM

something smells fishy...

I'd suggest you check your panties!

MikeW

23rd August 2010, 11:07 PM

the truth? i already showed your on page 10 when they initiated the emergency evacuation plan.
At 9:26. According to one document, which doesn't match with others.

But as I've just said, even if that were true, it doesn't matter. It doesn't mean Mineta arrived at exactly 9:26 - he says everyone was running out when he arrived, so we know that's vanishingly unlikely - it was later.

And even if I were to be wrong about that, it doesn't matter. Because the truther case for Mineta hearing this conversation is that it occurred at 9:26 or 27. Here's History Commons, for instance:

(9:26 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Cheney Given Updates on Unidentified Flight 77 Heading toward Washington; Says ‘Orders Still Stand’; but Accounts Differ on Timing and Identity of the Plane According to some accounts, Vice President Dick Cheney is in the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC) below the White House by this time, along with Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta and others. Mineta will recall that, while a suspicious plane is heading toward Washington, an unidentified young man comes in and says to Cheney, “The plane is 50 miles out.” Mineta confers with acting FAA Deputy Administrator Monte Belger, who is at the FAA’s Washington headquarters. Belger says to him: “We’re watching this target on the radar, but the transponder’s been turned off. So we have no identification.” According to Mineta, the young man continues updating the vice president, saying, “The plane is 30 miles out,” and when he gets down to “The plane is 10 miles out,” asks, “Do the orders still stand?” In response, Cheney “whipped his neck around and said, ‘Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?’” Mineta will say that, “just by the nature of all the events going on,” he infers that the order being referred to is a shootdown order. Nevertheless, Flight 77 continues on and hits the Pentagon.
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a927cheneyupated#a927cheneyupated

So, even if we accept your document, and that the evacuation began at 9:26, and even that's when Mineta arrived, his timeline is STILL wrong and he could not have been in the PEOC to hear the full "50 miles out" conversation.

Also, with regard to Sliney bringing the planes down. You would like to pretend that Mineta ordered him to do that, but what does his 9/11 Commission MFR say?

Between the crash of UAL 175 and the impact of American Airlines Flight 77 (AAL 77) into the Pentagon at 9:37:45 EDT (NTSB), and after Sliney issued the National Ground Stop, he was in the process of deciding whether or not he had the authority to issue an order for all aircraft in the NAS to land regardless of destination. Sliney decided he had the authority to do so under his responsibility for the safe air use of the NAS. He issued this order immediately following reports that the Pentagon had been struck.

He had the authority. He issued the order.

But what about Mineta's recollection of events? It turns out Sliney has something to say there, too (my emphasis):

As part of the duties for staff that morning, Schuessler assigned *** to follow him and take on-going notes on his activities that morning: "to
record everything I did. and said.. .1 have asked to see those notes but apparently they are not available, or at least .they have not been made available to me.. .Ellen King told me they were not to be found."

Ellen King was instructed to collect all data related to 9/11 by Schuessler. Schuessler referenced Sliney's inquiry to King, who told him they could not be found. Sliney then asked *** where her notes went, and***Informed him she gave them to King. Upon further questioning regarding these notes, Sliney stated to Commission staff: "I thought it was curious.. .look, I practiced law for twenty-odd years.. .where are the notes? And I couldn't get a straight answer to be honest about it. I said, 'well, why can't I see the notes?'

It may have had something to do with the fact that my recollection of what transpired was not secretary Menetta's recollection of what had
transpired. It may have been the fact that my recollection of what transpired was not the same as Administrator Garvey's recollection of what had transpired in terms of their involvement in the decision making process with respect to the National Ground Stop and the order to land.

I was asked at one point by a nameless face 'why couldn't I just go along with it?'"

Sliney agreed with another Herndon CC assertion that Herndon CC personnel were asked to inaccurately represent the ground stop to match the story that Secretary Menetta ordered the ground stop: "I was asked to go along with a fiction." Sliney agreed with another Herndon CC personnel's assertion that upon analysis Herndon CC's "good story" of the day of 9/11 (Ground Stop and order to land all aircraft regardless of destination) became FAA Headquarter's "bad story", and that is why Herndon CC personnel were told to stop working on their reconstruction of the events of 9/11.

Sliney commented that an analysis of the actions of Herndon CC on 9/11 validates the importance of its creation, but instead what was presented could have been to serve "political vanity".
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.scribd.com%2Fdoc%2F15877913%2 FFO-B6-Public-Hearing-61704-2-of-2-Fdr-Tab-618-Ben-Sliney-Bio-MFR-Written-Testimony-Testimony-Request&ei=iF5zTMP4BpSOjAfwpuXiDw&usg=AFQjCNF9WPx8fVgamgMLZMMYMY7GlIUY2g

So agreeing that Mineta ordered the ground stop was being "asked to go along with a fiction". As Joshua Green pointed out in 2002, Mineta didn't even hear about this until at least 15 minutes after it happened:

the Washington Post's veteran transportation reporter Don Phillips let the cat out of the bag. Phillips told his audience he felt it necessary to make a "historical correction," although FAA officials had begged him to maintain the fiction. Phillips proposed, charitably, that Mineta's order was a simple misunderstanding; that the secretary was unaware that "[f]or at least 15 minutes before Mineta's conversation with the FAA, controllers were bringing the planes down ... at the nearest airport."
http://www.slate.com/?id=2063935

If he wasn't talking to the FAA until at least 10:00, then he wasn't hearing any conversations about Flight 77 or anything else, and all your speculation about what "smells fishy" is meaningless.

Captain_Swoop

24th August 2010, 07:39 AM

What does all these pages of Mineta slurry have to do with the E-4B?

MikeW

24th August 2010, 07:54 AM

What does all these pages of Mineta slurry have to do with the E-4B?
They got moved here, it's kind of a dual-purpose thread I guess (see the new thread name).

funk de fino

25th August 2010, 09:52 AM

I will repeat as you seem to be avoiding it.

Did Mineta state that Mrs Cheney was with Dick in the PEOC when he arrived?

Yes or no will do.

BCR

25th August 2010, 02:26 PM

one does not call a TSD track a target or bogie? the strangest thing to me is when the e4b actually did a U-turn around the plane that was later thought to be flight 77. it started to head south when 77 was about 20 miles out??? very very strange is ya ask me. they would rather send a prop powered plane to explore instead of a multi-millon dollar jet powered plane with all sorts of electronics!! something smells fishy...

I know I am not the sharpest pencil in the box, but where did this come from? There were 2 E4B's in play as I recall. The one that circled north of the White house is the one I presume you are talking about, VENUS77. It was NOT sent out to explore as you claim, but was originally on a flight plan to Offutt AFB, taking off from Andrews which would have required a left (westward) turn once past the restricted air space. Once airborne, it was diverted to support Air Force One that was departing from Sarasota.

6GBr9faH11w

At some point, the decision was made to divert AF1 away from DC, so VENUS77 took up a holding pattern south of the DC area pending further instructions.

The other E4B (WORD31) departed before the Pentagon was hit and followed its flight plan to Offutt AFB without deviation as best I recall. So I don't understand your statement at all.

Senenmut

27th August 2010, 06:59 PM

At 9:26. According to one document, which doesn't match with others.
read page 10 again about when they activated the emerency evacuation plan. it was probably before the plane was 50 miles out because he states later on page 10 the plane was 5 minutes away (that is about 40 miles out considerin one would not expect the plane to do a loop de loop before impact.)

But as I've just said, even if that were true, it doesn't matter. It doesn't mean Mineta arrived at exactly 9:26 - he says everyone was running out when he arrived, so we know that's vanishingly unlikely - it was later.
read page 10 again as to when they activated the emergency evacuation.

So, even if we accept your document, and that the evacuation began at 9:26, and even that's when Mineta arrived, his timeline is STILL wrong and he could not have been in the PEOC to hear the full "50 miles out" conversation.
makes more sense that he did hear something about the same time that the pentagon got hit. whether it was the track we know as flight 77 or the down the river track belger describes is the question.

Also, with regard to Sliney bringing the planes down. You would like to pretend that Mineta ordered him to do that, but what does his 9/11 Commission MFR say?
im not sayin mineta ordered him too but it all happened about the same time!! i guess you would like to ignore what sliney and belger had to say here:
sliney- "As to the order to land, that was the product of the men and women in the Command Center who gave me advice on that day, the supervisors and the specialists. We were searching for something more to do, and that was made and decided on, and the impetus for that of course was the crash into the Pentagon when we gave that order."

that order was about 0945

from the belger interview-

[u] Belger learned of the crash into the Pentagon shortly after it happened. He and Garvey got on the phone with Norm Mineta who decided to bring everything down (around 9:45) which was implemented.

So agreeing that Mineta ordered the ground stop was being "asked to go along with a fiction". As Joshua Green pointed out in 2002, Mineta didn't even hear about this until at least 15 minutes after it happened:
are you talking about the ground stop or the land all planes in reggard to mineta not knowing about it until 15 mins later?

If he wasn't talking to the FAA until at least 10:00, then he wasn't hearing any conversations about Flight 77 or anything else, and all your speculation about what "smells fishy" is meaningless.

and you want mineta to be in the peoc alittle after 10?
u] Belger learned of the crash into the Pentagon shortly after it happened. He and Garvey got on the phone with Norm Mineta who decided to bring everything down (around 9:45) which was implemented.