America- In the age of no primary radar

[Alferd_Packer]

Why is it significant when the last response from the aircraft was?

Shouldn't the time interval we are interested in be from the time the military was contacted until the time of intercept?



From what I have seen, it was still took almost an hour to vector an already airborne plane (on a training flight) to the stewart craft. Furthermore, I don't believe that the first f-16 on the stewart plane was armed, although I don't know this for certain. (just and assumption, since unless it was a live fire training excercise, it would not have been armed, and I don't know how many live fire training areas there are over Florida).

edit - OOPs I see spitfire said the same thing.

[Cheap Shot]

[QUOTE=A-Train;2767393]You are dead wrong here. It happens every day. Aircraft go NORDO for 2, 3, sometimes 10 minutes or more. It usually means the pilots have switched to the wrong frequency but are unaware of it; or they forgot to get the freq change and are now out of range of their previous freq. As long as the plane continues on its route and shows no other signs of distress, it will not be handled as an emergency by ATC for about 20 minutes or so (judgment call).

A-Train you are correct, here except normally 2 to 3 minutes, rarely ever 10 minutes (unless its a Navy P-3). Since 9-11 we are more apt to treat it as an emergency now then back then. You normally will never see a NORDO squawk 7600 for a missed frequency, normally a 7600 squawk is associated with some type of an event on the aircraft which may be emergency related.

Don't get to comfortable though A-Train, your off on a lot of other stuff. Actually the P-3's are better now than they used to be. On a personal note, I didn't find out until I read the sports illustrated article on his funeral that Payne Stewarts Lawyer friend on board the aircraft was a kid I went to High school with. I didn't know him that well, but he was a pretty sharp kid.

[SpitfireIX]

You are dead wrong here. It happens every day. Aircraft go NORDO for 2, 3, sometimes 10 minutes or more. It usually means the pilots have switched to the wrong frequency but are unaware of it; or they forgot to get the freq change and are now out of range of their previous freq.


I meant for any significant length of time. Your previous post implied a lack of urgency over the entire course of the incident. Of course ATC will spend several minutes attempting to contact the plane before declaring an emergency; the quote from the NTSB report indicates the controller spent about five minutes trying to reestablish radio contact.

As long as the plane continues on its route and shows no other signs of distress, it will not be handled as an emergency by ATC for about 20 minutes or so (judgment call).


Cheap Shot says about 10 minutes max; however, I'll grant you for the sake of argument that 20 minutes might have been reasonable before September 11.

From a Dateline NBC episode (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14754701/):

8:14 am.: 14 minutes since take-off
American 11 is headed up to its cruising altitude of 35,000 feet, but not before [air traffic controller Pete] Zalewski radios the pilot a routine order to turn, to keep enough space between American 11 and another plane.

Zalewski: I turn him to 20 degrees right, he took the turn. I then told American 11, “Climb and maintain flight level three-five-zero, 35,000 feet.” There was no response.

A moment of concern perhaps, but that was not uncommon.

Zalewski: At that point, I was just thinking that it was, you know, maybe the pilots weren’t paying attention, or there’s something wrong with the frequency.

Zalewski followed procedures, continuing to try to raise American 11 on the frequency.

Zalewski: And at first, it was pretty much, you know, American 11, you know, “Are you paying attention? Are you listening?” And there was still no response. I used the emergency frequency to try and get a hold of him through that. There was no response.

By now Zalewski is running a mental checklist, trying to account for the loss of communication — a technical problem or maybe a mistake on the pilot’s part?

Zalewski: I went back the previous sector to see if the pilot had accidentally flipped the switch back over on the radio. At that point there was still nothing. We weren’t hearing from him.

American 11 was “NORDO”—“no radio contact.” Zalewski stepped up his efforts.

Zalewski: I would go on to call that aircraft 12 times.

And as it went on, I begin to get more concerned.

[Former NBC News Anchor Tom] Brokaw: You’re watching American 11 at that point as well, Lino?

Lino Martins: Yes. He was in my air space at that time.

Colleague Lino Martins, working nearby, is now also tracking the American Airlines plane.

Lino Martins: I saw him start the right turns, figuring Pete was gonna climb him and that’s when Pete called. And said, “No, he’s staying at two-nine-zero, ‘cause he didn’t respond, he’s NORDO.”

Zalewski: I said, “We’re not talking to him. And he was last assigned at 29, but he may have heard the 35. I’m not sure what he might do here, so just watch him.”

Martins: At that point, again, I didn’t think anything was wrong.

But the second controller did have incoming flights directly in the path of American 11.

Martins: I had to plan ahead on this new heading he was on. He was opposite direction with my Boston arrivals. And I had to get them underneath him.

But then, 8:20 a.m., American 11 abruptly changes course, turning to the northwest.

Zalewski: I then saw the transponder shut off.

Martins: And I’m thinking, “Well, maybe there’s really something wrong. First there’s no radio, now we lost this transponder. . . .”
.
Zalewski: And so, I very quietly turned to the supervisor and I said, “Would you please come over here?” I said, “I think something is seriously wrong with this plane.”

Brokaw: Did you suspect hijacking at that point?

Zalewski: Absolutely not. No way.

American 11 has been NORDO for six minutes, and now other controllers are becoming concerned. Tom Roberts tries yet another method to contact the plane.

Tom Roberts: I happened to be working on another American flight on my frequency. One of our procedures or protocols is to go aircraft to aircraft on a company frequency, to see if the pilots from one flight could talk to the pilots of another flight.

But that too, fails. There is still no reply — the silence increasingly ominous as the jet, now drastically off course, flying in a northwesterly direction, toward Albany, New York. Controllers are scrambling to keep create a safe zone around the runaway plane, moving every other flight in the area out of the way, from the ground, all the way up to 35,000 feet.

Roberts: We had pretty much moved all the airplanes from Albany to New York to Syracuse, New York out of the way because that’s the track he was going on.

Martins: And I didn’t know if he was gonna turn back on course...

Roberts: And we had no altitude information. So, it’s not just clearing the altitudes of conflicting traffic...

Martins: It was that whole altitude stratum from the ground, up to 35,000.

8:24 am.: Ten minutes since losing contact.
Controllers see the plane make another unauthorized turn, this time to the left, going south.

Zalewski: And that’s when I heard the first transmission from the aircraft. And I wasn’t quite sure what it was. Because it was just a foreign voice. It was something very different. To me, it sounded almost Middle Eastern.

And I asked, “American 11, is that you? American 11, are you trying to call me?” And then came the next transmission. And in that transmission, I immediately knew something was very wrong. And I knew it was a hijack.

Brokaw: And what did you hear?

Zalewski: I remember the part of them saying they were going back to the airport. And by that, I deduced that they were going to go back to Boston. That’s what I was thinking. And I didn’t believe it was one of the American pilots on board. I immediately stood up and yelled at the supervisor, “John, get over here immediately right now.” And I can just remember everybody in that building, and they were all just looking at me, like, “What is wrong with you?”

Zalewski cannot make out exactly what the hijackers are saying, but the tone of their voices alone, chills him.

Zalewski: I felt from those voices the terror. For some reason, I knew something seemed worse than just a normal hijack. It just seemed very different to me.

Zalewski immediately asks for an assistant, to help listen to the transmissions coming from the plane and puts the frequency on a speaker so others can hear. And, he notifies the supervisor there is a hijacking—the first one on a U.S. carrier in more than a decade.[emphasis added]


So, on September 11, despite the fact that the aircraft was both NORDO, flying erratically, and transponder off, it still took controllers 10 minutes to realize that American 11 had been hijacked. Further, they only realized this because of (presumably) unintentional radio transmissions by the hijackers.

I'll have more on this issue in a subsequent post.

It is obvious why it would not have. Incapacitated pilots are a whole different ball of wax from a hijacked aircraft. Controllers can easily clear out the airspace at the same altitude near the suspect aircraft. ATC would have spent a lot more time simply trying to contact the plane than if there was evidence of a hijack, as there was on 9/11.


You are assuming that all pilot-incapacitation scenarios would result from hypoxia. What if the problem is due to smoke from an electrical fire? How soon before the autopilot fails and the flight spirals out of control? Also, what if a semi-conscious pilot moves the controls enough to disengage the autopilot? What if a passenger or flight attendant does so when removing the pilot and copilot from their seats? What if the autopilot isn't even on? Controllers would have no way of knowing any of this without an examination by another aircraft, and they would have to assume that the plane might do something erratic at any moment.

[gumboot]

Are we still debating this?

-Gumboot

[Dog Town]

Are we still debating this?

-Gumboot

It ceased being a debate, some time ago!

[gumboot]

I love how DRG claims the "confusion" over the Stewart Payne intercept cannot be explained away by time zones.

There is no confusion, except for stupid conspiracy theorists who can't read official reports.

-Gumboot

[Dog Town]

I love how DRG claims the "confusion" over the Stewart Payne intercept cannot be explained away by time zones.

There is no confusion, except for stupid conspiracy theorists who can't read!

-Gumboot


Fixed...no need to be specific! They show no boundries. Not to offend, mind you.

[SpitfireIX]

It ceased being a debate, some time ago!


:deadhorse

[Cheap Shot]

I am new to these posts, so by looking at spitfire's last comment (picture) I assume this has been gone over before, sorry for getting involved in that one. Good posts reference Pete Zyleski, good friend of mine went to the academy together, he retired back in March I beleive. I'll look forward to some new stuff on the threads.

[T.A.M.]

Cheap Shot:

Welcome to the forum. You will find that 99.999% of 9/11 CT crap has been THOROUGHLY addressed in these forums. Use the Search Function, or ask around.

TAM:)

[SpitfireIX]

I am new to these posts, so by looking at spitfire's last comment (picture) I assume this has been gone over before, sorry for getting involved in that one.


Nothing to apologize for, Cheap Shot. Having previous debunkings confirmed or expanded upon by someone who's actually in a position to know only strengthens our case. Further, being human, we do from time to time make mistakes, and new information does occasionally come to light on some of these issues. So please don't feel that you shouldn't comment just because some subject's already been hashed out.

Good posts reference Pete Zyleski, good friend of mine went to the academy together, he retired back in March I beleive. I'll look forward to some new stuff on the threads.


Maybe you could persuade him to come post here--assuming he's prepared to be called a "government shill" by some "Truthers." :mad:

[Cheap Shot]

Maybe you could persuade him to come post here--assuming he's prepared to be called a "government shill" by some "Truthers." :mad:

Pete wasn't very happy when he left, as the majority of controllers are these days, with the management and union at odds. He was pretty much fed up with the government when he left. He did a good job that morning, though he talks more about it now then he did over the past for several years. I've run into the AAL11 pilot John Ogonowski's brother several times through my work and he wanted to meet Peter, just to shake his hand, I think he was looking for some closure being Pete was probably the final person his brother ever talked to. But Pete didn't think he could handle it. Peter passed on the making of UAL93, though I do think Michael Bronner got to interview him a little, Pete pretty much keeps to himself. But you never know.

[T.A.M.]

Cheap Shot:

So has Pete ever mentioned to you, that he thought, in any way, that the ATC/FAA/NORAD was standing down on that day? Was it ever discussed?

TAM:)

[Cheap Shot]

[quote] So has Pete ever mentioned to you, that he thought, in any way, that the ATC/FAA/NORAD was standing down on that day? Was it ever discussed?[Quote]


I worked a lot closer with the military that day, more than Pete did. I don't think Pete ever even talked to NEADS that day. As far as a stand down, I never saw it. As far as Centers are concerned we rarely ever talk to NORAD. We talk to NEADS (Northeast Air Defense Sector). Though I wish they would have launched fighters quicker that day or took a more proactive stance earlier on, I never felt their was any standown at all. NEADS reacted with about as much time I would have expected. Just as the FAA has a beauracy the military does as well. They fought it that day as well. I knew what we neede to do, and I am sure there were people at NEADS that probably felt the same way. I never once interpreted as a stand down. The only heads up information they got that day was from Boston Center, everyone else was a day late and a dollar short. If they were never notified about UAL175, AAL77 or UAL93 until after they crashed where was the standown, they just never knew.

I have my own thoughts about the CTs. They are always going to beleive what they want. But being a government employee they have thier place. Government should never be allowed to run a muck, we do need to be questioned, I don't have a problem answering those questions, I have on other blogs as well. If they don't beleive me well, I did my best to clarify what they wanted to know. I am not in any position to be hiding information, though the FAA doesn't like its employees talking about what we do, the only thing I can really be accountable for would be if I gave information regarding the FAA that would casue fear among the flying public to make them feel unsafe to fly. However if there really was a safety issue that the public should know then how could I really be punished for stating facts.

So as life goes in the FAA.

[jaydeehess]

?

And again, isn't it understandable if ATC waited a while before calling the military, since the plane was initially only a NORDO and did not initially show all the signs of a hijack-- as did the four flights on 9/11?

Once again it is your own OPINION that the planes of 9/11 displayed "all the signs of a hijack". 20-20 hindsight again, seems to me that you are missing at least one of ALL the signs of hijack, that of squawking hijack code. They were simply not immediatly obvious (except in the minds of those CT's operating with the post-event knowledge that it was indeed a hijack).

Now you claim that going NORDO for 10 minutes is not unusual but that going NORDO and no transponder is somehow oh so very much more suspicious and indicative of a hijack that the controllers should have immediatly called the military and declared a hijack in progress, not attempted to contact the plane for several minutes.

As for shoot down, you and many other CT's seem to conveniently forget thatprior to 9/11 all hijacks followed a pattern of the hijackers making demands, negotiations etc. There had never been a case of a suicide mission such as took place on 9/11. IF, as you imply, it would, should or could have been common or standard operating procedure to shoot down a hijacked aircraft on or prior to 9/11 then it is encumbant upon you to show at least one case of such a shoot down by US or Canadian forces.

DRG's confusion may in fact be real. How about YOU read the report as linked above and decide for yourself.

Also how about explaining just why you even brought up Popular Mechanics since no one here quoted that magazine? If you screwed up, man up, and admit a mistake.

[ref]

I worked a lot closer with the military that day, more than Pete did. I don't think Pete ever even talked to NEADS that day. As far as a stand down, I never saw it. As far as Centers are concerned we rarely ever talk to NORAD. We talk to NEADS (Northeast Air Defense Sector). Though I wish they would have launched fighters quicker that day or took a more proactive stance earlier on, I never felt their was any standown at all. NEADS reacted with about as much time I would have expected. Just as the FAA has a beauracy the military does as well. They fought it that day as well. I knew what we neede to do, and I am sure there were people at NEADS that probably felt the same way. I never once interpreted as a stand down. The only heads up information they got that day was from Boston Center, everyone else was a day late and a dollar short. If they were never notified about UAL175, AAL77 or UAL93 until after they crashed where was the standown, they just never knew.


I have a question for you. Multiple phony bomb threats were reportedly confusing air traffic controllers during the day of 9/11. Do you remember Boston Center having many of these threats, and how did they affect your work?

[Cheap Shot]

Yeah we had them or at least I heard we had them. The day care center is next door, I heard they had to evacuate, due to a bomb threat there. We also had a tractor trailers outside on the highway and it was broken down, they had the state troopers tell him to move immediately. We had a suspected aircraft that was supposedly heading for the center, and the center was evacuated. Most people don't know about that. I believe at least one other center was evacuated. I was the 4th to the last person to leave during the evacuation, when I went outside the FBI had already grabbed some of the tapes, and their was the local SWAT team in the parking lot, they were all leaving.

We thought everybody had left, but there were some guys in the bottom of the building who never heard the speaker system to evacuate. One of them came up stairs and boy was he surprised that no one was there. We all came back in about 20 minutes. The plane that was reported to be aimed at us was 140 Nm southeast of us a Coast Guard aircraft that originally was unidentiified, but that we had identified 10 minutes before we evacuated. There was so much more stuff going on than most people know. Nothing that I precieve as a CT item, but I'm sure others could interpret it the other way. To this day I have no idea what happened with the bomb threats. I don't know if any of them were uncovered.

[T.A.M.]

Cheap Shot:

What do you make of the alleged "Wargames" CT, where they state that there were intentional "Wargames" for that day in order to confuse ATC/NORAD, etc, and to make the available fighter count low.

Thanks

TAM:)

[Cheap Shot]

They have wargames every week somewhere. Sometimes they are SIMs without even using real airplanes, just simulating them. I beleive they called this vigilant guardian I think, not sure. We were not involved with that wargame that day, personally I have never heard of that particular name being used, it could have been all military for all I know. Any factor on impacting fighter's that day would have been negligable. Some things the military has down pretty good. Where there airplanes are is one of them. They would never commit all of there assets in anyone place. They had thier alert birds, not enough but that was the protocol back then. They have their planes for dailly training, they have there planes scheduled for deployment, and they have their airplanes that are already deployed. Each unit only has so many aircraft that can participate in an exercise.

A lot of exercise planners when they first start out have these grandiose ideas on how many assets that can be provided for their exercise. They have an initial meeting and everyone is pretty excited about the whole event, then the planners go back to thier units, and they find out they have other commitments, and they have a couple planes down for maintenance, before you know it the 6 assets they said they could provide are down to two, then another unit or two bail out, and before you know it the exercises are pretty scaled down.

There were plenty of assets that day, they just needed to be called, that is what we tried to do. NEADS got some of them up, daily training birds unarmed but they did get up. I didn't see any type of stand down. The biggest error was eliminating alert bases which had occurred years before.

The commision did get it wrong on some parts, about the alert base at ACY (Atlanitc City) that it had been closed so when Boston Center called them and asked to launch fighters, we were not looking for alert birds, we were looking for thier regular scheduled daily traing aircraft that go out to W-107 every day. The same when we asked them to launch the DC Guard, those were not alert aircraft either we just wanted planes in the sky, because all hell was breaking loose.

They eventually got a lot of planes up. It made for an interesting night, you might see a small plane take off at a remote field maybe someone who hadn't seen the news that day, but those fighters were on them lickty split.

[Cylinder]

They have their planes for dailly training, they have there planes scheduled for deployment, and they have their airplanes that are already deployed. Each unit only has so many aircraft that can participate in an exercise.

That is correct - alert aircrew do not participate in exercises. Before we stood down our alert posture in the mid 90s, the squadron pulling alert duty that week would not participate in the annual NATO TAC Eval - the largest exercise in USAFE at the time.

[gumboot]

The only NORAD exercise that was scheduled for 9/11 was the Overview exercise called "Guardian", which never happened because it was scheduled to start at 0900EDT, and of course by then things were already getting interesting.

Overview exercises are Command Post Exercises (CPX) which do not involve operational units. Overview exercises are also approved by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who was Richard Meyers. According to him the exercise improved response time because it meant every command post position was filled, whereas normally only a skeleton staff would be in place for day to day operations.

-Gumboot

[ref]

Yeah we had them or at least I heard we had them. The day care center is next door, I heard they had to evacuate, due to a bomb threat there. We also had a tractor trailers outside on the highway and it was broken down, they had the state troopers tell him to move immediately. We had a suspected aircraft that was supposedly heading for the center, and the center was evacuated. Most people don't know about that. I believe at least one other center was evacuated. I was the 4th to the last person to leave during the evacuation, when I went outside the FBI had already grabbed some of the tapes, and their was the local SWAT team in the parking lot, they were all leaving.

We thought everybody had left, but there were some guys in the bottom of the building who never heard the speaker system to evacuate. One of them came up stairs and boy was he surprised that no one was there. We all came back in about 20 minutes. The plane that was reported to be aimed at us was 140 Nm southeast of us a Coast Guard aircraft that originally was unidentiified, but that we had identified 10 minutes before we evacuated. There was so much more stuff going on than most people know. Nothing that I precieve as a CT item, but I'm sure others could interpret it the other way. To this day I have no idea what happened with the bomb threats. I don't know if any of them were uncovered.

Thanks for the info, Cheap Shot. I have conducted a list of some of the false alarms that took place that morning. You can see it here:

http://911guide.googlepages.com/falsealarms

You can correct me, if I have some information wrong there. To my knowledge, the control tower at the Johnstown, Pennsylvania airport evacuated at around 10.00am, because a suspect aircraft was heading towards them possibly with a bomb onboard. The Nashua, N.H. center evacuated at 11.00 am., because someone had spotted an unidentified aircraft heading toward the facility and managers ordered it cleared.

Do you still happen to recall, at what time did your evacuation take place? I don't remember hearing of that one.

[Cheap Shot]

Overview exercises are Command Post Exercises (CPX) which do not involve operational units. Overview exercises are also approved by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who was Richard Meyers. According to him the exercise improved response time because it meant every command post position was filled, whereas normally only a skeleton staff would be in place for day to day operations. -Gumboot


Explains why I didn't know of it, we would never be involved in a CPX. We haven't had a large scale exercise in Boston Center airspace where the FAA gets involved for quite a while. We basically work smaller type exercises, single target sometimes two.

[Cheap Shot]

You can correct me, if I have some information wrong there. To my knowledge, the control tower at the Johnstown, Pennsylvania airport evacuated at around 10.00am, because a suspect aircraft was heading towards them possibly with a bomb onboard. The Nashua, N.H. center evacuated at 11.00 am., because someone had spotted an unidentified aircraft heading toward the facility and managers ordered it cleared.


I hate using the timelines because being involved with it the timeline always seemed to be off to me by a several minutes here or there. Maybe becasue my watch is always 5 to 7 minutes fast, but with everything that was happening, it was just very busy almost uncomprehendable (is that a word). Nashua is the facility I work at (Boston Center), I beleive we were actually evacuated around 9:40 or 9:45, when we came back into the building everything about UAL93 was ongoing, and we were getting involved, DAL1989 false call. I could be off here, I was asked to write a timeline five days after the event and I couldn't get past the first 5 minutes. I don't know if it is a mental block thing or whether we were just overwhelmed. Martha's Vineyard Tower was evacuated due to a large white unidentified aircraft flying at appx. 2,000 ft. That was some time before we evacuated.

We were evacuated because of a call from the New England Region, they had got infromation about the unidentified aircraft southeast of Nantucket and somehow determined that it was aimed Boston ARTCC, and not the city of Boston. We were notified that a B757 was aimed at our building and that it was imminent. Our controllers stayed until every aircraft was down as they cleared thier sectors they were ordered to leave. They did an unbeleivable job that morning under some dire conditions. I don't know of one who asked to leave before they cleared thier sectors. It was one fo those "worst days, best days" if you know what I mean.

[ref]

I hate using the timelines because being involved with it the timeline always seemed to be off to me by a several minutes here or there. Maybe becasue my watch is always 5 to 7 minutes fast, but with everything that was happening, it was just very busy almost uncomprehendable (is that a word). Nashua is the facility I work at (Boston Center), I beleive we were actually evacuated around 9:40 or 9:45, when we came back into the building everything about UAL93 was ongoing, and we were getting involved, DAL1989 false call. I could be off here, I was asked to write a timeline five days after the event and I couldn't get past the first 5 minutes. I don't know if it is a mental block thing or whether we were just overwhelmed. Martha's Vineyard Tower was evacuated due to a large white unidentified aircraft flying at appx. 2,000 ft. That was some time before we evacuated.

We were evacuated because of a call from the New England Region, they had got infromation about the unidentified aircraft southeast of Nantucket and somehow determined that it was aimed Boston ARTCC, and not the city of Boston. We were notified that a B757 was aimed at our building and that it was imminent. Our controllers stayed until every aircraft was down as they cleared thier sectors they were ordered to leave. They did an unbeleivable job that morning under some dire conditions. I don't know of one who asked to leave before they cleared thier sectors. It was one fo those "worst days, best days" if you know what I mean.

Sorry about the Nashua - Boston confusion! My bad. Thanks for the story and explanation. And I don't expect people to remember all the times, especially people such involved as you. All respect for your work. I tried to create that timeline just to show people, how incredibly difficult and full of confusion that days was for all the involved.

[Dave Rogers]

I hate using the timelines because being involved with it the timeline always seemed to be off to me by a several minutes here or there. Maybe becasue my watch is always 5 to 7 minutes fast, but with everything that was happening, it was just very busy almost uncomprehendable (is that a word). Nashua is the facility I work at (Boston Center), I beleive we were actually evacuated around 9:40 or 9:45, when we came back into the building everything about UAL93 was ongoing, and we were getting involved, DAL1989 false call. I could be off here, I was asked to write a timeline five days after the event and I couldn't get past the first 5 minutes. I don't know if it is a mental block thing or whether we were just overwhelmed. Martha's Vineyard Tower was evacuated due to a large white unidentified aircraft flying at appx. 2,000 ft. That was some time before we evacuated.

This is a very illuminating account, thanks. The conspiracy theorists would expect you to be able to account for everything that happened on a minute-by-minute basis, and if any two accounts don't tally they'll call you a liar. Real life isn't like that; it must have been an incredibly stressful situation, and I'm not surprised that you couldn't write an accurate timeline.

We were evacuated because of a call from the New England Region, they had got infromation about the unidentified aircraft southeast of Nantucket and somehow determined that it was aimed Boston ARTCC, and not the city of Boston. We were notified that a B757 was aimed at our building and that it was imminent. Our controllers stayed until every aircraft was down as they cleared thier sectors they were ordered to leave. They did an unbeleivable job that morning under some dire conditions. I don't know of one who asked to leave before they cleared thier sectors. It was one fo those "worst days, best days" if you know what I mean.

That's an aspect of the day I'd never considered before. If a controller had left without clearing their sector, would that mean that they'd leave one or more aircraft effectively uncontrolled while still airborne? How much of a danger to the plane and passengers itself, or to other planes in the sector, would that pose? I'm getting the impression that there could have been many, many more deaths due to the chaos alone if you guys hadn't kept your cool, risked your own lives and done your jobs. And for that, even though I was thousands of miles away at the time, you deserve my thanks as much as you deserve everyone's. It's hard sometimes to understand just how many heroes there were on that day.

Dave

[gumboot]

This is a very illuminating account, thanks. The conspiracy theorists would expect you to be able to account for everything that happened on a minute-by-minute basis, and if any two accounts don't tally they'll call you a liar. Real life isn't like that; it must have been an incredibly stressful situation, and I'm not surprised that you couldn't write an accurate timeline.


I had exactly the same thought. This made me think of Mineta's account.





That's an aspect of the day I'd never considered before. If a controller had left without clearing their sector, would that mean that they'd leave one or more aircraft effectively uncontrolled while still airborne? How much of a danger to the plane and passengers itself, or to other planes in the sector, would that pose? I'm getting the impression that there could have been many, many more deaths due to the chaos alone if you guys hadn't kept your cool, risked your own lives and done your jobs. And for that, even though I was thousands of miles away at the time, you deserve my thanks as much as you deserve everyone's. It's hard sometimes to understand just how many heroes there were on that day.

Dave


Unless I'm very much mistaken UA175 actually got within "danger close" distance of another flight during it's heart-stopping descent in NY ARTCC airspace. Only the work of the ARTCC controllers prevented a mid-air collision.

-Gumboot

[SpitfireIX]

The only NORAD exercise that was scheduled for 9/11 was the Overview exercise called "Guardian", which never happened because it was scheduled to start at 0900EDT, and of course by then things were already getting interesting.


Overview exercises are Command Post Exercises (CPX) which do not involve operational units. Overview exercises are also approved by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who was Richard Meyers Hugh Shelton. According to him Shelton's successor, General Richard Myers, the exercise improved response time because it meant every command post position was filled, whereas normally only a skeleton staff would be in place for day to day operations.

-Gumboot


Fixed. Myers was Vice Chairman of the JCS on September 11, though he'd already been nominated to be Shelton's successor. Ironically, Bush had tapped Myers, former head of the US Air Force's Space Command, in order to emphasize missile defense and other high-tech projects over conventional war-fighting capability.

[Regnad Kcin]

How can you state so unequivocally that they weren't going to shoot it down? If the plane was observed speeding toward the skyline of Manhattan, it could have been assumed it was going to be used as a missile, and the shooting of it down would have been the proper procedure. Even if the plane had been shot down seconds before impact into the buildings, and above the crowded streets of Manhattan, many thousands of lives still would have been saved.

Of course, whoever had control of the ignition switches for the controlled demolition of the buildings might still have chosen to throw it. The thousands in the WTC buildings still would have died. But at least the lie that this was an Al-Qaeda attack would be even more difficult to maintain than it is now.This guy woos so loud and long it sounds like a siren.

[T.A.M.]

More like the whistle of an "A-Train".

TAM:)

[MaGZ]

3rd, Can't be exact here, but definitely enough time, the first call went out when AAL11 was over Albany and had turned southbound along the Hudson River, the second call was made 20 NM South of Albany, a third call was made 50 Nm south of Albany with the exact Lat/Longs, the next call was 30 north of JFK, another call at 16 NM north of JFK, and the final call with radar lost 8 NM North of JFK.


Cheap Shot, again welcome to the forum.
The calls you refer to: are these phone calls made from Boston Center to Otis Tower giving coordinates of flight 11? Also, was this information relayed to the pilots?
Could you place a time each call was made?
It all is a bit technical for me to follow, but I will try to keep up.

[MaGZ]

double post

[MaGZ]

Yeah we had them or at least I heard we had them. The day care center is next door, I heard they had to evacuate, due to a bomb threat there. We also had a tractor trailers outside on the highway and it was broken down, they had the state troopers tell him to move immediately. We had a suspected aircraft that was supposedly heading for the center, and the center was evacuated. Most people don't know about that. I believe at least one other center was evacuated. I was the 4th to the last person to leave during the evacuation, when I went outside the FBI had already grabbed some of the tapes, and their was the local SWAT team in the parking lot, they were all leaving.

We thought everybody had left, but there were some guys in the bottom of the building who never heard the speaker system to evacuate. One of them came up stairs and boy was he surprised that no one was there. We all came back in about 20 minutes. The plane that was reported to be aimed at us was 140 Nm southeast of us a Coast Guard aircraft that originally was unidentiified, but that we had identified 10 minutes before we evacuated. There was so much more stuff going on than most people know. Nothing that I precieve as a CT item, but I'm sure others could interpret it the other way. To this day I have no idea what happened with the bomb threats. I don't know if any of them were uncovered.

At what time was the bomb scare and evacuation?

One way to interpret the bomb scares would be to blame other AQ operatives in America who tried to disrupt a military response to the hijackings.

[jaydeehess]

At what time was the bomb scare and evacuation?

One way to interpret the bomb scares would be to blame other AQ operatives in America who tried to disrupt a military response to the hijackings.

More likely run of the mill lunies getting their kicks by vicariously joining in on the attacks.

[MaGZ]

More likely run of the mill lunies getting their kicks by vicariously joining in on the attacks.

Cheap Shot indicated the evacuation was after the crash of the first two planes so you are probably right.

[gumboot]

More likely run of the mill lunies getting their kicks by vicariously joining in on the attacks.



It probably wasn't even that. There was a lot of SNAFU flying around that day, it wouldn't surprise me if a hijacked aircraft threat somehow became a threat to an ARTCC.

-Gumboot

[jaydeehess]

Cheap Shot indicated the evacuation was after the crash of the first two planes so you are probably right.


senario:

out of work, bored, luuny sitting on the couch watching "Good Morning America" sees the cut to live coverage of the first tower burning and gets excited

luuny sees second plane ram second tower and whoops in glee at having his normal routine broken with some action

luuny decides he has to do something so he looks up a phone number for ATC and calls in a bomb threat

chuckling, luuny continues watching TV hoping that there will be some mention of his 'prank'

[Cheap Shot]

Cheap Shot, again welcome to the forum.
The calls you refer to: are these phone calls made from Boston Center to Otis Tower giving coordinates of flight 11? Also, was this information relayed to the pilots?
Could you place a time each call was made?
It all is a bit technical for me to follow, but I will try to keep up.

The calls about Lat/Longs were made to NEADS. The infor wasn't relayed to the pilots becasue they had not yet departed, they were still on the ground at Otis.

At least a dozen calls were made to NEADS from 8:36 to probably 8:52, which is about when were notified the first tower was hit. We didn't know for several minutes that the tower was hit. There were also calls made to Otis checking on the status of the fighters when they were going to get off.

[Cheap Shot]

At what time was the bomb scare and evacuation?


I beleive we evacuated around 9:40 to 9:50. As far as when the bomb scare was called in I don't know, I know when we evacuated we were supposed to go to the corner of the parking lot where the Day Care Center is. Instead we were told to go to another building about a 1/4 of mile away or the Holiday Inn which was two streets away. The majority of people went to the Holiday Inn, I went to the other building and no one was there so I went back and sat out front of the parking lot waiting to go back in which I did about 15 minutes later.

[Cheap Shot]

It probably wasn't even that. There was a lot of SNAFU flying around that day, it wouldn't surprise me if a hijacked aircraft threat somehow became a threat to an ARTCC.

-Gumboot

I agree with Gumboot here, I think things got so twisted that people were mistaking a plane hitting the building and interpreting it as a bomb scare. I never heard who actually received the bomb threat at the day care center.

The same thing I beleive happend with the ghost AAL11 flight, so much information being passed around, some of it from 15 minutes before which now was already old news.

The majority of the people out there didn't even know what what an ARTCC was prior to 9-11, and a lot still don't. Unless you have one in your town, you probably never would, there is only 23 of them out there. There could have been a couple of loonies who called, but I beleive most of these bobm scares were from misconstrued information.

[ref]

Cheap Shot,

Sorry for all these questions.. feel free to tell if these bother you. You just have so much first hand knowledge on the day's events.

What I'm interested in is, do you know anything about this incident or the destroyed tape?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A6632-2004May6

"Six air traffic controllers provided accounts of their communications with hijacked planes on Sept. 11, 2001, on a tape recording that was later destroyed by Federal Aviation Administration managers, according to a government investigative report issued today.


It is unclear what information was on the tape because no one ever listened to, transcribed or duplicated it, the report by the Department of Transportation inspector general said."

[gumboot]

Cheap Shot,

Sorry for all these questions.. feel free to tell if these bother you. You just have so much first hand knowledge on the day's events.

What I'm interested in is, do you know anything about this incident or the destroyed tape?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A6632-2004May6

"Six air traffic controllers provided accounts of their communications with hijacked planes on Sept. 11, 2001, on a tape recording that was later destroyed by Federal Aviation Administration managers, according to a government investigative report issued today.


It is unclear what information was on the tape because no one ever listened to, transcribed or duplicated it, the report by the Department of Transportation inspector general said."


Hopefully Cheapshot can fill us in, but what I know of the tape is basically:

1) The tape was a recorded interview made with ATC controllers immediately after 9/11
2) The tape was made to aid those ATC controllers in writing up a formal account of events later
3) The tape was made under the condition that it would later be destroyed
4) The ATC controllers submitted their written accounts of the day's events to the FBI as per procedure
5) The tape was destroyed

-Gumboot

[Cheap Shot]

That is basically correct. We did not do that at Boston Center I kind of wish we did, because even today to get everything in order, timeline vs events is very difficult. I taked to a couple of those guys in New York, and when the media got a hold of it they turned it into a conspiracy. The controllers involved feared that anything they said would be used against them later by the FAA or other agencies or the public. There was no requirement for them to make this tape, but once it was made management could not guarntee that this tape would not be used agaisnt them so they all agreed on destroying the tape. It was misconstrued by many CTs and media people that they had some how destroyed air traffic recorded tapes which is against the law. These were not those types of tapes. Just a regular old cassette tape.

Knowing what we know now I'm sure everyone would like to have them, but if it was your career on the line and no one was going to guarntee that these tapes would not be used against you, then you might make the same decision they did.

I wasn't asked to give a statement until about three days after the event, by then I couldn't get anything in order, just to much info.

Management in the FAA wasn't as bad then as it is now, with the union issues, but I have seen numerous instances in the past where a controller should have got an award for a save, only to get disciplined for using poor phraseology while in the process, so he had to to get a PIP (Performance Improvement Plan)

I apoplogize for rattling on to much sometimes

[ref]

Thanks for your story again, CS. I know CT's abuse the tape issue, which is very unfortunate. Very good reading your posts, no need to apologize.

[SpitfireIX]

Thanks for your story again, CS. I know CT's abuse the tape issue, which is very unfortunate. Very good reading your posts, no need to apologize.


I'll second that. Well done, Cheap Shot.

[A-Train]

I am new to these posts, so by looking at spitfire's last comment (picture) I assume this has been gone over before, sorry for getting involved in that one. Good posts reference Pete Zyleski, good friend of mine went to the academy together, he retired back in March I beleive. I'll look forward to some new stuff on the threads.

Pete Zalewski may be a friend of yours. You may have had a good time at the academy with him. But Zalewski is lying through his teeth when he states "absolutely not" when asked if he suspected a hijacking after observing AAL11 go NORDO, turn off its transponder and go off course.

I am not suggesting Zalewski is a bad person, or that he had anything to do with 9/11. I have nothing but sympathy and pity for him. He didn't ask to be in that situation, and most of us, myself included, would have responded to the situation the same way he has.

I have no idea what kind of pressure he was put under. My understanding is that FBI agents were in the ZBW building within minutes of the attack. And of course, those agents were under the orders of the senior official of the FBI command post, who just happend to be the Master of Disaster (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=4173) himself.

It's easy to imagine the technique. Even the most experienced, skilled, confident controller has the same heart-sinking feeling when there's an incident, or accident, or even a mere error: Was it my fault? Did I screw up? The federal agents brought the controllers involved to a room and perhaps suggested all those dead people in the burning buildings were their fault. In such a situation, we'd all be on our knees and in tears. Then the nice FBI man whispers in our ear that everything will be all right, if we just all spout the official line-- and that line was that no hijacking was suspected until the voices of the hijackers were heard. This story is not true, of course, but in such a confused situation, we'd all rejoice at the chance to exonerate ourselves (even though we did nothing wrong) and get out from under such enormous pressure.

That no hijacking was suspected from the get go is ridiculous. Any controller will tell you that it is an extremely radical, very disturbing event for a plane to go NORDO, then turn off its transponder, then be observed turning around. That neither Zalewski nor his supe would have reacted as if a hijack was possible is simply incredible. If Cheap Shot is indeed a real controller-- a supposition I am starting to doubt more and more with each of his posts-- then he knows what I am saying here is true.

What about Glenn Michael, Cheap Shot? Is he your Academy buddy too? He is the one who stated to the media that a hijack was suspected immediately. Is he a liar, or is Zalewski? Common sense and any knowledge of ATC procedures clearly show that Richards was telling the truth.


(http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a813transponder#a813transponder)

Shortly after flight controllers ask Flight 11 to climb to 35,000 feet, the transponder stops transmitting. A transponder is an electronic device that identifies a plane on a controller’s screen and gives its exact location and altitude. Among other vital functions, it is also used to transmit a four-digit emergency hijack code. Flight control manager Glenn Michael later says, “We considered it at that time to be a possible hijacking.” [Christian Science Monitor, 9/13/2001 (http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0913/p1s2-usju.html); MSNBC, 9/15/2001; Associated Press, 8/12/2002 (http://www.boston.com/news/daily/12/attacks_faa.htm)] Initial stories after 9/11 suggest the transponder is turned off around 8:13 a.m., but Pete Zalewski, the flight controller handling the flight, later says the transponder is turned off at 8:20 a.m. [MSNBC, 9/11/2002] The 9/11 Commission places it at 8:21 a.m. [9/11 Commission, 6/17/2004 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5233007)] Colonel Robert Marr, head of NEADS, claims the transponder is turned off some time after 8:30 a.m. where the Flight 11 hijack was first detected a.m. [ABC News, 9/11/2002]


Some new to this thread may be wondering, what difference does it make when the plane was suspected to have been hijacked? The answer is that the sooner it was thought to have been hijacked, the more absurd the official story is that the NEADS fighters did not have time to scramble for this flight, or the other three.

But I want to make it clear how I think the stand down was orchestrated. I have already stated I do not think Pete Zalewski or any other controllers were culpable for anything. I also want to point out that I do not blame the ordinary soldiers in the Air Force, including the fighter pilots themselves. Nor do I think there was any stand down order from some high government official like the President, Vice-President, or Secretary of Defense. This is commonly suggested by such truthers as D.R. Griffin, but there is no evidence it happened.

The stand down was carried out by a small number of highly placed officers within the NORAD command structure, who chose to be loyal to the foreign government that executed the 9/11 attacks. These officers were in key positions to gum up the communications between civilian ATC and the fighters sitting in their planes waiting for orders to defend the USA. Who these officers were we may never know, but I believe if more people knew that this is the likely scenario, more of those involved in the events of that day would come forward and tell the truth of what happened, instead of reiterating the fraudulent official story in hopes of covering their own rear ends.

[gumboot]

The stand down was carried out by a small number of highly placed officers within the NORAD command structure, who chose to be loyal to the foreign government that executed the 9/11 attacks. These officers were in key positions to gum up the communications between civilian ATC and the fighters sitting in their planes waiting for orders to defend the USA.



Who then? You're accusing people of mass murder. Let's hear your evidence.

Was it General Arnold? Commander of NORAD CONR region? The guy who said NEADS should scramble fighters without authorisation?

Was it Colonel Robert Marr, Commander of NEADS? The guy who ordered Otis to Battle Stations as soon as the call came through from Boston ARTCC? The guy who immediately called General Arnold for scramble authorisation?

Was it Major Kevin Nasypany, the NEADS MCC, who passed on Marr's orders, and managed the various elements on the NEADS floor?

Or was it ID Tech Master Segeant Maureen Dooley? Afterall the ID Techs are responsible for communication between the FAA and the military. Maybe it was Dooley's two ID Techs; Senior Airman Stacia Rountree and Tech Sergeant Shelley Watson?

Maybe it was Tech Sergeant Jeremy Powell, who took the call from Boston ARTCC at 0837 that morning?

Perhaps the weapon team were at fault, led by Major James Fox? Afterall, they were the ones speaking directly with the fighters. They gave the scramble authenticate codes, and coordinates.

Who was it, A-train? Which of these people is guilty of mass murder and treason? They'd be executed, for what they did. That's a pretty serious charge to lay on someone without evidence.

-Gumboot

[Calcas]

My understanding is that FBI agents were in the ZBW building within minutes of the attack.
Source?

Of course not.

This is what the CT's do. They either make up lies or repeat other lies hoping that no one will notice.

"My understanding is..."

LMFAO.

[A-Train]

Source?

Of course not.

This is what the CT's do. They either make up lies or repeat other lies hoping that no one will notice.

"My understanding is..."

LMFAO.

Here is my source:

...In the telephone conversation I had with [deputy in public affairs at FAA headquarters] Laura Brown in 2004, she told me that immediately after 9/11, the FAA was required to turn over all its records from that day to the FBI. Although it was not unusual, she added, for the FAA to turn over its records after a major disaster, they were normally turned over to the National Transportation Safety Board. This time, however, they had to be turned over to the FBI. It was, moreover, not only the tapes from FAA headquarters that were taken by the FBI. A Christian Science Monitor story two days after 9/11, referring to tapes made at Boston Center, said: "Those tapes are now presumed to be in the hands of federal law-enforcement officials, who arrived at the flight-control facility minutes after Flight 11 crashed into the World Trade Center." (Is this not suspiciously just?) .....

"Debunking 9/11 Debunking," by David Ray Griffin, p. 86

So my source is not only Griffin's book, but the Christian Science Monitor.

Still laughing your FAO?

[T.A.M.]

yes I am...even more so now that you have stated your "sources"...

LMFAO

TAM;)

[A-Train]

Who then? You're accusing people of mass murder. Let's hear your evidence.

Was it General Arnold? Commander of NORAD CONR region? The guy who said NEADS should scramble fighters without authorisation?

Was it Colonel Robert Marr, Commander of NEADS? The guy who ordered Otis to Battle Stations as soon as the call came through from Boston ARTCC? The guy who immediately called General Arnold for scramble authorisation?

Was it Major Kevin Nasypany, the NEADS MCC, who passed on Marr's orders, and managed the various elements on the NEADS floor?

Or was it ID Tech Master Segeant Maureen Dooley? Afterall the ID Techs are responsible for communication between the FAA and the military. Maybe it was Dooley's two ID Techs; Senior Airman Stacia Rountree and Tech Sergeant Shelley Watson?

Maybe it was Tech Sergeant Jeremy Powell, who took the call from Boston ARTCC at 0837 that morning?

Perhaps the weapon team were at fault, led by Major James Fox? Afterall, they were the ones speaking directly with the fighters. They gave the scramble authenticate codes, and coordinates.

Who was it, A-train? Which of these people is guilty of mass murder and treason? They'd be executed, for what they did. That's a pretty serious charge to lay on someone without evidence.

-Gumboot


In a nutshell, the conspirators who enacted the stand down were whoever controlled the orders going out to the fighter pilots at Langley and Otis, respectively.

But that does not mean it was any of those you listed. Those individuals may be hapless figureheads, who were unaware of the overall situation while the "dirty work" was done by unnamed subordinates beneath them.

Take the case of the Langley fighters allegedly scrambled to intercept the "phantom FL11" heading for Washington. That this whole scenario is preposterous is demonstrated by D.R. Griffin in his latest book, pp. 74-80. It is absurd that any qualified person could have thought that AAL11 was actually heading to Washington, while the North Tower had been struck by some other plane.

We were told that the information that AAL11 was still flying southbound was provided by Chip Scroggins at ZBW. But it turns out that Scoggins himself had been given the information by a mysterious, unnamed person at NEADS:

Another problem in this story is the claimed inability to determine the person in the FAA who originated the idea that AA 11 was headed toward Washington. Bronner, paraphrasing Scoggins, says, "word came across-- from whom or where isn't clear." This conversation, however, should be contained on the FAA's tapes, and nowadays the identities of people can be determined with great precision from their voices. Since the FAA must have tapes with the voices of all its personnel who get involved in teleconferences, the claim that this alleged person's identity could not be determined seems suspiciously conveneint, as this way no on needs to take the blame.
Debunking 9/11 Debunking p. 76Whoever the unnamed person was that told Scoggins the nonsense about AAL11 is a conspirator. And it is probably this same person who told his superiors, Marr, Arnold and Nasypany, the same garbage. Those officers then acted in complete ignorance of what was really going on. Thus the upper level of the NEADS command may have been made up of dunces-- people much like the President of the United States himself-- who are incapable of mastering the details of what is going on in the organization they preside over and thus cannot really be blamed for not thwarting an conspiracy that they cannot even comprehend.

According to Bronner and The 9/11 Commission Report, at 9:22, just after Rountree and Dooley had heard from Scoggins that AA 11 was still in the air, Nasypany said to Marr: "OK American Airlines is still airborne-- 11, the first guy. He's heading toward Washington. OK, I think we need to scramble Langley right now." Then, according to Bronner: "Arnold and Marr approve scrambling the two planes at Langley, along with a third unarmed trainer, and Nasypany sets the launch in motion.
pp. 78-79So tell me Gumboot, who do you think started the fictitious story of AAL11 heading to Washington? Help me find that out, and I will tell you who orchestrated the stand down.

[Gravy]

Pete Zalewski may be a friend of yours. You may have had a good time at the academy with him. But Zalewski is lying through his teeth when he states "absolutely not" when asked if he suspected a hijacking after observing AAL11 go NORDO, turn off its transponder and go off course.

I am not suggesting Zalewski is a bad person, or that he had anything to do with 9/11. I have nothing but sympathy and pity for him. He didn't ask to be in that situation, and most of us, myself included, would have responded to the situation the same way he has.I didn't realize that you were at Zalewski's side on 9/11. Tell us about it. That must have been an awful day for you. What do you plan to do with your knowledge of this coverup?

[Gravy]

Whoever the unnamed person was that told Scoggins the nonsense about AAL11 is a conspirator. Either that, or by an amazing coincidence, on 9/11, for the first time in history, someone got something wrong during a hectic and confusing time. But that possibility is so remote that surely we can dismiss it out of hand.

[gumboot]

Take the case of the Langley fighters allegedly scrambled to intercept the "phantom FL11" heading for Washington. That this whole scenario is preposterous is demonstrated by D.R. Griffin in his latest book, pp. 74-80. It is absurd that any qualified person could have thought that AAL11 was actually heading to Washington, while the North Tower had been struck by some other plane.



Why is that absurd?

Dr Griffin is a complete and utter moron. His lack of knowledge regarding 9/11 is absolutely astounding, and her deserves nothing but ridicule.

1. Initial reports were that a light aircraft hit the WTC
2. AA11 was a hijack, and there was no reason to think a hijacked aircraft would fly into a building

The timeline for the AA11 phantom aircraft is as follows:

0846 - AA11 hits WTC1
0851 - Boston Centre notifies NEADS that the news is reporting an aircraft has hit the WTC
0855 - Boston Centre says they believe AA11 hit the WTC
0856 - A NEADS tech says they only heard it was a civilian aircraft
0856 - NEADS asks Boston Centre to confirm it was AA11 that hit the WTC. Boston (Scroggins) says they cannot confirm that, they just know that an aircraft crashed into the WTC, and their last primary return on AA11 was 15 or 8 miles east of JFK.
0921 - NEADS receives a report from Boston (not Scroggins) that AA11 is still airborne and it's last known direction puts it on a heading for Washington DC. This information was apparently overhead from an FAA teleconference.
0923 - NEADS decide to scramble Langley to be set in position over Baltimore between AA11 and Washington DC, and to have the Otis fighters chase down the flight.
0924 - the Scramble order is issued to Langley
0925 - It is decided that the Otis fighters will remain in CAP over NYC
0930 - The Langley fighters become airborne. The Navy ATC handling the flight, and the lead pilot are confused over direction, and the aircraft take a standard intercept departure route which takes them east for 60 miles to a military training area called Whiskey 386, which is in the ADIZ.
0930 - American Airlines confirms that it was AA11 that hit WTC1
0934 - NEADS notices the Langley fighters are headed in the wrong direction, and orders them to Baltimore.
0935 - Boston notify NEADS that an unidentified aircraft has been picked up on Primary near the White House
0937 - AA77 hits The Pentagon
1000 - The Langley fighters establish a CAP over Washington DC
1010 - (approx) Fighters from Andrews AFB (scrambled by the USSS) establish in independent CAP over Washington DC
1025 - Estimated time of UA93's arrival over Washington DC

Now here's my reading of the situation here...

The Phantom AA11 resulted in an early scramble of Langley - had they been scrambled in response to the 0935 report, we could not have expected them to be airborne until 0944. Given they eventually arrived over Washington DC at 1000, with the incorrect heading, they would not have reached Washington DC until 1014, which would probably have been too late to engage UA93 had it made it to its target.

If the scramble direction error had not occurred, the Langley fighters would have arrived over Washington DC at about 0952 (AA11 scramble) or 1006 (AA77 scramble).

I can see no way in which these errors hindered NEADS chances of intercepting AA77 (which is the only flight the errors are relevant for). And indeed, if these errors had not occurred the fighters would not have even got airborne in time.

There's no evidence, nor any time for a stand down by NEADS on 9/11.

-Gumboot

[Cheap Shot]

Pete Zalewski may be a friend of yours. You may have had a good time at the academy with him. But Zalewski is lying through his teeth when he states "absolutely not" when asked if he suspected a hijacking after observing AAL11 go NORDO, turn off its transponder and go off course.

Wow go away for a day and see what happens, first A-Train beleive what you want about me being a controller or not; however, I am a public servant, and there has never been a question that if I knew the answer that I havn't tried to give an honest answer. I am not in a position in the government to cover anything up, or to try and mislead people, if so I would be on all of the other blog sites where I could supposedly pass all of this disinformation, everyone here seems to beleive what I say.

As far as a NORDO goes and a transponder going off and a course change, it is possible that a total electrical failure would could cause this. Though it would be a rarity on a commercial jet, it could happen, and probably has somewhere. I have worked emergencies in the past that were a hell of lot more nerve racking than the beggining of the AAL11 incident.

The course change would be the aircraft turning back towards Boston if there was an emergency on board and the pilots couldn't get a hold of ATC. A controller wouldn't nceessarily think Hijack prior to 9/11.

[Cheap Shot]

I have no idea what kind of pressure he was put under. My understanding is that FBI agents were in the ZBW building within minutes of the attack. And of course, those agents were under the orders of the senior official of the FBI command post, who just happend to be the Master of Disaster (http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=4173) himself.

Your reference to the FBI being there in minutes of the attack, are you saying that somehow the FBI knew in advance that this was going to happen. The Hijack occurred sometime before I got on the floor which was at 8:35. By then the aircraft was 20 NM south of Albany. I can't tell you when it was actually hijacked because I wasn't there. I beleive it was around 8:15. The plane crashed a 1/2 an hour later, and according to the official report the FBI was there shortly after the crash, lets say 8:50. The FBI New Hampshire office is located in Bedford, NH, by the speed limit it is 20 minutes max. I don't think this outlandish. I can't confirm when the FBI showed up because they didn't come into TMU which is where I was. I can say I saw them when I left when the building was being evacuated. They had boxes under thier arms which also contained strips along with the tapes.

[Cheap Shot]

The federal agents brought the controllers involved to a room and perhaps suggested all those dead people in the burning buildings were their fault.

I'm not being a smartass here but is this published somewhere, because as far as I know nobody was questioned by the FBI, as far as controllers are concerned maybe the Air Trafic Manager, Glenn Michael, or Terry Biggio the OMIC (Operational manager In Charger) or Bob Jones the guy who pulled tapes and first listened to them.

I never heard that Pete was interviewed by the FBI.

[Cheap Shot]

That no hijacking was suspected from the get go is ridiculous. Any controller will tell you that it is an extremely radical, very disturbing event for a plane to go NORDO, then turn off its transponder, then be observed turning around. That neither Zalewski nor his supe would have reacted as if a hijack was possible is simply incredible. If Cheap Shot is indeed a real controller-- a supposition I am starting to doubt more and more with each of his posts-- then he knows what I am saying here is true.

What about Glenn Michael, Cheap Shot? Is he your Academy buddy too? He is the one who stated to the media that a hijack was suspected immediately. Is he a liar, or is Zalewski? Common sense and any knowledge of ATC procedures clearly show that Richards was telling the truth.

I answered this before, I'm not saying that the above situation would not be radical or even disturbing, because all emrgencies are. But you are way off here. When Pete first realized what was being said by Mohammed Atta, and determined it was hijack, and he told the supervisor Johnathan Shipanni, then why did Shipanni question Pete twice on whether it was really a hijack? With Pete replying F_ _ _ You John, it's F _ _ _ ing Hijack.

Glenn Michael was my boss back then, I would like to think were buddies, professionally he is very well respected at Boston Center. It was suspected as soon as Mahamed Atta, accidentally spoke on the frequency told everyone to sit down and be quiet and that they were returning to the airport.

[Cheap Shot]

Some new to this thread may be wondering, what difference does it make when the plane was suspected to have been hijacked? The answer is that the sooner it was thought to have been hijacked, the more absurd the official story is that the NEADS fighters did not have time to scramble for this flight, or the other three.

NEADS fighters were not officially notified by the FAA, until 8:36 AM. This did give them sometime, but as in my previous posts, they won't normally launch without a target or a "Z" Point, I heard that "Z" point somewhere else. With only two sets of assets one at Otis and one at Langley they won't launch, fuel is very critical for fighter planes.

As far as all of the other planes, NEADS was never notified until all of those planes had or nearly impacted or had crashed.

NEADS originally was only receiving information from Boston Center. The protocol on that day was for it to go from the center to the region to FAA HQ, to the Pentagon to NORAD back to NEADS, I decided to go right to NEADS.

[Cheap Shot]

But I want to make it clear how I think the stand down was orchestrated. I have already stated I do not think Pete Zalewski or any other controllers were culpable for anything. I also want to point out that I do not blame the ordinary soldiers in the Air Force, including the fighter pilots themselves. Nor do I think there was any stand down order from some high government official like the President, Vice-President, or Secretary of Defense. This is commonly suggested by such truthers as D.R. Griffin, but there is no evidence it happened.

The stand down was carried out by a small number of highly placed officers within the NORAD command structure, who chose to be loyal to the foreign government that executed the 9/11 attacks. These officers were in key positions to gum up the communications between civilian ATC and the fighters sitting in their planes waiting for orders to defend the USA.

Everyone is entitled to thier opinion A-Train, as am I, I don't agree with you on this. Why would these officers do such a thing, unless they are terrorists themselves?
If you are stating that they were, then why would there be a goverment cover up?
I have been interviewed by DRG, I know he gets ripped here pretty good, I don't agree with him either, but I can say a couple of things before he published any of my comments in our interview, which he did twist at first, he gave me the opportunity to proof read it and make corrections. Four revisions later he published it the way I said it. I don't think he was intenionally twisting things but it was probably more of an overload of information. I don't agree with his theory's and I told him so. He was fine with it.

[Cheap Shot]

Who these officers were we may never know, but I believe if more people knew that this is the likely scenario, more of those involved in the events of that day would come forward and tell the truth of what happened, instead of reiterating the fraudulent official story in hopes of covering their own rear ends.

How would you ever know when that person did come forward and was trying to tell you the truth. You seem to reject anything that doesn't fit what your vison of what happened that day. I am here to tell you what I know, I was there, I worked it, and lived it. Ask a question and you might get an answer. You know you could be wrong.

I'll leave you with a quote from Thomas Jefferson ~ “The moment a person forms a theory, his imagination sees in every object only the traits which favor that theory”

[gumboot]

NEADS originally was only receiving information from Boston Center. The protocol on that day was for it to go from the center to the region to FAA HQ, to the Pentagon to NORAD back to NEADS, I decided to go right to NEADS.



Hi Cheap Shot, one thing I wanted to ask, was it you personally who made the decision to call the military directly? (First, I understand, the Otis TRACON, who then called Otis ANGB, and then NEADS (shortly after which time Otis ANGB were also calling NEADS going "what's going on?").

You're quite right that NEADS primarily receive their information from Boston ARTCC. As we know, the "official channel" was also followed for AA11, and the official channel never even got as far as the National Military Command Centre (NMCC).

The military did exceptionally well on 9/11, trying to achieve something that was never in their mandate, and that the system was not set up to do. The fundamental foundation of their achievement was the decision by Boston ARTCC to contact them directly. Whoever made that decision should be officially recognised for making one of the most crucial RIGHT decisions on that day.

If you were, indeed, involved in making that decision, I applaud you. And I applaud everyone else at Boston ARTCC that was involved in that decision.

-Gumboot

[Cheap Shot]

I came in that morning to work at 8:30 AM, as soon as I walked through the door I was approached and told that a Hijack was going on, I went up stairs to my desk first before going on the floor. Most Hiajcks up to 9/11 were very boring, and a lot of the "brown nosers" like to stand around and just get in the way. There is really nothing you can do but try get fighters up there to watch and sterilize there frequency. Then you watch until they land.

When I got to my desk, I got a phone call from Dan Bueno the TMU Supervisor, he told me to come down and help at the military desk, probably around 8:32 was the call. I asked him if he had called NEADS to launch the fighters and he sadi he had called Otis, but they couldn't launch unless the call came from the scramble circuit. I told him he was supposed to call NEADS, so he had Joe Cooper make the call. I got to the floor around 8:35 or 8:36. I asked Joe if he had given them the location, and he said no. So I called NEADS back and that was the beggining of a very long day.

[gumboot]

When I got to my desk, I got a phone call from Dan Bueno the TMU Supervisor, he told me to come down and help at the military desk, probably around 8:32 was the call. I asked him if he had called NEADS to launch the fighters and he sadi he had called Otis, but they couldn't launch unless the call came from the scramble circuit. I told him he was supposed to call NEADS, so he had Joe Cooper make the call. I got to the floor around 8:35 or 8:36. I asked Joe if he had given them the location, and he said no. So I called NEADS back and that was the beggining of a very long day.



Then you deserve the highest praise. I hope you will accept mine, meaningless as it is coming from a foreigner. :)

That decision made all the difference that day. As we know, the Controller to Supervisor to FAA Herndon to FAA HQ to Hijack Coord to NMCC to NORAD to CONR to NEADS to Otis track of the hijack protocols was woefully inadequate for dealing with what you faced on 9/11. As it resulted, the attack was too tightly coordinated for NEADS to have much of a chance anyway, but nonetheless, your actions deserve recognition. Let's imagine UA93 was not stopped by passengers. Let's imagine there were 5 aircraft, or 6. Your decision to contact NEADS directly would have unquestionably saved hundreds of lives.

-Gumboot

[MaGZ]

The timeline for the AA11 phantom aircraft is as follows:

0921 - NEADS receives a report from Boston (not Scroggins) that AA11 is still airborne and it's last known direction puts it on a heading for Washington DC. This information was apparently overhead from an FAA teleconference.
0923 - NEADS decide to scramble Langley to be set in position over Baltimore between AA11 and Washington DC, and to have the Otis fighters chase down the flight.
0924 - the Scramble order is issued to Langley
0925 - It is decided that the Otis fighters will remain in CAP over NYC
0930 - The Langley fighters become airborne. The Navy ATC handling the flight, and the lead pilot are confused over direction, and the aircraft take a standard intercept departure route which takes them east for 60 miles to a military training area called Whiskey 386, which is in the ADIZ.
0930 - American Airlines confirms that it was AA11 that hit WTC1
0934 - NEADS notices the Langley fighters are headed in the wrong direction, and orders them to Baltimore.


-Gumboot

Gumboot or Cheap Shoot,

Please explain to me why the fighters that were launched from Langley were confused as to which direction to fly. If the fighters were launched to intercept a "phantom" AA11 that was heading toward Washington DC why did they fly out toward the Atlantic?

[KoihimeNakamura]

The default plans, as I understand it, involve planes coming from overseas.

[Gravy]

Then you deserve the highest praise. I hope you will accept mine, meaningless as it is coming from a foreigner. :)

That decision made all the difference that day. As we know, the Controller to Supervisor to FAA Herndon to FAA HQ to Hijack Coord to NMCC to NORAD to CONR to NEADS to Otis track of the hijack protocols was woefully inadequate for dealing with what you faced on 9/11. As it resulted, the attack was too tightly coordinated for NEADS to have much of a chance anyway, but nonetheless, your actions deserve recognition. Let's imagine UA93 was not stopped by passengers. Let's imagine there were 5 aircraft, or 6. Your decision to contact NEADS directly would have unquestionably saved hundreds of lives.

-GumbootStrongly seconded. You have my respect and gratitude, Cheap Shot.

[Cheap Shot]

Thanks for the support, this is a great site. The hardest part was not knowing for three years whether I had done an okay job on that day. It wasn't until the Justice department came to interview everyone at Boston Center 3 years later and started to ask questions.

When I was interviewed by the FAA three days after 9/11. They had like three recorded tapes of me that morning. I told them that I had made about 40 phone calls to NEADS that morning but they were on the DSN phone which was not recorded at Boston Center. I told them that I beleive it was recorded at NEADS though and if someone would call and get the tapes they would probably have them.

No one was interested, they transcribed my three calls and took a little of the information that I gave them. Three years later the Justice Department came and began interviewing everyone at Boston Center that was involved.
I think when they sat down with me they thought it would be a five minute converstation, it lasted two hours. I started talking about all of the phone calls I could remember they were really startled. Especially when I told them about Phantom AAL11. They really wanted to know why we called NEADS and didn't let the standard protocol take its place. I had a great relationship with NEADS with my position as the Military Specialist at Boston Center, I also knew the DSN phone numbers by heart, since I dealt with them on a weekly sometimes daily basis. It just made sense for me to call them on the DSN phone.

When I told the Justice Department that the tapes probably still existed, but I couldn't be sure if NEADS still had them they were also shocked. Four months later they came back with the tapes. I had used four different numbers to call NEADS that day from what I could determine two of those numbers were probably recorded. I heard about twenty of my conversations, that day and some other ones between NEADS and other facilities. These are the same tapes that you can hear from the Vanity Fair article. Though there are only about ten in that article.

Needless to say reliving that day all over again was wierd on one hand it was kind of tough, but on the other, I had lived this story for three years and no one really seem to care, or wanted to know.

I went home that day and even though it was January in New Hampshire I sat down outside by my frozen pool and had a couple of beers, my story had finally been told.

I made mistakes that day, everyone did, but all in all I had a sense of well being that I did my job that day, and I had done it well.

[Cheap Shot]

Gumboot or Cheap Shoot,

Please explain to me why the fighters that were launched from Langley were confused as to which direction to fly. If the fighters were launched to intercept a "phantom" AA11 that was heading toward Washington DC why did they fly out toward the Atlantic?

They have a preset launch pattern, that they fly unless instructed otherwise. As in other posts they normally won't dpeart without a target, they departd them and without direction I guess they just flew thier preset launch pattern.

[T.A.M.]

Gumboot or Cheap Shoot,

Please explain to me why the fighters that were launched from Langley were confused as to which direction to fly. If the fighters were launched to intercept a "phantom" AA11 that was heading toward Washington DC why did they fly out toward the Atlantic?

I would imagine they were ordered "into the air" without specific directions, and then once up and going (towards the east coast, as per default) they were given the proper directions/location, and adjusted.

Why do you think they headed toward the sea MagZ?

TAM:)

[Cheap Shot]

The default plans, as I understand it, involve planes coming from overseas.

You are correct, the aircraft should have been given a heading and distance, but they were not.

[Cheap Shot]

I would imagine they were ordered "into the air" without specific directions, and then once up and going (towards the east coast, as per default) they were given the proper directions/location, and adjusted.

Why do you think they headed toward the sea MagZ?

TAM:)

Where the pilots at Otis knew there was a hijacking and they knew something was up, I am not sure if the langley fighters ever knew before there departure what they were going up for. I've never read anything about them.

[T.A.M.]

I would imagine (speculation, yes I know) that someone higher up, dismayed at the situation developing, and knowing "SOMETHING" had to be done, bellowed "I don't care, just get those fighters up there".

But like I said, just speculation.

TAM:)

[stateofgrace]

I went home that day and even though it was January in New Hampshire I sat down outside by my frozen pool and had a couple of beers, my story had finally been told.

I made mistakes that day, everyone did, but all in all I had a sense of well being that I did my job that day, and I had done it well.

Thank you for sharing your story on this forum. You did all you could Cheap Shot, mistakes are easy to spot with benefit of hindsight but when you are there on the front line everybody does what the believe to be right at the time.

Your posts give a great insight to what really happened and how real people react to unprecedented events, again thank you.

[Cheap Shot]

In a nutshell, the conspirators who enacted the stand down were whoever controlled the orders going out to the fighter pilots at Langley and Otis, respectively.

But that does not mean it was any of those you listed. Those individuals may be hapless figureheads, who were unaware of the overall situation while the "dirty work" was done by unnamed subordinates beneath them.

Take the case of the Langley fighters allegedly scrambled to intercept the "phantom FL11" heading for Washington. That this whole scenario is preposterous is demonstrated by D.R. Griffin in his latest book, pp. 74-80. It is absurd that any qualified person could have thought that AAL11 was actually heading to Washington, while the North Tower had been struck by some other plane.

We were told that the information that AAL11 was still flying southbound was provided by Chip Scroggins at ZBW. But it turns out that Scoggins himself had been given the information by a mysterious, unnamed person at NEADS:

Whoever the unnamed person was that told Scoggins the nonsense about AAL11 is a conspirator. And it is probably this same person who told his superiors, Marr, Arnold and Nasypany, the same garbage. Those officers then acted in complete ignorance of what was really going on. Thus the upper level of the NEADS command may have been made up of dunces-- people much like the President of the United States himself-- who are incapable of mastering the details of what is going on in the organization they preside over and thus cannot really be blamed for not thwarting an conspiracy that they cannot even comprehend.

So tell me Gumboot, who do you think started the fictitious story of AAL11 heading to Washington? Help me find that out, and I will tell you who orchestrated the stand down.


Actually A-Train, I never recieved the ghost AAL11 info from NEADS it was passed on a Telcon line that had some other centers on it and National Tower, and FAA HQ personel, theer possibly could have been some military presence on the telcon I am not sure. But I am pretty positive probably 90% sure who made that statement. He is an FAA official at FAA HQ, who was probably passing old information, by old I mean 15 minutes old. I interpreted it as of "at that exact time" and passed that information to NEADS. Up until then AAL airlines would never confrim that AAL11 had hit the towers, a matter of fact as long as I was there that day Ammerican Airlines never confirmed it. Within 5 minutes of UAL175 hitting the building United confirmed it. Again American Airlines would never confirm probably due to a lock down, which is a normal procedure for the airlines when they have a crash.

Reference the FAA HQ person who was on the Telcon, it is based on information I came across only about 9 months ago, reading and old article, from September 2001. A lot of the information I recieved on that telcon was from this one idividual, I don't know where he got it from, I am sure he doesn't know that I was forwarding this information to NEADS. I have passed this info on to other people but nothing has ever come of it. This person thought he was doing his job, as I was doing mine. This is not the place to publish his name, and since I am not 100% sure it was him or maybe someone else in his office, I won't mention his name here.

Either way it is not a coverup, nor was it the beggining of a standown, it is just that no one has ever put two and two together.

[A-Train]

The course change would be the aircraft turning back towards Boston if there was an emergency on board and the pilots couldn't get a hold of ATC. A controller wouldn't nceessarily think Hijack prior to 9/11.

There is a difference between knowing and suspecting. For example, yesterday I suspected you are not a real controller. Today, after reading this post, I now know you are not a real controller.

A controller does not need to "think Hijack" to commence procedures leading to contacting the military for an fighter escort; he only needs to see evidence that a hijack is possible. Yes, it is theoretically possible that a plane could lose all communications and its transponder while having some kind of difficulty, then have no other choice but to turn around and look for an emergency airport. But it is just as possible-- and far more likely-- that this set of circumstances observed

1. Aircraft goes NORDO
2. Transponder turned off
3. Plane turns radically off course

is the result of the cockpit having been commandeered by hijackers who have turned off the transponder and taken over controls of the plane. Under such a situation, the controllers are trained to suspect a hijacking even though they do not know for sure that that is what happened. For obvious reasons, they are to assume the worst possible scenario and contact the military immediately.

[ref]

All respect and gratitude for Cheap Shot. You did a remarkable job that day. Are you the person, who gave the first notification to Jeremy Powell, telling him that this is not an exercise, not a test, and asked them to scramble fighters? It's astounding to get a chance to discuss these topics with you, Cheap Shot.

[MaGZ]

Cheap Shot,
Could you tell us what motivated the Justice Department to interview you three years after the fact? Do you think the Justice Department was looking for information they could use to present to the public in an article like the one that appeared in Vanity Fair?

[T.A.M.]

There is a difference between knowing and suspecting. For example, yesterday I suspected you are not a real controller. Today, after reading this post, I now know you are not a real controller.

A controller does not need to "think Hijack" to commence procedures leading to contacting the military for an fighter escort; he only needs to see evidence that a hijack is possible. Yes, it is theoretically possible that a plane could lose all communications and its transponder while having some kind of difficulty, then have no other choice but to turn around and look for an emergency airport. But it is just as possible-- and far more likely-- that this set of circumstances observed

1. Aircraft goes NORDO
2. Transponder turned off
3. Plane turns radically off course

is the result of the cockpit having been commandeered by hijackers who have turned off the transponder and taken over controls of the plane. Under such a situation, the controllers are trained to suspect a hijacking even though they do not know for sure that that is what happened. For obvious reasons, they are to assume the worst possible scenario and contact the military immediately.

A-train, you are calling Cheap Shot a liar and a fraud, where is your proof?

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

A controller does not need to "think Hijack" to commence procedures leading to contacting the military for an fighter escort; he only needs to see evidence that a hijack is possible. Yes, it is theoretically possible that a plane could lose all communications and its transponder while having some kind of difficulty, then have no other choice but to turn around and look for an emergency airport. But it is just as possible-- and far more likely-- that this set of circumstances observed

1. Aircraft goes NORDO
2. Transponder turned off
3. Plane turns radically off course

is the result of the cockpit having been commandeered by hijackers who have turned off the transponder and taken over controls of the plane. Under such a situation, the controllers are trained to suspect a hijacking even though they do not know for sure that that is what happened. For obvious reasons, they are to assume the worst possible scenario and contact the military immediately.

Source or retract immediately your slander.

TAM:)

[MaGZ]

I would imagine they were ordered "into the air" without specific directions, and then once up and going (towards the east coast, as per default) they were given the proper directions/location, and adjusted.

Why do you think they headed toward the sea MagZ?

TAM:)

It just seems strange to me–when launched–they would have been told to go toward Baltimore to intercept the ‘phantom’ AA11. Instead, they followed the Cold War scenario: flying out toward the Atlantic. I remember one of the Langley pilots in an interview saying he was thinking a submarine might be planning to attack us from the ocean. I thought this was a strange thing to say.

[MaGZ]

Where the pilots at Otis knew there was a hijacking and they knew something was up, I am not sure if the langley fighters ever knew before there departure what they were going up for. I've never read anything about them.

I remember reading the Otis pilots had a "heads-up" early that morning, perhaps from your colleague that had called them earlier. One of the sergeants at the Air Guard Base who took the call told the Otis pilots that it looked like the "real thing," meaning a hijacking.

[T.A.M.]

It just seems strange to me–when launched–they would have been told to go toward Baltimore to intercept the ‘phantom’ AA11. Instead, they followed the Cold War scenario: flying out toward the Atlantic. I remember one of the Langley pilots in an interview saying he was thinking a submarine might be planning to attack us from the ocean. I thought this was a strange thing to say.

I can accept you feeling it is "strange" that it happened this way. Even Cheap Shot feels it was unusual. In moments of fear/chaos things do not always go according to the textbook.

It is the inference that people make that because it was unusual, that it must have been part of a dastardly plot, that gets me angry.

TAM:)

[Cheap Shot]

There is a difference between knowing and suspecting. For example, yesterday I suspected you are not a real controller. Today, after reading this post, I now know you are not a real controller.

A controller does not need to "think Hijack" to commence procedures leading to contacting the military for an fighter escort; he only needs to see evidence that a hijack is possible. Yes, it is theoretically possible that a plane could lose all communications and its transponder while having some kind of difficulty, then have no other choice but to turn around and look for an emergency airport. But it is just as possible-- and far more likely-- that this set of circumstances observed

1. Aircraft goes NORDO
2. Transponder turned off
3. Plane turns radically off course

is the result of the cockpit having been commandeered by hijackers who have turned off the transponder and taken over controls of the plane. Under such a situation, the controllers are trained to suspect a hijacking even though they do not know for sure that that is what happened. For obvious reasons, they are to assume the worst possible scenario and contact the military immediately.

I don't know what controllers you know now or who you knew before 9/11, but the last hijack we had prior to 9-11 in the US, I beleive was Lufthansa 592 who was hijacked by an Ethiopian who forced the aircraft to JFK. That was 1993. Since 1993 I am pretty psotive we have had over 10,000 NORDO aircraft in that time, none of them being hijacked, out of those 10,000 probably 300 or so were emergency related, those were not hiajcked, out of those 300 probably 30 were due to electrical failure, and they were not hijacked. Your idea of radically turning off course was a slow bending turn from northwesterly heading to a southernly heading. So where do you assume that controller would automatically think hijacking.

You my friend are a lost cause, and if the truth bit you on your backside, you would never know it.

[Cheap Shot]

All respect and gratitude for Cheap Shot. You did a remarkable job that day. Are you the person, who gave the first notification to Jeremy Powell, telling him that this is not an exercise, not a test, and asked them to scramble fighters? It's astounding to get a chance to discuss these topics with you, Cheap Shot.

Yeah that was me, I had several discussions with Jeremy that day, I think Joe Cooper was also asked if it was an exercise as well.

[Cheap Shot]

Cheap Shot,
Could you tell us what motivated the Justice Department to interview you three years after the fact? Do you think the Justice Department was looking for information they could use to present to the public in an article like the one that appeared in Vanity Fair?

I beleive it was some of the relatives of those in the towers, and some New Jersey politicians that pressuerd Thomas Kean, and Lee Hamilton. To push further into the what transpired.

[ref]

You my friend are a lost cause, and if the truth bit you on your backside, you would never know it.

This kind of people we deal with here on a daily basis. Most of them wouldn't recognise the truth if it hit them in the face. They want to believe in conspiracies and their own theories so much, they will not see anything else, no matter how much we try. They want to believe in their own stuff so much, they are totally blind to any reasoning. That's why it's not even worth wasting too much effort in explaining everything to these people over and over again. If there ever was a truther, that would be willing to change his/her views in accordance to evidence presented to him/her :) Those are rare.

[Cheap Shot]

It just seems strange to me–when launched–they would have been told to go toward Baltimore to intercept the ‘phantom’ AA11. Instead, they followed the Cold War scenario: flying out toward the Atlantic. I remember one of the Langley pilots in an interview saying he was thinking a submarine might be planning to attack us from the ocean. I thought this was a strange thing to say.

The pilots at Otis definitely had a heads up, where I guess the Langley guys didn't. People that were watching TV had more information than we did in TMU, the only TV we had was across the aisle at the System Engineers desk, they had CNN up. When UAL175 hit we knew it from thier exasperation. After the Ghost AAL11 call, I also had called FACSFAC VACAPES (Fleet Area Control and Surveillance Facility) in Norlfolk who had radar sites up and down the east coast to be on a lookout for AAL11 that was probably flying low and fast, this assuming he didn't hit the tower. I don't know why they stayed on that heading, and I don't know why Washington Center didn't turn the aircraft north, they may not have known about the ghost AAL11 at that exact time.

[A-Train]

Since 1993 I am pretty psotive we have had over 10,000 NORDO aircraft in that time, none of them being hijacked, out of those 10,000 probably 300 or so were emergency related, those were not hiajcked, out of those 300 probably 30 were due to electrical failure, and they were not hijacked.

It is completely irrelevant how many NORDOS there have been for any period of time!! AAL11 was no ordinary NORDO! It was a NORDO, combined with a lost transponder, combined with the aircraft observed going off course.

As I pointed out in an earlier thread, most NORDOs are routine; they happen every day. They are not suspected hijacks.

But these three events happening at the same time is an extremely rare-- and disturbing-- occurrence.

Let me ask you, how often since 1993 has an airplane displayed these three characteristics at the same time? I would bet most controllers go their entire careers without ever witnessing even two of these events from the same plane at the same time.

Therefore, it is unbelieveable that the ZBW controller witnessed the three events with AAL11 and chose to treat it like any other NORDO.

[Cheap Shot]

If you read my post I would suspect about 30 times since 1993, you are correct, most controllers would never see one in the career, I have but it wasn't a commercial jet, it was a Regional Turbo-Prop everything went out the aircraft made a sharp turn I did get a descent altitude out of the aircraft before I lost the transponder, but the aircraft turned immediately and landed at Bangor Int in ME, without talking to anyone. I coordinated as an emergency right away with Bangor Approach and they watched him all the way in, total electrical failure. More back-up systems on a commercial jet therefore less of a chance occurring but until they heard a Middle Eastern Vocie on frequency I don't think they were thinking Hijack, they were thinking emergency.

[T.A.M.]

It is completely irrelevant how many NORDOS there have been for any period of time!! AAL11 was no ordinary NORDO! It was a NORDO, combined with a lost transponder, combined with the aircraft observed going off course.

As I pointed out in an earlier thread, most NORDOs are routine; they happen every day. They are not suspected hijacks.

But these three events happening at the same time is an extremely rare-- and disturbing-- occurrence.

Let me ask you, how often since 1993 has an airplane displayed these three characteristics at the same time? I would bet most controllers go their entire careers without ever witnessing even two of these events from the same plane at the same time.

Therefore, it is unbelieveable that the ZBW controller witnessed the three events with AAL11 and chose to treat it like any other NORDO.


You have accused Cheap Shot of being a liar, and trying to mislead us here (a fraud). Where is your proof? If you have none, than you should reword your earlier statement to read "I don't believe you are a controller" instead of "I KNOW you are not a controller".

TAM:)

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I love how gumboot gave names of major players, and A-Train actually had to make up shadowy, unnamed individuals in an effort to avoid accusing real people.

"It would only take a few individuals at the top."
"Here's the names of the people 'at the top'. Which of them is in on it?"
"Oh, umm... they're just figureheads."

Give. Me. A. Damn. Break.

A-Train... you're a deluded fool.

[A-Train]

It just seems strange to me–when launched–they would have been told to go toward Baltimore to intercept the ‘phantom’ AA11. Instead, they followed the Cold War scenario: flying out toward the Atlantic. I remember one of the Langley pilots in an interview saying he was thinking a submarine might be planning to attack us from the ocean. I thought this was a strange thing to say.

MaGZ, I strongly suggest you read pp. 74-79 of D.R. Griffin's new book about the "Phantom Flight 11." He demonstrates that there is no hard evidence that the Langley fighters were really scrambled in response to the phantom craft, and that the whole story that they were is just a fabrication to explain why fighters that were actually scrambled for AAL77-- an airplane over the continental US heading for Washington D.C.-- instead were ordered to fly east.

The concept of a "phantom Flight 11"-- the name given to the nonexistent plane that, according to the tapes, was thought by the FAA and NORAD to be heading toward Washington-- is absolutely crucial to the 9/11 Commission's new story. It is so important because of the well-entrenched report that fighters were scrambled from Langley Air Force Base at 9:24 (becoming airborne at 9:30). As we saw earlier, the original NORAD timeline indicated that the Langley fighters were scrambled in response to word from the FAA at 9:24 that AA 77 had possibly been hijacked and appeared to be heading back toward Washington. General Arnold, in his 2003 testimony to the Commission, gave a different account, saying that the fighters were really scrambled in response to word about UA 93. The 9/11 Commission, insisting that the military did not learn about either flight until after 9:30, needed an alternative explanation for the Langley scrambles. The tapes provide this alternative explanation: phantom AA 11.
Debunking 9/11 Debunking p. 74Therefore, while it may be true that someone from ZBW reported to NEADS that AA 11 was still airborne and heading south, it is not necessarily true that the Langley fighters were scrambled in response to this absurd proposition.

So the question remains: who exactly controlled the orders given to the fighters scrambled out of Langley? Who gave the nonsense order to fly east, when the threat was known to be coming from the west?

[T.A.M.]

you going to prove Cheap Shot is a liar, a fraud, and not really a controller, or retract it? or will you be a COWARD, and do neither, but avoid the subject?

TAM:)

[Cheap Shot]

MaGZ, I strongly suggest you read pp. 74-79 of D.R. Griffin's new book about the "Phantom Flight 11." He demonstrates that there is no hard evidence that the Langley fighters were really scrambled in response to the phantom craft, and that the whole story that they were is just a fabrication to explain why fighters that were actually scrambled for AAL77-- an airplane over the continental US heading for Washington D.C.-- instead were ordered to fly east.

Therefore, while it may be true that someone from ZBW reported to NEADS that AA 11 was still airborne and heading south, it is not necessarily true that the Langley fighters were scrambled in response to this absurd proposition.

So the question remains: who exactly controlled the orders given to the fighters scrambled out of Langley? Who gave the nonsense order to fly east, when the threat was known to be coming from the west?

[Quote]The chase is on for what will turn out to be a phantom plane.

09:21:50
NASYPANY: O.K. American Airlines is still airborne—11, the first guy. He's heading towards Washington. O.K., I think we need to scramble Langley right now. And I'm—I'm gonna take the fighters from Otis and try to chase this guy down if I can find him.[Quote]

If you ever went to Vanity Fair you can listen to this exact tape. I'm sure you will say it is fabricated or morfed or something spectacular, but this is what Nasypany said, I listened to this back when I was interviewed by the Justice Department the second time, while I was lying about being a controller, they don't hold anything against you for lying to a congressional inquiry do they?

If you haven't figured out who I am yet, A-Train then your investigative knowledge is nil, but I have read the pages you sugested in DRG's new book, it is all in his opinion, he has no other facts to support that theory other than he deosn't like the governments response. By the way, why don't you go back to the beginning of the book under acknowledgements it is just after the page in my copy where DRG signed mine personally. Read the third paragraph down, and now you can call DRG a liar, because he must have been wasting his time with all of the interviews and e-mails he conducted with me, thinking that I was a controller and according to you "You know that I am not one".

What's that I am hearing is that you eating crow.

[jaydeehess]

It is completely irrelevant how many NORDOS there have been for any period of time!! AAL11 was no ordinary NORDO! It was a NORDO, combined with a lost transponder, combined with the aircraft observed going off course.

As I pointed out in an earlier thread, most NORDOs are routine; they happen every day. They are not suspected hijacks.

But these three events happening at the same time is an extremely rare-- and disturbing-- occurrence.

Let me ask you, how often since 1993 has an airplane displayed these three characteristics at the same time? I would bet most controllers go their entire careers without ever witnessing even two of these events from the same plane at the same time.

Therefore, it is unbelieveable that the ZBW controller witnessed the three events with AAL11 and chose to treat it like any other NORDO.

Your contention is that NORDO + no transponder + change of course absolutly must be regarded by ATC as a hijack.

Therefore, it is encumbant upon you to compile a list (let's go back 30 years to include the heydays of aircraft hijackings, but restrict the area to the USA and Canada) of all the occurances of such combination of communication failures and course change and note how many were immediatly declared possible hijackings in progress, how many were declared possible hijackings more than 15 minutes after this combination was observed, how many actually did turn out to be hijackings.

Cheap Shot has related one such occurance that was NOT declared a possible hijacking and indeed was NOT a hijacking. (the regional turbo-prop near Bangor)

Please now answer T.A.M.'s question as well. Provide your evidence that Cheap Shot is not an ATC controller but instead a fraud and a liar. Do so or retract the statements.

[jaydeehess]

It just seems strange to me–when launched–they would have been told to go toward Baltimore to intercept the ‘phantom’ AA11. Instead, they followed the Cold War scenario: flying out toward the Atlantic. I remember one of the Langley pilots in an interview saying he was thinking a submarine might be planning to attack us from the ocean. I thought this was a strange thing to say.


Perhaps you are familiar with the military phrase which has that the battle plan works well up to the moment battle starts? Perhaps you can also see how this applies to the fast developing situation on 9/11/01?


Is it completely logical that the pilots reverted to a Cold War stradegy? No it isn't but a computer wasn't making that decision , nor was the ineffable Mr.Spock. Human beings were deciding where to go with little instruction from the people who normally tell them where to go. That they reverted to a course of action they had performed many times in the past is then not so unusual.

[Regnad Kcin]

...You seem to reject anything that doesn't fit what your vison of what happened that day...Ask a question and you might get an answer. You know you could be wrong.Haven't dealt with conspiranoids much, I take it?

[stateofgrace]

Haven't dealt with conspiranoids much, I take it?

Just to give Cheap shot a heads up on the people he is debating.

A Train believes that Israeli Commandos armed with guns hijacked the planes and parachuted out before they hit their targets and MAGZ believes , as his name implies that missiles were fired at ground zero.

Of course both believe Israel were behind the attack, with the aid of the USG.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Of course both believe Israel were behind the attack, with the aid of the USG.


I may be wrong, but I think MaGZ believes "the Jews" were responsible for the anthrax attack only. As for 9/11, he just likes implying that the fighter pilots were complete idiots and were dumb-firing multiple missiles over NYC... :rolleyes:

[A-Train]

What's that I am hearing is that you eating crow.


You have to realize I didn't do any "research" to determine who you are. I can only judge you by what you have posted here. You may indeed be a controller, but you have made some very peculiar posts previously on this thread-- especially your continued insistence to suggest that AAL11 was little more than a routine NORDO until the hijacker's voice was heard. It is statements of yours like the following that made me suspicious:


"As far as a NORDO goes and a transponder going off and a course change, it is possible that a total electrical failure would could cause this. Though it would be a rarity on a commercial jet, it could happen, and probably has somewhere. I have worked emergencies in the past that were a hell of lot more nerve racking than the beggining of the AAL11 incident.

The course change would be the aircraft turning back towards Boston if there was an emergency on board and the pilots couldn't get a hold of ATC. A controller wouldn't nceessarily think Hijack prior to 9/11." -Cheap Shot

So if you are a genuine controller, then I apologize for thinking you are not. But that does not change the fact that much of what you have said on this forum is as convoluted and bizarre as is the official story of what went on in the ATC centers on the day of 9/11.

[Cheap Shot]

So if you are a genuine controller, then I apologize for thinking you are not. But that does not change the fact that much of what you have said on this forum is as convoluted and bizarre as is the official story of what went on in the ATC centers on the day of 9/11.

You know A-Train we can get along and I would be willing to share the events of that day, and you don't have to beleive them, you are entitled to your own opinion. To say that my statements are bizarre, well I have to agree with you on that, some of them probably are, it was a bizarre day. Convoluted, well that is what I am trying to do by being on this blog and others blogs as well, and it is why I agreed to be interviewed by DRG, Mark Gaffney and others as well. As a civil servant I am willing to share the information that I can, if you ask a question I will do my best to answer it. If it is a question I can't answer becasue I don't have knowledge about it I won't BS you, and if it is something I just can't talk about becasue it is FOUO, I'll let you know that as well. I don't think we will ever agree, but that's okay.

[Cheap Shot]

Haven't dealt with conspiranoids much, I take it?

I have been on other blogs, of course I have always been a minority on the other sites, I'm not sure how I found this one, but I enjoy it. I need to read more of the threads here though to get a better feeling who is out there, I hope no one thinks, and I hate to use the term, that I hijacked this thread.

[T.A.M.]

Cheap Shot:

When I was accused of lying about being a Physician, I provided the admin/mods of this forum with information that proved who I was. They then confirmed it, by publicly posting on a thread that I was, indeed, a physician. This is an avenue for you, if you wish.

As for A-Trains comments, while I can see bizarreness in the events of the day, I see no convolution in your telling of the tale...please carry on.

TAM:)

[Cheap Shot]

I may be wrong, but I think MaGZ believes "the Jews" were responsible for the anthrax attack only. As for 9/11, he just likes implying that the fighter pilots were complete idiots and were dumb-firing multiple missiles over NYC... :rolleyes:

I need to read more threads here to get a better feeling of who everybody is. Just need a little more down time. It is a pretty good site though. I think if I get a couple of more posts on I will be able to add my signature, avatar and add links. Hope no one minds my spelling and grammar it tends to be pretty bad at times.

[Cheap Shot]

Cheap Shot:
When I was accused of lying about being a Physician, I provided the admin/mods of this forum with information that proved who I was. They then confirmed it, by publicly posting on a thread that I was, indeed, a physician. This is an avenue for you, if you wish.
TAM:)


I wouldn't have a problem with that at all, not sure how to go about it though, just e-mail some of them?

[ref]

I need to read more threads here to get a better feeling of who everybody is. Just need a little more down time. It is a pretty good site though. I think if I get a couple of more posts on I will be able to add my signature, avatar and add links. Hope no one minds my spelling and grammar it tends to be pretty bad at times.

You are already able to post links after 15 posts. After 50 posts I think everything is available.

[T.A.M.]

I wouldn't have a problem with that at all, not sure how to go about it though, just e-mail some of them?

What I did was I gave one of the mods my real name, and information only I could know, and then had them verify it either through a google search, or some other means. I cannot tell you if this would work for you, but a scanned picture of your drivers license, combined with an article that proves that the person your drivers licence says you are did work on that day at ATC in boston center might help.

Seems like a lot of trouble, but there really is no other way to reliably confirm you are who you say you are...although your posts here, with regard to their content, and wording, help a fair bit.

YOU can use the PM function on this site to PM them with the details etc. Further corrispondence via email may be an option from that point. Once you are logged in, go to the bottom of the page. Bottom Right corner lists the Mods that are online.

TAM:)

[ref]

Cheap Shot,

The conspiracy theorists, especially Alex Jones, repeatedly try to claim that false blips were inserted to the radar screens to confuse air traffic controllers. Could you put this lie to rest for good?

[A-Train]

Either way it is not a coverup, nor was it the beggining of a standown, it is just that no one has ever put two and two together.

What qualifies you, as a TMU specialist at ZBW, to state that it was not the beginning of a stand down? If a stand down took place, it was within the bowels of the command structure of NORAD. How would you have any idea what went on there on 9/11?

You may indeed been the one who passed on the bogus info about phantom FL11 to NEADS. And that info may indeed have been nothing more than an innocent error by someone in the FAA, as you suggest. But you have no idea why that ridiculous notion was used to justify scrambling the Langley jets north, instead of west to meet the threat of AAL77. In fact, neither you, nor anyone else, has ever even demonstrated that the Langley fighters were scrambled to chase phantom FL11, or that the whole episode wasn't just a fabrication to justify an otherwise very suspicious scramble order for the Langley jets to go anywhere but west.

Your position can best be summed up by this excerpt from DRG's latest book:

"With regard to this latter question, we also need to distinguish between what Scoggins believes happened and what really happened. Having corresponded with Scoggins, I am convinced that he believes that the Langley fighters were scrambled because of his communication to NEADS that AA 11 was still airborne. But his belief does not mean this is what really happened. Not being privy to all the communications between Boston and NEADS or to the communications involving the military officers who would have made the decision, he has no basis for saying that NEADS, which was so dreadfully slow in scrambling fighters in response to the real AA11, immediately did so in response to the phantom version. Scoggins may simply be among the people who have been deceived by the new story."
Debunking 9/11 Debunking p.77I realize, Cheap Shot, that you are probably aching from all the back slapping from all the JREF cheerleaders around here. That's what this forum does best: groveling at the feet of anyone who appears to be in a position of authority. But the truth is that neither you, nor that other guy in Griffin's book with initials CS-- nor anyone else in the FAA, is truly qualified to judge what went on in NORAD that day, or to make any kind of judgment at all about a theoretical stand down of the US air defense system.

In fact, given that you are highly paid employees whose careers and livelihoods can go up in smoke at the snap of someone's fingers, I'd say your assessments have less credibility that those of someone else who can speak his mind freely without fear of reprimand.

[T.A.M.]

Oh but you are qualified to make that judgement, or DRG is.

1. A-Train, show a little respect for this man. He did what he could on that day, and last I checked, you cannot claim to have done anything.

2. The fact that we, like the majority of the American public, would praise him for doing what he could, but you feel he deserves your ridicule, says alot about you. Better to grovel at the feet of a real expert, than be worshipping at the alter of DRG, the truther high priest. What qualifications, as a theologian, does he have?

3. They are far more qualified to comment on procedure wrt NORAD/FAA/ATC than you or DRG. You are talking nonsense.

4. So, now knowing you cannot insult him by saying he is illegitimate, you backhandedly insult him by insinuating he would cover up mistakes that allowed 3000 people to die, just to save his job.

You are truely sad

TAM

[Firestone]

What qualifies you, as a TMU specialist at ZBW, to state that it was not the beginning of a stand down? If a stand down took place, it was within the bowels of the command structure of NORAD. How would you have any idea what went on there on 9/11?

You may indeed been the one who passed on the bogus info about phantom FL11 to NEADS. And that info may indeed have been nothing more than an innocent error by someone in the FAA, as you suggest. But you have no idea why that ridiculous notion was used to justify scrambling the Langley jets north, instead of west to meet the threat of AAL77. In fact, neither you, nor anyone else, has ever even demonstrated that the Langley fighters were scrambled to chase phantom FL11, or that the whole episode wasn't just a fabrication to justify an otherwise very suspicious scramble order for the Langley jets to go anywhere but west.

Your position can best be summed up by this excerpt from DRG's latest book:

I realize, Cheap Shot, that you are probably aching from all the back slapping from all the JREF cheerleaders around here. That's what this forum does best: groveling at the feet of anyone who appears to be in a position of authority. But the truth is that neither you, nor that other guy in Griffin's book with initials CS-- nor anyone else in the FAA, is truly qualified to judge what went on in NORAD that day, or to make any kind of judgment at all about a theoretical stand down of the US air defense system.But you are qualified? :confused:

In fact, given that you are highly paid employees whose careers and livelihoods can go up in smoke at the snap of someone's fingers, I'd say your assessments have less credibility that those of someone else who can speak his mind freely without fear of reprimand.You really shouldn't project your values (or lack of these) on other people. :mad:

[Cheap Shot]

What qualifies you, as a TMU specialist at ZBW, to state that it was not the beginning of a stand down? If a stand down took place, it was within the bowels of the command structure of NORAD. How would you have any idea what went on there on 9/11?

First it was NEADS, not NORAD, I have no clue what went on there. Second I would have a greater idea than DRG or anyone else, except those other military personel that deal directly with NEADS. Third I was in TMU I am not a TMU specialist, I was and still am the military specialist at Boston Center.

But you have no idea why that ridiculous notion was used to justify scrambling the Langley jets north, instead of west to meet the threat of AAL77. In fact, neither you, nor anyone else, has ever even demonstrated that the Langley fighters were scrambled to chase phantom FL11, or that the whole episode wasn't just a fabrication to justify an otherwise very suspicious scramble order for the Langley jets to go anywhere but west.

NEADS did not know about AAL77 at the time of the scramble from Langley, so who were they going after. General Arnold testified that they were going after AAL77, but he had not tapes to support that statement, it was based on a logical notion that they had to be scrambled for somebody, but there was no tapes to back up his testimony then. It wasn't until the tapes I spoke of and the conversations that you can hear in the Vanity Fair on-line article, that the story changed. You won't find any ATC tapes of a conversation anywhere that states Langley Fighters were scrambled for AAL77.

nor anyone else in the FAA[/U], is truly qualified to judge what went on in NORAD that day, or to make any kind of judgment at all about a theoretical stand down of the US air defense system.

Maybe I am not the most qualified, never said I was, but when someone asks my opinion I'll state it, and I beleive from what I observed that day that there was never a stand down at NEADS.

[Cheap Shot]

Cheap Shot,

The conspiracy theorists, especially Alex Jones, repeatedly try to claim that false blips were inserted to the radar screens to confuse air traffic controllers. Could you put this lie to rest for good?


It would be nearly impossible for that to happen. You theoretically could load them from the training department into the DYSIM Lab, and if someone knew how to eliminate the tie-off between the DYSIM and the actual operational floor, that would probably be the only way. But it would have to be real time, and you would have to load a tape, guessing the location of where the hiajckers were, don't see it happening on the FAA side.

The military side is different, they have SIM exercises where they actually load in false targets and react to them, I don't know if they mix it with real world or not.

[jaydeehess]

What qualifies you, as a TMU specialist at ZBW, to state that it was not the beginning of a stand down? If a stand down took place, it was within the bowels of the command structure of NORAD. How would you have any idea what went on there on 9/11?
<<snip>>
I realize, Cheap Shot, that you are probably aching from all the back slapping from all the JREF cheerleaders around here. That's what this forum does best: groveling at the feet of anyone who appears to be in a position of authority. But the truth is that neither you, nor that other guy in Griffin's book with initials CS-- nor anyone else in the FAA, is truly qualified to judge what went on in NORAD that day, or to make any kind of judgment at all about a theoretical stand down of the US air defense system.

In fact, given that you are highly paid employees whose careers and livelihoods can go up in smoke at the snap of someone's fingers, I'd say your assessments have less credibility that those of someone else who can speak his mind freely without fear of reprimand.

OMG, I can scarcly believe you went there........

So, an air traffic controller has no qualifications to make statements about what went on that day and infact people with absolutly no ATC experience are better qualified to espouse their senarios. Lack of qualifications are then the most compelling qualifications one can have. That is the gist of YOUR poistion A-train.

Is that what passes for 'logic' in your mind? That, and the insinuation that CS is a liar.

I note also that while we may applaud those posting here who do offer up their relevent experience, what you refer to as "back slapping", I must note that on LC or on PfT that "back slapping" for those who support the forum status quo is of, at the very least, an equal quantity. Furthermore the "back slapping" at LC or PfT is also backed up by a ban happy administration of those forums that simply refuses to brook much dissent of the "911 was an inside job" mantra and indeed often forces dissenting posts to a ghetto sub-forum.

Once banned a poster can not even view those forums. What are your ilk afraid of A-train?

[T.A.M.]

They are afraid that the Shills (ordinary people who disagree with them) will infiltrate (post on the forums) and flood (post) the websites with misinformation (evidence, facts, expert opinions), and hence hurt (fix) the truth (lies) movement.

TAM:)

[jaydeehess]

They are afraid that the Shills (ordinary people who disagree with them) will infiltrate (post on the forums) and flood (post) the websites with misinformation (evidence, facts, expert opinions), and hence hurt (fix) the truth (lies) movement.

TAM:)

A summation of what I admit, I suspected all along.

[T.A.M.]

You suspect it because you are logical and rational my friend, and the vast majority of them are neither.

TAM:)

[jaydeehess]

You suspect it because you are logical and rational my friend, and the vast majority of them are neither.

TAM:)

back slapper :D

[apathoid]

I'm a little curious as to where A-Train got the idea that hijacked aircraft typically don't respond to radio calls and stop reporting ModeC/S info as well as making radical heading changes......Theoretically speaking(without 9/11 hindsight), if I were a controller and a commercial airline flight exhibited these three traits - that would tell me that there was a good chance that the airplane has lost electrical power. After all - radios, transponders, and autopilots don't work very well without it.

So - is this, indeed, the MO for hijackings - or is it simply the case of another conspiracy theorist not knowing what they are talking about?

BTW, belated welcome to CheapShot.

[A-Train]

Theoretically speaking(without 9/11 hindsight), if I were a controller and a commercial airline flight exhibited these three traits - that would tell me that there was a good chance that the airplane has lost electrical power. After all - radios, transponders, and autopilots don't work very well without it.

A good chance that the plane has lost electrical power... a far better chance that the plane has been hijacked. The controller is trained to react as if the worst case scenario-- a hijack-- has occurred.

From my previous post:

A controller does not need to "think Hijack" to commence procedures leading to contacting the military for an fighter escort; he only needs to see evidence that a hijack is possible. Yes, it is theoretically possible that a plane could lose all communications and its transponder while having some kind of difficulty, then have no other choice but to turn around and look for an emergency airport. But it is just as possible-- and far more likely-- that this set of circumstances observed

1. Aircraft goes NORDO
2. Transponder turned off
3. Plane turns radically off course

is the result of the cockpit having been commandeered by hijackers who have turned off the transponder and taken over controls of the plane. Under such a situation, the controllers are trained to suspect a hijacking even though they do not know for sure that that is what happened. For obvious reasons, they are to assume the worst possible scenario and contact the military immediately.

[jaydeehess]

We all know what you previously posted A-Train. you have yet to back up your supposition that such a senario means, "a far better chance that the plane has been hijacked".

How many times in the last 30 years has that set of circumstances arisen and the controller in question declared a possible hijacking? How many times did the set of circumstances turn out to actually BE a hijacking?

After all A-Train, if that set of circumstances has never before turned out to be a hijacking then your supposition is shown to be in error. If it has occurded that the set of circumstances has been a hijacking in the past but but only rarely, instead far and away more likely to be a power failure, then again your supposition is shown to be in error.

Since this is YOUR supposition it is encumbant upon you to back it. Do so or man-up and admit you cannot back up that statement with facts.

[Regnad Kcin]

I realize, Cheap Shot, that you are probably aching from all the back slapping from all the JREF cheerleaders around here. That's what this forum does best: groveling at the feet of anyone who appears to be in a position of authority...I always prefer a rousing rendition of "For He's a Jolly Good Fellow!"

In fact, given that you are highly paid employees whose careers and livelihoods can go up in smoke at the snap of someone's fingers, I'd say your assessments have less credibility that those of someone else who can speak his mind freely without fear of reprimand.Snort. Goodness, you conspiraneers slay me!

[A-Train]

First it was NEADS, not NORAD, I have no clue what went on there. Second I would have a greater idea than DRG or anyone else, except those other military personel that deal directly with NEADS. Third I was in TMU I am not a TMU specialist, I was and still am the military specialist at Boston Center.

You are splitting hairs here. NEADS is part of NORAD.

Why would you have a better idea of what happened than DRG?

So you're the military specialist at ZBW, not TMU? So what is the significance of that, other than that you have to reach over the aisle a few feet to steal cookies and doughnuts from TMU?

Sorry, Cheap, but I'm not awed by your impressive sounding credentials. I know what the military desk at an ATC center does, and does not, do. Your role on 9/11 ended when you contacted NEADS. What happened from then on involving the orders to scramble is completely beyond your experience and expertise. You have no more insight into that situation than the guy on the next bar stool-- except at least the guy in the bar isn't obligated to defend an official story that he has signed off on.


NEADS did not know about AAL77 at the time of the scramble from Langley....

You are only parroting the official story here. You have no clue what they knew or did not know about at that time. Common sense and quite a bit of evidence shows that your colleagues at Indy and Washington Centers had done their jobs and passed on their information to NEADS of a suspect hijack of AAL77.



"Shortly after 9/11, NORAD reported that the FAA notified them at this time that Flight 77 "may" have been hijacked and that it appears headed toward Washington. Apparently, flight controllers at Dulles International airport discover a plane heading at high speed toward Washington; an alert is sounded within moments that the plane appears to be headed toward the White House. In 2003, the FAA supported this account, but claimed they had informally notified NORAD earlier. "NORAD logs indicate that the FAA made formal notification about American Flight 77 at 9:24 AM, but information about the flight was conveyed continuously during the phone bridges before the formal notification"
-The Terror Timeline p406So the FAA itself had supported what common sense would indicate: that NORAD/NEADS had indeed been informed about AAL77 even before 9:24.

[T.A.M.]

You are splitting hairs here. NEADS is part of NORAD.

Why would you have a better idea of what happened than DRG?

So you're the military specialist at ZBW, not TMU? So what is the significance of that, other than that you have to reach over the aisle a few feet to steal cookies and doughnuts from TMU?

Sorry, Cheap, but I'm not awed by your impressive sounding credentials. I know what the military desk at an ATC center does, and does not, do. Your role on 9/11 ended when you contacted NEADS. What happened from then on involving the orders to scramble is completely beyond your experience and expertise. You have no more insight into that situation than the guy on the next bar stool-- except at least the guy in the bar isn't obligated to defend an official story that he has signed off on.

A-Train:
More with the insults. Please tell us your qualifications to know so intimately what his job/role was, where it stopped, where it began. Please tell us how you know things were not said that he could have heard that day that might have told him more than his job description would imply. Please tell me what qualifies you to know all this, unless you were there, or are god. Please tell me you are not basing this just on "your reading" or "DRG's word".

Please respond.

TAM:)

[ref]

It would be nearly impossible for that to happen. You theoretically could load them from the training department into the DYSIM Lab, and if someone knew how to eliminate the tie-off between the DYSIM and the actual operational floor, that would probably be the only way. But it would have to be real time, and you would have to load a tape, guessing the location of where the hiajckers were, don't see it happening on the FAA side.

The military side is different, they have SIM exercises where they actually load in false targets and react to them, I don't know if they mix it with real world or not.

Ok, thanks for that insight.

[jaydeehess]

So the FAA itself had supported what common sense would indicate: that NORAD/NEADS had indeed been informed about AAL77 even before 9:24

How soon A-Train? The plane only completed all three of your supposed garauntees of hijack at 8:59 IIRC. So there is only a 25 minute MAXIMUM time period during which ATC may have suggested to NEADS that they had another possible hijacking and only a MAXIMUM of 38 minutes from the completion of your supposed garauntees of hijack to the time the plane flew into the Pentagon.

Had everything gone as clockwork maybe, just maybe a fighter could have reached Flt 77 with enough time to get behind it and gun it down or hit it with a missile. That is IF a shoot down order had been issued AND received by a fighter that had managed to get on the tail of the Boeing. Had the fighters from Otis been sent to Washington at 9 am and travelled at 540 Mph they would have arrived about 3 minutes before flt 77 hit the Pentagon.

So If all went as clockwork they would have had 3 minutes to get in behind the Boeing while receiving a shoot down order and 'splashing' the aircraft.
3 minutes.

Now you may say that the F-15 can travel at three times that speed and arrived on scene 20 minutes before flt 77 but when they got there having burned the sky at 1875 MPH they would be almost out of fuel with the requirement that they now slow down and find Flt 77, identify it(there is an airport nearby. wouldn't want to firing at a plane that was just looking to land while the attacking plane skips by) AND STILL they require a shoot down order! No military flyer is going to deliberatly shoot down a passenger airliner, much less a USA registered airliner full of US citizens, without having received an ORDER to do so.

The extent of your hindsight stragedy is mind boggling.

[Darth Rotor]

You know A-Train we can get along and I would be willing to share the events of that day, and you don't have to beleive them, you are entitled to your own opinion. To say that my statements are bizarre, well I have to agree with you on that, some of them probably are, it was a bizarre day. Convoluted, well that is what I am trying to do by being on this blog and others blogs as well, and it is why I agreed to be interviewed by DRG, Mark Gaffney and others as well.
Your narrative makes infinite sense to me. A-train is being a tool.

My bona fides: retired, but I did 25 years Navy pilot, 4000 hours, a few hundred hours in and around the NYC ATC nightmare, flight intsructor, instrument flight Instructor, and mishap investigator for class A, B and C mishaps, ground and flight. I've had to ask controllers more than once to mark a tape during a weird ATC evolution. Been NORDO more than once, had more than a few Mode 3/C issues.

Your addition to the general understanding of the ATC NEADS lashup is greatly appreciated, so from one aviation professional to another: thanks, man. You keep moving that metal around the sky, it's hard freaking work in a Class A airspace.

And of course, if a pilot screws up, the pilot dies
If the controller screws up, the pilot dies (well, sometimes, unless the pilot catches it first. :) )

Same old story.

DR

[Galileo]

T.A.M.

I know who the A-Train is.

He most certainly has the authority to make the claims he does, but because of national security, is not privy to reveal it on this forum. The A-Train is a powerful member of the government.

What evidence do you have, T.A.M., that national security would not be breached by answering your many questions?

[T.A.M.]

Galileo;

I assume you are the same Galileo from SLC Blog. Welcome to the forum.

I merely asked him for proof of his credentials, just as I suggested that Cheap Shot provide them to the mods who could verify them for us without revealing his name.

I require more than your word and his word, sorry, I got nailed for accepting people on their word alone before, and that was from someone who had not earned my mistrust. Both A-Train, and yourself (if you are the Galileo from SLC) have earned my mistrust by your previous postings of nonsense.

Noone has said that the questions would breech National security, except you (through insinuation), and I don't know who you are from adam.

Are you ATrain's "handler" lol...

A-Train...are you Dick Cheney...lol

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

Besides, I thought the USG were all part of the cover up and the NWO, why would A-Train come here and blast his own...lol

just when you think they couldnt get any more ridiculous...anyway, welcome aboard...enjoy the ride.

TAM:)

[Galileo]

Oh, and I forgot to mention....

While Cheap Shot was at work on September 11, 2001, the A-Train was suspiciously NOT scheduled to work on 9/11!

Please explain that coincidence???

[Cheap Shot]

You are only parroting the official story here. You have no clue what they knew or did not know about at that time. Common sense and quite a bit of evidence shows that your colleagues at Indy and Washington Centers had done their jobs and passed on their information to NEADS of a suspect hijack of AAL77.

So the FAA itself had supported what common sense would indicate: that NORAD/NEADS had indeed been informed about AAL77 even before 9:24.

You seem to only want to beleive the original story before they listened to the other tapes in 2004. Just so you can refute any all other facts that come your way. But if the first indication of AAL77 was when it was seen by Dulles Controllers than what happened the other 40 minutes the aircraft was gone. Where is the tape on a hotline indicating that NEADS was called by Washington Center or Indy Center prior to 9:24 AM, there isn't one. We were on two phone bridges at Boston Center niether one had anyone from NEADS or NORAD as far as I know, if they did they were very silent. There are tapes that have not been published like the one where I told NEADS to contact Washington Center and ask them about the aircraft six miles from the Whitehouse. When they got a hold of who ever answered the phone there, the guy hung up on them.

You have no clue whats so ever what you are talking about, not one iota. Up until that time NEADS had not been contacted by any Centers, other than Boston Center. Ask some one who was there, don't ask DRG he doesn't know either, just speculation on his part.

Oh and by the way, at Boston Center its not cookies that TMU passes around, its Ice Cream from Haywards.

[T.A.M.]

Oh, and I forgot to mention....

While Cheap Shot was at work on September 11, 2001, the A-Train was suspiciously NOT scheduled to work on 9/11!

Please explain that coincidence???

Well I do not know who he is, so how can I explain why he wasn't scheduled...lol

TAM:)

[Galileo]

T.A.M.

Indeed!

I am the same said 'Galileo' from the SLC blog.

However, I speak in the name of the past, of my fabled ancestor Galileo Galilei, the father of science, the inventor of the scientific method, and the voice of revolution.

I also speak in the name of my other fabled ancestors, Napoleon Bonuparte, Jesse James and Jim Bakken.

Welcome.

And yes, indeed, I am the A-Train's handler, the brains behind the operation, much like Cheney is the brains behind Bush, and Madison was the brains behind Jefferson.

Here is what happened on 9/11 (easily documented by any casual researcher on the Internet):

Several War Games were set up on the morning of 9/11. These War Games diverted resources from NORAD that were needed to intercept the hijacked planes.

Also, byzantine protocols were installed to slow down military response as well. All orders had to be cleared to make sure that the hijack response was not in response to a war game. Powerful conspirators inside the government LIHOP.

Sounds pretty simple to me, not sure why this forum has evolved into 10 pages of pretentious banter.

PS - nothing in this post shall be construed to imply that the Twin Towers and WTC 7 were not also taken down in explosive demolitions.

[T.A.M.]

ok Galileo, what ever you say...enjoy your stay...

TAM;)

[Galileo]

I have read DRG's books and the 9/11 Commission Report, which blames the FAA for the lack of military response.

But I do not believe the 9/11 Commission:

The ATC noticed signs of hijacking of FL11 at 8:15

Betty Ong called and reported the hijacking at 8:18

Amy Sweeney called and reported the hijacking at 8:22

The military had a liason at FAA headquarters.

Given these facts, it is hard to believe no one called the military in a timely fashion.

Also....

The crash scene of FL11 was shown on national TV at 8:48. It was reported from the first sentence to be a plane crash.

Wouldn't the military have called the FAA at that time?

Yet nothing was done, and a second crash in NYC was shown on national TV at 9:03.

And the military still didn't call the FAA?

The military liason did nothing?

The 9/11 Commission has not explained any of this. Nor has Popular Mechanics.

The only reasonable explanation is a virtual stand down order.

And how did the hijackers on FL93 take over the cockpit? The whole crew already knew about the other hijackings. The entire ATC/FAA network knew. How could 4 (or 3 according to Mark Bingham) hijackers with boxcutters fight past the entire crew? Passenger Tom Burnett called and reported that the hijackers had guns. You'd need a gun to take over FL93.

[T.A.M.]

Galileo

Please do a search on the two words "Gumboot" and "NORAD"

He has covered all that you speak of quite thoroughly.

Thanks

TAM:)

[Cylinder]

Betty Ong called and reported the hijacking at 8:18

Amy Sweeney called and reported the hijacking at 8:22

The military had a liason at FAA headquarters.

Sweeney and Ong both called American Airlines - not the FAA. Ong contacted the American Airlines Southeastern Reservations Office in Cary, NC. Sweeney twice contacted the American Flight Services Office in Boston.

The crash scene of FL11 was shown on national TV at 8:48. It was reported from the first sentence to be a plane crash.

Wouldn't the military have called the FAA at that time?

Why?


Yet nothing was done, and a second crash in NYC was shown on national TV at 9:03.

And the military still didn't call the FAA?

The military liason did nothing?

The 9/11 Commission has not explained any of this. Nor has Popular Mechanics.

The only reasonable explanation is a virtual stand down order.

To may want to re-read Chapter 1 of the Final Report:

8:38 Boston Center notifies NEADS of hijacking
8:46 NEADS scrambles Otis fighter jets in search of AA 11
8:46:40 AA 11 crashes into 1 WTC (North Tower)
8:53 Otis fighter jets airborne

NEADS was notified and had reacted even before the first plane struck its target - a mere 32 minutes from the first transponder turned off (and only 15 minutes from the first contact from Boston Center) to wheels-up. How is that "stand-down"?

[Jonnyclueless]

So whatever happened to Radar? And what about Hawkeye?

[PhantomWolf]

So whatever happened to Radar?

He was last seen as Patrick Noyes in an Episode of Burke's Law in 1995, well after his own M*A*S*H spin off W*A*L*T*E*R flopped

And what about Hawkeye?

He got elected President in the West Wing.

[SpitfireIX]

He was last seen as Patrick Noyes in an Episode of Burke's Law in 1995, well after his own M*A*S*H spin off W*A*L*T*E*R flopped



He got elected President in the West Wing.

:dl:

[ref]

And the military still didn't call the FAA?

FAA (Cheap Shot) called NEADS at 08:37.


And how did the hijackers on FL93 take over the cockpit? The whole crew already knew about the other hijackings. The entire ATC/FAA network knew. How could 4 (or 3 according to Mark Bingham) hijackers with boxcutters fight past the entire crew? Passenger Tom Burnett called and reported that the hijackers had guns. You'd need a gun to take over FL93.

The hijackers were sitting in the front of the plane. Ziad Jarrah had martial arts training in the US, specifically concentrating on eliminating opponents as quickly as possible. The pilots were only in the stage of confirming the other hijackings, through their channels. A gun was reported, but no gun was found. It could as well have been a fake, it would have the same effect as a real one. Hijackers quickly eliminated at least one passenger and stormed to the cockpit. What part of the events do you disagree with?

[gumboot]

They have a preset launch pattern, that they fly unless instructed otherwise. As in other posts they normally won't dpeart without a target, they departd them and without direction I guess they just flew thier preset launch pattern.


My understanding is that they were given a Z-point over Baltimore, but that between the lead pilot at the Navy ATC they got confused over where they were going, and reverted to the standard 60:90 departure. The error was picked up 4 minutes after the aircraft took off, so at worst only 8 minutes were lost.

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

Up until then AAL airlines would never confrim that AAL11 had hit the towers, a matter of fact as long as I was there that day Ammerican Airlines never confirmed it. Within 5 minutes of UAL175 hitting the building United confirmed it. Again American Airlines would never confirm probably due to a lock down, which is a normal procedure for the airlines when they have a crash.


Interestingly enough, as an example of the level of confusion flying around, at one point before 0937 American Airlines were suggesting that AA11 and AA77 had hit the WTC.

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

A controller does not need to "think Hijack" to commence procedures leading to contacting the military for an fighter escort; he only needs to see evidence that a hijack is possible. Yes, it is theoretically possible that a plane could lose all communications and its transponder while having some kind of difficulty, then have no other choice but to turn around and look for an emergency airport. But it is just as possible-- and far more likely-- that this set of circumstances observed

1. Aircraft goes NORDO
2. Transponder turned off
3. Plane turns radically off course

is the result of the cockpit having been commandeered by hijackers who have turned off the transponder and taken over controls of the plane. Under such a situation, the controllers are trained to suspect a hijacking even though they do not know for sure that that is what happened. For obvious reasons, they are to assume the worst possible scenario and contact the military immediately.


A-train you have previously been shown, in this very thread, that your claims above are categorically false. The FAA Hijacking Protocols were amended after 9/11 to include loss of transponder, change of course, and loss of communication. On 9/11 an FAA ARTCC controller was not to consider an aircraft hijacked unless it squawked 7500. You know this. You have had the pertinent FAA regulations shown to you. Please cease your lies.

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

What qualifies you, as a TMU specialist at ZBW, to state that it was not the beginning of a stand down? If a stand down took place, it was within the bowels of the command structure of NORAD. How would you have any idea what went on there on 9/11?


"The bowels of the command structure of NORAD"? A-train I gave you a list of all the pertinent people at NORAD's NEADS station. You've yet to identify this shadowy traitor. Your completely baseless accusations are utterly shameful.





You may indeed been the one who passed on the bogus info about phantom FL11 to NEADS. And that info may indeed have been nothing more than an innocent error by someone in the FAA, as you suggest. But you have no idea why that ridiculous notion was used to justify scrambling the Langley jets north, instead of west to meet the threat of AAL77.



Um, when was the last time you actually looked at a map of the United States? The Langley fighters were scrambled at 0922, to Baltimore, which is north of Langley AFB. At 0930, when they took off, AA77 was about 130 miles NNW of Langley, and only 30 miles from Washington DC. Phantom AA11, or AA77, the Langley fighters had to go north.






In fact, neither you, nor anyone else, has ever even demonstrated that the Langley fighters were scrambled to chase phantom FL11, or that the whole episode wasn't just a fabrication to justify an otherwise very suspicious scramble order for the Langley jets to go anywhere but west.


As I said, they were scrambled north. They had to go north to intercept AA77 anyway.

But we have provided you evidence. You just ignore it.

9:21:50
NASYPANY: O.K. American Airlines is still airborne—11, the first guy. He’s heading towards Washington. O.K., I think we need to scramble Langley right now. And I’m—I’m gonna take the fighters from Otis and try to chase this guy down if I can find him.

Listen to Audio (http://www.vanityfair.com/mp3/politics/092150.mp3)






Your position can best be summed up by this excerpt from DRG's latest book:



Dr. Griffin is a liar, a fraud, an ignorant moron, and unworthy of anything except mockery and ridicule. He has not ever generated a single original thought regarding 9/11, and he regurgitates half-digested garbage with a enthusiasm of a feeding vulture.

The fact that you use him as "evidence" demonstrates how completely dishonest and agenda-driven you are.

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

Why would you have a better idea of what happened than DRG?


Because DRG is an idiot and Cheapshot isn't.





Common sense and quite a bit of evidence shows that your colleagues at Indy and Washington Centers had done their jobs and passed on their information to NEADS of a suspect hijack of AAL77.


Common sense and quite a bit of evidence shows that his colleagues at Indianapolis and Washington Centres did their jobs and contacted Search and Rescue at Langley AFB to look for the wreckage of AA77 which had vanished off the scopes with loss of communication - the classic signs of a crash.




So the FAA itself had supported what common sense would indicate: that NORAD/NEADS had indeed been informed about AAL77 even before 9:24.



Goodness, first Dr Griffin, and now you're using Paul Thompson for expert testimony. Who will you bring forth next to offer an expert opinion? Mickey Mouse?

-Gumboot

[ref]

Dr. Griffin is a liar, a fraud, an ignorant moron, and unworthy of anything except mockery and ridicule. He has not ever generated a single original thought regarding 9/11, and he regurgitates half-digested garbage with a enthusiasm of a feeding vulture.

-Gumboot

And how is you Distortion of Fact doing? :D No wonder you have to take breaks from that project, it's a lot of BS in one package.

[gumboot]

Here is what happened on 9/11 (easily documented by any casual researcher on the Internet):

Several War Games were set up on the morning of 9/11. These War Games diverted resources from NORAD that were needed to intercept the hijacked planes.


Care to cite what these "war games" were and what "resources" it was they "diverted" from NORAD?




Also, byzantine protocols were installed to slow down military response as well. All orders had to be cleared to make sure that the hijack response was not in response to a war game. Powerful conspirators inside the government LIHOP.


Indeed. Conspirators with powers to see through time, it appears. The FAA hijack protocols were in place many, many years before 9/11.

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

I have read DRG's books and the 9/11 Commission Report, which blames the FAA for the lack of military response.


There was no "lack of military response". The military response was exemplary.




The ATC noticed signs of hijacking of FL11 at 8:15

Incredible. What were these signs?




Betty Ong called and reported the hijacking at 8:18


8:19. And who did she call?




Amy Sweeney called and reported the hijacking at 8:22


Amy Sweeney's first successful call occurred at 8:25. Who did she call, and what did she say, before the call was cut off?





The military had a liason at FAA headquarters.

And?





Given these facts, it is hard to believe no one called the military in a timely fashion.


Someone did call the military in a timely fashion. Cheap Shot here called NORAD's North East Air Defense Sector at 0837.




The crash scene of FL11 was shown on national TV at 8:48. It was reported from the first sentence to be a plane crash.


Yes it was. What sort of plane?




Wouldn't the military have called the FAA at that time?


Whom, in the military, would have called whom in the FAA? I imagine quite a few military personnel called quite a few FAA personnel at that time. NEADS, for example, called New York ARTCC at that time.





Yet nothing was done, and a second crash in NYC was shown on national TV at 9:03.


Nothing was down about the plane that had crashed into the WTC? What do you propose the military should have done? New York City has its own emergency services.




And the military still didn't call the FAA?

The military liason did nothing?


Whom in the military should have called whom in the FAA? How do you know the military liason did nothing? I understand he was talking to the National Military Command Center at this time.




The 9/11 Commission has not explained any of this. Nor has Popular Mechanics.

The only reasonable explanation is a virtual stand down order.


A virtual stand down order? How does that differ from an actual stand down order? Is it sent be email?





And how did the hijackers on FL93 take over the cockpit? The whole crew already knew about the other hijackings.


They did? How did they know about them? What were they told?




The entire ATC/FAA network knew.


It did? How? What did they know?




How could 4 (or 3 according to Mark Bingham) hijackers with boxcutters fight past the entire crew?


Why did they need to fight past the entire crew? Who was in the crew? Which of them had the expertise to deal with experienced, highly trained, armed jihadists?




Passenger Tom Burnett called and reported that the hijackers had guns. You'd need a gun to take over FL93.


Whom did Tom Burnett call, and what did he say?

I would respectfully suggest that your knowledge of 9/11 is severely lacking.

-Gumboot

[Gravy]

And how did the hijackers on FL93 take over the cockpit?For one thing, the flight attendants had keys.

How could 4 (or 3 according to Mark Bingham) hijackers with boxcutters fight past the entire crew? It was four hijackers on 93. The only report of "boxcutters" was on flight 77. There was no need to get past the entire crew: only those who might interfere with their entry into the cockpit. Passengers on the other flights reported stabbings with knives, the use of mace, and bomb threats. In the case of 93, we know that at least one hijacker had a device strapped to him that he said was a bomb.

You'd need a gun to take over FL93.Nonsense. It is logical to assume that on each of the flights the hijackers used similar weapons and tactics. How did they get past the crews? They killed them with knives.

As gumboot says, you are very poorly informed. Please think before you post. This isn't a game. Your arguments from incredulity will never advance your position or your understanding. You can learn much here. I hope you stick around and treat this subject with respect.

[Galileo]

Well, it looks like New Blood Galileo is having his comments parsed, sliced, and diced almost as efficiently as the core columns of the WTC were sliced and diced into neat 30 foot segments and loaded onto trucks for Asia.

There seems to be an army of conspiracy theorists on this website. I thought it was a website for skeptics?

9/11 was not a conspiracy.

It was a legal, rational military operation. For the small cost of only 3000 lives, the USA now has military control over central Asia and the Middle East.

Ever wonder why no one has come forward to expose the 9/11 conspiracy???

No you know, the whole thing was legal, it wasn't a conspiracy. Everybody was just following orders. Executive orders by Bush legalized the event.

Now any competent military general would sacrifice 3000 lives to achieve an important military goal. Think of the infantry charges during WW1 or flanking maneuvers by Napoleon. Think of cities taken by force during WWII and all the civilians killed.

And the brave heroes who gave their lives on 9/11 to benefit America fared better than most. Their families were all given $3 million and made into international heroes. This shows the kindness of the Bush Administration.

The 9/11 military operation was also very efficient, and saved thousands of lives. For example, had the first plane hit the 50th floor instead of the 95th floor, there would have been 50,000 dead rather than only 3000.

The controlled demolitions saved many lives as well. Had the towers tipped over, there would have been thousands more dead and far more property damage as well. And WTC 7 was not blown up until after it was evacuted, in another great show of mercy.

If there really was a vast powerful international Al Qaeda conspiracy, we would have sealed up the Mexican border a long time ago.

I categorically reject conspiracy theories.

[T.A.M.]

Nice speculative opinion with out a single fact to back it up....

NEXT

TAM:)

[Calcas]

Ok, I got tired of reading A-Trains parroting of DRG's book and decided I had to read the pertinent parts.

Since I refuse to purchase it, I spent 90 minutes or so this morning at Borders with my daughter and decided to read it there.

He covers the alleged stand-down argument in the first chapter. There is LOTS of speculation and quibbling over time frames. However, as Cheap shot has pointed out, it's ALL speculation on his part.

BTW, CS is quoted quite a bit and, as he pointed out, DRG gives him some credit in the third paragraph of his acknowledgements page. His identity is no secret nor does it seems he is trying to hide it.

However, DRG seems to give quite a bit of credence to Robin Hordons explanations of FAA procedure. I thought Hordon was fired by Regan (PATCO strike) in 1981. How is he supposed to be up to date on procedures if he hasn't been a controller in 25 years? Hell, I'm an ex-controller myself but that doesn't make me an expert on current (or 2001) procedures.

CS however, is not only a current controller but he WAS THERE in Boston Center as the military specialist on 9-11. Yet, DRG quotes Hordon again and again as if he is some kind of expert witness.

The whole thing reminded me of the CIT wonder duo. Ignore the credible witnesses and find one (or 4, in their case) whose story fits into your preconceived scenario.

Pretty poor journalism if you ask me.

[Regnad Kcin]

...I categorically reject conspiracy theories.I am NOT a looney!

[Galileo]

Hey guys, just want to lay a hot rumor to rest.

I have been getting a lot of people speculating that 'A-Train' is in fact, Artis Gilmore.

[Remember him, the 7 foot 3 giant with the huge afro and sideburns who played for the Kentucky Colonels of the ABA, then with the Chicago Bulls, San Antonio Spurs and Boston Celtics in the NBA.]

Well, I can tell you that our A-Train is most definetly NOT Artis Gilmore and our A-Train looks nothing like him at all. I also doubt that Artis Gilmore works for the federal government. Nor to my knowledge was Artis Gilmore involved in 9/11.

[Our A-Train is a white male of average height, rather than a giant African American.]

It's true that Artis Gilmore, in his playing days was known as the A-Train, and it's also true that our A-Train used to be a big fan of good old Artis. It is also true that on the basketball court our A-Train was quite a spectacle, known for his 'fluid' drives to the hoop.

But I can assure you, these two A-Trains are not the same people.

[T.A.M.]

Disappointing.

Our A-Train tends to act like an angry, obnoxious ass most of the time. Your description of what he looks like doesnt add up...lol oh well.

TAM:)

[Gravy]

There seems to be an army of conspiracy theorists on this website. I thought it was a website for skeptics?So we got stuff wrong in our responses? Please present your evidence.

It was a legal, rational military operation. For the small cost of only 3000 lives, the USA now has military control over central Asia and the Middle East.You don't say? It seems like the U.S. doesn't have military control of anything but small portions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Please explain how the U.S. exercises its military control over these countries:

Iran
Bahrain
Israel
Jordan
Saudi Arabia
Lebanon
Qatar
Syria
United Arab Emirates
West Bank & Gaza
Kazakhstan
Kyrgyz Republic
Pakistan
Tajikistan
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan

Thank you.

[uk_dave]

Well, it looks like New Blood Galileo is having his comments parsed, sliced, and diced almost as efficiently as the core columns of the WTC were sliced and diced into neat 30 foot segments and loaded onto trucks for Asia.

Yep, coz that's the size they were delivered to the original construction site...what? No! Don't tell me you thought they were all 110 storeys long to begin with?


There seems to be an army of conspiracy theorists on this website. I thought it was a website for skeptics?

9/11 was not a conspiracy.


Yes it was, only it's not theoretical. It was a conspiracy by a bunch of pissed off arabs who wanted to give the mighty USA a bloody nose.

It was a legal, rational military operation. For the small cost of only 3000 lives, the USA now has military control over central Asia and the Middle East.

oooooo look! A load of bollocks!! Don't see them very often...

Ever wonder why no one has come forward to expose the 9/11 conspiracy???

Strangely enough, no. I guess it's just me, thinking that if there is no conspiracy then there's probably no one to come forward and expose it. But I'm old fashioned like that. Carry on...oh you did...

No you know, the whole thing was legal, it wasn't a conspiracy. Everybody was just following orders. Executive orders by Bush legalized the event.
smelly bollocks


Now any competent military general would sacrifice 3000 lives to achieve an important military goal. Think of the infantry charges during WW1 or flanking maneuvers by Napoleon. Think of cities taken by force during WWII and all the civilians killed.

Must be a **** general then. All it's achieved is 8 years of republican rule, to be followed by a democratic victory in 2008. Even Ron thinks that, and he can't be trusted.


And the brave heroes who gave their lives on 9/11 to benefit America fared better than most. Their families were all given $3 million and made into international heroes. This shows the kindness of the Bush Administration.

Joking aside, you just accused the family members of those who died on 911 of being complicit in this for financial gain. You might want to retract that claim.
Seriously.
Retract it.

The 9/11 military operation was also very efficient, and saved thousands of lives. For example, had the first plane hit the 50th floor instead of the 95th floor, there would have been 50,000 dead rather than only 3000.
Yeah, things could have been worse. They could have been better too. Somehow I suspect the terrorists were hoping for the worst case scenario and the US got 'lucky' that day. Think of those that died. The ones who decided to jump instead of burn. Have you seen the footage? I have. Show some respect. It's not a game.

The controlled demolitions saved many lives as well. Had the towers tipped over, there would have been thousands more dead and far more property damage as well. And WTC 7 was not blown up until after it was evacuted, in another great show of mercy.

Just because you don't understand construction or physics this does not make you an expert on these two subjects. Just thought I'd point that out for you.

If there really was a vast powerful international Al Qaeda conspiracy, we would have sealed up the Mexican border a long time ago.

Well, since the hijackers never entered the US via mexico, that would seem to be rather redundant. Unless you're also a racist piece of scum sucking detritus whose idea of reasoned debate is to spin a national tragedy as an excuse for a racist stance on immigration.....but of course you're not that.... though it's curious that you mention the mexican border but not the canadian border...must have been a typo...yes?

I categorically reject conspiracy theories.

atta boy, we'll make you into a human being yet!

[gumboot]

Hey guys, just want to lay a hot rumor to rest.

I have been getting a lot of people speculating that 'A-Train' is in fact, Artis Gilmore.



Not around here. We couldn't care less who A-train is or isn't. You seem rather obsessed with him though.

-Gumboot

[MaGZ]

I don't know what controllers you know now or who you knew before 9/11, but the last hijack we had prior to 9-11 in the US, I beleive was Lufthansa 592 who was hijacked by an Ethiopian who forced the aircraft to JFK. That was 1993. Since 1993 I am pretty psotive we have had over 10,000 NORDO aircraft in that time, none of them being hijacked, out of those 10,000 probably 300 or so were emergency related, those were not hiajcked, out of those 300 probably 30 were due to electrical failure, and they were not hijacked. Your idea of radically turning off course was a slow bending turn from northwesterly heading to a southernly heading. So where do you assume that controller would automatically think hijacking.


Atta made a statement to the passengers which was also heard by the controllers, saying something to the effect (not a direct quote) , "We have some planes and a bomb onboard. We are returning to the airport to have our demands met." At the time when they heard Atta, everyone would have known it was a hijacking.

[MaGZ]

The pilots at Otis definitely had a heads up, where I guess the Langley guys didn't. People that were watching TV had more information than we did in TMU, the only TV we had was across the aisle at the System Engineers desk, they had CNN up. When UAL175 hit we knew it from thier exasperation. After the Ghost AAL11 call, I also had called FACSFAC VACAPES (Fleet Area Control and Surveillance Facility) in Norlfolk who had radar sites up and down the east coast to be on a lookout for AAL11 that was probably flying low and fast, this assuming he didn't hit the tower. I don't know why they stayed on that heading, and I don't know why Washington Center didn't turn the aircraft north, they may not have known about the ghost AAL11 at that exact time.

Cheap Shot,
Thanks again for participating on this forum and for the record I do believe what you are telling us is the truth as you remembered it.
Could you please explain why you thought at the time AA 11 was flying past NYC toward Washington DC? Why didn’t you think it hit WTC 1? Forgive me if you have answered this previously, perhaps I missed it.

[MaGZ]

MaGZ, I strongly suggest you read pp. 74-79 of D.R. Griffin's new book about the "Phantom Flight 11." He demonstrates that there is no hard evidence that the Langley fighters were really scrambled in response to the phantom craft, and that the whole story that they were is just a fabrication to explain why fighters that were actually scrambled for AAL77-- an airplane over the continental US heading for Washington D.C.-- instead were ordered to fly east.

Therefore, while it may be true that someone from ZBW reported to NEADS that AA 11 was still airborne and heading south, it is not necessarily true that the Langley fighters were scrambled in response to this absurd proposition.

So the question remains: who exactly controlled the orders given to the fighters scrambled out of Langley? Who gave the nonsense order to fly east, when the threat was known to be coming from the west?

Thanks for the info A-Train. I will get Griffin's new book and see what he says about the phantom AA11. It is a better explanation than the official story.

[MaGZ]

Just to give Cheap shot a heads up on the people he is debating.

A Train believes that Israeli Commandos armed with guns hijacked the planes and parachuted out before they hit their targets and MAGZ believes , as his name implies that missiles were fired at ground zero.

Of course both believe Israel were behind the attack, with the aid of the USG.

You are wrong on this point. I have never said 9/11 was an inside job planned by the USG or the Israelis. I have always stated 9/11 was committed by agents of AQ. I do believe Israeli intelligence became aware of AQ plans when they had the plotters monitored (see Israeli Art Students) and let it happened on purpose (LIHOP). I do not believe the Israelis fully informed the USG of what was about to happen. Therefor I do not believe the USG LIHOP.

I’m sure we will discuss the Missiles at Ground Zero theory later.

[MaGZ]

I may be wrong, but I think MaGZ believes "the Jews" were responsible for the anthrax attack only. As for 9/11, he just likes implying that the fighter pilots were complete idiots and were dumb-firing multiple missiles over NYC... :rolleyes:

The anthrax attacks was a Mossad operation designed to get the US to invade Iraq.

The pilots from Otis attempted to shoot down flight 175. They missed their target, firing a bit too late. One missile was fired flying over the WTC plaza and perhaps landing in the Hudson River. The second missile was fired hitting WTC 7 (south side) on the 14 floor. All of this occurred at 9:03 that morning.

[peteweaver]

The anthrax attacks was a Mossad operation designed to get the US to invade Iraq.

The pilots from Otis attempted to shoot down flight 175. They missed their target, firing a bit too late. One missile was fired flying over the WTC plaza and perhaps landing in the Hudson River. The second missile was fired hitting WTC 7 (south side) on the 14 floor. All of this occurred at 9:03 that morning.

Magz, so far your claims about missiles have been more thoroughly debunked than the Cottingley fairy photographs.


And where's your evidence for Mossad being behind the anthrax attacks?

[ref]

The pilots from Otis attempted to shoot down flight 175. They missed their target, firing a bit too late. One missile was fired flying over the WTC plaza and perhaps landing in the Hudson River. The second missile was fired hitting WTC 7 (south side) on the 14 floor. All of this occurred at 9:03 that morning.

I have not seen your response to the question, why was none of this activity captured on any camera? Any eyewitness? Anybody? You'd surely notice fighters chasing that plane and firing missiles, wouldn't you? I mean, the whole NY would have seen it, don't you think?

[A-Train]

Atta made a statement to the passengers which was also heard by the controllers, saying something to the effect (not a direct quote) , "We have some planes and a bomb onboard. We are returning to the airport to have our demands met." At the time when they heard Atta, everyone would have known it was a hijacking.

You have no grounds to state unequivocally that the voice is Atta's. There is no hard evidence that it is his voice, or that he participated in the hijacking, or even that it was him who boarded AAL11 under his name. Even the official story only says the voice is "believed to be" Atta's.

Here is a recording of the tape, as released by the 9/11 Commission. It sounds to me more like an Israeli accent than an Arabic one.

http://anonymouse.org/cgi-bin/anon-www.cgi/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/mmedia/nation/061704-12s.htm

[8den]

Here is a recording of the tape, as released by the 9/11 Commission. It sounds to me more like an Israeli accent than an Arabic one.

http://anonymouse.org/cgi-bin/anon-www.cgi/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/mmedia/nation/061704-12s.htm

On what basis are you making that claim?

[MaGZ]

First it was NEADS, not NORAD, I have no clue what went on there. Second I would have a greater idea than DRG or anyone else, except those other military personel that deal directly with NEADS. Third I was in TMU I am not a TMU specialist, I was and still am the military specialist at Boston Center.



NEADS did not know about AAL77 at the time of the scramble from Langley, so who were they going after. General Arnold testified that they were going after AAL77, but he had not tapes to support that statement, it was based on a logical notion that they had to be scrambled for somebody, but there was no tapes to back up his testimony then. It wasn't until the tapes I spoke of and the conversations that you can hear in the Vanity Fair on-line article, that the story changed. You won't find any ATC tapes of a conversation anywhere that states Langley Fighters were scrambled for AAL77.



Maybe I am not the most qualified, never said I was, but when someone asks my opinion I'll state it, and I beleive from what I observed that day that there was never a stand down at NEADS.

If Langley was unaware of flight 77 and the phantom AA11, why wouldn’t they just be told to fly to Washington DC and provide air cover instead of flying east toward the Atlantic?

Would they have had time to intercept flight 77 when they got to DC?

BTW: I do not believe in the military stand-down theory on 9/11.

[MaGZ]

Now you may say that the F-15 can travel at three times that speed and arrived on scene 20 minutes before flt 77 but when they got there having burned the sky at 1875 MPH they would be almost out of fuel with the requirement that they now slow down and find Flt 77, identify it(there is an airport nearby. wouldn't want to firing at a plane that was just looking to land while the attacking plane skips by) AND STILL they require a shoot down order! No military flyer is going to deliberatly shoot down a passenger airliner, much less a USA registered airliner full of US citizens, without having received an ORDER to do so.


Actually, Cheap Shot has stated earlier in this thread that he has spoken to fighter pilots who said they would shoot down a passenger airliner (if necessary) even if they did not have direct orders.

[twinstead]

BTW: I do not believe in the military stand-down theory on 9/11.

Why does your movement sound like a bunch of feuding religious extremists sometimes?

It's almost like one member's cult believes in the divinity of Mary, but the other says "well, we both want to get to heaven, but I don't believe in that whole 'divinity of Mary' crap".

[A-Train]

A-train you have previously been shown, in this very thread, that your claims above are categorically false. The FAA Hijacking Protocols were amended after 9/11 to include loss of transponder, change of course, and loss of communication. On 9/11 an FAA ARTCC controller was not to consider an aircraft hijacked unless it squawked 7500. You know this. You have had the pertinent FAA regulations shown to you. Please cease your lies.


Your problem, Gumboot, with this post-- and with all your analyses, for that matter-- is that despite all your mastery of arcane documents and the minutiae of the official story, you don't really have any sense of how things actually work in the real world.

The old adage, "his head was so full of heavenly thoughts, that he was no earthly good...." applies to you.

You may be correct that the procedures were amended after 9/11. But the reality is that controllers do not pay much attention to the reams of official procedures and protocols that they are supposed to know by heart. In fact, controllers can sometimes only be made to read through changes in their manuals at the point of a gun. Controllers do their jobs on a daily basis using two tools: Experience, and Common Sense.

In the case of AAL11, it really doesn't matter what some protocol says the controller is supposed to think when he observes and airliner go NORDO, turn off its transponder, and go off course. And whether he specifically suspected a hijack at that moment or not is irrelevant for our debate here. What matters is that his experience and common sense would tell him that something is radically wrong, and that extreme measures must be taken immediately. In the world of air traffic control, that measure would have been to get on the horn to the military ASAP-- and nobody is going to stop to page through any protocols before doing so.

It seems that even our friend Cheap Shot agrees with me on this one:

Also, just before they saw the plane go radically off course, they lost the transponder signal, so they had hit the trifecta, having observed all three of the standard signs that a plane is in trouble. The official story, according to which no on called NEADS even at this time, strains credulity.

It is, moreover, not only former Boston controller Robin Hordon who believes that NEADS should have been contacted at about this time. This belief is shared by Colin Scoggins, who was, and still is, Boston Center's military specialist- sometimes called the military liaison- and who, in fact, plats a major role in Bronner's narrative. He has said:

'A NORDO aircraft prior to 9/11 wasn't a big deal; eventually you would get them back. The thing on 9/11 was an aircraft missed a clearance, was NORDO and lost a transponder, then made a 90-plus-degree turn. It just wasn't right... I would have [called] almost immediately.'

Scoggins thereby indicates that he would have called NEADS at 8:21 or 8:22.
Debunking 9/11 Debunking p. 36Robin Hordon is also quoted in the next paragraph suggesting that not only should the military have been called at about 8:22, but that they actually were:

But he [Hordon] also believes that contact was made around 8:20 because, he says: "I know people who work there [at Boston Center] who confirmed to me that the FAA was not asleep and the controllers...followed their own protocols." ibid. p 37So both Hordon and Scoggins agree that the military should have been called immediately, at 8:20 or so. Hordon says they were; Scoggins says they weren't. What's the major difference between the two men? Scoggins has a career at stake; Hordon doesn't

[T.A.M.]

A-Train it is as simple as this:

You have no evidence to prove that the USG was involved. You have speculation, conjecture, suspicions, nothing more.

The Official story has FBI collected evidence to prove 19 Arab hijackers were responsible for and carried out the attacks. Now if you choose to believe the evidence was planted, fabricated, and that the FBI was either in on it, or fooled by those who were, that is up to you, but you also have no evidence to prove this.

DRG is a charlatan, and a liar.

You should refrain from directly insulting people. I am sure Gumboot has a good idea of how the REAL world works, as do I, as does Cheap Shot, and I personally could care less what position you do or do not hold with the USG as per Galileo's claim.

TAM:)

[MaGZ]

And how did the hijackers on FL93 take over the cockpit? The whole crew already knew about the other hijackings. The entire ATC/FAA network knew. How could 4 (or 3 according to Mark Bingham) hijackers with boxcutters fight past the entire crew? Passenger Tom Burnett called and reported that the hijackers had guns. You'd need a gun to take over FL93.


I think more attention should be made to this point that some of the hijackers had guns onboard the planes, possibly placed by the immigrant support staff of the airlines.

The book, Unsafe at any Altitude supports this.
http://www.unsafeatanyaltitude.com/

Welcome to the forum Galileo.

[A-Train]

Dr. Griffin is a liar, a fraud, an ignorant moron, and unworthy of anything except mockery and ridicule. He has not ever generated a single original thought regarding 9/11, and he regurgitates half-digested garbage with a enthusiasm of a feeding vulture.

The fact that you use him as "evidence" demonstrates how completely dishonest and agenda-driven you are.

Is Griffin really an ignorant moron? Are you sure about that?

This is the second such tirade you've gone on in the last few days. Do you really think such childish name-calling advances your cause? Wouldn't it be better for you to demonstrate that he is wrong, using quotes from his books?

You need to get a grip before making posts like this. You are only making yourself look bad.

[MaGZ]

As I said, they were scrambled north. They had to go north to intercept AA77 anyway.


Which is it, Gumboot?

Did the Langley fighters fly east toward the Atlantic or were they scrambled north toward phantom AA11?

[MaGZ]

Magz, so far your claims about missiles have been more thoroughly debunked than the Cottingley fairy photographs.


And where's your evidence for Mossad being behind the anthrax attacks?

The Anthrax Mystery: Solved
http://irish-nationalism.net/forum/showthread.php?t=2082

[Calcas]

You may be correct that the procedures were amended after 9/11. But the reality is that controllers do not pay much attention to the reams of official procedures and protocols that they are supposed to know by heart.

You seem to know a lot about controllers. How they think, how they act, how they are trained...what is your expertise on this subject? Are you now or have you ever been a trained FAA controller? If not, how can you speak for them?


Hordon is also quoted in the next paragraph suggesting that not only should the military have been called at about 8:22, but that they actually were:

So both Hordon and Scoggins agree that the military should have been called immediately, at 8:20 or so. Hordon says they were; Scoggins says they weren't. What's the major difference between the two men? Scoggins has a career at stake; Hordon doesn't

This is an example where you AND DRG misquote, quote mine, and jump to conclusions. The first sentence says "suggesting" where the next sentence changes it to "says they were." Not to mention that Hordon's contacts are unnamed "friends."

And just because Scoggins says "I would have called" doesn't mean someone else would have.

LOOK! A controller says "I would have called..." in this scenario. BUT...the official version is that NO ONE CALLED!!! PROOF OF A COVERUP!!!!!!!!

It's LEAPS like this that DRG builds his fantasy book around.

Pure speculation.

[8den]

I think more attention should be made to this point that some of the hijackers had guns onboard the planes, possibly placed by the immigrant support staff of the airlines.



I think thats worthy of this

http://www.photosled.com/data/1219/coxforkum5.gif


The Anthrax Mystery: Solved
http://irish-nationalism.net/forum/s...ead.php?t=2082

Well if it's good enough for Irish Neo Nazis it's good enough for me!

[T.A.M.]

Is Griffin really an ignorant moron? Are you sure about that?

This is the second such tirade you've gone on in the last few days. Do you really think such childish name-calling advances your cause? Wouldn't it be better for you to demonstrate that he is wrong, using quotes from his books?

You need to get a grip before making posts like this. You are only making yourself look bad.

Gumboot is working on a very comprehensive debunking of DRG's Famous 115 Commission Report "errors and omissions". Griffin wrote it a few years ago, but still sites all of them today, so the claim they are old news, wrt DRGs cannards, is false.

Knowing Gumboots ability, I have no doubt the final product will leave DRG near COMPLETELY Debunked.

TAM:)

[westprog]

Had the towers tipped over,

That would have been a disaster all right. And something that is clearly unavoidable except with advanced technological expertise.

[Cheap Shot]

Atta made a statement to the passengers which was also heard by the controllers, saying something to the effect (not a direct quote) , "We have some planes and a bomb onboard. We are returning to the airport to have our demands met." At the time when they heard Atta, everyone would have known it was a hijacking.

That is when Pete Zyleski slid back in his chair and calimed he had a hijack. I think Atta had said something before that but Pete couldn't recognize what he said, I beleive put it in speaker either after the first transmission or the second. Anyway Pete claimed he had a hijack and the supervisor questioned him twice on the matter asking if he really had one or not. Pete's respones was F _ _ _ You John, I know a hijack when I hear one.

[Belz...]

Well, it looks like New Blood Galileo is having his comments parsed, sliced, and diced almost as efficiently as the core columns of the WTC were sliced and diced into neat 30 foot segments and loaded onto trucks for Asia.

[...]

I categorically reject conspiracy theories.

<giggle, giggle>

[Cheap Shot]

Cheap Shot,
Thanks again for participating on this forum and for the record I do believe what you are telling us is the truth as you remembered it.
Could you please explain why you thought at the time AA 11 was flying past NYC toward Washington DC? Why didn’t you think it hit WTC 1? Forgive me if you have answered this previously, perhaps I missed it.

Orignally we didn't even think that AAL11 hit the tower, we thought it landed at JFK. My original reason for calling NEADS wasn't so much for the escort that was required under the FAA Order 7610.4, but was to try and get an altitude on AAL11. Since they never could find AAL11 that became fruitless. My concern was we had an aircraft that was hijacked that was probably going to land at JFK, once we saw him slow down, and he was going to descend into probably the busiest air traffic coorridor in the world with out knowing the aircrafts altitude. The military and the FAA share the same site, but the military has a triangulation feed that gives them an altitude readout. I won't go into what the paramters are because I am not sure of the classification, but that was the one of the original intents, they couldn't find the target so it didn't matter any way.

Sorry about the sidetrack, anyway about two minutes after the aircraft hit we knew the WTC had been hit, orignally reported as a business jet. It was probably within a minute of that we started questioning whether it could have been AAL11.

Unitl I heard that AAL11 was still in the air on a telephone bridge that I was on, I thought he did hit the tower. Once they said it was still in the air, I assumed he must of kept heading south and probably heading towards DC, just my guess. UAL175 had also already impacted the WTC. So we knew thier was a lot more going on. We were surprised when they said AAL11 hadn't hit the tower, and I should have confirmed on that bridge, but instead I immediatelly went to NEADS with it.

[Cheap Shot]

You have no grounds to state unequivocally that the voice is Atta's. There is no hard evidence that it is his voice, or that he participated in the hijacking, or even that it was him who boarded AAL11 under his name. Even the official story only says the voice is "believed to be" Atta's.

Here is a recording of the tape, as released by the 9/11 Commission. It sounds to me more like an Israeli accent than an Arabic one.

http://anonymouse.org/cgi-bin/anon-www.cgi/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/mmedia/nation/061704-12s.htm

The term we used that day was not Arabic, but Middle Eastern voice, I beleive that covers Israel as well, it may not have been Atta, but it was one of those guys on the plane.

[Cheap Shot]

Actually, Cheap Shot has stated earlier in this thread that he has spoken to fighter pilots who said they would shoot down a passenger airliner (if necessary) even if they did not have direct orders.

That Pilot I talked to was from NORAD, on a lessons learned venture 3 months after 9/11. I have never heard that from any other pilot though, and that was only after what we already knew. Whether he would have done that on 9/11 himself, aho knows.

[Cheap Shot]

This is an example where you AND DRG misquote, quote mine, and jump to conclusions. The first sentence says "suggesting" where the next sentence changes it to "says they were." Not to mention that Hordon's contacts are unnamed "friends."

And just because Scoggins says "I would have called" doesn't mean someone else would have.

LOOK! A controller says "I would have called..." in this scenario. BUT...the official version is that NO ONE CALLED!!! PROOF OF A COVERUP!!!!!!!!

Calcas is correct here, I would have called NEADS right after I told my supervisor, but that was me, there is a difference in each area at the center. Peter Z. worked in Area C, they handle Boston Departures and Arrivals, a lot of them, they rarely work any military. If this would have happned in Area A/B or D, there is a good chance the controller may have called NEADS, they talk to them almost every day.

[stateofgrace]

You are wrong on this point. I have never said 9/11 was an inside job planned by the USG or the Israelis. I have always stated 9/11 was committed by agents of AQ. I do believe Israeli intelligence became aware of AQ plans when they had the plotters monitored (see Israeli Art Students) and let it happened on purpose (LIHOP). I do not believe the Israelis fully informed the USG of what was about to happen. Therefor I do not believe the USG LIHOP.

I stand corrected. MAGZ believes that Isreal didn't tell the USG that AQ terorists were about to attack the US. ( Actually Mossad did warn the US, but that is beside the point).

[/quote]I’m sure we will discuss the Missiles at Ground Zero theory later.[/quote]

I'm sure we will not discuss your missiles at ground zero theory,it has been destroyed over and over again.

[stateofgrace]

Ever wonder why no one has come forward to expose the 9/11 conspiracy???


I could take a wild stab in the dark if you like.

Option A: there is no vast conspiracy
Option B: see option A.

[Cheap Shot]

If Langley was unaware of flight 77 and the phantom AA11, why wouldn’t they just be told to fly to Washington DC and provide air cover instead of flying east toward the Atlantic?

Would they have had time to intercept flight 77 when they got to DC?

BTW: I do not believe in the military stand-down theory on 9/11.

Those fighters were launched becasue of Phantom AAL11. Otherwise they would have sat until someone reported AAL 77. There was no need for air cover until a target for DC had been identified. I believe the military would not launch those assets with two already in the air unless they had a target or a potential target. If they have to go into AB at all they use thier fuel up fairly quickly, without a Tanker they would not launch them without a target.

[Cheap Shot]

If Langley was unaware of flight 77 and the phantom AA11, why wouldn’t they just be told to fly to Washington DC and provide air cover instead of flying east toward the Atlantic?

Would they have had time to intercept flight 77 when they got to DC?

BTW: I do not believe in the military stand-down theory on 9/11.

Those fighters were launched becasue of Phantom AAL11. Otherwise they would have sat until someone reported AAL 77. There was no need for air cover until a target for DC had been identified. I believe the military would not launch those assets with two already in the air unless they had a target or a potential target. If they have to go into AB at all they use thier fuel up fairly quickly, without a Tanker they would not launch them without a target.

[Cheap Shot]

Do you get whacked around here for a double post, oops...

[slyjoe]

No, it just goes in your permanent NWO record, mister. :)

[beachnut]

Do you get whacked around here for a double post, oops...
Your double post is much more informative than most post from truthers and NeoNazis.

[MaGZ]

For one thing, the flight attendants had keys.

It was four hijackers on 93. The only report of "boxcutters" was on flight 77. There was no need to get past the entire crew: only those who might interfere with their entry into the cockpit. Passengers on the other flights reported stabbings with knives, the use of mace, and bomb threats. In the case of 93, we know that at least one hijacker had a device strapped to him that he said was a bomb.

Nonsense. It is logical to assume that on each of the flights the hijackers used similar weapons and tactics. How did they get past the crews? They killed them with knives.

As gumboot says, you are very poorly informed. Please think before you post. This isn't a game. Your arguments from incredulity will never advance your position or your understanding. You can learn much here. I hope you stick around and treat this subject with respect.

On flight AA11 it was initially reported one of the passengers had been shot. I guess he was mouthing-off too much and made the hijacker behind him angry. You know how irritating some of those guys can be.

[MaGZ]

I have not seen your response to the question, why was none of this activity captured on any camera? Any eyewitness? Anybody? You'd surely notice fighters chasing that plane and firing missiles, wouldn't you? I mean, the whole NY would have seen it, don't you think?

I’m sure you have seen this thread.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=83514&highlight=Missile

The missile (same as the one that has be called a ‘bird’ in other videos) flying across the plaza of the WTC and probably landing in the Hudson River.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49NZWGWNGz8

One of the Otis fighters filmed at Ground Zero.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAm3dMeosHU

CNN had man-in-the-street reports of a missile being fired that morning.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Jim, I don't know whether we've confirmed that this was an aircraft, or to be more specific, some people said they thought they saw a missile. I don't know how people could differentiate, but we might keep open the possibility that this was a missile attack on these buildings.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/bn.01.html

Barry Jennings experienced the explosion from the missile hit on WTC 7.
http://noonehastodie.blogspot.com/2007/06/barry-jennings-world-trade-center-7.html

[MaGZ]

Orignally we didn't even think that AAL11 hit the tower, we thought it landed at JFK. My original reason for calling NEADS wasn't so much for the escort that was required under the FAA Order 7610.4, but was to try and get an altitude on AAL11. Since they never could find AAL11 that became fruitless. My concern was we had an aircraft that was hijacked that was probably going to land at JFK, once we saw him slow down, and he was going to descend into probably the busiest air traffic coorridor in the world with out knowing the aircrafts altitude. The military and the FAA share the same site, but the military has a triangulation feed that gives them an altitude readout. I won't go into what the paramters are because I am not sure of the classification, but that was the one of the original intents, they couldn't find the target so it didn't matter any way.

Sorry about the sidetrack, anyway about two minutes after the aircraft hit we knew the WTC had been hit, orignally reported as a business jet. It was probably within a minute of that we started questioning whether it could have been AAL11.

Unitl I heard that AAL11 was still in the air on a telephone bridge that I was on, I thought he did hit the tower. Once they said it was still in the air, I assumed he must of kept heading south and probably heading towards DC, just my guess. UAL175 had also already impacted the WTC. So we knew thier was a lot more going on. We were surprised when they said AAL11 hadn't hit the tower, and I should have confirmed on that bridge, but instead I immediatelly went to NEADS with it.

Thanks, I now have a better understanding of this.

[MaGZ]

That Pilot I talked to was from NORAD, on a lessons learned venture 3 months after 9/11. I have never heard that from any other pilot though, and that was only after what we already knew. Whether he would have done that on 9/11 himself, aho knows.

I would like to hear more about this lessons learned training session.

[MaGZ]

Those fighters were launched becasue of Phantom AAL11. Otherwise they would have sat until someone reported AAL 77. There was no need for air cover until a target for DC had been identified. I believe the military would not launch those assets with two already in the air unless they had a target or a potential target. If they have to go into AB at all they use thier fuel up fairly quickly, without a Tanker they would not launch them without a target.

Here is a compilation of reports on the launch of the fighters from Langley. Any comments?
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a930goeast#a930goeast

[Cheap Shot]

Here is a compilation of reports on the launch of the fighters from Langley. Any comments?
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a930goeast#a930goeast


(9:24 a.m.) September 11, 2001: By Some Accounts, FAA Notifies NORAD Flight 77 Is Hijacked and Washington-Bound; 9/11 Commission Claims This Never Happens Shortly after 9/11, NORAD reported that the FAA notified them at this time that Flight 77 “may” have been hijacked and that it appears headed toward Washington. [Washington Post, 9/12/2001; CNN, 9/17/2001; North American Aerospace Defense Command, 9/18/2001; Guardian, 10/17/2001; Associated Press, 8/19/2002] Apparently, flight controllers at Dulles International Airport discover a plane heading at high speed toward Washington; an alert is sounded within moments that the plane appears to be headed toward the White House. [Washington Post, 11/3/2001] In 2003, the FAA supported this account, but claimed that they had informally notified NORAD earlier. “NORAD logs indicate that the FAA made formal notification about American Flight 77 at 9:24 a.m. (see (9:24 a.m.) September 11, 2001), but information about the flight was conveyed continuously during the phone bridges before the formal notification.” [Federal Aviation Administration, 5/22/2003] Yet in 2004, the 9/11 Commission claims that both NORAD and the FAA are wrong. The 9/11 Commission explains that the notification NEADS received at 9:24 a.m. was the incorrect information that Flight 11 had not hit the WTC and was headed south for Washington, D.C. Thus, according to the 9/11 Commission, NORAD is never notified by the FAA about the hijacking of Flight 77, but accidentally learns about it at 9:34 a.m. (see 9:34 a.m. September 11, 2001). [9/11 Commission, 6/17/2004]
Entity Tags: Washington Dulles International Airport, Federal Aviation Administration, North American Aerospace Defense Command
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, 9/11 Timeline

This is where they differentiate from the orginal story. Some FAA Officials and Military Officials had already briefed the 9/11 commission prior to them interviewing me at Boston Center. Their interview were failry public held in Washington with lots of media attention. For some reason Politicians in New Jersey were getting pressure from several families from the WTC for more investigations, and they decided to go out and get more interviews. I was interviewed in September 2003 by some lawyers from the commission. That is when I told them that my calls were probably recorded at NEADS. What was supposed to be a five minute interview became a two hour interview. They found the tapes at NEADS, and reviewed them and came back and interviewed me in January 2004. They then recalled witnesses like General Arnold who they basically called him a liar, (my personal belief was they were trying to make him a scapegoat). General Arnold never knew of these tapes. No one did until they found them and listened to them. I don't know why they were never reviewed originally probably becasue no thought to look at DSN logs when the majority of calls were supposed to go over the Hot Line, another mistake of mine. I used the DSN becasue I wanted to talk directly with certain individuals at NEADS, and I knew thier numbers. On a hotline you never know who you'll get.

Their is tons of information that has never been read or reviewed. I don't think it is any thing earth shattering, just more information that will hopefully clarify certain things that might quite not make sense.

[gumboot]

Wouldn't it be better for you to demonstrate that he is wrong, using quotes from his books?


Do a forum search for a thread started by me called "Distortion of Fact".

-Gumboot

[PhantomWolf]

The change in the claims of what occured was well publicised at the time. NORAD and the FAA both had different timelines and were essentially blaming each other. The Commission went and got the tapes and organised interviews, tied the ball of wool and came to a conclusion that both the FAA and NORAD were wrong about what had happened, that from the tapes and interviews it was shown that both the FAA and NORAD reacted a lot better then either of them were initially claiming they did. The main thing that most CT's seem to fail to realise is that human memory is extremely faulty and what makes matters worse is when those higher up the chain who write the reports have to deal with both bad memory and a form of chinese whispers, that initial reporting of an event can be very flawed, that it takes time to sort it all out, and that this was done using the physical recordings of the conversations occuring in NEADS at the time. CTs seem to want to belive that the very first report is true and then anything later is spin or cover up. If that is true, please show me all the images and stories about the rebuilding of the US Capitol Building after the truck bomb went off outside it on the morning of 9/11.

[gumboot]

Which is it, Gumboot?

Did the Langley fighters fly east toward the Atlantic or were they scrambled north toward phantom AA11?



Um... both. Duh. Or did you miss the bit where the Navy ATC handling the fighters took them on the wrong heading, and NEADS asked them to turn them back for Washington DC 4 minutes later?

0922 - Fighters scrambled to Baltimore (north)
0930 - Fighters take off and head east
0934 - Fighters turned back on correct heading (north)

Is that really so hard to follow?

In answer to your previous question, even had the Langley fighters headed north immediately, I don't think they would have reached Washington DC in time to do anything about AA77. They eventually arrived over Washington at about 1000, after being sent there at very high speed (much higher than standard).

Given the 4 minutes of incorrect heading, we can safely assume they lost 8 minutes flying time. So had they gone direct to Baltimore they would have reached Washington DC at about 0952. Too late to do anything about AA77.

And in either scenario, the Langley fighters would have been in position to intercept UA93 at about 1025, when it was expected to reach Washington DC. However, had the phantom AA11 not been called in, the Langley fighters would have been scrambled, at the earliest, at 0935 (when NEADS found out about AA77). That would have put them airborne at about 0943 and over Washington DC at about 1013 (assuming same error with initial heading) or 1005 (if the initial heading error didn't occur). In any event, both the Langley fighters and the Andrews AFB fighters would have been in CAP over Washington DC when UA93 arrived, with permission to engage.

The factors for the four flights are:

AA11) Intercept difficult as the event was unprecedented, and no system was in place to deal with it
UA175) Intercept difficult as the flight time was very short
AA77) Intercept difficult as the aircraft was hijacked in a primary radar blackspot, thus leading to the assumption it had crashed
UA93) Intercept feasible, and likely, had passengers not intervened

I would propose that intercept of the first three flights was impossible, and intercept of the last flight was highly likely to be successful.

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

Your problem, Gumboot, with this post-- and with all your analyses, for that matter-- is that despite all your mastery of arcane documents and the minutiae of the official story, you don't really have any sense of how things actually work in the real world.


I disagree completely. Quite the opposite. You and DRG are the ones making the gross errors here. Your entire understanding of what should happen is based on personal incredulity and the testimony of an arcane former ATC. Your awareness bears no connection to reality.

In the decade prior to 9/11 NORAD were not involved in a single initial-event intercept of a civilian aircraft over CONR airspace. NORAD aircraft were only involved in any way in a single civilian aircraft intercept over CONR airspace in the decade prior to 9/11. NORAD fighters escorted Payne Stewart's learjet in the latter stages of the flight, some time after initial intercept.

That's the only case.

It is NOT the standard for NORAD to get involved when civilian aircraft go out of contact. You cannot cite a single instance of it happening, BECAUSE IT NEVER HAD.

NORAD have never, in their 50 year history, been responsible for CONR airspace. NORAD's sole responsibility is the ADIZ. In the event of the military needing to protect CONR airspace the SCATANA Plan is implemented. This shuts down the FAA network and replaces it with a war-time military one.

Your common sense, DRG's assertions, and the testimony of an ancient ATC count for nothing. The REALITY refutes it all.

I challenge you to find ONE instance (other than the Payne Stewart incident) in the ten years prior to 9/11 in which NORAD were asked to respond to a incident involving a civilian aircraft inside the CONR. Just one. You say this is standard practise. You say, regardless of regulations, this is what ATC controllers do. Prove it. Put up, or shut up.

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

I don't know why they were never reviewed originally probably becasue no thought to look at DSN logs when the majority of calls were supposed to go over the Hot Line, another mistake of mine.



I suspect the main reason the military had never reviewed the 9/11 tapes or determined what actually happened was because they were too busy trying to maintain Operation Noble Eagle. The operation was not something NORAD was set up to conduct, and it put an enormous strain on personnel that were, for the most part, only part-timers.

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

On flight AA11 it was initially reported one of the passengers had been shot. I guess he was mouthing-off too much and made the hijacker behind him angry. You know how irritating some of those guys can be.

That report was from a single foot note in an FAA summary, stating that an American Airlines staff member at the Operations Centre reported someone had been shot on the aircraft. The person supposedly did not mention a stabbing. The employee later denied ever having mentioned a gun, when interviewed by the Commission.

There's a number of issues with this testimony. Firstly, all of the eye witnesses consistently reported stab wounds, and were very specific about knives being used as weapons. No witnesses reported seeing firearms or gunshot wounds.

Secondly, the passenger that was supposedly shot was cited as sitting in seat 9B. This is the seat of the passenger that numerous eye witnesses reported was stabbed. Furthermore, some of these passengers reported this to the AA Operations Centre.

A more likely explanation is that someone, drafting the FAA report, mistakenly cited an Operations Centre employee as reporting a shooting, when they actually reported a stabbing.

-Gumboot

[Regnad Kcin]

...For example, had the first plane hit the 50th floor instead of the 95th floor, there would have been 50,000 dead rather than only 3000.Not that your post is worthy of anything but a guffaw, but I thought I'd address this. There were not 50,000 people in either of the Twin Towers that early in the morning, much less in the upper 60 floors.

But continue to invent facts; it's one thing "truth" seekers are very good at.

[beachnut]

I have read DRG's books and the 9/11 Commission Report, which blames the FAA for the lack of military response.

But I do not believe the 9/11 Commission:

The ATC noticed signs of hijacking of FL11 at 8:15

Betty Ong called and reported the hijacking at 8:18

Amy Sweeney called and reported the hijacking at 8:22

The military had a liason at FAA headquarters.

Given these facts, it is hard to believe no one called the military in a timely fashion.

Also....

The crash scene of FL11 was shown on national TV at 8:48. It was reported from the first sentence to be a plane crash.

Wouldn't the military have called the FAA at that time?

Yet nothing was done, and a second crash in NYC was shown on national TV at 9:03.

And the military still didn't call the FAA?

The military liason did nothing?

The 9/11 Commission has not explained any of this. Nor has Popular Mechanics.

The only reasonable explanation is a virtual stand down order.

And how did the hijackers on FL93 take over the cockpit? The whole crew already knew about the other hijackings. The entire ATC/FAA network knew. How could 4 (or 3 according to Mark Bingham) hijackers with boxcutters fight past the entire crew? Passenger Tom Burnett called and reported that the hijackers had guns. You'd need a gun to take over FL93.
Based on your posts, you have not researched 9/11. If you like DRGs book, you do not want to read any posts here because some of them include facts, which DRG never uses. If you want to be a truther it is best not to read any posts here.

I like how you have recycled the "stand down" order tripe. Good job, that is really old junk, and I missed the old "stand down" order that day on the daily Air Force order sheet. What bed were you hiding under on 9/11 and when did you come out, Monday, 23 July 2007?

(i guess with that gun is the reason the passengers were unable to force the hijackers down; oops, no gun shots on the voice recorder, what does that mean? Did you even think about the gun thing real hard?)

[Galileo]

FL93 was headed for WTC 7, not the White House.

WTC 7 had been lined with explosives.

There would have been no need to fly the plane into the White House as it was not wired for demolition.

The White House was an historical monument, whereas WTC 7 was not.

The terrorists took great pains not to destroy anything of infinite historical value, like the Washington Monument or the Statue of Liberty, or even the Empire State Building. Only replaceable targets were detroyed.

Unfortunately for the terrorists, FL93 got stuck in the runway for about 40 minutes, and was unable to hit its target.

Ultimately, the unrealistic looking demolition of WTC 7 is what will do in the terrorists in a future Court of Justice.

[T.A.M.]

FL93 was headed for WTC 7, not the White House.

WTC 7 had been lined with explosives.

There would have been no need to fly the plane into the White House as it was not wired for demolition.

The White House was an historical monument, whereas WTC 7 was not.

The terrorists took great pains not to destroy anything of infinite historical value, like the Washington Monument or the Statue of Liberty, or even the Empire State Building. Only replaceable targets were detroyed.

Unfortunately for the terrorists, FL93 got stuck in the runway for about 40 minutes, and was unable to hit its target.

Ultimately, the unrealistic looking demolition of WTC 7 is what will do in the terrorists in a future Court of Justice.

ok, you can tell us the truth, you are really just playing with us right?

Because the alternative, that you believe in the ridiculous statements you just made, makes me shudder.

I have never seen this theory before, but it takes the cake. Not quite as insane as the CGI/SWBW Theorists, but darn close.

UA93 was headed for WTC7...lol

OMG.

TAM:)

[JimBenArm]

FL93 was headed for WTC 7, not the White House.
You know this because...
WTC 7 had been lined with explosives.
You know this because...
There would have been no need to fly the plane into the White House as it was not wired for demolition.
Oh, the only reason to crash a plane into something is because it's wired for demolition?:wackyerr:

The White House was an historical monument, whereas WTC 7 was not.
Hmm. Okay.
The terrorists took great pains not to destroy anything of infinite historical value, like the Washington Monument or the Statue of Liberty, or even the Empire State Building. Only replaceable targets were detroyed.
Yeah, the Pentagon has no historical value. Sure, if you say so.

Unfortunately for the terrorists, FL93 got stuck in the runway for about 40 minutes, and was unable to hit its target.
How does being delayed keep them from hitting the target? Did it move out of range? Oh, yeah, they shot it down, I forgot!:mgduh

Ultimately, the unrealistic looking demolition of WTC 7 is what will do in the terrorists in a future Court of Justice.
How do you pack so much stupidity into one post? Is there a compression tool that you have to buy, or is it a natural ability?

[uk_dave]

How do you pack so much stupidity into one post? Is there a compression tool that you have to buy, or is it a natural ability?

Permission to use this on future posts, sir?

[JimBenArm]

Permission to use this on future posts, sir?
Permission granted!
Carry on!

[Belz...]

FL93 was headed for WTC 7, not the White House.

How do you know this ?

WTC 7 had been lined with explosives.

And yet it didn't explode.

There would have been no need to fly the plane into the White House as it was not wired for demolition.

Begging the question.

The White House was an historical monument, whereas WTC 7 was not.

I don't think that Bin Laden cares. In fact, so much the better.

Unfortunately for the terrorists, FL93 got stuck in the runway for about 40 minutes, and was unable to hit its target.

Although it was heading FOR DC ???

Ultimately, the unrealistic looking demolition of WTC 7 is what will do in the terrorists in a future Court of Justice.

Why did they demolish 7 WTC if there was no reason to ? Why not just drop the whole thing ? That makes NO sense, whatsoever.

The terrorists took great pains not to destroy anything of infinite historical value, like the Washington Monument or the Statue of Liberty, or even the Empire State Building. Only replaceable targets were detroyed.

Your calling 3000 people "replaceable" is not only insulting, but one of the most disgusting assertions I've ever heard.