What is it about 911, that has so many confused. Oh, I do mean, confused. There are those that will tell you that they are not confused, that they fully understand that 19 terrorists took their marching orders from a guy living in a cave, and managed to defeat the world's best commercial airport security (second only to London Heathrow at the time) not just once, but up to 19 times and then managed to successful bring down not one (1) but four (1) commercial heavies, not on different days, or different weeks, or different months, but on the same exact day - not at different times, but at relatively the exact same time. When you calculate the statistical probability of that happening, you arrive at a number so small, that we mathematicians just call it "impossible." Yet, the official story tellers say it happened exactly that way. Well, there are all kinds of problems with 911 and the official story, but in order to understand most of the problems, one has to understand the type of weapon used on 911. It is true that every weapon leaves behind a weapons signature in its wake. That means that when you examine the scene, you should see evidence that the weapon was indeed used as alleged. That's part of the problem with 911, you don't see a weapons signature that is commensurate with commercial heavies being used as manned missiles. Shanksville and the Pentagon, are two of the biggest smoking guns that exist, in favor of something other than the official story being the truth. But, I want to focus on the Pentagon in this thread and I want to do it differently than most other threads and most other OPs. The video below is that of former Transportation Secretary, Norman Mineta. I want you to watch this video very carefully. It is only 3 minutes and 56 seconds in length. This thread is going to do something that most people don't do when talking about Flight 77. When you watch the video, pay attention to what others are focusing on in the video, with respect to what Norman Mineta said. They all focus on the alleged "Shoot Down Order." Well, I've got news for you. The alleged "Shoot Down Order," is the absolute last thing this thread is about. Norman, says something else in this video that is indeed the Flight 77 smoking gun and quite frankly, the nail in the coffin of the Official Story. Watch the video carefully and and post what YOU think the smoking gun happens to be, based on what Norman says, and I'll come back to this thread to tell you what it is, if everyone missed it - which is exactly what I think will happen. I think most of you will miss it, because the entire country has missed it for nearly 13 years. Here's the video: [video=youtube;DwFGLIsIBuM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwFGLIsIBuM[/video] Now, did you catch it? Do you now know what the smoking gun is all about and why the official story cannot possibly be true about 911? If you don't then I will show you when I return. In the meantime, I have another story to tell you. I went flying (that's what pilots do) today with a friend. We were doing some formation flying with one of the precious few privately owned Navy Fighters of its kind in existence in the United States. I was not in the aircraft that you see here. I was flying an L-39ZA trailing the aircraft you see in the pics. Can any of you identify the aircraft in these pictures? It was a beautiful for flying, especially formation flying with an old Navy Jet. Let me know if you can identify the Navy Fighter below:
I'll wager that you're wanting us to take note of how someone from the military that was in the PEOC with the Vice President was informing him that an aircraft was approaching and giving him proactive updates as to the amount of distance separating the hijacked aircraft to the Pentagon.
Your uncanny ability to recognize the obvious is unmatched. You win the 500lb stuffed Blue Penguin, which will be gift wrapped and sent to your home via FedEx overnight shipping. Do you have an answer to the question you put forth? How was that "young man" able to know what Henderson did not know, what NEADS did not know, what the official story says nobody else could have possibly known and what the media never knew at the time it was happening? Real-time in-bound telemetry requires far more than a mere primary radar track. This "young man" was feeding Cheney, information that was not supposed to exist, because Flight 77 was alleged to have been deemed on a westbound course - a full 180-degress from its alleged ultimate course heading, just before allegedly slamming into the Pentagon in Arlington. In other words, after Henderson and DACO lost conact, Flight 77 was supposed to have been a ghost flight - lost to everyone on the planet. Yet, somehow, Dick Cheney's aide knew precisely when this completely lost airborne vehicle would arrive over the D.C./Arlington area. How on earth was that possible? That's your smoking gun and that proves that the entire official story behind 911, is nothing more than that - an official story. Smoke & Mirrors. - - - Updated - - - BTW, Jango. Have you figured out which retired Navy Fighter I took a pic of while conducting that formation flight? I ask this question because the answer is most definitely related to 911.
As far as I am concerned, this is the first nail in the coffin of the Official Story. The second nail is debris from Flight 93 showing up eight ( miles away in New Baltimore - which itself defies the laws of physics for heavier than air materials and contradicts low angle of attack crash sites for commercial airframes. But, I'd like to finish off this question about that "young man." He was a very special "young man" and most people don't know anything about him... or 911.
Nope. Try again. NEADS is the military and they had sector control for all air defense operations in the Northeastern United States at that time. The official story puts even NEADS in the dark on the matter, because the F-15s allegedly scrambled out of Otis were allegedly already in the air with the impact of Flight 175 and could have been easily vectored to the D.C./Arlington area, just 177nm away. They are links from tinypic.com, where I uploaded them last night. I'll try from my hard drive: View attachment 26096 View attachment 26097 View attachment 26098 View attachment 26099 View attachment 26100
1. Kinda looks like an old Navy F4. Failing that maybe a Hawk? So jelly if you got to chase that thing in an L-39. 2. Your claim is nothing new, it's been around since 2006. I did a Mineta thread here a while ago, feel free to respond: http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/332863-another-mineta-thread.html In short: Mineta had his time line off. Neither Cheney, nor Mineta, were in the PEOC until after AAL77 hit the Pentagon. The reports of the aircraft coming in were of the approach of UAL93. 3. Wait a second, you're trying to say AAL77 was allowed to hit the Pentagon and yet you're also saying no plane hit the Pentagon. Cognitive Dissonance? 4. I have a blog with over 150 items of evidence showing AAL77 hit the Pentagon on 9/11. If you read through all this, and still think no plane hit the Pentagon, there is no further point in continuing this conversation. http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/ 5. By the way both Primus and Jango, there is no "military radar" inside the US. The military feed off the vast network of civilian ATC ASR's and ARSR's scattered around the country. Some of those happen to also be at military bases, but they also feed the civilian ATC Radar network. The military does not have their own special set of radars inside the US.
Radar used by the U.S. military undoubtedly contributes to the overall blanket coverage of the U.S., but there are also, undoubtedly, systems strictly maintained and operated by various agencies and military branches inside the U.S. Take for example the Pentagon's command center or the C.I.A.'s 24 hour operations center or the Secret Service's radar monitoring.
Bingo - you got it right! It is an old A-4 Skyhawk. However, we are going to come back to that A-4 in just a moment and I'm going to show you how it is very much connected to 911. Standby on that one... Now, let's get back to Mineta. It has actually been around since 2001, and never once resolved, including inside your thread. That is factually incorrect. Mineta, tells first tells MSNBC, that he arrived at the PEOC at ...probably about 9:27. He later tells the 911 Commission that he arrived at ...about 9:20 a.m. In either case, he was there before the alleged Flight 77 struck the Pentagon, and this has always been his contention. Clearly, Mineta, was swept away into the PEOC before the Pentagon was struck. How do we know? On October 24th, 2001, Mineta, retells his story and never corrects the timeline as you did here. In fact, he augments precisely what he told the Congress. Mineta, was watching a news broadcast from his office less than five (5) miles away from the White House, as Flight 175 slams into the second tower. Within minutes, Mineta, is swept away and taken into the PEOC where he joined Vice President Cheney, already inside. - Flight 175, strikes second tower at 9:03am in New York. - Mineta, is brought to the PEOC within 17 minutes of Flight 175's impact. - Secret Service Agent Garabito calls FAA counterpart Steenbergen within "30 seconds" of Flight 175's impact to notify. - During that call Steenbergen alerts Garabito that two other aircraft might be involved other than Flight 11 and 175. - Garabito gives instructions to alert multiple Secret Service Agents in the White House. - The Secret Service, knowing that at least two other aircraft were involved, fail to evacuate the White House immediately (911 Commission). - FAA contacts AA for the second time and says it does not know the location of Flight 77 at 9:02am. - Thirty five (35) minutes elapse and no one knows the location of Flight 77. - Flight 77, then allegedly strikes the Pentagon at 9:37am. - Flight 93, allegedly crashes in Shanksville, at 10:03am. Flight 93, allegedly goes down 26 minutes after Flight 77 allegedly strikes the Pentagon and a full 36 to 43 minutes after Mineta, arrives at PEOC. Here is Mineta, once again in Seattle, setting the record straight: [video=youtube;u-5PKQTUz5o]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-5PKQTUz5o#t=267[/video] How else do we know that Mineta, was located in the PEOC before the Pentagon was struck? We know by simply examining the prose used by Mineta, with Congress and on CBS. He specifically stated: - "During the time that the airplane was coming into the Pentagon," - "...the plane is 50 miles out..." - "...the plane is 30 miles out..." - "...the plane is 10 miles out..." Why do these in-bound distances prove that Mineta could not have possibly been referring to Flight 93? Because, Flight 93 never made it inside of 122 miles of either the White House, or the Pentagon. Therefore, we know without question that Mineta, was in the PEOC before Flight 77 allegedly struck and we know that he could not have possibly been referring to Flight 93, as it never saw the 50 mile radius around either the White House, or the Pentagon. Not according to the facts above. Shanksville, is 122 miles from the DC/Arlington area and allegedly crashed at 10:03am. No. I'm saying that indeed there was an airborne vehicle that slammed into the Pentagon. I am also saying that it was never Flight 77. If your blog can show me a single component coming from a Boeing 757, owned by American Airlines, where any OEM has stood with anyone from either the NTSB or the FAA to confirm parts identification, then I will believe that Flight 77 struck the Pentagon. But, not in all of modern commercial aviation history in the United States, has there ever been a failure of the NTSB to conduct open and public aircraft parts identification to at least some degree, before the American People during multiple press conferences. Yet, here we are some 13 years later and not one OEM has stood with either Airline, or with anyone from the Federal Government and said, "Yes. This component comes from a Boeing 757 or Boeing 767." Not once has that happened. With Flight 800, Flight 592, etc, you could not turn on your television for days or weeks without either the NTSB or the FAA standing firmly with the airline and/or some OEM describing what component(s) were found, where they were found, in what condition they were found and what role they played on-board the aircraft. Not once did that happen in all of 911. A blog without accurate information is just a blog without accurate information. The litmus test is not the existence of a blog, but the actual facts that cause any analysis to either be true or false. I'm fully aware of how our radar network works - I've been using it for years. When I speak of or refer to "military radar," I'm always referring to the military's responsibility for national air defense and control of national airspace, if and when NORAD has to declare AFIO over the FAA, obviously within the United States of America. Try flying your private aircraft unannounced into a hot MOA or CFA without prior clearance. It is effectively (for all practical purposes) "their radar terminal screens" at that point that pick you up, even if the data comes across the shared network with the FAA. The FAA won't be the agency vectoring fighters out to intercept you at that point, even though the FAA could "request" intercepts - as they did at one point on September 11, 2001. They sure do have access to civilian installation coverage and they also have some of their own as well throughout the country. There have been different kinds of special use military radar in the United States and for various purposes. They used to use SAGE and in 83' that was replaced by JSS - a joint civilian/military network where again, the FAA did maintain the hardware. If you as civilian pilot ever came under SOCC tracking and were unidentified and did not have authorization to be were you happened to be flying your aircraft at that moment, you would come to know what "military radar" means - fairly quickly. The idea of radar is persistent detection of airborne objects at the greatest range possible. To say there is no "military radar," I think misses the point just a bit. In peace time, that would be accurate in the majority. In war time, or in a crisis situation where air attack is either imminent or underway, the statement would be inaccurate in the majority. It really does depend on who has control of the skies, the FAA or one of the three NORAD sectors. Anyway, point well taken.
Mineta simply has his timeline screwed up. From his own testimony: This was before he went to the bunker. AA77 struck the Pentagon at 9:37 The White House was evacuated at 9:45 http://web.archive.org/web/20080307041357/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;?xml=/news/2001/12/16/wbush16.xml&page=3
Before, I show you the A-4 Skyhawk's "other" pics, I'm going to post this video as the idea behind the A-4 here, is directly linked to what happened on 911. Please review: [video=youtube;hQ2H2MkElNs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQ2H2MkElNs[/video] [video=youtube;8u7mPZwJYGI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8u7mPZwJYGI[/video] [video=youtube;LjKDNxNtk2o]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjKDNxNtk2o[/video] [video=youtube;rr-kmOF9xAU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rr-kmOF9xAU[/video] [video=youtube;B9JoPkAk0-c]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9JoPkAk0-c[/video]
Shall we believe Mineta, in his MSNBC interview, CBS 60 Minutes interview, testimony before Congress and Seattle interview as well? Or, shall we divert our attention to a web cache server of a online rag out of the United Kingdom? Go to the site you just posted and run a search on the webpage for Norman Mineta, Norm, Mineta, Transportation Secretary, or Secretary and you will find not one hit. So, whose comments are these being attributed to because Norman Mineta is never referenced on the site you just posted as evidence that he contradicted himself? In multiple locations and before multiple members of the U.S. media including a private truth seeking organization in Seattle, he never once contradicted his testimony to Congress and he's always repeated that both Cheney, and Mrs. Cheney, were already at PEOC before he got there. Furthermore, the phone call from Secret Service Agent Garabito to his FAA counterpart Steenbergen, happened 30 seconds after Flight 175 hit New York at 9:03am. CNN White House correspondent John King states in his 9:52am report, that about 30 minutes ago, the White House had begun slowly evacuating. John King's statement is corroborated by that statement from White House pastry chef Roland Mesnier, who wrote in his memoirs that the evacuation begins at exactly 9:18. 52-30 = 9:22am. Both Mesnier and King, who were at the White House and should know, roughly agree on the same time frame for when the evacuation began. The 911 Commission report does a lot of things and not telling the truth about timelines is one of them. I trust John King's statements. I trust Roland Mesnier's statements and I trust Norm Mineta's statements - all of which place the evacuation at approximately 22 minutes or more before the 911 Commission report and there has never been a witness who contradicted those statements. Moreover, why would it take Norman Mineta 41-42 minutes to travel less than three miles from his office to the White House? It would not. He says that he was inside his office watching a new broadcast of Flight 175 as it struck the second tower at 9:03am. Within mere minutes he was taken to PEOC. Thus, his arrival at approximately 9:20 to 9:27, to cover a roughly three mile journey, makes a whole lot of sense to me. Mineta, has been consistent long after 911 in his statements. If he was simply mistaken or confused, I think he would have sorted that out by now publicly. He was there before the alleged Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, clearly.
Hmm you respond without even looking at my links. If you had looked at the Mineta thread, you would have seen: 1. Although a slow evacuation of non-essential personnel began prior to AAL77 hitting, the full evacuation of the White House and federal buildings began at around 0940. The key here is that Mineta said he saw people "running" out of the White House and other buildings. That is not a slow evacuation. 2. There are several verifiable reasons why Mineta's timeline is off by over a half hour, you should respond to them on my thread. 3. If you had bothered to read the thread before replying you would have noticed that Cleveland ATC Linda Justice put a flight plan into the TSD system for UAL93 based on speed and heading, from Hagerstown to Regan National. This TSD is what Monte Belger at the FAA was relaying to Mineta in the PEOC. 50 miles, 30 miles, 10 miles. The 4 reference points used fit perfectly with UAL93's planned approach path. It fits no where near AAL77's. 4. The blog I linked has overwhelming evidence that AAL77 hit the Pentagon. I suggest you spend more time there and work through it. http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/332863-another-mineta-thread.html http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/
Ron Weick puts it rather well. Start at 39 minutes and listen till around 45. [video=youtube_share;2-bdE3uZ5GI]http://youtu.be/2-bdE3uZ5GI?t=38m54s[/video]
Okay, if Lynn Cheney was at the PEOC before he got there ... how about we look at her testimony of when she arrived? So Lynn Cheney did not get to the PEOC until after the Pentagon was hit. Norman Mineta is simply mistaken about his own timeline.
While I respect your opinion, I don't respond without knowing precisely what I am responding to. However, you need to double-check and triple check your sources before you vouch for them and use them in your analysis. This is one of the primary reasons why, I do as much of my own legwork and heavy lifting (math, physics, chemistry - they all apply to 911) as I can. Go take closer look at the source you used for the Secret Service Logs. His name is Miles L. Kara. Guess what he used to do for a living? He was a career military intelligence and COINTEL officer and Colonel, United States Army. 911, is about a potential government cover-up - aka - an inside job. Are you sure you want to rest your defense on the hand-written notes of a former COINTEL officer, on either one of the biggest COINTEL flops in U.S. history, or one of the most successful PSYOP programs in existence? Double and triple check your sources. You should have known who this guy was before now: Resume: Miles L. Kara, retired Military Intelligence Officer. When you posted that hand-written document, the uninitiated might get the wrong impression and believe that such a document actually came from the Secret Service, when nothing could be further from the truth. You want me to use your thread to make my posts? I can't. Your thread is filled with inaccuracies - that's why this thread exists. Those hand-written notes that say "Unclassified Extract" were never classified in the first place. Miles L. Kara, tells his blog readers that he visited the Secret Service in 2003, and allegedly discovered that the Secrete Service had "put together an internal timeline," after the fact. This is the exact same Secret Service who failed to evacuate the White House, after Garabito confirms with the FAA, that the United States of America is most likely under air attack via skyjacked commercial aircraft. That's bizarre in an of itself. The hand-written "Logs" that you have used to prove that Mineta's timeline was off, did not come from the Secret Service directly. The actual Secret Service Logs were allegedly in spreadsheet form, according to the former Counter-Intelligence Officer and former Military Officer who allegedly copied the information by hand, while inside the offices of the Secret Service. So, this former COINTEL officer goes into the Secret Service office, hand-copies data allegedly contained in spreadsheet format to a piece of paper and then stamps that piece of paper with the words: "Reproduced at the National Archives," knowing full well that other official story believers would take such information and run with it on the internet. He then comes back to his own blog at a later time and admits that his "...review of the Secret Service timeline has [have] been made public by NARA." Miles L. Kara, never got a physical hard copy of the alleged Secret Service Logs. So, you are relying here, on information that is not vetted and that comes form a former COINTEL officer whose very job could have been to assist in the cover-up. How's that for investigative work. Where I come from, they simply call that being: BUSTED. 9:40 contradicts the statement of the Chef, who was inside the White House and one of the people who did indeed evacuate the White House in real-time. 9:40 contradicts the statement of John King, who was at the White House, covering the White House and who witnessed the evacuation of the White House, in real-time. John King's CNN report was not given until 9:52 when he stated that the evacuation began "30 minutes ago." In your presentation that Mineta arrives after Flight 77 allegedly strikes, you rely heavily on documentation after the fact. 911, happened on September 11th, 2001. The alleged Secret Service Logs that you rely upon were actual hand-written transcriptions by a former COINTEL officer not produced until 2003 - after the fact. The video called, "The Secrete History of 9/11," was not an official recording of history. It was a "docudrama" made specifically for television. That's not evidence. None of this is evidence. You could not bring that into a court of law, if you had to prove that the White House was evacuated at 9:40. No judge would allow such "evidence," as it would be ruled as hearsay and not admissible. Furthermore, (not as if it is necessary for me to point this out) "The Secrete History of 9/11, fails to interview the Transportation Secretary himself, Norman Mineta. Why would a documentary supposedly interested in the facts, omit one of the central players? Could the reason be that his testimony to the 911 Commission, contradicts the conclusion that the White House was evacuated at a later time, which supports the notion that somehow Mineta, arrived after the alleged Flight 77 struck the Pentagon? Moreover, you have not responded to the fact that Shanksville, is 122 miles away from the DC/Arlington area. Mineta's testimony before Congress was that he was referring to Flight 77. The questioning Congressman got confirmation of that fact from Mineta, before allowing Mineta, to continue his statements. The problem for your argument, is that Flight 93 never got closer than 122 miles from the DC/Arlington area. Therefore, the telemetry being fed to Dick Cheney, in the PEOC, could not have possibly been about Flight 93, as you assert. Here's google earth: The Yellow Line measures a "50 miles out" radius from the area near the White House. The Blue Line measures the 122 miles from the area near the White House, northwest to Shanksville. So, the "young man" that Mineta, refers to in his testimony, cannot possibly be referring Flight 93, as Flight 93 never penetrated a 122 mile radius around the White House. Ergo, they had to have been discussing some other airborne vehicle prior to 9:37am. It is physically impossible for Flight 93 to stretch its fuselage 72 miles. 50 miles out. 30 miles out. 10 miles out. There is no way on earth they were referring to Flight 93. 50 miles out from what? 30 miles out from what? 10 miles out from what? There was never an NEADS track on Flight 93 that far south east of Shanksville - ever. So, to conclude that those call-outs that Mineta, referred to were based on the track of Flight 93, completely re-writes history. It does not matter what anybody says, writes or re-writes some 2-3 years after the fact. Flight 93, was alleged to have gone down 72 miles away from the furthest point of a 50 mile radius extended from the very target that the "young man" was feeding Cheney, telemetry about. That's a physical impossibility, no matter how you slice it, or how one re-writes the script. Now, did I miss anything critical or important in my analysis? Does the Secret Service Log written in 2003, and hand transcribed by a former COINTEL officer, show a track of Flight 93, over-penetrating Shanksville, to the north west of the D.C./Arlington area? Because, that is the only way possible to prove that the telemetry being fed to Cheney, was NOT about the alleged Flight 77. If you have such evidence that demonstrates this, I would like to review it personally. What does it matter, since Flight 93, never came closer than 122 miles of the DC/Arlington area? The claim you are making (if I understand your posts correctly) is that this "young man" was feeding Cheney, information about Flight 93. You said earlier that Norman Mineta, was confused. You said that not only was he confused about his own timeline, but by logical extension, you conclude that he must have also been confused about which aircraft was being called-out to Cheney. Furthermore, the official story is that no one had a track on Flight 77, before it hit the Pentagon. Yet, two years later, when the Secret Service Logs are released via FOIA and transcribed by a former COINTEL officer, we see that those same "Logs" had the wrong time for the launch of Air Force One. These logs were not a specific timeline of events as they unfolded. There was no Secret Service Agent sitting down at a computer typing these events one-by-one. These were summary entries into a spreadsheet. They were a collection of notes with approximated time-stamps from multiple sources, not just the Secret Service. TRACON, did not S-tag the unidentified fast mover heading east until 9:34, according to this COINTEL operator. It was this COINTEL operator who told you that the White House was evacuated at 9:40, not the actual people who were there such as the Chef and John King, of CNN, who contradict the COINTEL operator and his hand-written "Logs" containing "Unclassified Extract" allegedly from the Secrete Service some two (2) years after the fact. Then you have just contradicted your own posts. Do you know where Hagerstown and Regan National are relative to Shanksville, where Flight 93 allegedly crashed? You might want to go take a look at a map. Here is graphic showing Flight 93's path from Newark, NJ, to Stoneycreek Township, PA.: Based on that known flight path, why would anyone enter a "flight plan" into the system for an aircraft that never went anywhere near Hagerstown? But, even if Flight 93, did reach as far east as Hagerstown after its 180-degree turn (which it clearly did not), it still never reaches the maximum radius of being in a position of 50 miles away from Regan National. Any map of the area clearly shows this as fact. The distances in this story just don't add up! At no point did Flight 93 ever come within 50 miles of Hagerstown, or within 50 mile of Regan National. So, no matter how many after-the-fact 'Way Points' somebody tries to build into the official story, they won't get Flight 93 closer to the east coast, no matter how hard you try. They could not have been discussing Flight 93, because Flight 93 never made it that far east after it allegedly made its left turn nearly 180-dgrees somewhere over Cleavland, Ohio. Yet, you just said here Monte Belger, was relaying telemetry to Mineta, in the PEOC about Flight 93. The problem with that statement is that Monte Belger himself, states that he believed Mineta, was already in the PEOC with the Vice President, at the same time he was on the phone with Mineta. Monte Belger, states that it was Mineta, who gave him (Belger) the order by phone, to ground all aircraft shortly after the attack on the Pentagon, and that this order came directly from Mineta, while Mineta was with the Vice President. Well, that location can only be in the PEOC, because that's where Mineta, was located during his phone calls with Belger. I know very well how flight plans get into the system, both prior to 911 and subsequent. I also know that the transcripts of Flight 11 and Flight 175, make it clear that an aircraft other than Flight 93, departed the eastern seaboard without a plan in the system and no subsequent insertion was ever made. There has never been an FAA resolution to that aircraft or its whereabouts and the media acts as if it never happened. It was a Ghost Flight commercial aircraft said to have been "all white in color." Nobody knows what happened to that aircraft to this very day. I suggest you start double and triple checking your sources, so you don't end up relying too heavily on people who have a reason to dump you with counter intelligence, such that you get too confused about what really happened on 911. I've done my homework on this matter thoroughly. I'm also a former 75 check pilot. As a new FO to the 75, your very first ride would have been with someone like me. I know the aircraft, its systems and its capabilities. I can promise you that according to the NTSB FDR data that it released via FOIA to Douglas Calum, there is no way physically possible for a 75, to have done what the official story claims it did on 911, before striking the Pentagon. We can get into the flight dynamics of the 75, but I would require that you know something about the aircraft from a pilot's perspective before we do. Can you have that discussion here? If so, please let me know and we'll examine why the flight dynamics and flight envelope issues are reason enough for the exclusion of the 75 as being the killer aircraft at the Pentagon.
The "shoot down order" is moot. That's a red herring. Flight 93, NEVER came within 122 miles of the White House. That's the ONLY point that matters. Therefore, what airborne vehicle DID come within 122 miles of the DC/Arlington area? The airborne vehicle that did that was the alleged Flight 77. So, once again, to conclude that PEOC was bantering about Flight 93, clearly is a revision of history in broad daylight. Just go look at a map and compare the map to the known flight path of Flight 93, and it makes it abundantly clear that Flight 93, was nowhere near the "50 miles out" radius - whether you use the White House, Pentagon or Regan National as its target. Furthermore, when this guy sits here and tells you that the "50 miles out" call was just a mere "projection" of a the flight path and that the airborne vehicle had not yet passed through space at some point 50 miles out of some target area, then he's simply being untruthful on purpose, or he's completely incompetent on the subject of how both Primary and Secondary Radar works. No airborne target being painted can possibly provide a "projection" unless it passes through the previous point AND that previous point in three-dimensional space MUST be at a distance GREATER THAN that which is being "projected." Flight 93, allegedly went down in Shanksville, which is 122 miles from the DC/Arlington area. Therefore, if "50 miles out" refers to UAL93, then that would put the last track behind the aircraft at 72 miles (using the DC/Arlington area as the target - even more when you use Regan National as the target). That's absurd and every radar tech op reading this knows why. Whether Monte Belger, had access to DCA Radar, BWI Radar, or some other installation or feed, the longest full-cycle sweep would have been roughly twelve (12) seconds. That's 72 miles per 12 seconds, or 6 miles per second, or 21,600 miles per hour. That's makes Flight 93, the Guinness Boook of World Record holder for fastest Boeing 757 ever recorded in modern commercial aviation history. Or, said another way, the guy in this video is blowing Pure Unadulterated Smoke and he's inhaling it to boot. Why people go on the record saying things that make them out to be absolutely clueless incompetent beings, I will never know. But, one thing is for certain - Boeing has never made a Hypersonic Commercial Aircraft, capable of speeds that blows the door off of the Kepler spacecraft's 13,175 mph orbital speed. This is called nutty pseudo-science and hyper imagination taken to extreme levels of nuttiness. Now, we have the official story theory of the 21 thousand mile per hour Boeing 757. Eeeks, that's fast!
Uh, huh. And it was Lynn Cheney, who also said this in that same interview: I never had a problem with Lynn Cheney, personally. However, there's is one small problem with what she states and it is called White House Protocol. The Secret Service never approach the White House with any member of the First, or Vice President's family, without lead notification as a routine matter of protocol. They always call ahead, so that internal security can know who is approaching the White House. In addition, this story places a huge burden of failure on the shoulders of Secret Service. Of course, they are used to taking the blame for things that they did not do, but this one makes absolutely no sense as it violates protocol once again. You have Flight 11 striking the first tower and the FAA declaring that it was highjacking. You then have Flight 175 striking the second tower and both the FAA and NEADS assume it was related to the first strike. NORAD, now believes the country is under air attack via skyjacked commercial airframes and does not know where the next strike will take place. All the while, the Secret Service watching Mrs. Cheney, shop? They know that public buildings have been targets in the United States, and they allow her to keep shopping? Vice President Cheney, claims that he was not secured in the PEOC as a matter of preserving the continuity of government for more than 30 minutes after it was known by the Secret Service that the country was though to have been suffering air strikes. So, Cheney, just sat around for more than 30 minutes waiting until the Pentagon gets struck before the decision is made to get him inside the bunker and clear out the White House? None of that makes any sense - especially when they knew that had problems communicating and tracking Flight 77, before it struck. But, once again - none of that matters because Flight 93, never entered the 50 radius set by Cheney's own aide and certainly not the 30 mile, or 10 mile radius - no matter what target you try to use: White House, or Regan National. The only aircraft having done that is the alleged Flight 77.
Yep, the armchair experts are at it again. Grab anything that sounds like a conspiracy and inflate it. Someone confused about what went on goes against the known evidence. Another thing that people don't understand is that prior to 911 the threat defense watch did not cover the interior but was solely looking for a threat to come outside of the US. The FAA had sole coverage inside the USA. I used to work at the Indianapolis Center and still have friends that work there. This thread is bunk.
I gave ample warning that this would not be like the other Flight 77 threads. This one has incontrovertible proof that the whole Flight 77/Pentagon story was fictional. Now, I will reveal for the first time here, why my A-4 Skyhawk pics are very much related to Flight 77 and the Pentagon. The human brain is an amazing biological machine. It can make uncanny bio-mechanical calculations at amazingly fast speeds. It coordinates what the eye sees and what the brain reacts to at the blink of an eye. But, in order to do this, the brain fill in gaps of missing information when not presented with all the details and it will do this whether or not it gets the correct answer. What does all this mean? Take another look at our A-4 Skyhawk: You see, while I am a pilot and I do fly the L-39ZA, I was NEVER anywhere near an A-4 Skyhawk the other day while flying in formation. That A-4 Skyhawk sits on a pole at the entrance to the old Alameda Naval Air Station, just across the bay from San Francisco to the west. This A-4 is now a static display sitting in the middle of a huge lawn area and has been inactive for many years. However, it flew on this forum and I did fly formation with this aircraft in your mind. That is what the Pentagon confusion is all about, as those videos of some of the first non-government and non-media eyewitnesses attest. Go back and listen to what they had to say. There was a large cluster of them who reported that what struck the Pentagon was not a large commercial airframe, but a much smaller Commuter or Regional jet type aircraft. All of a sudden we began to see witness after witness rush to give intimate details about the aircraft not only belonging to American Airlines, but after being asked by the media to describe what they saw, the would immediate rush to say they saw a "Boeing 757," and then make a point to guarantee that you understood it was a "Boeing 757." That's just not how human nature works when the adrenaline is pumping under stressful situations. Most lay-people unfamiliar with aviation, don't take time to focus on such details, especially when they ordinarily would not be able to differentiate an Airbus A330, from a Boeing 757, flying over head at more than 480kts, or 552mph. But those initial eyewitnesses who were randomly stopped and questioned had stories to tell that were dramatically different. Almost all of them recognized an aircraft that was significantly smaller than a Boeing 757, where some of them even called it a "small jet." Another said that he thought it was no bigger than a "20 passenger commuter." When a Boeing 757 passes over your head, or directly right in front of your position below 100 feet, there is no way on earth that you will mistake that aircraft for a small jet, commuter jet, or regional jet. It is not until we get to some of the more polished interviews that we start seeing "eyewitnesses" claim that not only saw a large commercial airliner, but specifically they almost all say they saw a "Boeing 757." These were non-aviation people. People without a background in aviation. Non-pilots. How the heck can they distinguish the difference between a Boeing 757 and any other commercial heavy - especially when such an object catches you off guard (you not supposed to be expecting to see it) and surprises you at 552mph? I believe that what struck the Pentagon was an airborne vehicle of significantly smaller size and much more agile. I believe it was remotely controlled from nearby (whether ground based control or airborne control, I am not certain). I believe it carried a modified incendiary payload and I believe it was liveried to resemble the silhouette of an American Airlines aircraft, such that at 552+ mph and a very low altitude, eyewitnesses could easily make a similar mistake that you just made with my "A-4 Skyhawk" that you indeed believed was actually airborne in the pics I provided. Your brain was fed the context. You were shown something that fit that context but you were not shown the entire landscape. Your brain filled in the missing pieces for you and you assumed you saw an A-4 flying in the pics - even though your brain was dead wrong. That's how you conduct operations at the Pentagon with Flight 77. You get people to see what you want them to see, by providing the context that commercial aircraft are slamming into buildings in New York. You then prime the pump by providing them with a high speed silhouette of what you want them to report later, an American Airlines jet. You then have your counter-eyewitnesses on standby to fill the air with "Boeing 757" speak. Just like that, people "saw" a Boeing 757, even when nothing could be further from the truth. Their brains were dead wrong about the Boeing 757 - just like your brain was dead wrong with my A-4 Skyhawk. The concept is the same - provide the context then allow the brain to do what it naturally wants to do - solve problems by filling in the missing pieces that it thinks should be in place - regardless of how wrong it might be. Case in point.
Throwing up a quote out of context and then proclaiming that someone else is an armchair quarterback, is a bit like running out on the field in the middle of Cowboys/Redskins game amongst true athletes and proclaiming that they are all a bunch of armchair football players who know nothing about what really playing in the NFL is all about, and handing them brochures of some random words on a piece of paper as your proof. Care to explain why your post matters in this thread? This was intentionally left out of my posts for now, because I wanted to use it later to demonstrate more evidence of contradiction in the story that just keeps hanging itself, about how no one had a track on Flight 77, after Henderson lost it and DACO could not assist in recovery. But, thanks for stealing my thunder a bit earlier than I had wanted. This proves that somebody who authored the official story was not telling the truth then and they are not telling the truth now: [video=youtube;mGI5BmNd7AE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGI5BmNd7AE[/video]
Ad hominem is the most rewarding reply of all coming from those who believe in the biggest conspiracy theory our nation has ever known: The Official Story. If you would like to try to debunk anything I've written, then go right ahead and try. You can start with the official claim that Cheney's aide and Mineta, were referring to Flight 93, which itself never penetrated the 122 mile radius barrier, let alone the 50 mile radius barrier. How anyone can look at something as simple as a map, plot the distances between Shanksville (where Flight 93 allegedly went down), the Pentagon (where Flight 77 allegedly went down), Hagerstown & Regan National Airport, and then still proclaim that the PEOC conversations regarding 50/30/10 miles out involved Flight 93, is beyond my ability to comprehend. Is the map itself confused, too? Does the map not correctly show the relative distances between these points? Did Shanksville just get up, sprout legs and move itself 72 miles south east all on its own? Because, in order for this "story" to be true, that is exactly what had to have happened. Shanksville, has to be the first walking town the world has ever known. Was there a plate tectonic shift that happened just before 911, that would account for all this movement in Shanksville's longitude/latitude? I remain with an open mind. If you can show me how Shanksville, moved 72 miles south east, I am more than willing to accept that as fact and move off this matter. But, until you do, Flight 93, never came anywhere near the target area that the PEOC chatter is referring to. Occam's Razor states that when you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth. Thus, it is impossible for a town to sprout legs and move itself 72 miles, unless there was a cataclysmic seismic event that makes Pompeii pale in comparison. That means that it was impossible for Flight 93, to have ever come anywhere near the 50/30/10 miles out radius lines. That means it was impossible for the PEOC chatter to involved Flight 93. And, that means only one thing by deduction: All pre-9:37 PEOC chatter involving 50/30/10 miles out language had to have been referring one flight and one flight only: Flight 77. If you have solid, logical and consistent argument against that which does not contradict itself, please do let me know.
I'm not going to respond with a wall of text when I have already presented all my information. I know Miles Kara wrote the notes, it's the first thing that pops up in the pdf title when I'm digging through the 600GB of FOIA information I have stored on my hard drive. I have an entire list of reasons why Mineta's timeline is off. You picked one reason, made an ad hominem attack on the author and ran with it. Try the others, and respond in the appropriate thread. Monte Belger was getting information from the TSD system, not primary radar or secondary radar. It was a projected flight plan, in the same way they had a projected flight plan for AAL11A. And it was planned from Hagerstown to Reagan National. I linked this information on the other thread, but if you insist: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |135632.5|UAL93 117|FSP 06F |O ENR | IHD 06 AML EWR./.IHD323021 HGR | | | | | | UAL93 027 14 350 350 DCA 1527 | | | | | | 009 040 | | | | | | L/B752/E 1358 | | | | | | T473 G501 | | | | | | 06 DIA IA+ | | | | | | 117 01 HGR |NRP WNA DC+ | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mineta and Belger: You can stop with your "UAL93 never came within 122 miles" because we here know better. You're not convincing anybody. You also lied to me. You said you read my sources. You clearly did not follow through my Mineta thread, and I know for certain you never clicked the link to my blog. Why not?
That's your choice, but I also corrected your post over on YouTube as well. You are telling people things that are not true - period and nothing you have posted here contradicts anything I have written in this thread. That's why this thread exists. It might very well be the first thing that pops up on your hdd. But, it never popped up on this forum under the link you gave me to contradict my thread here. All you did was assert that Secrete Service Logs contradicted Mineta. You never told anyone in that post what the source of your information was - a former COINTEL officer. Had you notified people that said hand-written document came not from the Secret Service, but from a former COINTEL officer who visited the Secret Service office one day (after the fact), then people reading that opening page in your thread would have known the proximity of Mr. Kara, to the Official Story Tellers of 911. That, plus the inaccuracies contained within the hand-written note, are the only problems I have with it as being contradictory to Mineta's testimony. I'm not angry with you, I just think you do the uninitiated a disservice when you mislead them that way, for no other apparent reason but to torture the official story until it becomes true - as opposed to simply allowing the evidence to lead where it wants to lead: away from a Boeing 757 being the killer aircraft at the Pentagon. That never happened and people need to know the truth. There is no Boeing 757 crash site signature at the Pentagon. You cannot squeeze the 12.33 foot diameter Boeing 757 through the tiny slit in the exterior wall of the Pentagon (forget about bringing the 125 foot horizontal wingspan along for the ride it its remarkable life), that was made from the object that impacted the outer ring. And, you most definitely won't get a nice horizontally opposed exit hole at the A/E drive as seen here: Moreover, the angle created between the horizontally opposed cookie cutter exit hole at A/E drive and the entry slit on the exterior of the Pentagon, is set at nearly a 40-45 degree angle with respect to the horizontal facade of ALL the rings that were allegedly penetrated by Flight 77. In addition, the exist hole at A/E drive is a near perfectly cut 9 foot flush hole in the wall with absolutely nothing touching the next exterior wall of the adjacent ring. The left and right wings of the aircraft extend for 124ft and 10in total span. The aircraft's diameter divided by 2 = 6.165ft. 6.1ft + 1/2 wing span = 68.5ft extension to each tip from the center line of the fuselage. Yet, when we look at the exterior of the Pentagon and measure from the center of the impact, we see nothing that resembles 68.5 feet of wing impact on either side of the center of impact. In other words, we do not see exterior damage commensurate with something the same size as a Boeing 757 at the Pentagon. In fact, we see damage that comes from an airborne vehicle that is much smaller than a 75. Both the liquefaction theory and the folding wing engulfed and sucked in by the building theories, are attempts at using circus logic and pixie dust physics, to explain basic and fundamental elastic -vs- inelastic collisions, the conservation of energy and impulse force reactions. Concepts that anyone with a degree in Physics should fully understand. At Shanksville, the official bedtime story is that the earth opened its mouth and swallowed whole a Boeing 757. At the Pentagon, the official bedtime story is that the building opened its mouth, swallowed a Boeing 757 whole while the wings sheared off laterally, glued themselves along the side of the fuselage and never created a hole that was LARGER than the diameter of the aircraft as a direct result. One would have to be absolutely out of their cotton picking mind after looking directly at the building's damage profile, to believe the physics behind such a wild story that makes no sense at all. Once again, it matters not that you have a list of reasons, when Flight 93 never made inside the 122 mile radius from the White House, nor did it ever make it to Hagerstown, or Regan National. So, the 50/30/10 call outs could not have been about Flight 93, because of the time at which Mineta, was referring to and the flight number that Mineta, was referring to. Mineta, has never changed his recollection of the events and he has been consistent in his statements that he arrived at the PEOC between 9:20 and 9:27. The strike on the Pentagon did not happen until after that. Where do you think the TSD gets its data! Does it just make it up as it goes along, or does its primary target data come from -guess what- a RADAR system? What does a projected flight plan have to do with neither Hagerstown, nor Reagan National, ever being anywhere near the crash site of Flight 93? You are contradicting your own statements. You are concluding that the PEOC chatter was about Flight 93. Yet, that chatter included call outs for 50/30/10 miles in-bound. Even if you use Hagerstown, the actual flight path of Flight 93, which cannot be re-written by revisionists, never put the aircraft within 50/30/10 miles of Hagerstown, and most certainly not Reagan National. So, if the aircraft that you say was being chattered about never came within reach of the the flight plan between Hagerstown and Reagan National, then how can you continually say that they were discussing Flight 93? You don't enter a "flight plan" for an aircraft that you KNOW is already hijacked - what's the point in doing that? The already knew 93 had problems, right? That's the official story, is it not? This aircraft did not "appear to be heading to Washington D.C airspace," until after it was allegedly skyjacked. And, "appeared to be heading to Washington D.C. airspace," could only mean after making its near 180-degree turn somewhere over Ohio and west of Shanksville. This aircraft never made it into Washington D.C. Class Controlled airspace. When the PEOC was chattering about 50/30/10 miles out, there were obviously chattering about the DC/Pentagon are as the target zone - not a "flight plan" entered into the system by Linda. None of what you just posted says anything at all about Flight 93 being 50 miles from anywhere, 30 miles form anywhere or 10 miles form anywhere. You post this ad hoc as if it somehow has meaning to the telemetry being fed to Cheney, from this "young man." What you just posted is cannon fodder for the purpose of understanding what the 50/30/10 miles out statements were referencing. What is this supposed to represent? You are toss out stuff without explaining it the source. You did that with Miles, where your post never explains that he had a conflict of interest being a former COINTEL officer. You post a document from Linda, and you mix it with some nonsense about a projected track of an aircraft that never made it to the DC/Pentagon area. You then post this picture of what? What does it show? I said go look at a map and measure the distances between Shanksville and DC/Pentagon, Newark Airport and the Ohio 180-degree turn, Shanksville and Hagerstown, and Hagerstown to Reagan National. The distance between Shanksville and the DC/Pentagon area is 122 miles. The distance between Shanksville and Hagerstown is roughly 61 miles. The distance between Shanksville and Reagan National is 125 miles. The actual flight path of Flight 93 looks like this: Which means that Flight 93, never saw D.C. airspace and it means that it was never inside of 50 miles of either Hagertown or Reagan National, which is what you claim the 50/30/10 call outs were all about. If those call outs were about Flight 93, then they have to anchored to a target area, or some enroute waypoint. Using Hagerstown and Reagan National, you do not get Flight 93 inside the 50/30/10 mile call outs. This is not referring to Flight 93, because we know what the Flight path of UAL93 looks like and we know what ground it covered. Mineta, tells you what he's referring to. You are attempting to put words into his mouth after the fact. You want to change what the man has been consistently saying for years. They were chattering about the alleged Flight 77, not Flight 93. The Flight 93 flight path is sitting right here for you to look at. It never made it anywhere near Great Falls. How anyone can look at the actual flight path of UAL93 and conclude that it got somewhere near Great Falls, is mind blowing to say the least. The only aircraft involved in 911, was the alleged Flight 77. Nobody lied to you, you lied to yourself when you swallowed this official story nonsense hook, line and sinker. Now, the evidence does not support that story, but you are so hooked in that you are having difficulty seeing past the fog. I read the first post you made in the link you gave. In that post, you asserted and vouched for Miles' rendition of Secret Service Logs. What I uncovered for the viewers of that thread, is the fact that you never once told anybody that Miles, was a former COINTEL officer and that the Logs you posted were NOT official Secrete Service documents. So, who is doing the lying on this board? I have not lied about anything because everything I have posted is already out there, but people have been so snowed under by all the nonsense about flight plans to nowhere and aircraft being mentioned as targets but never coming close to the airspace they are alleged to have penetrated - when you add all that up, there is little wonder why so many are still so confused. This thread clears that right up because you can look at any map and clearly see that Flight 93, never comes close to Hagerstown, nor Reagan National and allegedly crashed in Shanksville. So, either Flight 93 had another life that nobody else knows about except YOU and Linda, or those guys in the PEOC were talking about the alleged Flight 77. Now, try again.
