911 Commission Transcripts..., Need to read them... Options

[Robin Hordon]

Somewhere on this site I think that I ended up being linked to some 911 "Omission", or perhaps earlier transcrits or statements from the NEADS/NORAD guys giving testimony. Kinda thought it might be surrounding the "phantom" AA11 as it was headed south on a ghostly path. Somebody with lotso info hooked me up to what I really need to reread.

If it was anyone reading this post, or, if anyone else has a link to the 911 "ommission" transcripts covering the military testimony, can you steer me there. This is an important project to debunk some timelines and the like...

Thanks,

Love, Peace and Progress...

Robin Hordon

[Robin Hordon]

A few points to help with the "imaginary" AA11...

1. All controllers in both ZBW and ZNY who were watching BOTH the primary target and the TRACK for AA11 have reported that they "lost" AA11's primary target AT the WTC...

2. ONLY controllers AT control sectors would be able to SEE the "real" track of AA11...other positions such as at the TMUs at the ARTCCs and down at Herndon, DO NOT see the very same track...they see a modified version of the track that has "national flow control information added onto them"...this is because they need to see information such as the tracks' DESTINATIONS as they watch the day's traffic develop...

3. AA11's track would continue on ot southerly "tracK' until cancelled by a qualifying ATC...but the track would be in "COAST MODE"...meaning that it keeps its last heading and speed ad-infinitum...BUT...there is no TARGET associated with that track...either primary or secondary...

4. Therefore, since everyone everywhere, including the folks at Herndon and the Secret Service were "watching" AA11's TRACK continue southbound...even though most people "knew" that AA11 had crashed into WTC1, the "ghost" AA11 story could have been generated from anywhere within any of those facilities...and at that time the military liasson to Herndon was AT Herndon and had access to watching AA11's "coast track" continuing southbound...

5. As previous testimony at the "Ommission" began to raise more and more questions about AA77, the military had to create an answer for NOT knowing about AA77 because if they HAD known as indicated, they could have intercepted it BEFORE it hit the pentagon. Testimony showed that they had "allegedly" scrambled Langley for that purpose...AA77. But this was a huge problem to the military.

6. BUT...then, someone remembered that AA11 was still allegedly airbourne...because they saw that the TRACK was still "airbourne"...so then, oh-so-conveniently, the Langley fighters were scrambled to intercept AA11...which was now considered real and still airbourne...but wasn't...

7. My inside information has Scoggins being the ONE who indeed posited that AA11 was still airbourne, and he admits he made an error in confirming such because he said he was just "passing on" information that he had heard over the "phone bridges".

8. Nobody EVER confirmed an airplane associated with the AA11 "coast track"...but Scoggins just erred on the safe side???? I don't really buy it either...

9. Again, Scoggins did not originate the concept...that was done by someone else on the phone bridges...I think by a military "mole".

10. The DemocraticUnderground story does not confirm that there was a target associated with the "track"...in fact, they probably make the same mistake that I have been trying to get the pilots NOT to make...there is a difference between a TARGET and a TRACK.

Most of this dialogue has been focused upon a TRACK...actually, its been focused on a "COAST TRACK"...which means NO AIRPLANE TARGET!

Love, Peace and Progress...

Robin Hordon

[Sergio]

Hi Robin, I am new to the forum.
Sorry for posting here years later than this topic is apparently over, but there are some questions I would like you or other members would answer to.

7. My inside information has Scoggins being the ONE who indeed posited that AA11 was still airbourne, and he admits he made an error in confirming such because he said he was just "passing on" information that he had heard over the "phone bridges".

First of all, thank you for clarifying the difference between a target and a coast track. However, we have a problem here. In this interview to 911 myths years later, Scoggins firmly denies someone was monitoring either any target or any track after the primary track of Flight 11 was lost just before Manhattan.

911myths: Why did you believe that Flight 11 may still be in the air?
Colin Scoggins: I was listening on a Telcon with some people at Washington HQ, and other facilities as well, but don't know who they were. Didn't know the people at FAA HQ either. It was some kind of security telcon. I was in contact with many people at that time, UAL175 had crashed. NEADS was interested in Tail Numbers of AAL11 and UAL175. I believe it was either Dan Bueno the Supervisor in charge, or Bo Dean who made some initial calls to the airlines requesting if their aircraft were down, and tail number information. UAL Airlines replied within minutes that they could confirm UAL 175 was down, and they had the tail number. AAL Airlines was totally different. They do what I think they are supposed to do, by locking down their computer after an aircraft crashes, but when they did that, they couldn't access passenger lists, route of flight, it locks everyone out. So we never got confirmation that the plane was down. Somehow this either got misconstrued, and ended up in FAA channels, indicating the plane never crashed, or what I think happened is that someone in HQ knew that AAL77 was missing, and when they were talking about AAL77 they may have dropped the numbers and were reporting that AAL was still missing or still flying but no one knew where. I think this ended up on the telcon as AAL 11 is still airborne. From my point of view the aircraft was heading south at low altitude and we had lost radar, my only guess was he was heading for Washington DC. I found out years later and I am 99% certain the person who made that call on the telcon was Dave Canoles, he has since retired. I took the information I received and called NEADS almost instantly, can't tell you who I told that to, I talked with so many people there the whole day.
911myths: Several 9/11 researchers authors have reported that the “phantom flight 11” was spotted on radar. Is that true?
Colin Scoggins: I have no idea where that came from. Once we lost the aircraft we never even had a hint of another target. I even called FACSFAC VACAPES which has radar up and down the coast, to look for targets, they didn't come up with any.
911myths: If it was never on radar, why say it was going to Washington?
Colin Scoggins: Again it was just my hunch, as where they were heading. The aircraft would have enough gas to get there even at low altitude, but if the aircraft was heading to Cuba, it would never make it at low altitude. Couldn't think of any other important targets on the east coast, so that was where my mind was. I also tried to guess where the aircraft would be at the speed it was traveling. LINK

First Question
If the source of the wrong assumption about Phantom Flight 11 was actually a computer generated track, why not admit this years later? It would perfectly fit in the official theory and would also backup the delayed/failed fighters' scramble story. But Scoggins does not mention any phantom track. According to his statement, once we lost the aircraft we never even had a hint of another target. So, Boston was not monitoring Flight 11 anymore, therefore Scoggins assumes the wrong information came from FAA HQ. But nobody at FAA HQ has ever confirmed this, to the best of my knowledge. So, if there was a computer generated track on radar, which radar came this track from? If a phantom track was actually on any radar, why not admit openly and clearly which radar this track was spotted on? As usual, Scogging tries to muddy the waters, but conveniently makes no mention about any track on radar. I find it highly suspect. Also, the idea that someone on FAA HQ confused the real/phantom Flight 11 with Flight 77 is simply ridiculous. Flight 77 was lost at 8:56 between the Ohio and Kentucky border and Indianapolis ATC believed it crashed. Wherever Flight 77 was at 9:21, when Scoggins calls NORAD to inform that Flight 11 is still airborne and heading to Washington DC, in no way it could be on the way between New York and Washington DC, where it never had been and could not be. Nobody at FAA HQ in Washington could have spotted such a phantom track of Flight 77 between NY and Washington before 9:21 and confused it with Phantom Flight 11.

The fact that Scoggins does everything possible to deny any track on the radar as well as the source of his "wrong" information leads me to conclude that, if anything was spotted on the radars coming from New York headed to Washington before 9:21, that was a real plane target, not a coast track. They would have plenty of reasons to cover a real primary target. I can't see any plausible reason to cover a coast track, since this would fit perfectly in the official story.

Second Question
As Woody correctly pointed out on Post#23 and Rob on post#11 (if I get his jpeg right), how could possibly a coast track headed South being headed to Washington? Something does not add up here. Either they were following a coast track headed South (i.e. not to Washington) or they were monitoring a primary target of a real plane actually headed to Washington:

FAA Boston: Military, Boston Center. I just had a report that American 11 is still in the air, and it’s on its way towards—heading towards Washington.
NEADS: Okay. American 11 is still in the air?
FAA Boston: Yes.
NEADS: On its way towards Washington?
FAA Boston: That was another—it was evidently another aircraft that hit the tower.That’s the latest report we have.
NEADS: Okay.
FAA Boston: I’m going to try to confirm an ID for you, but I would assume he’s somewhere over, uh, either New Jersey or somewhere further south.
NEADS: Okay. So American 11 isn’t the hijack at all then, right?
FAA Boston: No, he is a hijack.
NEADS: He—American 11 is a hijack?
FAA Boston: Yes.
NEADS: And he’s heading into Washington?
FAA Boston: Yes.This could be a third aircraft.LINK

There is a blatant contradiction between this transcript and Scoggins' later account (first quote). somewhere over, uh, either New Jersey or somewhere further south perfectly match a South West path to Washington, in no way the original South path of Flight 11.

Thank you in advance to you and any other member to clarify my doubts.
Sergio

This post has been edited by Sergio: Apr 2 2011, 08:35 AM