IPB




POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
911 Commission Transcripts..., Need to read them...

Robin Hordon
post Jan 6 2007, 05:53 AM
Post #1





Group: Guest
Posts: 99
Joined: 2-December 06
Member No.: 274



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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ashoka
post Jan 6 2007, 07:31 AM
Post #2





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 94
Joined: 12-December 06
From: Italy
Member No.: 312



Hi Robin, here they are..

Friday, May 23, 2003

PANEL 1: SEPTEMBER 11, 2001: THE ATTACKS AND THE RESPONSE
WITNESSES: SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION NORMAN MINETA; MAJOR GENERAL CRAIG MCKINLEY, NORAD; MAJOR GENERAL LARRY ARNOLD, (RET.); COL. ALAN SCOTT (RET.); LT. GENERAL MIKE CANAVAN (RET.), FORMER ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR, CIVIL AVIATION SECURITY

Video
Low
High



One year later....



Thursday, June 17, 2004

PANEL I:

STAFF STATEMENT NO. 17: IMPROVISING A HOMELAND DEFENSE

PANEL II:

GENERAL RICHARD MYERS, USAF, CHARIMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF

ADMIRAL (SELECT) CHARLES JOSEPH LEIDIG, USN, COMMANDANT OF MIDSHIPMEN, UNITED STATES NAVAL ACADEMY

GENERAL RALPH E. EBERHART, USAF, COMMANDER, NORTH AMERICAN AEROSPACE DEFENSE COMMAND(NORAD) AND UNITED STATES NORTHERN COMMAND

MAJOR GENERAL LARRY ARNOLD, USAF (RET.), FORMER COMMANDER, CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES NORAD REGION (CONR)

PANEL III:

MONTE BELGER, FORMER ACTING DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

JEFF GRIFFITH, FORMER DEPUTY DIRECTOR, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

JOHN WHITE, FORMER FACILITY MANAGER, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEMS COMMAND CENTER, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

BENEDICT SLINEY, OPERATIONS MANAGER, NEW YORK TERMINAL RADAR APPROACH CONTROL, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

Video

Panel (1&2)
Low
High

Panel (3)
Low
High


Ashoka
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Robin Hordon
post Jan 6 2007, 02:15 PM
Post #3





Group: Guest
Posts: 99
Joined: 2-December 06
Member No.: 274



Ashoka,

Thank you so very much! I sure appreciate it...and if you ever come across some testimony about the AA11 "false target", would you please let me know? Thanks again...

Also, where is all the "Dulles radar" information that we were analyzing on this site. I really do not know how to navigate through these sites and get lost and forget too easily...again, thanks!

Love, Peace and Progress...

Robin Hordon
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ashoka
post Jan 6 2007, 04:16 PM
Post #4





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 94
Joined: 12-December 06
From: Italy
Member No.: 312



Since it's better watching a video than reading a transcript...


Friday, May 23, 2003

Norman Mineta (Youtube video link)

Part one

Part two

Col. Alan Scott (Ret.) - Norad Timeline (version 2.0 lol)

Google video link

General Larry “I didn't remind” Arnold (2003 testimony)

Google video link


Laura Brown Memo (sorry no video available)

MR. BEN-VENISTE: "Well, we asked that question yesterday, and Ms. Garvey was not at that time prepared to respond. Last evening she did communicate with the staff at my request, and we were provided a statement which comes from FAA, which I'd like to read into the record, Mr. Chairman. And it is, I am told, authored by two individuals, high level individuals at FAA, Mr. Asmus and Ms. Schuessler. And it's entitled FAA Communications with NORAD on September 11th, 2001. "Within minutes after the first aircraft hit the World Trade Center, the FAA immediately established several phone bridges that included FAA field facilities, the FAA command center, FAA headquarters, DOD, the Secret Service and other government agencies. The U.S. Air Force liaison to the FAA immediately joined the FAA headquarters phone bridge and established contact with NORAD on a separate line. The FAA shared real-time information on the phone bridges about the unfolding events, including information about loss of communication with aircraft, loss of transponder signals, unauthorized changes in course, and other actions being taken by all the flights of interest, including Flight 77. Other parties on the phone bridges in turn shared information about actions they were taken. NORAD logs indicate that the FAA made formal notification about American Flight 77 at 9:24 a.m. But information about the flight was conveyed continuously during the phone bridges before the formal notification." So now we have in question whether there was an informal real-time communication of the situation, including Flight 77's situation, to personnel at NORAD. Can you give us from your experience -- obviously you were not there on the 11th -- but on your experience what this phone bridge communication is all about, and whether it is likely in view of this communication we have just received, that there was some informal communication of the distress of Flight 77? "
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ashoka
post Jan 6 2007, 04:18 PM
Post #5





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 94
Joined: 12-December 06
From: Italy
Member No.: 312



Thursday, June 17, 2004

(Phantom flight 11)

American Airlines Flight 77, FAA awareness (special guest: phantom flight 11)
Google Video link

Zelikow and phantom flight 11 – Norad Timeline (version 3.0a)
Google video link

Ashoka

[Edit]

Download FAA documents here

Radar data here

Now it's cheers.gif time! (here in Italy it's evening :-))

This post has been edited by Ashoka: Jan 6 2007, 04:41 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
waterdancer
post Jan 7 2007, 04:36 AM
Post #6


Polymeta.com search Sibel Edmonds bradblog


Group: Library team
Posts: 1,696
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 77



Here are a few quotes that might help you out (bearing in mind that I'd trust Zelikow's version of events about as far as I could puke it...) These are pretty long, but hopefully they get to the meat of what you are looking for. Also, David Ray Griffin has a very good critique on the wonderous NEADS tape mentioned in the Larry Arnold testimony quote below which can be found here

QUOTE
MR. ZELIKOW: Conflicting Accounts. In May 2003, public
testimony before this commission, NORAD officials stated that,
at 9:16 NEADS received hijack notification of United 93 from the
FAA. This statement was incorrect. There was no hijack to report
at 9:16. United 93 was proceeding normally at that time. In this
same public testimony, NORAD officials stated that, at 9:24,
NEADS received notification of the hijacking of American 77.
This statement was also incorrect. The notice NEADS received at
9:24 was not about American 77. It was notification that
American 11 had not hit the World Trade Center and was heading
for Washington, D.C.
A 9:24 entry in a NEADS event log records: "American Airlines
No. N334AA hijacked." This is the tail number of American 11.
In their testimony, and in other public statements, NORAD
officials also stated that the Langley fighters were scrambled
to respond to the notifications about American 77 and/or United
93. These statements were incorrect as well. The report of
American 11 heading south as the cause of the Langley scramble
is reflected not just in taped conversations at NEADS, but in
taped conversations in FAA centers, on chat logs compiled at
NEADS, continental region headquarters, and NORAD, and in other
records. Yet this response to a phantom aircraft, American 11,
is not recounted in a single public timeline or statement issued
by FAA or DOD. Instead, since 9/11, the scramble of the Langley
fighters has been described as a response to the reported
hijacking of American 77, or United 93, or some combination of
the two. This inaccurate account created the appearance that the
Langley scramble was a logical response to an actual hijacked
aircraft.
Not only was the scramble prompted by the mistaken
information about American 11, but NEADS never even received
notice that American 77 was hijacked. It was notified at 9:34
that American 77 was lost. Then, minutes later, NEADS was told
that an unknown plane was six miles southwest of the White
House. Only then did the already scrambled airplanes start
moving directly to Washington, D.C.
Thus the military did not have 14 minutes to respond to
American 77, as testimony last year suggested. It had at most
one or two minutes to respond to the unidentified plane
approaching Washington, and the fighters were in the wrong place
to be able to help. They had been responding to a report about
an aircraft that did not exist.
Nor did the military have 47 minutes to respond to United 93,
as would be implied by the account that it received notice about
it at 9:16. By the time the military learned about the flight,
it had crashed.
At one point the FAA projected that United 93 would reach
Washington, at about 10:15. By that time the Langley fighters
were over Washington. But, as late as 10:10, the operating
orders were still "negative clearance to shoot" regarding nonresponsive
targets over Washington, D.C. The word of the
authorization to shoot down hijacked civilian aircraft did not
reach NEADS until 10:31.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hear..._2004-06-17.pdf

QUOTE
39
Why did no one mention the false report received from FAA
that Flight 11 was heading south during your initial appearance
before the 9/11 Commission back in May of last year? And why was
there no report to us that contrary to the statements made at
the time, that there had been no notification to NORAD that
Flight 77 was a hijack?
GEN. LARRY ARNOLD: Well, the first part of your question --
Mr. Commissioner, first of all, I would like to say that a lot
of the information that you have found out in your study of this
of this 9/11, the things that happened on that day, helped us
reconstruct what was going on.
And if you're talking about the American 11, in particular,
the call of American 11, is that what you are referring to?
40
MR. BEN-VENISTE: Yes.
GEN. ARNOLD: The American 11, that was -- call after it had
impacted, is that what you're referring to?
MR. BEN-VENISTE: No. I'm talking about the fact that there
was miscommunication that Flight 11 was still heading south
instead of having impacted --
GEN. ARNOLD: That's what I'm referring to. That's correct. As
we -- as we worked with your committee in looking at that, that
was probably the point in time where we were concerned --
remember, that call, as I recall, actually came after United
175, as well as American 11, had already impacted the North and
South Towers of the World Trade Center. And then we became very
concerned, not knowing what the call signs of those aircraft
were that had hit the World Trade Center, we became very
concerned at that particular point that those aircraft, that
some aircraft might be heading towards Washington, D.C.
MR. BEN-VENISTE: General, is it not a fact that the failure
to call our attention to the miscommunication and the notion of
a phantom Flight 11 continuing from New York City south in fact
skewed the whole reporting of 9/11, it skewed the official Air
Force report, which is contained in a book called "The Air War
Over America," which does not contain any information about the
fact that you were following, or thinking of a continuation of
Flight 11, and that you had not received notification that
Flight 77 had been hijacked?
GEN. ARNOLD: Well, as I recall, first of all, I didn't know
the call signs of the airplanes when these things happened. When
the call came that American 11 was possible hijacked aircraft,
that aircraft just led me to come to the conclusion that there
were other aircraft in the system that were a threat to the
United States.
MR. BEN-VENISTE: General Arnold, surely by May of last year,
when you testified before this commission, you knew those facts.
GEN. ARNOLD: I didn't recall those facts in May of last year.
That's the correct answer to that. In fact, as I recall, during
that time frame, my concern was, why did -- the question that
came to me was, why did we scramble the aircraft out of Langley
Air Force Base, the F-16s out of Langley Air Force Base? And
there had been statements made by some that we scrambled that
41
aircraft the report of American 77, which was not the case, and
I knew that.
And I was trying to remember in my own mind what was it that
persuaded us to scramble those aircraft. And I thought at the
time it was United 93. But as I was able to -- we did not have
the times when these things were -- when we were notified of
this. I did not have that information at that time. I didn’t
have it.
MR. BEN-VENISTE: General Arnold --
MR. ARNOLD: And so we scrambled those aircraft to get them
over Washington D.C. to protect Washington D.C.
MR. BEN-VENISTE: According to our staff, you know that there
was a substantial problem in getting information from NORAD,
that we received information, we were told that the information
was complete. We went out into the field, our staff did, and did
a number of interviews. And as a result of those interviews, we
found that there were tapes which reflected the facts relating
to Flight 11.
And we found additional information by which we were able,
through assiduous and painstaking work, listening to any number
of tape recordings, to reconstruct what actually occurred, as
you have heard in the Staff Statement.
I take it you have no disagreement with the facts put forward
in the Staff Statement. That's been produced in advance for
comment, and I take it you're in agreement now with our staff's
conclusions with respect to those facts.
MR. ARNOLD: I am.
MR. BEN-VENISTE: We have -- and I'm not going to go through
it, but it is disturbing to see that there were efforts at
after-action reports which were available shortly after 9/11.
There were communications which our staff has received with
respect to e-mails that reflect some of the facts on nearly a
contemporaneous basis with the 9/11 catastrophe that reflect a
story which unfortunately is different from the one which was
presented to this commission earlier.
When you and General Eberhart were asked about the existence
of tape recordings reflecting these open-line communications,
both of you indicated that you had no such recollections.
GEN. EBERHART: Mr. Commissioner, I think it's important to
note that I did not testify in front of this commission. So to
say that I said that that day is categorically wrong.
MR. BEN-VENISTE: I'm sorry, sir. I'm sorry. You are correct.
I will refer to General Arnold's comments, both with respect to
--
MR. KEAN: This is the last question, Commissioner.
MR. BEN-VENISTE: Thank you.
MR. ARNOLD: Yeah, the Northeast Air Defense Sector apparently
had a tape that we were unaware of at the time. And your -- to
the best of my knowledge, what I've been told by your staff is
that they were unable to make that tape run. But they were later
able to -- your staff was able, through a contractor, to get
that tape to run.
And so, to the best of my knowledge, that was an accurate
statement in May that I did not know of any tape recordings. If
I had had them available to me, I certainly would have been able
to give you more accurate information.
Our focus was on when the events occurred, and we did not
focus on when we -- we didn't have a record -- I did not have a
record of when we had been told different things.
MR. BEN-VENISTE: In order to clarify it -- and I apologize
again, General Eberhart -- the statement that I was referring to
was a statement which we are advised was made to the staff. It
was General McKinley, as well as General Arnold. When I asked
the question, "Let me ask you whether there's a regularly-made
tape recording of these open-line communications," General
Arnold answered, "Not to my knowledge" and General McKinley
answered, "Not to my knowledge."
It was through the painstaking investigation that discovered
these tapes and then our staff listening to those tapes which
assisted us in being able to provide the level of detail and
accuracy which we've done today.
http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hear..._2004-06-17.pdf

This post has been edited by waterdancer: Jan 8 2007, 02:51 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ashoka
post Jan 7 2007, 08:26 AM
Post #7





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 94
Joined: 12-December 06
From: Italy
Member No.: 312



General Larry "I don't remember" Arnold...

In 2003
Video
transcript


In 2004
Video
transcript

Ashoka

[Edit]

Ben-Veniste reads the FAA memo (the so called "Laura Brown's memo")
Google Video

This post has been edited by Ashoka: Jan 7 2007, 10:54 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Ashoka
post Jan 7 2007, 04:59 PM
Post #8





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 94
Joined: 12-December 06
From: Italy
Member No.: 312



I'm sorry..

I've seen that the videos from the 2004 hearings have a damaged audio... it was very poor and so the mp3 conversion made it inaudible at all.

I'll upload a better version

Ashoka
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
behind
post Jan 7 2007, 11:11 PM
Post #9





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 388
Joined: 25-August 06
Member No.: 13



This Phantom flight 11 is a mystery.

Thats how they explain it:

9:21 a.m. September 11, 2001: Boston Air Traffic Control Center Mistakenly Tells NEADS Flight 11 Is Still Airborne

According to the 9/11 Commission, NEADS is contacted by Boston flight control. Colin Scoggins, Boston Center’s military liaison, tells them, “I just had a report that American 11 is still in the air, and it’s on its way towards—heading towards Washington. ... That was another—it was evidently another aircraft that hit the tower. That’s the latest report we have. ... 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.” The NEADS official asks, “He—American 11 is a hijack? ... And he’s heading into Washington?” Scoggins answers yes both times and adds, “This could be a third aircraft.” Somehow Boston has been told by FAA headquarters that Flight 11 is still airborne, but the commission will say it hasn’t been able to find where this mistaken information came from. Vanity Fair magazine will later add, “In Boston, it is Colin Scoggins who has made the mistaken call.”

In Boston, it is Colin Scoggins who has made the mistaken call.” Scoggins will explain why he believes he made this error: “With American Airlines, we could never confirm if [Flight 11] was down or not, so that left doubt in our minds.” He says he was monitoring a conference call between FAA centers (see 8:28 a.m. September 11, 2001), “when the word came across—from whom or where isn’t clear—that American 11 was thought to be headed for Washington.” However, Boston Center was never tracking Flight 11 on radar after losing sight of it near Manhattan: “The plane’s course, had it continued south past New York in the direction it was flying before it dipped below radar coverage, would have had it headed on a straight course toward DC. This was all controllers were going on.” Scoggins says, “After talking to a supervisor, I made the call and said [American 11] is still in the air.” [9/11 Commission, 6/17/2004; Vanity Fair, 8/1/2006]
www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a921flight11mistake

I dont know... but it look strange to me. If "Boston Center was never tracking Flight 11 on radar after losing sight of it near Manhattan"... I mean... why did someone report that it was still flying?

Very confusing.

Only for experts.

And thank you Ashoka for posting that videos. Very interesting.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 7 2007, 11:26 PM
Post #10



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,602
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (behind @ Jan 7 2007, 10:11 PM)
However, Boston Center was never tracking Flight 11 on radar after losing sight of it near Manhattan: “The plane’s course, had it continued south past New York in the direction it was flying before it dipped below radar coverage, would have had it headed on a straight course toward DC.

I hope this Scoggin's character got fired! Because either he is REALLY stupid or he is LYING.

3 radars around NYC.. JFK, Laguardia, and Newark. They see aircraft down to the ground! The only 'dipping below radar' would be if you were a truck on a bridge.

Second... AA11's path was heading south.. but a straight course would have taken it to Bahamas.. not Washington (if it stayed on a 'straight course' rolleyes.gif ). Again, either this controller/"military liason" is REALLY freakin stupid or he is lying through his teeth! I'll let you decide.

Thanks for posting that behind.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 7 2007, 11:33 PM
Post #11



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,602
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Robin Hordon
post Jan 8 2007, 03:55 AM
Post #12





Group: Guest
Posts: 99
Joined: 2-December 06
Member No.: 274



Ok folks...

Some inside scoop...let Scoggins off the hook for the moment...trust me...I'll clue you in later...however...WE want him working for the FAA right now...shhhh

regarding the fantom AA11..a few points...

Scoggins does admit that he was the ONE that PUBLICALLY raised the flag about AA11 still being airbourne...BUT...I feel that there was a very busy mole in NEADS...the same one referred to as the "unknown officer" who added to the confusion about wether or not it was AA11 that hit the tower, or a small plane...read the VF issue...you'll get it...he raised doubts about the truth...and added confusion...added some response time...didn't reduce it which is what was needed!!!!

next...

I have learned that AA11 was tracked by amost EVERYBODY [and I think by our friends at NEADS too] all the way until it hit the tower...full track...primary target...track watched by two ARTCC's [probably not by the Common I] target seen BY EVERYBODY...even Santa saw the damn thing...

next..

after AA11 hit the tower...the "target was gone"...but the track "flew on" in perpetuity on the last "heading" and the last "speed" that were computed between the last two HITS of the primary target...and you know what...AA11 was in some form of a turn as it hit the tower...tracks go until they are "cancelled" by a computer command...

next...

don't get too fussy about pure "south" headings and the like...what Scoggins said may have been actually correct because of the "last two" hits may have adjusted the track...but more-so...when you are looking a large regions of airspace and the like...one generalizes to begin with...and then as the situation narrows down, controllers narrow down their "specifics"...its kinda like the difference beteen the parameters of a pilots navigating when one is at the midway point of a long airway segment between navaids and you are only using a straight VOR for navigation...the lefts-rights are a bit "wide" or forgiving...versus...the left-rights of an ILS 1/4 mile out. So, the way that I look at it, at that time Scoggins had it "close enough"...in other words...it wasn't going west...

And what we are now finding...leads back to the aforementioned mole...

Seems that the "confusion" that AA11 was still in the air may have emanated from NEADS...and unidentified source...AND...with all the "stuff" coming in about the possibility of AA77 maybe, maybe not being hijacked, lost on radar, and all that other crap...and since so many of us think that there are SOOOO many issues about "was it a 757, or was it a missle, or was it a small military plane, or was it a combination"...well most of us think that it wasn't a widebody..so, IF the HI PERPS KNEW it wasn't a widebody, as we all think that they did...they needed/wanted to plant as much evidence as they could about AA77 turning around to keep the dogs off of teir "real airvehicle" that hit the pentagon. So, the statements about... "that's AA77"...and all the stuff like that...they would chat it up a lot wherever they could in their Phone bridges". Consequently, conveniently, and not too surprisingly, AFTER almost all of the early testimony had been gathered, it looks like the good ole military looked REALLY BAD about AA77 NOT being shot down by the Langley fighters...or somebody else, or something else...SOOOOO...the new stories began to flourish...and certainly the fighters ended up heading the wrong way [mole]-and they were too late...[hey, the HI PERPS certainly didn't want them to shoot down their "false flag drone" or carrier duo, or whatever...BUT...when the military was asked IF they had scrambled these guys to get AA77 WHEN it was "reportedly still well west of DC"...AND...they basically had come up with the answer that they were never informed about AA77 being hijacked and headed towards DC...so they really DIDN'T launch the fighters for AA77...because that plane had "crashed" ???...SOOOO mr military...why did you scramble the fighters towards DC??? Well, we heard that AA11 was still flying...that it was headed southbound towards DC...and that ZBW confirmed it...so we scrambled on a phantom aircraft...but THEN we went to DC...and we found DC because something was burning. Hmmm...

So, to make a long story longer...it seems to me that the "new" AA11 story...still headed southbound...was created by the same author of the "old" AA11 story...the one where it was thought to be a small plane that hit WTC1.

Now let me tell ya folks...THAT mole deserves a raise...he is right there when you need him...and he tooled both NEADS and Scoggins...and bought some time to keep fighters on the ground or headed away. Now, if I were a betting man, I'm gonna guess that the NEADS unidentified "mole" also suggested that the Otis bird need to grab a "Whale Watch" south of Long Island that pretty day too. My math shows that those fighters on Whale Watch were 3 AB minutes away from NYC when UA175 was about 6-8 minutes out of WTC2...

I hope this helps a bit...so much is still coming out...Dr.Griffin will have some good fun stuff soon...

Love, Peace and Progress...

Robin Hordon
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Jan 8 2007, 05:13 AM
Post #13



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,602
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (Robin Hordon @ Jan 8 2007, 02:55 AM)
Now, if I were a betting man, I'm gonna guess that the NEADS unidentified "mole" also suggested that the Otis bird need to grab a "Whale Watch" south of Long Island that pretty day too. My math shows that those fighters on Whale Watch were 3 AB minutes away from NYC when UA175 was about 6-8 minutes out of WTC2...

I hope this helps a bit...so much is still coming out...Dr.Griffin will have some good fun stuff soon...

Love, Peace and Progress...

Robin Hordon

Yeah. .that makes sense.. but you know me Robin.. i dont make excuses for anything and want answers for it ALL.. wink.gif

Cant wait to get started on the "Whale Watching" Eagles out of Otis.. coming soon.. biggrin.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
woody
post Jan 9 2007, 03:59 PM
Post #14


Woody Box


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 257
Joined: 28-August 06
Member No.: 20



The phantom flight 11 is no mystery, and there are several hints that Flight 11 "survived" the North Tower crash...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discu...dress=125x47725

Colin Scoggins, by the way, was the "military liaison" at Boston Center, and as such he was responsible for coordinating with the military regarding training exercises...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
behind
post Jan 9 2007, 04:19 PM
Post #15





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 388
Joined: 25-August 06
Member No.: 13



Aha. Thank you for posting that. You have already point it out 2005.

"...Manager, New York Center: Okay. This is New York Center. We're watching the airplane..."

And Scoggins explaination makes no sense to me.

9/11 Commission should of cource have looked into this very strange incident.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JackD
post Jan 9 2007, 05:25 PM
Post #16





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 295
Joined: 13-November 06
Member No.: 238



CooperativeResearch -- Vanity Fair quote of Scoggins


"Disregard the tail number."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JackD
post Jan 9 2007, 05:30 PM
Post #17





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 295
Joined: 13-November 06
Member No.: 238



Rumors have started circulating through the civilian air traffic system that the plane that hit the WTC was a small Cessna. There is increasing confusion on the NEADS operations floor as to whether it was really Flight 11. ID tech Stacia Rountree is on the phone with Colin Scoggins, a civilian manager who is Boston flight control’s military liaison. Scoggins initially seems to confirm that the plane was Flight 11, saying, “Yeah, he crashed into the World Trade Center. ... disregard the tail number [given earlier for American 11].” When Rountree asks, “He did crash into the World Trade Center?” Scoggins replies, “[T]hat’s what we believe, yes.” However, an unidentified male staff member at NEADS overhears, and queries, “I never heard them say American Airlines Flight 11 hit the World Trade Center. I heard it was a civilian aircraft.” Master Sergeant Maureen Dooley takes the phone from Rountree and asks Scoggins, “[A]re you giving confirmation that American 11 was the one?” Apparently contradicting what he’d previously said, Scoggins replies, “No, we’re not gonna confirm that at this time. We just know an aircraft crashed in ... The last [radar sighting] we have was about 15 miles east of JFK [International Airport in New York City], or eight miles east of JFK was our last primary hit. He did slow down in speed ... and then we lost ’em.” [Vanity Fair, 8/1/2006] This confusion will continue later on, when NEADS will be misinformed that Flight 11 is still airborne (see 9:21 a.m. September 11, 2001).


Nothing about this makes sense.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Robin Hordon
post Jan 9 2007, 05:38 PM
Post #18





Group: Guest
Posts: 99
Joined: 2-December 06
Member No.: 274



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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JackD
post Jan 9 2007, 09:08 PM
Post #19





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 295
Joined: 13-November 06
Member No.: 238



Thanks Robin

So if i read you correctly, what you're saying is that there is a BIG difference between a real radar "ping" that shows up as a blip on scope, and a 'track' which is the computer trying to create a likely 'track' for a plane for which a transponder signal is missing.

The 84th airforce RADES squadron out of Hill AFB in Utah does most of the 'forensic' radar analysis. interestingly, the 84th had some of its people staffing the Rome NEADS hq. wonder what their analysis really showed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JackD
post Jan 10 2007, 08:38 PM
Post #20





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 295
Joined: 13-November 06
Member No.: 238



the USAF 84th RADES is the "CSI" of radar tracks

radar article

QUOTE
The 84th RADES has instituted procedures for a quick response team. This ensures timely data retrieval from the data recorder at each operations center and subsequent reduction by the radar operators there and at the squadron in Utah.

When the quick response team (QRT) became involved in John F. Kennedy, Jr.’s, missing airplane incident near Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts, for example, the remote operating location at Rome Industrial Park, New York, was already deployed.

The Air Force Rescue Coordination Center at Langley Air Force Base, Virginia, contacted the North East Air Defense Sector located in Rome Industrial Park. It passed information on the lost aircraft to the sector air operation center’s mission control commander, who then called the 84th RADES personnel located there.

The 84th RADES analysts gathered pertinent data, including the missing airplane’s transponder code, approximate departure time and intended flight path. Based on this information, they found the track and last detected radar return of the aircraft and immediately passed the probable longitude and latitude to the rescue coordination center.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 23rd April 2014 - 07:47 AM