FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Air/FAA Response - Overview
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Specifics Investigation
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 6522

PostPosted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 6:50 pm    Post subject: Air/FAA Response - Overview Reply with quote

Reply to this topic with general evidence about the
U.S. military Air Response and FAA response.


-------------------
S U M M A R Y
-------------------

A summary of the thread will be updated here as evidence
is presented in this topic.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
DeepLogos



Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 259
Location: Geostationary orbit around myself, sipping at a cup of DM Tea...

PostPosted: Thu Aug 17, 2006 6:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fighter jet speeds at 25% of max speed on 911. "Sunday driving" to protect the capital and New York. Now that made me very suspicious when I read it back in the days of blissful ignorance.



911-Research wrote:
Air Defense
Multiple Failures of the Air Defense Network to Protect New York City and the Capital
On September 11th, there were fighters in the air less than five minutes away from the Twin Towers when the first was hit, 25 minutes after Flight 11 was believed to be hijacked. There were a number of air stations with combat-ready fighters within ten minutes' flying time from the New York City and Washington targets. There were well-established automatic procedures for intercepting aircraft that were either off course or had lost communication. Yet there were no interceptions of any of the four hijacked aircraft, with the possible exception of Flight 93, whose interception and shoot-down is officially denied. What conclusions can be drawn from this failure, given the awesome capabilities of the air defense network?

The Changing Story
For the first few days after the attack, the official story was that no interceptors were scrambled until after the Pentagon strike. On September 16th Vice President Cheney told Meet the Press that George Bush personally made the decision to scramble interceptors, and suggested that he did so only after the Pentagon was hit. 1 General Myers, during his confirmation hearing on September 13th, said that no military aircraft were scrambled until after the Pentagon was hit. 2 There was also no mention in the major media of scramblings of jets prior to the Pentagon hit, until September 14th, when Dan Rather announced on the CBS Evening News that F-15s were scrambled from Otis at 8:44 and F-16s were scrambled from Langley at 9:30. 3 Officials such as Cheney apparently were not kept apprised of these new "facts," since his Meet the Press interview was two days later. Four days after the CBS disclosure, the new story was incorporated into NORAD's official timeline.

The official timeline was changed again with the release of the 9/11 Commission Report. The differences between the NORAD and Commission timelines are graphically summarized on the timelines pages.

The Interception "Attempts"
While Flights 11 and 175 were in the air, two F-15s were circling in a 150-mile chunk of air space off the coast of Long Island as ordered. Pilot Major Daniel Nash reported seeing a plume of smoke over Manhattan even though he was 70 miles away, and couldn't recall being told about the North Tower strike. After the second tower was hit at 9:03, the pilots were ordered to head to Manhattan for combat air patrol, and they did that for the next four hours. 4

At 8:52 AM two F-15s from the 102nd Fighter Wing of Otis Air National Guard Base in Falmouth, Massachusetts were scrambled and airborne. These were the first jets scrambled, 38 minutes after Flight 11 was hijacked. But the pilots were not informed that Flight 11 had crashed into the WTC nor that Flight 175 had turned and was heading straight toward New York City. According to NORAD, at the time of the South Tower impact the two F-15s from Otis were still 71 miles away. Although the F-15s had enough time to reach the World Trade Center, simple calculations using NORAD's own numbers reveal that the fighters were flying at only 24% of their top speeds.

At 9 AM the Pentagon moved its alert status up one notch from normal to Alpha. It stayed at Alpha until after the Pentagon strike.

A few minutes after 9:03, according to the official story, the Secret Service called Andrews Air Force Base, located 11 miles southeast of the Pentagon, with instructions to get some F-16s armed and ready to fly. Missiles were still being loaded onto the F-16's when the Pentagon was hit over half an hour later. 5

At 9:09, NORAD ordered Langley Air Force Base, in Hampden, Virginia, to put F-16s on battle stations alert. The order to scramble was not given until around 9:25. 6 At 9:30, the two and possibly three F-16s were finally airborne and en route to the Pentagon. 7 They were armed with Sidewinder missiles and authorized to shoot down civilian aircraft. At 9:49 the F-16s reached the Pentagon, around 15 minutes after the Pentagon strike. Simple calculations reveal that the F-16s could have reached the Pentagon before the assault, but also flew at an average of 24% of their top speeds.

At 10:01 AM the FAA ordered the 180th Fighter Wing out of Swanton, Ohio, to scramble F-16 fighters. 8 Unlike many other bases, Swanton had no fighters on stand-by alert status. Yet it managed to put jets in the air 16 minutes later.


Calculations of speed (WTC): Otis to the WTC
Quote:
Otis to the WTC
The first base to finally scramble interceptors was Otis in Falmouth, Massachusetts, at 8:52, about a half-hour after Flight 11 was taken over. This was already eight minutes after Flight 11 hit the North Tower, and just 9 minutes before Flight 175 hit the South Tower.

According to NORAD, at the time of the South Tower Impact the two F-15s from Otis were still 71 miles away. Otis is 153 miles east-northeast of the WTC. That means the F-15s were flying at: (153 miles - 71 miles)/(9:03 - 8:52) = 447 mph
That is around 23.8% of their top speed of 1875 mph.
At 9:11 the F-15s finally reached the World Trade Center. Their average speed for the trip was: 153/(9:11 - 8:52) = 483 mph
That is around 25.8% of their top speed.


Calculations of speed (Pentagon): Langley to the Pentagon
Quote:
Langley to the Pentagon
The F-16s from Langley reached the Pentagon at 9:49. It took them 19 minutes to reach Washington D.C. from Langley AFB, which is about 130 miles to the south. That means the F-16s were flying at: 130 miles/(9:49 - 9:30) = 410.5 mph
That is around 27.4% of their top speed of 1500 mph.


General Myers confirmation hearing (cached): http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/defense/myers_confirmation_091301.html

The Phantom Flight 11 and Jets Out Fishing:
Quote:
Explaining the Langley Scramble: Phantom Flight 11

But even if we could believe this implausible tale, there is still the problem of why F-16s at Langley Air Force Base were airborne at 9:30. FAA incompetence again comes to the rescue. At 9:21--35 minutes after Flight 11 had crashed into the World Trade Center--some technician at NEADS, we are told, heard from some FAA controller in Boston that Flight 11 was still in the air and was heading towards Washington. This NEADS technician then notified the NEADS Mission Crew Commander, who issued a scramble order to Langley. So, the Commission claims, the Langley jets were scrambled in response to "a phantom aircraft," not to "an actual hijacked aircraft" (193). This new story, however, is riddled with problems.

One problem is simply that phantom Flight 11 had never before been mentioned. As the Commission itself says, this story about phantom Flight 11 "was not recounted in a single public timeline or statement issued by the FAA or Department of Defense" (196). It was, for example, not in NORAD'S official report, Air War Over America, the foreword for which was written by General Larry Arnold.12

General Arnold's ignorance of phantom Flight 11 was, in fact, an occasion for public humiliation. The 9/11 Commission, at a hearing in June of 2004, berated him for not remembering that the Langley jets had really been scrambled in response to phantom Flight 11, not in response to a warning about Flight 77. Commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste began a lengthy grilling by asking: "General Arnold. Why did no one mention the false report received from the FAA that Flight 11 was heading south during your initial appearance before the 9/11 Commission back in May of last year?" After an embarrassing exchange, Ben-Veniste stuck the knife in even further, asking:


General, is it not a fact that the failure to call our attention to the . . . the notion of a phantom Flight 11 continuing from New York City south . . . skewed the official Air Force report, . . . which does not contain any information about the fact that . . . you had not received notification that Flight 77 had been hijacked? . . . [S]urely by May of last year, when you testified before this commission, you knew those facts. (197).

In Alice in Wonderland, the White Queen says: "It is a poor memory that remembers only backwards." One must wonder if General Arnold felt that he was being criticized for not remembering the future--that is, for not "remembering" a story that had been invented only after he had given his testimony. Arnold, in any case, simply replied that he "didn't recall those facts in May of last year."

But if those alleged facts were real facts, that reply would be beyond belief. According to the Commission's new story, NORAD, under Arnold's command, failed to scramble fighter jets in response to Flights 11, 175, 77, and 93. The one time it scrambled fighters, it did so in response to a false report. Surely that would have been the biggest embarrassment of Arnold's professional life. And yet 20 months later, he "didn't recall those facts."

A second problem is that there is no way for this story about phantom Flight 11 to be verified. The Commission says that the truth of this story "is clear . . . from taped conversations at FAA centers; contemporaneous logs compiled at NEADS, Continental Region headquarters, and NORAD; and other records" (193-94). But when we look in the notes at the back of The 9/11 Commission Report, we find no references for any of these records; we simply have to take the Commission's word. The sole reference is to a NEADS audiofile, on which someone at the FAA's Boston Center allegedly tells someone at NEADS: "I just had a report that American 11 is still in the air, and it's . . . heading towards Washington" (194). The Commission claims to have discovered this audiofile. Again, however, we simply have to take the Commission's word. We cannot obtain this audiofile. And there is no mention of any tests, carried out by an independent agency, to verify that this audiofile, if it exists, really dates from 9/11, rather than having been created later, after someone decided that the story about phantom Flight 11 was needed.

But could not reporters interview the people at NEADS and the FAA who had this conversation? No, because the Commission says, nonchalantly: "We have been unable to identify the source of this mistaken FAA information" (194). This disclaimer is difficult to believe. It is now very easy to identify people from recordings of their voices. And yet the Commission was supposedly not able to discover the identity of either the individual at Boston who made the mistake or the NEADS technician who received and passed on this misinformation.

Another implausible element is the very idea that someone at Boston would have concluded that Flight 11 was still airborne. According to stories immediately after 9/11, flight controllers at Boston said that they never lost sight of Flight 11. Flight controller Mark Hodgkins later said: "I watched the target of American 11 the whole way down" (194) If so, everyone at the Boston Center would have known this. How could anything on a radar screen have convinced anyone at the Boston Center, 35 minutes later, that Flight 11 was still aloft?

Still another implausible element in the story is the idea that the Mission Commander at NEADS, having received this implausible report from a technician, would have been so confident of its truth that he would have immediately ordered Langley to scramble F-16s.13

This entire story about phantom Flight 11 is the Commission's attempt to explain why, if the US military had not been notified about Flight 77, a scramble order was issued to Langley at 9:24, which resulted in F-16s taking off at 9:30. As we have seen, every element in this story is implausible.



Why Were the Langley F-16s So Far from Washington?

Equally implausible is the Commission's explanation as to why, if the F-16s were airborne at 9:30, they were not close enough to Washington to protect the Pentagon at 9:38. To answer this question, the Commission once again calls on FAA incompetence.

The F-16s, we are told, were supposed to go to Baltimore, to intercept (phantom) Flight 11 before it reached Washington. But the FAA controller, along with the lead pilot, thought the orders were for the F-16s to go "east over the ocean," so at 9:38, when the Pentagon was struck, "[t]he Langley fighters were about 150 miles away" (201). Has there ever been, since the days of the Marx Brothers and the Three Stooges, such a comedy of errors? This explanation, in any case, is not believable. By the time of the scramble order, it was clear that the threat was from hijacked airliners, not from abroad. My six-year-old grandson would have known to double-check the order before sending the fighters out to sea.


Remember that bogus story/speculation that the planes were remote-controlled out over the Atlantic to crash into the sea? Maybe the jets were making sure the real planes crashed? Yeah, right... Or maybe it was heading for Europe to drop Barbara Olsen off in Germany... Wink Just call me Deep Flocco.....

Seriously, such jet behaviour is strange, but they probably figured that they would get away with it due to the scheduled war games and drills/exercises that day.

-DL-

_________________
"I'm pulling the plug on you now, Jmmanuel... I hope your resurrection ship is nearby..."

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
heiho1



Joined: 10 Feb 2006
Posts: 133

PostPosted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 11:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The June 2001 JSC Directive which altered the chain of command to put the Secretary of Defense in direct control of certain air emergency responses [aka hijackings]:

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf#search=%22CJCSI%203610.01A%20Secretary%20Of%20Defense%20%22

There's some debate on the meaning of this document but I believe this document is the reason Rumsfeld was "unavailable" on the morning of 9/11/2001.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
macauleym



Joined: 27 Jan 2006
Posts: 124

PostPosted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:11 pm    Post subject: Langley pilots out to sea Reply with quote

On the fighters out to sea, Michael Bronner writing for Vanity Fair (8/1/06) has this to say:

Quote:
But a clear shootdown order wouldn't have made a difference. The Langley fighters were headed the wrong waydue east, straight out to sea into a military-training airspace called Whiskey 386, rather than toward Washington, which NEADS believed was under attack. According to the 9/11 commission, the Langley pilots were never briefed by anyone at their base about why they were being scrambled, so, despite having been given the order from NEADS to fly to Washington, the pilots ended up following their normal training flight plan out to seaa flight plan dating from the Cold War. As one pilot later told the commission, "I reverted to the Russian threatI'm thinking cruise-missile threat from the sea."

original article
posted by Fintan here, in topic "Air/FAA Response - Norad Tapes"


I haven't studied Hoffman's analysis yet, so I don't know exactly how this relates to it. On its own, it begs the question why the pilots weren't told where to go, who failed to tell them, and why.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
macauleym



Joined: 27 Jan 2006
Posts: 124

PostPosted: Tue Aug 22, 2006 10:25 pm    Post subject: The June 2001 alleged change in hijacking response procedure Reply with quote

heiho1 wrote:
The June 2001 JSC Directive which altered the chain of command to put the Secretary of Defense in direct control of certain air emergency responses [aka hijackings]:

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf#search=%22CJCSI%203610.01A%20Secretary%20Of%20Defense%20%22

There's some debate on the meaning of this document but I believe this document is the reason Rumsfeld was "unavailable" on the morning of 9/11/2001.


I've seen this claim made by almost everybody, but 911Myths.com appears to put it to rest. The part about seeking approval from the Secretary of Defense is unchanged from the 1997 version of the document, and the other changes seem insignificant -- or perhaps even having the opposite effect most 9/11 researchers claim.

The relevant 911Myths.com page is here, but I've looked into it a bit further, so I'll post my full analysis below, which borrows from what's at the link above.

First I'll quote this page from Jim Hoffman's site (bold emphasis is mine):

Quote:
The June 1 Order
Intercept Authority Was Restricted 3 Months Prior to the Attack

Prior to June, 2001, commanders of domestic Air Force and Air National Guard forces enjoyed considerable autonomy in ordering intercepts of errant aircraft. We know that interceptors were scrambled frequently to persue [sic] and investigate civilian aircraft that had deviated from their flight plans or were unresponsive.

On June 1, 2001, S.A. Fry, Vice Admiral of the US Navy and Director of the Joint Staff, issued Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction CJCSI 3610.01A [cached], apparently changing intercept procedures, perhaps profoundly. It required that all requests for asistance in hijackings be approved by the Secretary of Defense. The order states:
Quote:
In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate responses as authorized by reference D, forward requests for DOD assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval.

Reference D refers to Department of Defense Directive 3025.15, dated February 18, 1997. That directive allows commanders in the field to provide assistance in emergency situations to save lives, but any requests for "potentially lethal support" still require authorization by the Secretary of Defense.


If CJCSI 3610.01A "changes intercept procedures...profoundly", it is not "apparent" to me. Here is the two sentences Hoffman quoted from CJCSI 3610.01 (7/31/97) followed by the corresponding two sentences in CJCSI 3610.01a (6/1/01), highlighting the changes (deletions and additions):

Quote:
In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will monitor the situation and forward all requests or proposals for DOD military assistance for aircraft piracy (hijacking) to the Secretary of Defense for approval.

Quote:
In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate responses as authorized by reference d, forward requests for DOD assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval.


The deletions, as far as I can tell, consist of cutting out redundancies. If they have additional meaning or purpose, it's not clear to me what it is. The part about "forward[ing] requests for DOD assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval" is the same in both documents. The only possibly significant change would seem to be the "exception of immediate responses as authorized by reference d", which is new in CJCSI 3610.01a. So what is "reference d"?

Near the top of the document we see: "References: See Enclosure D". So we click on Enclosure D and see a list of "REFERENCES", a thru j. Here is d:

Quote:
d. DOD Directive 3025.15, 18 February 1997, "Military Assistance to Civil Authorities"


Search Google (or scroogle if you wish) for "dod directive 3025.15", and you find this (2/18/97). Note: I am not a lawyer. But this is what I see which appears to be relevant:
Quote:
4. POLICY
...
4.4. The Secretary of Defense retains approval authority for support to civil authorities involving: use of Commander in Chief (CINC)-assigned forces (personnel, units, and equipment) when required under paragraph 4.5., below; DoD support to civil disturbances; DoD responses to acts of terrorism; and DoD support that will result in a planned event with the potential for confrontation with specifically identified individuals and/or groups or will result in the use of lethal force. Nothing in this Directive prevents a commander from exercising his or her immediate emergency response authority as outlined in DoD Directive 3025.1 (reference (g)).


The italicized sections are interesting, but only the bold sentence seems really relevant. Remember, we are concerned with the change in CJCSI 3610.01a Secretary of Defense approval is necessary except for immediate responses as authorized by reference d. Reference d, quoted above, tells us that this "immediate emergency response authority" is "outlined in DoD Directive 3025.1". Another Google search pulls up DODD 3025.1 (1/15/93). In that document, we find this:
Quote:
4.5. Immediate Response

4.5.1. Imminently serious conditions resulting from any civil emergency or attack may require immediate action by military commanders, or by responsible officials of other DoD Agencies, to save lives, prevent human suffering, or mitigate great property damage. When such conditions exist and time does not permit prior approval from higher headquarters, local military commanders and responsible officials of other DoD Components are authorized by this Directive, subject to any supplemental direction that may be provided by their DoD Component, to take necessary action to respond to requests of civil authorities. All such necessary action is referred to in this Directive as "Immediate Response."


This seems to explicitly authorize "military commanders" or "responsible officials of other DoD Agencies" to take "necessary action" "to save lives, prevent, human suffering, or mitigate great property damage", and to do so without "prior approval from higher headquarters" when "time does not permit" such approval. Furthermore, this "necessary action" is conflated with the "immediate response" which is allowed as an exception to the requirement for Defense Secretary approval in CJCSI 3610.01a (6/1/01). As this exception was not present (or at least not explicitly stated) in CJCSI 3610.01 (7/31/97), it seems that the June 2001 change actually made "local military commanders" less dependent on the Secretary of Defense for approval of necessary lethal action, such as shooting down hijacked aircraft.

If anyone finds flaws in my analysis or has a further argument on this point beyond what I quoted from Jim Hoffman, please chime in.

P.S.
I emailed Jim Hoffman with this information. In the process of doing so, I noticed that his final sentence on the page I quoted acknowledges that DODD 3025.15 "allows commanders in the field to provide assistance in emergency situations to save lives," but Hoffman nevertheless claims that "any requests for 'potentially lethal support' still require authorization by the Secretary of Defense."

I searched for "potentially lethal support" and found it in DODD 3025.15, 4.7.2.1, which I hadn't noticed before. Here is that paragraph:

Quote:
The Secretary of Defense is the approval authority for any requests for potentially lethal support (i.e., lethal to the public, a member of law enforcement, or a Service member) made by law enforcement agencies. Lethal support includes: loans of arms; combat and tactical vehicles, vessels or aircraft; or ammunition. It also includes: all requests for support under 10 U.S.C. 382 and 18 U.S.C. 831 (references (k) and (l)); all support to counterterrorism operations; and all support to law enforcement when there is a potential for confrontation between law enforcement and specifically identified civilian individuals or groups.


This appears to suggest that Jim Hoffman is right and that "any requests for 'potentially lethal support' still require authorization by the Secretary of Defense", but let's not forget paragraph 4.4 in the same document, which I quoted earlier:

Quote:
4.4. The Secretary of Defense retains approval authority for support to civil authorities involving: use of Commander in Chief (CINC)-assigned forces (personnel, units, and equipment) when required under paragraph 4.5., below; DoD support to civil disturbances; DoD responses to acts of terrorism; and DoD support that will result in a planned event with the potential for confrontation with specifically identified individuals and/or groups or will result in the use of lethal force. Nothing in this Directive prevents a commander from exercising his or her immediate emergency response authority as outlined in DoD Directive 3025.1 (reference (g)).


It would still seem that commanders' "immediate emergency response authority as outlined in DoD Directive 3025.1" overrides any "Secretary of Defense...approval authority", whether specified in this paragraph ("DoD responses to acts of terrorism", "DoD support that...will result in the use of lethal force", or in paragraph 4.7.2.1, or indeed in the whole directive. Therefore, the question of whether military/DoD commanders are authorized to use lethal force without "approval from higher headquarters" would seem to rest upon one's interpretation of DODD 3025.1, 4.5 (including 4.5.1, which I quoted above, and following paragraphs if relevant), and I admit paragraph 4.5.1 is somewhat confusing to me and my interpretation above may not be definitive. Again, if anyone wants to chime in, please do. If Jim Hoffman responds to my email, I will post his response here.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cheapshot



Joined: 25 Aug 2006
Posts: 8
Location: Nashua

PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 10:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Deeplogos wrote this:[quote]Explaining the Langley Scramble: Phantom Flight 11

But even if we could believe this implausible tale, there is still the problem of why F-16s at Langley Air Force Base were airborne at 9:30. FAA incompetence again comes to the rescue. At 9:21--35 minutes after Flight 11 had crashed into the World Trade Center--some technician at NEADS, we are told, heard from some FAA controller in Boston that Flight 11 was still in the air and was heading towards Washington. This NEADS technician then notified the NEADS Mission Crew Commander, who issued a scramble order to Langley. So, the Commission claims, the Langley jets were scrambled in response to "a phantom aircraft," not to "an actual hijacked aircraft" (193). This new story, however, is riddled with problems.

One problem is simply that phantom Flight 11 had never before been mentioned. As the Commission itself says, this story about phantom Flight 11 "was not recounted in a single public timeline or statement issued by the FAA or Department of Defense" (196).

A second problem is that there is no way for this story about phantom Flight 11 to be verified. The Commission says that the truth of this story "is clear . . . from taped conversations at FAA centers; contemporaneous logs compiled at NEADS, Continental Region headquarters, and NORAD; and other records" (193-94). But when we look in the notes at the back of The 9/11 Commission Report, we find no references for any of these records; we simply have to take the Commission's word. The sole reference is to a NEADS audiofile, on which someone at the FAA's Boston Center allegedly tells someone at NEADS: "I just had a report that American 11 is still in the air, and it's . . . heading towards Washington" (194). The Commission claims to have discovered this audiofile. Again, however, we simply have to take the Commission's word. We cannot obtain this audiofile. And there is no mention of any tests, carried out by an independent agency, to verify that this audiofile, if it exists, really dates from 9/11, rather than having been created later, after someone decided that the story about phantom Flight 11 was needed.

But could not reporters interview the people at NEADS and the FAA who had this conversation? No, because the Commission says, nonchalantly: "We have been unable to identify the source of this mistaken FAA information" (194). This disclaimer is difficult to believe. It is now very easy to identify people from recordings of their voices. And yet the Commission was supposedly not able to discover the identity of either the individual at Boston who made the mistake or the NEADS technician who received and passed on this misinformation.

Another implausible element is the very idea that someone at Boston would have concluded that Flight 11 was still airborne. According to stories immediately after 9/11, flight controllers at Boston said that they never lost sight of Flight 11. Flight controller Mark Hodgkins later said: "I watched the target of American 11 the whole way down" (194) If so, everyone at the Boston Center would have known this. How could anything on a radar screen have convinced anyone at the Boston Center, 35 minutes later, that Flight 11 was still aloft?[quote]

First the fact that there was a call about phantom flight 11 is for real, and not fake, and it does exist. I made that call. I was the military specialist on duty at Boston Center. These tapes were not discovered until after General Arnold had spoken the first time at the commission. I was interviewed by the justice department after the commision began its interviewing. I advised the justice department at that time that I had made probably 40 phone calls to NEADS over the course of that morning. The calls I made that morning the majority of them were made on the DSN phone system. Boston Center does not record the DSN phone system but NEADS does. The justice department was under the impression that my interview would take about 5 minutes, due to the fact that only three of my calls were on the hotline to NEADS from Boston Center. When we began to talk they discovered that I had made numerous calls to NEADS and about two hours later they determined they would go to NEADS and ask for these tapes, keep in mind that this was two years after 9-11. I had advised my superiors back then when I was first interviewed after 9-11 that I had numerous discussions with NEADS and that someone should request these tapes from NEADS, no one ever did, until after my interview. Any testimony prior to my tapes being discovered did not contain the entire picture for that day. Four months later the justice department came back to interview me and they had the tapes. About half of my calls were there. I had conversations on at least four different phone number that day at NEADS but I beleive only two of these phones were recorded. My tapes redefined the timeline for that day, these tapes had my calls that AAL 11 was still airborne, and my calls about AAL 77, 6 miles southwest of the whitehouse. So again I reiterate that the tapes are real, the person who made those calls is for real, for it is I who made them. I hope that clears up some of the confusion regarding that issue. Why did I make the call, I had heard it over an emergency telcon and I can't even begin to tell you who was on it or who said it , but I heard it there, and I immediately notified NEADS that AAL 11 was still in the air. I was trying to do a job that day that know one was ever prepared to do.

cheapshot

ps keep up the sites I enjoy reading them, some are very farfetched but interesting. Do I think there is a conspiracy, I don't think so, I lived it, I saw the confusion between the FAA and the military that day, if it was planned it sure didn't go like clockwork.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
DeepLogos



Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 259
Location: Geostationary orbit around myself, sipping at a cup of DM Tea...

PostPosted: Sat Aug 26, 2006 5:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi cheapshot, interesting info. Always good to hear from people who were there that day, in the middle of the confusion, so to speak.

What seems clear, and what is further backed by your statement, is that this counfusion could provide a window of opportunity for a planned event, like what grew out of this counfusion and resulted in three "hijacked" airplanes reaching their targets. This confusion would be crucial for the operation's success (I assume for the sake of agument that you agree that some kind of operation aimed at flying American commercial airplanes (United, American) into target symbolizing military and economic might took place).

What has always struck me as a bit strange is the flight paths of these airplanes. From following their planned path to a sudden change, supposedly when they were "hijacked" by Arab boogeymen. There were many exercises taking place that day (as outlined in other threads here), and it is my speculation that these airplanes were a part of some "exercise", destined to reach their targets it seems, and under the supervision of someone, perhaps not in the American chain of command as to provide plausible deniability. Canada traditionally plays the 'red' team in these exercises I think. As for the flight paths, and focusing on flight 11 for now, I have a few questions for you (I hope you check back):

1) Were there any flights, to your knowledge, coming out of Canada with a flight path that would intersect with where Flight 11 suddenly turned and headed for New York/ Washington?

2) Were there any flights, to your knowledge, coming out of perhaps one of the military bases in Flight 11's flight path (before it suddenly changed path) heading for Canada?

3) Is it possible that Flight 11 (the "real" one) changed it's path towards Canada (when the transponder was switched off) and followed another large jet out of one of the militarybases in it's path towards a destination in Canada (perhaps above or below so as to appear as one 'blip' on the radar screen?

4) Further, is it possible that a plane coming out of Canada (a decoy or "phantom" flight) continued, so to speak, in Flight 11's "hijack" path?

5) Could this explain that you heard that Flight 11 was still in the air? (the real Flight 11 that perhaps didn't turn towards NY) Given that the transponder were switched off, all you have to go on is conventional radar (am I correct, or are there two transponders in planes as some say?).

6) Have you heard the audio from the cockpit of Flight 11, where "Mohamed Atta" talked to the passengers (he must have pushed the wrong button or something, because ground control could hear him (?). I am uncertain as to the validity of this recording, but I have read the transcript and I am pretty sure I have heard the audio some time back. "Atta" said something like: "We have some airplanes...we are going back to the airport...." etc (see below), and from what I remember hearing and reading an analysis of (still (re)searching for that audio) he seemed to be doing so with a strange non-Arabic English accent. I know, speculative, but non the less of some importance if it is used as proof that "Atta" was on the plane.

Quote:
American Flight 11

Boston to Los Angeles (crashed into north tower of World Trade Centre)

8.00 Plane takes off from Logan international airport, Boston.

8.13 Boston control centre: "AAL11 turn 20 degrees right."

Pilot of AAL11: "20 right AAL11."

Controller: "AAL11 now climb maintain FL350 [35,000 feet]."

Controller: "AAL11 climb maintain FL350."

Controller: "AAL11 Boston."

8.14:33 Controller A: "AAL11 ah the American on the frequency how do you hear me?"

Controller B breaks in: "This is Athens."

A: "This is Boston. I turned American 20 left and I was going to climb him. He will not respond to me now at all."

B: "Looks like he's turning right."

A: "Yeah, I turned him right."

B: "Oh, OK."

A: "And he's only going to um I think 29."

B: "Sure that's fine."

A: "Eh, but I'm not talking to him."

B: "He won't answer you. He's nordo [no radar] roger. Thanks."

8.24:38 Hijackers' voices heard: "We have some planes. Just stay quiet and you will be OK. We are returning to the airport. Nobody move, everything will be OK. If you try to make any moves you'll endanger yourself and the airplane. Just stay quiet."

8.25:00 The control tower notifies several air traffic control centres that a hijack is taking place.

8.33:59 Hijackers' voices heard: "Nobody move, please, we are going back to the airport. Don't try to make any stupid moves."

8.47:00 Plane crashes into the north tower of the World Trade Centre


7) How would this play into the response scenario as you saw it?

8 ) What is your knowledge of the 1st-2nd of June 2001 NORAD sponsored exercise 'Amalgum Virgo'?


This may be more obvious in Flight 77's case, as radar contact was also lost and it suddenly appeared again not far from Washington.

Mind you I am just throwing out a scenario here, just as much to disprove other peoples claims as to prove the case. I am also doing this with utmost respect for the families of those that lost relatives and friends that day. I am for now not taking into account the calls made by, amongst others, Betty Ong (flight attendant Flight 11) from a (plane) phone as they supposedly approached NY. (She, by the way, first said that she was on Flight 12, but later corrected that). From the transcript they also seemed to be decending before the plane supposedly made a sharp left turn and headed for NY. Was it trying to get below radar? (this must have occured before the transponder was turned off (?), as no altitude was known after it was turned off).

I appreciate your input.

-DL-

_________________
"I'm pulling the plug on you now, Jmmanuel... I hope your resurrection ship is nearby..."

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
cheapshot



Joined: 25 Aug 2006
Posts: 8
Location: Nashua

PostPosted: Sat Aug 26, 2006 11:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

1) Were there any flights, to your knowledge, coming out of Canada with a flight path that would intersect with where Flight 11 suddenly turned and headed for New York/ Washington?

A to 1) Albany New York is one of the busiest intersections in the sky, there are planes climbing and descending east to west and north to south.

2) Were there any flights, to your knowledge, coming out of perhaps one of the military bases in Flight 11's flight path (before it suddenly changed path) heading for Canada?

A to 2) Probably not, the military doesn't start thier training flights til about 9 AM.

3) Is it possible that Flight 11 (the "real" one) changed it's path towards Canada (when the transponder was switched off) and followed another large jet out of one of the militarybases in it's path towards a destination in Canada (perhaps above or below so as to appear as one 'blip' on the radar screen?

A to 3) Don't think so, first the aircraft had already been taken off its route of flight for its climb reference other traffic. In addition when the transponder was turned off the Controller quickly brought up the primary radar. We tracked AAL 11 to within 8 miles of JFK.

4) Further, is it possible that a plane coming out of Canada (a decoy or "phantom" flight) continued, so to speak, in Flight 11's "hijack" path?

A to 4) Always possible, kind of like Korean Air. I had a friend who used to fly on those flights out of Alaska, but I beleive they used to show up somewhere over the water outside of radar coverage so no one would see them sneak under the belly of the aircraft. Pretty busy area though and plus UAL175 was issued traffic on AAL 11 when they crossed paths and I beleive he advsied he appeared to be at FL290. He would of said something if it was a military aircraft.

5) Could this explain that you heard that Flight 11 was still in the air? (the real Flight 11 that perhaps didn't turn towards NY) Given that the transponder were switched off, all you have to go on is conventional radar (am I correct, or are there two transponders in planes as some say?).

A to 5) Some aircraft have 3 transponders, plus I never saw AAL 11 again, I tried to find a fast moving primary target as far south as our radar could see, I also called FACSFAC VACAPES the Navy facility who controls all of the east coast Warning Areas, and they searched for a primary as well.

6) Have you heard the audio from the cockpit of Flight 11, where "Mohamed Atta" talked to the passengers (he must have pushed the wrong button or something, because ground control could hear him (?). I am uncertain as to the validity of this recording, but I have read the transcript and I am pretty sure I have heard the audio some time back. "Atta" said something like: "We have some airplanes...we are going back to the airport...." etc (see below), and from what I remember hearing and reading an analysis of (still (re)searching for that audio) he seemed to be doing so with a strange non-Arabic English accent. I know, speculative, but non the less of some importance if it is used as proof that "Atta" was on the plane.
Quote:
American Flight 11

Boston to Los Angeles (crashed into north tower of World Trade Centre)

8.00 Plane takes off from Logan international airport, Boston.

8.13 Boston control centre: "AAL11 turn 20 degrees right."

Pilot of AAL11: "20 right AAL11."

Controller: "AAL11 now climb maintain FL350 [35,000 feet]."

Controller: "AAL11 climb maintain FL350."

Controller: "AAL11 Boston."

8.14:33 Controller A: "AAL11 ah the American on the frequency how do you hear me?"

Controller B breaks in: "This is Athens."

A: "This is Boston. I turned American 20 left and I was going to climb him. He will not respond to me now at all."

B: "Looks like he's turning right."

A: "Yeah, I turned him right."

B: "Oh, OK."

A: "And he's only going to um I think 29."

B: "Sure that's fine."

A: "Eh, but I'm not talking to him."

B: "He won't answer you. He's nordo [no radar] roger. Thanks."

8.24:38 Hijackers' voices heard: "We have some planes. Just stay quiet and you will be OK. We are returning to the airport. Nobody move, everything will be OK. If you try to make any moves you'll endanger yourself and the airplane. Just stay quiet."

8.25:00 The control tower notifies several air traffic control centres that a hijack is taking place.

8.33:59 Hijackers' voices heard: "Nobody move, please, we are going back to the airport. Don't try to make any stupid moves."

8.47:00 Plane crashes into the north tower of the World Trade Centre

A to 6) Heard the tapes, he had a middle eastern accent, not strong but it was there, we don't know why he transmitted, either he hit a switch or if one of the pilots were still in there and still alive he may have hit a switch or left it in a position where he would transmit over both intercom and radio.

7) How would this play into the response scenario as you saw it?

A to 7) Not sure what you mean here, we knew as soon as we pulled tapes that he had said planes, plural.

8 ) What is your knowledge of the 1st-2nd of June 2001 NORAD sponsored exercise 'Amalgum Virgo'?

A to Cool We run numerous exercises with the military, I can't be to specific here, but most of them are pretty simple, we don't play much in them we work the aircraft to a certain point and they take over, target aircraft are from numerous sources, sometimes Canadian but not as much as they used to be. These exercises have been going on since I first got here, not much has changed. They also run sim exercises, we get info on them, but we don't play in them at all.

Cheapshot
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
Continuity



Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 1669
Location: Municipal Flat Block 18A, Linear North

PostPosted: Sat Aug 26, 2006 11:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi cheapshot, and welcome to the forum!

I'd like to ask you this question - what's the story with the 'RADAR injects' as some have referred to them? You know, like when you're in an exercise, rather than using a live-fly 'plane, you simulate the 'blip' by 'injecting' it artificially into the displays.

Does such a system really exist? Like some sort of interface into the civilian RADAR info-structure that allows such modifications to the realtime data to take place? I've always wondered about that.

I'd also like to ask you what you think of the diagram, and the comment, below. Do these make any sense to you, at all?


The areas with no primary radar coverage are emphasised in white. The "hijackers" clearly knew where the vulnerabilities in the radar system were. How?

From team8plus

_________________
The rule for today.
Touch my tail, I shred your hand.
New rule tomorrow.

Cat Haiku
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
cheapshot



Joined: 25 Aug 2006
Posts: 8
Location: Nashua

PostPosted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 11:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Never seen that type of map before, the tracks all look good, of course I don't know anything about the 2 x 2 drone flights. But the othertracks all look fairly accurate. My knowledge of UAL93 and AAL77 are probably the same as yours, I never saw them on true radar, actually I never really watched UAL175 either becasue we never knew he was hijacked until he hit the tower.

The military and FAA share the radar sites. They are joint use. The military gets thier digitized information differently then us, they get more information and they get in different Bytes then we do, I'm not a computer guru so i really can't explain it. They can add ghost targets to thier simulations. I beleive they can mix with live traffic, when we do simulations at the center for our FAA training it is tied off from live traffic.

As far as the 2 x 2 drone tracks, when we went to primary unless they were already under the aircraft which I guess everyone is trying to get at, we would have seen them unless they were stealth.

There are not that many UAV's (unmanned aerial vehicles) in the northeast, there are very few, they are coming, but the FAA has been very slow on issuing COA's (certificate of authorizations), of course if you beleive in conspiracies then it wouldn't matter you would assume they were here secretly.

From my point of view the military and FAA were very confused that day, and if any part of the military was involved they put on great act. However, also remember the hijackers were very lucky that day. The weather was incredible VFR, the actions of UAL175 could have never been done in a marginal VFR environment, the trun and rapid descent he took that day were amazing.

I don't be lieve the government has the ability to pull something like that off, just because I saw how so many parts of the goverment failed that day. I don't think you can have one portion of the government in total confusion, and another part of the government so perfect in thier execution of anohter plan. They are one of the same, to beaucratic, and cumbersome to execute either one of the plans.

cheapshot
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
Continuity



Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 1669
Location: Municipal Flat Block 18A, Linear North

PostPosted: Sun Aug 27, 2006 12:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for the reply and the info ,cheapshot.

About that diagram I posted, do the blank areas (white) in the RADAR coverage make sense to you?

cheapshot said:
Quote:
...when we do simulations at the center for our FAA training it is tied off from live traffic.

So when the FAA and the military are doing *joint* exercises, the FAA 'tie' off their live traffic? How is this done in practice? I mean do the participants at FAA sit at different physical stations than the normal, everyday 'live' guys during an exercise? Or are only *some* of the FAA guys involved with the exercise, and everyone else is looking at the normal, live inputs?

Also, I'd like to ask you if you have any knowledge of how possible/hard it is to turn a passenger jet transponder off. Is there just some button/control that's standard in cockpits that allows the pilot(s) to do this?

It's always rung a bit strange to me that the transponder(s) would be turn-off-able - I mean I understand that the pilot(s) can input different outgoing messages to be transponded using them, but to be able to easily *switch them off* seems absurd to me, because that's one of the 1st things that a savvy hijacker would attempt to do, given access to the cockpit controls, forcing the authorities to be purely dependant on primary radar.

Lastly, I'd also like to ask you, that from your unique vantage point on the whole charade, what's the item(s) in the 'official' story that most leave you scratching your head, and wondering about the possibility of 'conspiracy' (or at least hidden/different knowledge?

Thanks again,
C.

_________________
The rule for today.
Touch my tail, I shred your hand.
New rule tomorrow.

Cat Haiku
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
cheapshot



Joined: 25 Aug 2006
Posts: 8
Location: Nashua

PostPosted: Mon Aug 28, 2006 7:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I probably wasn't very clear on the exercise part, they run the entire exercise from thier side, we only read live inputs over the air. Occassionally we will work the interceptors or the target aircraft but the majority of the time the exercises start and end in SUA (special use airspace). The white area I can't explain, could be overlapping radar sites, we pretty much have primary coverage throughout Boston Center Airspace. Turning a tranponder off is easy, just turn the knob to off. Some aircraft have more than one, but normally only one is turned on. The others maybe on standby.

I have read a bunch of the conspiracy theories out there, watched Loose Change, which I though was done very well. But some seem really far fetched. The way I kind of look at it though is the way in "My Cousin Vinny" where he builds a house of cards and if you find one thing that is not true then the house of cards collapse, so when someone comes up with a theory, if I find one truth that contradicts it I kind of toss the whole theory away.

But a small part of me keeps wanting to read about them, I am one who beleives that the JFK assasination was a plot whetehr governmental or not, so I can see why people believe in them.

But if I had to question one thing it would probably be the collapse of building 7 at the WTC. I don't understand why it fell. Seems a little funny to me, as far as the ATC stuff I really don't see any in what we did that day. The thought of someone running a drone under the belly of another aircraft in the busiest air corridor in the world, seems a little far fetched, could it be done maybe, could it be done without someone leaking knowledge about it or an eyewitness spotting it, don't think so.

cheapshot
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 6522

PostPosted: Sun Sep 03, 2006 10:47 am    Post subject: FAA Testimony to 911 Commission Under Fire Reply with quote

What a Beauty!

When a government agency releases a report on the
Friday before Labor Day, then you just KNOW they
are slipping something into the official record while
hoping it will get little attention.

Let's see if the mainstream media cooperate.

Quote:
FAA Testimony to 911 Commission Under Fire

Sun, 03 Sep '06 Executives Failed to Correct Errors

An investigation conducted by the Transportation Department's acting Inspector General (IG) found that three FAA executives (one now retired) knew after the fact that testimony presented to the 9/11 Commission in 2003 was, in fact, false, but they made no effort to correct it.

Acting on complaints from the independent 9/11 Commission, acting IG Todd Zinser conducted a two-year investigation, publishing his findings in a report released Friday, 1 Sep 2006. As reported by the New York Times, Zinser noted -- in direct contradiction to 9/11 commission testimony given -- the FAA and the USAF were not in immediate communication after the first of two aircraft struck the World Trade Center. In fact, they weren't in contact for over 50 minutes.

The FAA testimony in question, given before the 9/11 commission in 2003, claimed the FAA had immediately contacted the USAF. In fact, NORAD even went so far as to claim they were in a position to shoot down Flight 93, which crashed in rural PA after passengers took steps to wrest control of the aircraft from the terrorist hijackers.

While the report urges disciplinary action for the two executives still actively serving, no evidence was found to prove any of the executives acted to knowingly mislead the 9/11 Commission. This mirrors a report made last month by the USAF IG claiming similar errors in testimony provided by military officers could be attributed to poor record-keeping.

The FAA has declined to identify the three executives or what, if any, disciplinary action is to be taken.

Commission members expressed concern the investigation had taken so long. Richard Ben Veniste, a commission member, said the IG's investigation had taken more time than it took the 9/11 commission to complete all of its work." He also questioned the decision to release the report on the Friday before Labor Day.

The 9/11 Commission was highly critical of the government's immediate repsonse to the hijackings finding "widespread confusion" within the FAA and the military.

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=c6c7e98c-a52a-4e9a-ae10-ca6dce4dad2a
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
woodybox



Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 1

PostPosted: Fri Sep 22, 2006 2:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi cheapshot,

thanks a lot for the "insider information" on phantom Flight 11. But even if your phone call regarding this flight was somehow misinterpreted, there are far more hints that Flight 11 was still airborne after the North Tower Crash. Source: The Kean/Hamilton Report.



p. 21: 8:48: Air Controller (Dave Bottiglia), FAA manager (Mike McCormick) were watching Flight 11 on the radar screen:

Quote:
At 8:48, while the controller was still trying to locate American 11, a NewYork Center manager provided the following report on a Command Centerteleconference about American 11:

Manager, New York Center: Okay. This is New York Center. We're watching the airplane. I also had conversation with American Airlines, and they've told us that they believe that one of their stewardesses was stabbed and that there are people in the cockpit that have control of the aircraft, and that's all the information they have right now.124

The New York Center controller and manager were unaware that American11 had already crashed.


p. 22: 8:55: Regional managers discussed the hijacked Flight 11 (surely NOT the plane that hit the North Tower - the connection was not established yet):


Quote:
At about 8:55, the controller in charge notified New York Center manager that she believed United 175 had also been hijacked. The manager tried to notify the regional managers and was told that they were discussing a hijacked aircraft (presumably American 11) and refused to be disturbed.



p. 26: 9:21: Boston Center informs NEADS that Flight 11 is still airborne. The information came from FAA headquarters:


Quote:
Two planes had struck the World Trade Center, and Boston Center had heard from FAA headquarters in Washington that American 11 was still airborne.


p. 37: The NMCC deputy director for operations, Charles Leidig, forwards news of the still airborne Flight 11 to a teleconference via a phone bridge:


Quote:
Inside the NMCC, the deputy director for operations called for an all-purpose "significant event" conference. It began at 9:29, with a brief recap: two aircraft had struck the World Trade Center, there was a confirmed hijacking of American 11, and Otis fighters had been scrambled.The FAA was asked to provide an update, but the line was silent because the FAA had not been added to the call.A minute later, the deputy director stated that it had just been confirmed that American 11 was still airborne and heading toward D.C. He directed the transition to an air threat conference call. NORAD confirmed that American 11 was airborne and heading toward Washington, relaying the erroneous FAA information already mentioned.The call then ended, at about 9:34.


ALL this people were thinking that Flight 11 was still airborne after the North Tower crash, yet the Commission wants to make us believe this was just an "erroneous information" from FAA headquarters?

The phone bridges were established since 8:45. Enough time to correct the "erroneous information", if it was one in fact erroneous.

So what's your take on that, cheapshot?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
frankl



Joined: 23 Sep 2006
Posts: 1

PostPosted: Sat Sep 23, 2006 4:25 pm    Post subject: Hiding a plane Reply with quote

Hi,

I would be particularly interested in Cheapshot's opion on this article:
http://www.team8plus.org/news.php?item.32.3

I've tried to avoid speculating in this piece, its' just a presentation of facts as I've found them. Since I published this I've also found the following:

The exact point that the 11 and 175 paths cross is also the exact point that flight 11 started to descend
At the point where Flight 93 and 175 were closest in the sky, flight 175 started to descend
At the point where Flight 93 and Delta flight 1989 were closest in the sky, (can you guess?) - flight 93 started to descend. The black box shows that Flight 93 was on a smooth, rapid, autopilot descent, very similar to the quick descents taken by the other planes. This poses the very important question, what exactly was it attacking in Shanksville?

I created the diagram with the radar gaps a long time ago, unfortunately its a little erroneous in its assumptions. That's a slice through the ARSR radar coverage at 5000 ft but it doesn't take into account the airport (ASR) radars that are used for gap fillers. I now think that Flight 11 took that detour up to Albany simply to allow Flight 175 to catch up. If you look at the nice neat triangle route it took, it was a very clever piece of timing.

So my big question - if a smallish, maneuverable aircraft was hiding under the MD80, could it have jumped to Flight 11, then onto Flight 175, then onto flight 93, then onto Delta 1989 and then maybe landed at Toledo where the Delta flight turned round and came back to Cleveland?

I also have some evidence to suggest that some or all of these key events took place in areas with weak radar resolution, and possibly in the "cone of silence" areas over the ASR radars (e.g. at Allentown and Stewart)

Alternatively, if there was a lower altitude plane, following this whole plane dance from 25000 ft below it, would the controllers at the lower altitudes have noticed that this plane was shadowing what was going on at 30000 ish ft?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Specifics Investigation All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.