FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Air/FAA Response - Overview
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
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: 7903

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
cheapshot



Joined: 25 Aug 2006
Posts: 8
Location: Nashua

PostPosted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 8:47 pm    Post subject: Team8Plus Reply with quote

Interesting, don't see much with it though, a lot of coincidences. I knew UAL175 and AAL11 crossed I didn't know that UAL175 crossed UAL93. Either way I don't beleive in a UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle) flying under these. We were still talking to the UAL175 Pilot when they crossed AAL11. We turned him over to ZNY shortly after and he was hijacked shortly after that. He had a pretty good visual on AAL11 and advised us that he was probably at FL290, of course I agree with you that he descended immediatelly afterwards. UAL175 would have a seen a UAV if there was one. The traingle thing I don't quite get it. There a some miltary bases at those locations, but PLB has been closed for years, it just recently was opened by ICE (Immigration Customs Enforcement), I don't know of any military base at Lebanon, unless the Army Guard has something out there. Griffis has no planes, it was closed a while back. Schenectady has C-130s and so does Sulffolk (Gabreski). But you also missed some Quonsett in RI has C-130's, Atlantic City has F-16s, Syracuse has F-16s, Burlington VT has F-16s, so i don't really get the grid work. I personally know the pilots brother of AAL11 who flies out of Pease, and I can pretty much guarantee that his brother is not sun bathing on some remote island. I don't want to put people down or there theories. I beleive people should always question the goverment, people deserve answers. Why were my tapes not pulled for two and half years, it wasn't a coverup, it was becasue we deal with a beauracratic mess. There was mass confusion that day bewteen the military and the FAA, and I believe it was a bigger mess at FAA HQ. Our radar was fine we could see AAL11 probably down to 1,500 to 2,000 ft. Why NEADs couldn't I can't tell you. I can tell you we use the same radar. AAL11 became a phantom aircraft for several reasons one, FAA HQ was just getting involved when he hit the tower. AAL airlines would never confirm there aircraft was down, though UAL confirmed within minutes. Its not a conspiracy either at AAL airlines they do a lockdown when a plane goes down, and you can't get any info from them at all. Why UAL airlines gave us info I don't know. I have talked to ZNY controllers, we worked together on UAL93 the movie from Paul Greegrass. There was no talk of AAL11 continuing on. Though that phone call came from me it was because I heard it on a telcon, and I don't even know who was on it at the time, I passed that info onto NEADs becuase I thought they should know it. I still have questions, but doubt I will ever get answers, I actually learn info every now and then from the blogs I visit some days. Remember we had a goverment agency that day, and the military who were not obvoiusly ready to handle that type of situation. To beleive that another agency had planned this vs our own country and to pull it off without a hitch, without other agencies discovering an inkling of the plot, well someone is just giving the goverment a little to much credit.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
obeylittle



Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 442
Location: Middle o' Mitten, Michigan Corp. division of United States of America Corp. division of Global Corp.

PostPosted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 4:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Perhaps this has been mentioned but I'd like to point out the problems, operationally, an op as big as 9/11 could encounter without an airline guidance system, a read-only client system minimum on the control side, on the ground or otherwise. The planning bodies must have taken this into consideration, even if it was truly arabs and/or al-ciada (and few really will buy the-arabs-did-it-alone blame game nowadays) that ran the made-for-tv ops and deceptions.

This was taking place inside possibly the busiest airspace on the continent and during the busiest hours of the day for air traffic. There are airliners flying every which direction... a confusing gauntlet of planes for the experienced pilot, unguided, to fly amongst, let alone a handful of amateur arabs. Being that 9/11 is similar to (if not actually) a miltary operation, it would leave too much to chance in a military plan operationally--too many unknowns, a critical part of the op left uncontrolled, too much luck necessary to survive intact, operationally, to the target(s).

Now why would the alleged hijackers turn off radar or transponders or whatever, when operationally, they would need help in this busiest of airspace to carry out the mission as planned? Indeed to fly freely around, uninterrupted and unscathed? How did they make it through that gauntlet virtually unnoticed by other air traffic? How were the planes navigated to targets, while allegedly doing the zig-zag thang all over the eastern seaboard without encountering closeup, other airliners?

Wouldn't you expect that from the control side at least, militarily thinking, that these planes were guided and communication from/to the pilot(s) was required?

Me thinks so... that even if you have somehow memorized the expected traffic routes and times that other planes normally travel through particular zones on that weekday, that you may encounter several tons of trouble not far away from the departure points. I wouldn't leave this critical point to chance, would you?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cheapshot



Joined: 25 Aug 2006
Posts: 8
Location: Nashua

PostPosted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 10:15 pm    Post subject: Big Sky Theory Reply with quote

We in ATC actually call it the big sky theory, if left to thier own devices most airplanes would miss each other becasue the sky is so big, we the controllers are the ones who put them all on airways traveling over the same fixes and the same routes in actuality we are increasing the opportunity for the aircraft to hit by putting them in all of the same places. Turning off the transponder and then flying at a 500 foot interval would almost gurantee you would'n t hit anyone. Back in 2001 we were not using RVSM (Reduced Vertical Separation Minima) basically above Flight Level 290 we used 2,000 ft. intervals, below Flight Level 290 we used thousand foot intervals. So if you flew at FL300 or FL320, or if below FL290 you flew at FL285 or FL275 you would have a rare chance of hitting somone. I don't know if they did that or not, that would be my choice. They may have just bet that they wouldn't hit anyone. I have to agree with you though trying to navigate the New York City airspace would have been scary, but I think they beleived Allah was guiding them anyway. Transponders being off helped them in not being tracked by FAA or Military radar, and it worked versus one agency the military. AAL11 got to Albany NY and basically hung a left at the Hudson river and followed it to its intended destination. UAL175 probably had the same intention, but didn't get hijacked in time, his route of flight was a lot more squirelly. After talking to the ZNY controllers we wee told by them that the turn UAL175 made was incredible, the aircraft at one time was descending at about 10,000 ft per minute, that is what fighter type aircraft do. They thought the aircraft was going to pancake into the ground. This would feed into your theory that they had some help, that an ametuer pilot couldn't do this, but maybe they were just lucky, they really were lucky that day, with a little luck on our side maybe we could have gotten one of them bastards that day.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
obeylittle



Joined: 10 Sep 2006
Posts: 442
Location: Middle o' Mitten, Michigan Corp. division of United States of America Corp. division of Global Corp.

PostPosted: Mon Oct 02, 2006 11:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks Cheapshot for the additional info. 10,000 feet per minute descent huh.... oh my. If that was indeed a boeing passenger liner as claimed pulling out of that steep descent, I'll eat my socks.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
cheapshot



Joined: 25 Aug 2006
Posts: 8
Location: Nashua

PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 6:48 pm    Post subject: Characteristics Reply with quote

Its not totally out of characteristics, given at 10,000 ft per minute, and that was the controllers estimate at New York it could have been less, could have been more, stuff could start flying off at those descent rates, but it really mattered how many g-forces the plane took when it leveled off. I have worked aircraft in the past a matter of fact a B-727 which could descend at 7,000 ft per minute within its limitations, they didn't always do it cabin comfort you know, but I had a B-727 descend into Portland, ME once and he descended at 7 K per minute. The big thing is the momentum and the speed these aircraft built up when they hit the towers, as well as the pentagon, and in the ground in PA. THe public sees plane crashes where aircraft are trying to land at 160 knots, and see the charred remains of some aircraft. Aircraft crashing at 500 + knots basically break up into little tiny pieces and melt, the exception being engine parts, everything else is gone.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
Caustic Logic



Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Posts: 9
Location: Northwest US

PostPosted: Sun Jan 07, 2007 7:49 pm    Post subject: Fighter Jet Heading and Speed Reply with quote

Two things - first on fighter speeds as mentioned on page 1 - I'd like to clarify that speed calculations in the 25% range indicate we are calculating on a straight-line path from Otis/Langley to their locations at a given time - while info on the fighters is incomplete, it seems they did not fly straight to their targets - The otis fighters went out and looped around over the ocean, and the Langley jets were sent almost due east over the ocean as well - to the offshore Air Defense ID Zone, and only to the attack scenes once the attacks were done. The pilots said they were going full speed (1500/1900 mph), other sources cite "supersonic" (750 mph or faster), and others cite speeds of 500-600 mph, an airliner crawl.

My post on Heading and Speed:
http://they-let-it-happen.blogspot.com/2006/12/heading-and-speed.html

The second point will have to wait a bit...

_________________
We need to unclog the pipes of truth with caustic logic.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
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 Previous  1, 2
Page 2 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.