ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags flight 93 , Monte Belger , norman mineta

Reply
Old 13th December 2008, 04:07 PM   #1
Boone 870
Critical Thinker
 
Boone 870's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 252
Another Mineta thread

I know this subject has been beaten to death, but there are some new documents available to help solidify the fact that Mineta was referring to Flight 93 and not Flight 77.

AAL77.com has a xls document that contains the flight plans for United 93. The document shows that United 93's course was updated from Newark-San Francisco to Hagerstown-Reagan National at 10:08 a.m.

Google Earth image with a straight line between DCA and HGR:


Add to that, Mineta's 2002 MSNBC interview in which he stated that Monte Belger was trying to pinpoint the aircraft's location as it was tracked toward Washington.

Quote:
So I said, "Monte, can you see it, and where is it in relationship to the ground?"

He said, "Well, that's difficult to really determine. I would guess it's somewhere between Great Falls and National Airport, coming what they call the DRA, the down river approach."

And so then the person came in and said, "Mr. Vice President, the plane's ten-miles out," and so I said, "Monte, where is it?" and he said, "Well, I'm not really sure but I'd be guessing somewhere maybe between the USA Today building and, and National Airport."
911myths.com
Here is Flight 93's TSD path with Belger's four reference points:



It's obvious that Mineta was describing UA93 and not AA77.

I made a youtube video with more details and air traffic control recordings if anyone's interested.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
Boone 870 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2008, 04:25 PM   #2
Baylor
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Spokane, WA
Posts: 6,087
Not my specialty sorry.
Baylor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th December 2008, 11:56 PM   #3
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
It's probably worth explaining to people what you mean by "course update".

The FAA has a system called the Traffic Situational Display (TSD) which is a map of all logged flight paths. The various centres can update this display when they change an aircraft's flight path for whatever reason.

The TSD is an independent system which is not updated by radar data, nor is it based on radar data.

The data from the TSD is used in the central operations centre and also by the USSS, who do not have direct access to radars.

On 9/11, because aircraft were disappearing from radars, some centres started to use the TSD to track flights, however obviously this is problematic when flights are changing course. It was also used by centres to monitor aircraft outside their airspace. A false second track was created for AA11, which was the cause of the phantom AA11 report.

Meanwhile, UA93 was not cleared from the TSD after it crashed, so the USSS continued to track its progress towards DC.

What Boone 870 is presenting above is the TSD track for UA93 which remained in the system well after the aircraft crashed.
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2008, 12:12 AM   #4
BCR
Master Poster
 
BCR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,278
Good work Boone870! Another myth bites the dust.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|135632.5|UAL93 117|FSP 06F |O ENR | IHD 06 AML EWR./.IHD323021 HGR |
| | | | | UAL93 027 14 350 350 DCA 1527 |
| | | | | 009 040 |
| | | | | L/B752/E 1358 |
| | | | | T473 G501 |
| | | | | 06 DIA IA+ |
| | | | | 117 01 HGR |NRP WNA DC+ |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
__________________
"Is your claim that the level of penetration is only governed by distance and not the material that is being penetrated?" - DGM

Last edited by BCR; 14th December 2008 at 12:15 AM. Reason: Added Flight Plan
BCR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2008, 03:30 PM   #5
Boone 870
Critical Thinker
 
Boone 870's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 252
Originally Posted by gumboot View Post
It's probably worth explaining to people what you mean by "course update".
Yes, it is worth mentioning and thanks for doing so.

Here's the document I referenced in my video:



I'm going to derail my own thread and point out that she wrote, "We were given a data block with which to track UAL 93."

If this data block was attached to the primary radar track of UAL 93, would it continue to coast track after the aircraft was lost on primary radar?

A coast track that was allowed to continue for five minutes could explain some of the reports of a crash near Camp David if it suddenly disappeared from the display screen and was replaced by the updated flight plan.
Boone 870 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th December 2008, 06:41 AM   #6
vedder
New Blood
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 3
hi boone, I'm unable to see your video, can you please say me (if you can) where did you get the very interesting document above?
thanks
vedder is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th December 2008, 03:09 PM   #7
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 13,937
An additional bit of info that I picked up from reading Philip Shenon's The Commission is that Scooter Libby had this note on his notepad at 10:15-10:18:

Quote:
Aircraft 60 miles out, confirmed as hijack--engage? VP? Yes. JB [Joshua Bolten]: Get President and confirm engage order.
Indeed, Shenon's focus is that Cheney did not have authority to order the shootdown of Flight 93. This may be why the young marine was so determined to get repeated confirmations of the order.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th December 2008, 03:47 PM   #8
boloboffin
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,986
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
An additional bit of info that I picked up from reading Philip Shenon's The Commission is that Scooter Libby had this note on his notepad at 10:15-10:18:



Indeed, Shenon's focus is that Cheney did not have authority to order the shootdown of Flight 93. This may be why the young marine was so determined to get repeated confirmations of the order.
Yes, which is why after confirmation was obtained and the marine came in and tried to get confirmation again, Cheney growled at him.
boloboffin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th December 2008, 02:01 PM   #9
Boone 870
Critical Thinker
 
Boone 870's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 252
Originally Posted by vedder View Post
hi boone, I'm unable to see your video, can you please say me (if you can) where did you get the very interesting document above?
thanks
http://911workinggroup.org/foia/911%...%20Package.pdf
Boone 870 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th January 2009, 07:45 PM   #10
Boone 870
Critical Thinker
 
Boone 870's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 252
Originally Posted by 911files View Post
Good work Boone870! Another myth bites the dust.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|135632.5|UAL93 117|FSP 06F |O ENR | IHD 06 AML EWR./.IHD323021 HGR |
| | | | | UAL93 027 14 350 350 DCA 1527 |
| | | | | 009 040 |
| | | | | L/B752/E 1358 |
| | | | | T473 G501 |
| | | | | 06 DIA IA+ |
| | | | | 117 01 HGR |NRP WNA DC+ |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks 911files, but I need to point out an error I made. The 135632.5 timestamp on the flight plan slipped by me when you first posted it. I originally claimed that it was updated at 10:08 a.m. and that is clearly wrong.


Flight Explorer's Flight 93 animation shows that the flight plan was changed before it crashed:




And this(PDF) Flight 93 timeline also supports a 9:56 update.




The 10:08 time could be a Center to Center handoff, but I can't say for sure.
Boone 870 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th January 2009, 01:58 AM   #11
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
Nice work Boone. It's funny how all the 9/11 evidence seems to suggest the same thing. It's almost like it's trying to tell us something...
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th January 2009, 08:36 AM   #12
Senenmut
Graduate Poster
 
Senenmut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,364
im having a hard time understanding this. flight 93 crashed at at 1003. flight 77 crashed at 0937. thats a 26 min difference. if a plane is going 500 mph, then thats a good 200 + mile difference.
from wiki-
"The hijacking on Flight 93 began at 09:28.[30] By this time, Flights 11 and 175 had already crashed into the World Trade Center and Flight 77 was within minutes of striking the Pentagon. The hijackers on these three flights had waited no more than 30 minutes to commandeer the aircraft, most likely striking after the seat belt sign had been turned off and cabin service had begun.[19] It is unknown why the hijackers on Flight 93 decided to wait approximately 46 minutes to begin the assault."

at what time did flight 93 get put on the TSD?
Senenmut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th January 2009, 10:02 AM   #13
CurtC
Illuminator
 
CurtC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 4,785
Originally Posted by Senenmut View Post
im having a hard time understanding this. flight 93 crashed at at 1003. flight 77 crashed at 0937. thats a 26 min difference. if a plane is going 500 mph, then thats a good 200 + mile difference.
Yes, but I don't understand what you're asking. 26 minutes is indeed more than 200 miles when you're going 500 mph. So, uh, what's your question?


Quote:
at what time did flight 93 get put on the TSD?
Boone 870's OP says it was done at 10:08.
__________________
Is there a God? Find the answer at The Official God FAQ.
CurtC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th January 2009, 10:57 AM   #14
MikeW
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,910
Originally Posted by CurtC View Post
Boone 870's OP says it was done at 10:08.
(Revised to 9:56 in post 10 with the aid of a little more information.)
MikeW is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th January 2009, 10:58 AM   #15
Boone 870
Critical Thinker
 
Boone 870's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 252
Quote:
at what time did flight 93 get put on the TSD?
Flight 93 was on the TSD for the duration of its flight plus an extra 25 minutes. The flight plan was changed from San Francisco to Reagan National Airport at 9:56.
Boone 870 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th January 2009, 11:36 AM   #16
Senenmut
Graduate Poster
 
Senenmut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,364
Originally Posted by Boone 870 View Post
Flight 93 was on the TSD for the duration of its flight plus an extra 25 minutes. The flight plan was changed from San Francisco to Reagan National Airport at 9:56.
im reading the time frame in eastern time (from wiki). is your 956 in eastern time?? i still cant follow your timeline??
Senenmut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th January 2009, 11:50 AM   #17
CurtC
Illuminator
 
CurtC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 4,785
Originally Posted by Senenmut View Post
im reading the time frame in eastern time (from wiki). is your 956 in eastern time?? i still cant follow your timeline??
It's 1356 GMT from the FAA docs. GMT is normally five hours ahead of eastern time, but summer time was in effect, so GMT to EDT is four hours off. 1356 GMT = 0956 EDT.
__________________
Is there a God? Find the answer at The Official God FAQ.
CurtC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th January 2009, 01:33 PM   #18
BCR
Master Poster
 
BCR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,278
Originally Posted by Senenmut View Post
im reading the time frame in eastern time (from wiki). is your 956 in eastern time?? i still cant follow your timeline??
Hence, that is why GMT is used in aviation. The plane (UAL93) crashed at 14:03. The destination was changed at 13:56. The flight plan projected an arrival time at DCA at 14:28. If you watch the local news coverage (around 9:28 EDT) you will see that the Pentagon area is evacuated again in response to this "arrival time". In other words, the flight plan was generating a "target" on the TSD's used by FAA HQ (and perhaps by the Secret Service) which had people responding although the plane it represented had crashed at 14:03.
__________________
"Is your claim that the level of penetration is only governed by distance and not the material that is being penetrated?" - DGM
BCR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th January 2009, 02:21 PM   #19
CurtC
Illuminator
 
CurtC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 4,785
Originally Posted by 911files View Post
The flight plan projected an arrival time at DCA at 14:28. If you watch the local news coverage (around 9:28 EDT) ...
Pssst, that should be 10:28 EDT.
__________________
Is there a God? Find the answer at The Official God FAQ.
CurtC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th January 2009, 02:23 PM   #20
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
Originally Posted by Senenmut View Post
at what time did flight 93 get put on the TSD?

Pretty much as soon as it took off, just like every other flight.
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th January 2009, 02:28 PM   #21
BCR
Master Poster
 
BCR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,278
Originally Posted by CurtC View Post
Pssst, that should be 10:28 EDT.
Oh my, another senior moment ... thx CurtC
__________________
"Is your claim that the level of penetration is only governed by distance and not the material that is being penetrated?" - DGM
BCR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th January 2009, 02:46 PM   #22
Senenmut
Graduate Poster
 
Senenmut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,364
Originally Posted by 911files View Post
Hence, that is why GMT is used in aviation. The plane (UAL93) crashed at 14:03. The destination was changed at 13:56. The flight plan projected an arrival time at DCA at 14:28. If you watch the local news coverage (around 9:28 EDT) you will see that the Pentagon area is evacuated again in response to this "arrival time". In other words, the flight plan was generating a "target" on the TSD's used by FAA HQ (and perhaps by the Secret Service) which had people responding although the plane it represented had crashed at 14:03.
what do u mean by "projected an arrival time at DCA"? they knew that flight had been hijacked. did they just draw a line from the point where the plane was at 1356 to DCA? the plane was still about 180 miles out from tracing back 7 mins and adding a few miles back from shaksville.

im guessing your trying to push mineta testimony back. his testimony follows a timeline. first the pentagon gets hit then he finds out about 93 being down.

if the designation changed at 0956, thats well after 77 crashed into the pentagon form an offical time of 0937. if your trying to push minetas testimony back that far, then right when he goes into the PEOC, im sure everyone there would be well aware of the pentagon hit. im confused!

since this is another mineta thread, im guessing we are just arguing over what time he was "really" there??
Senenmut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th January 2009, 03:10 PM   #23
BCR
Master Poster
 
BCR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,278
Originally Posted by Senenmut View Post
what do u mean by "projected an arrival time at DCA"? they knew that flight had been hijacked. did they just draw a line from the point where the plane was at 1356 to DCA? the plane was still about 180 miles out from tracing back 7 mins and adding a few miles back from shaksville.
When the flight plan was changed for UAL93 to DCA at 13:56, an arrival time for that destination was generated. I am not qualified to address exactly what was used to determine this arrival time, but it was generated and went into the FAA system, just like for any other plane in the system with a flight plan. They also knew that AAL11 had been hijacked and turned, but its flight plan continued westward on TSD's to LAX.

I think you are making this more complicated than it is Senenmut. When the hijackers changed course for DCA, the ATC's changed the flight plan to accommodate this change so that they could track it better.
__________________
"Is your claim that the level of penetration is only governed by distance and not the material that is being penetrated?" - DGM
BCR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th January 2009, 04:50 PM   #24
Senenmut
Graduate Poster
 
Senenmut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,364
Originally Posted by 911files View Post
When the flight plan was changed for UAL93 to DCA at 13:56, an arrival time for that destination was generated. I am not qualified to address exactly what was used to determine this arrival time, but it was generated and went into the FAA system, just like for any other plane in the system with a flight plan. They also knew that AAL11 had been hijacked and turned, but its flight plan continued westward on TSD's to LAX.

I think you are making this more complicated than it is Senenmut. When the hijackers changed course for DCA, the ATC's changed the flight plan to accommodate this change so that they could track it better.
i know your anal about your math and im alittle anal about stuff as well!!
check out this interesting pic i found regarding some of the hijacking. some think AQ did it while others think it was a precise milirary strike. looks like it was made in 2005.
Senenmut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th January 2009, 04:51 PM   #25
Senenmut
Graduate Poster
 
Senenmut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,364
click on the picture and it will blow up. give it a sec and the animation will start.
Senenmut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th January 2009, 06:27 PM   #26
Bell
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 21,050
Originally Posted by Senenmut View Post
click on the picture and it will blow up. give it a sec and the animation will start.
Bell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th January 2009, 06:39 PM   #27
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 24,657
Originally Posted by Senenmut View Post
i know your anal about your math and im alittle anal about stuff as well!!
check out this interesting pic i found regarding some of the hijacking. some think AQ did it while others think it was a precise milirary strike. looks like it was made in 2005.
That was dumb. They make up dumb ideas on flights that are all going to the west and all took off around the same time. They are close to each other. Was there a stupid point to that effort?

I see you have no comment. But it means nothing. BTW, the terrorist did plan to be hitting targets close to the same time so it would remain a surprise.

Surprise! 93 terrorists were late, and the passengers figure out 9/11 in minutes, something 9/11 truth has messed up for over 7 years as they try to apologize for the terrorists.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th January 2009, 08:50 PM   #28
A W Smith
Philosopher
 
A W Smith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,032
if you have a point. make it.

Originally Posted by Senenmut View Post
click on the picture and it will blow up. give it a sec and the animation will start.

Wow you mean to imply that two hijacked planes that left from the same airport and hit the same target came close to each other during their route? Whoda thunkit?
__________________
911 resource site by Mark Roberts
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home
Gravy: Christopher7; You are a Basking Shark in a sea of ignorance.
Galileo:The jury said I didn't have any mental defects or diseases, they declared me 100% sane. Has a jury ever declared you sane?
Don’t get me lol’n off my chesterfield dude.
A W Smith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th January 2009, 08:59 PM   #29
BCR
Master Poster
 
BCR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,278
It was a precise military strike

Originally Posted by Senenmut View Post
i know your anal about your math and im alittle anal about stuff as well!!
check out this interesting pic i found regarding some of the hijacking. some think AQ did it while others think it was a precise milirary strike. looks like it was made in 2005.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...7e2ae47f07.gif
You are correct, I am anal about math and reason and I don't see what this has to do with the subject at hand. And of course it was a precise military strike, by AQ. I hope it did not take you this long to figure that one out.
__________________
"Is your claim that the level of penetration is only governed by distance and not the material that is being penetrated?" - DGM
BCR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2012, 01:29 PM   #30
BCR
Master Poster
 
BCR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,278
Having a discussion on this subject over at ATS. Thought I should add this to the thread as well.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


This is the warning Andrews AFB started issuing at around 10:16. Not much doubt which order was being discussed.
__________________
"Is your claim that the level of penetration is only governed by distance and not the material that is being penetrated?" - DGM
BCR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2012, 02:12 PM   #31
cjnewson88
Graduate Poster
 
cjnewson88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,674
Did they know flight 93 had crashed by this stage?
__________________
Common sense has clearly been snuck up on from behind beaten several times on the head and left to bleed.
Over 140 pieces of evidence showing American 77 hit the Pentagon http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/
http://www.youtube.com/user/cjnewson88
cjnewson88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2012, 02:21 PM   #32
BCR
Master Poster
 
BCR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,278
Originally Posted by cjnewson88 View Post
Did they know flight 93 had crashed by this stage?
Yes and no. Some people did, and some people did not. It went down at 10:03 and ZOB was reporting that it had gone down. People at FAA HQ were still trying to figure it out and of course the military was dependent upon the FAA for information. Keep in mind, there were two "air forces" in play and neither was communicating with one another at this point. One was being run by the Secret Service out of Andrews AFB, the other by NEADS.

I'll have to refer to Reheat for more info in that regards. He is the "expert" on the air defense response.
__________________
"Is your claim that the level of penetration is only governed by distance and not the material that is being penetrated?" - DGM
BCR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2012, 02:42 PM   #33
cjnewson88
Graduate Poster
 
cjnewson88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,674
I wasn't aware Andrews AFB even scrambled anything on the morning of 9/11. What information do we have about the second air force you refer to?
__________________
Common sense has clearly been snuck up on from behind beaten several times on the head and left to bleed.
Over 140 pieces of evidence showing American 77 hit the Pentagon http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/
http://www.youtube.com/user/cjnewson88
cjnewson88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2012, 02:51 PM   #34
BCR
Master Poster
 
BCR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,278
Originally Posted by cjnewson88 View Post
I wasn't aware Andrews AFB even scrambled anything on the morning of 9/11. What information do we have about the second air force you refer to?
Reheat would know more about it than I would. But a good start would be Lynn Spencer's book, Touching History. Andrews had 3 fighters training in NC. They were recalled about the time of the Pentagon attack. They were the BULLY fighters you hear discussed from time-to-time. One of them, although low on fuel, did a touch-and-go immediately upon return to make an interception. Did not last but for a few minutes, when he returned to Andrews (it was a helicopter or something like that). The BULLY fighters were refueled and armed, pretty much under the control of the Secret Service for a time.

But again, Reheat or Boone870 would be your best sources for more information on that here.
__________________
"Is your claim that the level of penetration is only governed by distance and not the material that is being penetrated?" - DGM
BCR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2012, 02:57 PM   #35
Reheat
Illuminator
 
Reheat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In Space
Posts: 3,492
Originally Posted by cjnewson88 View Post
Did they know flight 93 had crashed by this stage?
Originally Posted by BCR View Post
Yes and no. Some people did, and some people did not. It went down at 10:03 and ZOB was reporting that it had gone down. People at FAA HQ were still trying to figure it out and of course the military was dependent upon the FAA for information. Keep in mind, there were two "air forces" in play and neither was communicating with one another at this point. One was being run by the Secret Service out of Andrews AFB, the other by NEADS.
The key to the precise answer here is at what time the Andrews F-16 (that had returned from NC to Andrews) piloted by Maj Billy Hutchinson was launched and sent on the excursion over the Pentagon and up the Potomac? He was specifically launched with very little fuel to intercept UA 93. At that time the Andrews SOF certainly DID NOT know UA 93 had crashed. The SOF directed Hutchinson to take-off with no afterburner (highly unusual) in order to conserve fuel.

I recall the time was somewhere between 10:15-10:30, but the best most accurate answer is in Miles Kara's material. He has perhaps the best info on the launch of all of the Andrew's fighters. If someone can find that, you've found the answer, but I don't have time at the moment. I'll be back later this evening and can search for it if that info is not found by then...
__________________
[Noc]
Reheat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2012, 03:03 PM   #36
cjnewson88
Graduate Poster
 
cjnewson88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,674
Thanks BCR and Reheat, I'll be sure to look that up after work.
__________________
Common sense has clearly been snuck up on from behind beaten several times on the head and left to bleed.
Over 140 pieces of evidence showing American 77 hit the Pentagon http://therightbloggerbastard.blogspot.co.nz/
http://www.youtube.com/user/cjnewson88
cjnewson88 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2012, 03:04 PM   #37
BCR
Master Poster
 
BCR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,278
Originally Posted by Reheat View Post
I recall the time was somewhere between 10:15-10:30, but the best most accurate answer is in Miles Kara's material. He has perhaps the best info on the launch of all of the Andrew's fighters. If someone can find that, you've found the answer, but I don't have time at the moment. I'll be back later this evening and can search for it if that info is not found by then...
I should know this since I actually helped Miles with that analysis after Spencer's book came out. Seems so long ago. I'll pull the data since Reheat does not have it on hand.

Wait a minute, I found Miles summary post on this.

Quote:
The Andrews flight strips show that Bully 2, who came back alone and well ahead of Bully 1 and 3, landed at 10:14 out of fuel. Bully 1, a flight of two F-16s landed at 10:35, low on gas; however, Bully 1 had sufficient fuel to take off again in response to an unknown coming down the river. By then, the notional UA 93 had “landed” at National at 10:28. There was nothing to intercept. Here is a ground trace of the flight of Bully 1 based on data from 84th RADES.
__________________
"Is your claim that the level of penetration is only governed by distance and not the material that is being penetrated?" - DGM
BCR is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th June 2012, 03:16 PM   #38
Reheat
Illuminator
 
Reheat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In Space
Posts: 3,492
Originally Posted by cjnewson88 View Post
I wasn't aware Andrews AFB even scrambled anything on the morning of 9/11. What information do we have about the second air force you refer to?
IIRC, Andrews launched a total of 5 fighters that morning. One was Bully 1 (Maj Billy Hutchinson) who had been recalled from a mission to an NC training range. Two other F-16's were launched shortly afterward and flown by Sasserville and Penny. In addition, two others were launched a short time later..

All of these early fighters from Andrews were launched in response to a request by the Secret Service. By the time the last 2 were launched NEADS was back in control as the NEADS radio frequencies were passed to all of them after they were airborne.

The Andrew's fighter's were in a low CAP while the Langley fighters were in a high CAP. Essentially, by 10:45 or thereabouts there were 4 F-16s in a CAP over the Capitol. Two more were launched sometime later.. Of course, all were too late as the attack was over by then, but they tried...

Lynn Spencer's timeline is not accurate, so again the best information is in Miles Kara's material on the oredigger site.
__________________
[Noc]
Reheat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2012, 03:02 PM   #39
Boone 870
Critical Thinker
 
Boone 870's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 252
While 911files has this old thread bumped, I'm going to add a couple more items that I feel are relevant to the discussion.

More proof that some in the FAA thought that United 93 was near Washington, DC. From an interview in 2001, a National Park Police Service pilot's recollection of the events that day:

Quote:
But upon return with the Secret Service agent on board, thinking we were doing more MEDEVACS we knew we had more patients, the underground operation of National Airport and the tower were reporting to us locations on this number four aircraft. That it had in fact turned back from Cleveland, was coming back towards DC, had passed Pittsburgh.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/75285513/L...NPS-2011-00689

page 20

The Park Police helicopters later landed to avoid the TSD Flight 93 as it appeared to be approaching Washington DC.



Actual recording of Linda Justice informing Washington Center that she updated Flight 93's flightplan to reflect Hagerstown-Reagan National:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
Boone 870 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th June 2012, 07:14 PM   #40
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
Originally Posted by BCR View Post
Having a discussion on this subject over at ATS. Thought I should add this to the thread as well.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


This is the warning Andrews AFB started issuing at around 10:16. Not much doubt which order was being discussed.
This video does not sound authentic to me.

I notice that it was just posted (1 day ago). Anyone know its source, background, vetting, etc?
tfk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:08 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.