Indisputable 911 coverup facts

[BigCedar]

On the report of how long after the fighters were scrambled and their take off time. But its not about how long, which seems to be roughly 7 minutes, point I was making was how they werent even scrambled for over 30 minutes after the second tower was hit.

-9:27 a.m.: (approximate time) NORAD orders jets scrambled from Langley Air Force Base in Virginia to head to intercept United Airlines flight 77.

--9:35 a.m.: Three F-16 Fighting Falcons take off from Langley AFB headed toward Washington area. [1]


Ed

From the time line I linked to: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1845150&postcount=1

0903 UA175 hits the South Tower of the WTC. A number of NEADS personnel witness it live on CNN.

0907 FAA civilian controllers direct the Otis fighters to enter a holding pattern over Long Island. They are worried about the fighters colliding with civilian aircraft in the densely packed airspace over New York.
NEADS weapon controllers are not happy.

Quote:
09:07:20
NASYPANY: Okay, Foxy. Plug in. I want to make sure this is on tape.… This is what—this is what I foresee that we probably need to do. We need to talk to F.A.A. We need to tell ‘em if this stuff’s gonna keep on going, we need to take those fighters on and then put ‘em over Manhattan, O.K.? That’s the best thing. That’s the best play right now. So, coordinate with the F.A.A. Tell ‘em if there’s more out there, which we don’t know, let’s get ‘em over Manhattan. At least we got some kinda play.

NEADS weapons controllers request the launch of the two F-16 fighters at Alert on Langley AFB (Air Force Base) in Virginia. However this request is refused by NEADS command. Instead the fighters are put on Battle Stations. NEADS command are concerned that the Langley fighters are the only remaining aircraft they have – if both pairs are airborne at the same time both pairs will run out of fuel at the same time.

0921 Boston Centre notify NEADS of a third hijacked aircraft, headed for Washington DC. (4th incident of the morning).

Quote:
9:21:37
DOOLEY: Another hijack! It’s headed towards Washington!
NASYPANY: ****! Give me a location.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Okay. Third aircraft—hijacked—heading toward Washington.

0921 Boston Centre overhears a FAA conversation which mentions AA11 is still airborne. Based on this and AA11’s previous known heading they determine that it is headed for Washington DC. They notify NEADS.

Quote:
9:21:50
NASYPANY: O.K. American Airlines is still airborne—11, the first guy. He’s heading towards Washington. O.K., I think we need to scramble Langley right now. And I’m—I’m gonna take the fighters from Otis and try to chase this guy down if I can find him.

0922 The Langley fighters are scrambled, however the pilots are not given a reason for a scramble. The Navy ATC handling them directs them east, over the Atlantic Ocean, to a military training airspace called Whiskey 386.

0928 UA93 is hijacked.

0934 In the course of a call to Washington Centre, NEADS finds out about the hijacking of AA77 (bringing the day’s total – from NEADS’ point of view – to 4 hijackings (one crashed into WTC) plus the first crash into the WTC as a 5th aircraft).

Quote:
9:34:01
WASHINGTON CENTER: Now, let me tell you this. I—I'll—we've been looking. We're—also lost American 77—
WATSON: American 77?
DOOLEY: American 77's lost—
WATSON: Where was it proposed to head, sir?
WASHINGTON CENTER: Okay, he was going to L.A. also—
WATSON: From where, sir?
WASHINGTON CENTER: I think he was from Boston also. Now let me tell you this story here. Indianapolis Center was working this guy—
WATSON: What guy?
WASHINGTON CENTER: American 77, at flight level 3-5-0 [35,000 feet]. However, they lost radar with him. They lost contact with him. They lost everything. And they don't have any idea where he is or what happened.

0934 NEADS notice the F-16s are headed in the wrong direction, and contact the Navy ATC.

Quote:
9:34:12
NAVY A.T.C.: You’ve got [the fighters] moving east in airspace. Now you want ‘em to go to Baltimore?
HUCKABONE: Yes, sir. We’re not gonna take ‘em in Whiskey 386 [military training airspace over the ocean].
NAVY A.T.C.: O.K., once he goes to Baltimore, what are we supposed to do?
HUCKABONE: Have him contact us on auxiliary frequency 2-3-4 decimal 6. Instead of taking handoffs to us and us handing ‘em back, just tell Center they’ve got to go to Baltimore.
NAVY A.T.C.: All right, man. Stand by. We’ll get back to you.
CITINO: What do you mean, “We’ll get back to you”? Just do it!
HUCKABONE: I’m gonna choke that guy!
CITINO: Be very professional, Huck.
HUCKABONE: O.K.
CITINO: All right, Huck. Let’s get our act together here.

0935 Boston Centre notify NEADS of yet another unidentified aircraft flying over Washington DC (6th aircraft incident).

Quote:
9:35:41
ROUNTREE: Huntress [call sign for NEADS] ID, Rountree, can I help you?
BOSTON CENTER (Scoggins): Latest report, [low-flying] aircraft six miles southeast of the White House.
ROUNTREE: Six miles southeast of the White House?
BOSTON CENTER (Scoggins): Yup. East—he’s moving away?
ROUNTREE: Southeast from the White House.
BOSTON CENTER (Scoggins): Air—aircraft is moving away.
ROUNTREE: Moving away from the White House?
BOSTON CENTER (Scoggins): Yeah.…
ROUNTREE: Deviating away. You don’t have a type aircraft, you don’t know who he is—
BOSTON CENTER (Scoggins): Nothing, nothing. We’re over here in Boston so I have no clue. That—hopefully somebody in Washington would have better—information for you.

0936 The Langley Fighters are directed to head for the White House.

Explain your problem with what happened between 9:03 and 9:36

 

[Edx]

Explain your problem with what happened between 9:03 and 9:36

You only really needed to quote:

"if both pairs are airborne at the same time both pairs will run out of fuel at the same time."

Would be nice to know where they got that information. Are they seriously saying they had no other military aircraft availible to protect that entire region of the United States? But even if they did, according to that timeline, it wouldnt matter because they didnt want to risk colliding with other planes? So more planes wouldnt really have helped that much anyway?

 

[BigCedar]

No I didnt, I specifically mention his first answer. If he stopped at that point, there wouldnt be a problem would there?

The problem is he refuses to accept this is a logical question to want to ask, and he even says the question is not even worth answering. Why do you ignore that? It shows exactly the kind of thing Im accusing Popular Mechanics of, but you're saying this reaction is irrelevant and inadmissable.

And by the way AFAIK he never did get back to them.


How was that obtained? From the plane crash? And if it was, where did they get the DNA to match it to the DNA found in the plane crash?

But look, the question is irrelevant. Im talking about Popular Mehanics attitude that theres no reason to question the official story. Even the 911 Commission did! But they dont mention that do they.

Ken Ham would have me believe that atheists attitude toward the bible means they have no reason to question creation. This is why we deal with a persons evidence, not attitude.

You do remember the search for DNA of the victims of the crashes, right? People known to be missing or on the flights didn't have DNA samples sitting around handily. DNA can be obtained from personal objects, in bedrooms, hotel rooms, etc.
ID of the suspects could be narrowed through a process of elimination and when more evidence of the identities of the hijackers came about DNA could be obtained by the aforementioned means.

 

[BigCedar]

You only really needed to quote:

"if both pairs are airborne at the same time both pairs will run out of fuel at the same time."

Would be nice to know where they got that information. Are they seriously saying they had no other military aircraft availible to protect that entire region of the United States? But even if they did, according to that timeline, it wouldnt matter because they didnt want to risk colliding with other planes? So more planes wouldnt really have helped that much anyway?

You can find the resources at the bottom of the page I linked to.

Dylan Avery gets rare kudos from me for having a part ( apparently significant) in getting the NORAD tapes released.

The transcript of the tapes is quite telling. Even if you say we should have been more prepared for such an event the reality of it all is far removed from the Hollywood image of a strike force being scrambled.

Critiques of the situation seem to rely too much on hindsight of an unprecedented event.

 

[Edx]

Ken Ham would have me believe that atheists attitude toward the bible means they have no reason to question creation. This is why we deal with a persons evidence, not attitude.

The whole coversation on Popular Mechanics was about their "attitude", as we were talking about what I thought about the usual debunker attitude, remember?

You do remember the search for DNA of the victims of the crashes, right? People known to be missing or on the flights didn't have DNA samples sitting around handily. DNA can be obtained from personal objects, in bedrooms, hotel rooms, etc.

ID of the suspects could be narrowed through a process of elimination and when more evidence of the identities of the hijackers came about DNA could be obtained by the aforementioned means.

They did all this in 3 days? The list came out on the 14th of September. Even CSI on TV arent that good. So thats pretty good intelligence considering.

 

[BigCedar]

The whole coversation on Popular Mechanics was about their "attitude", as we were talking about what I thought about the usual debunker attitude, remember?

Personally, I dont inherently dislike debunking sites so long as they are reasonable about things. Popular Mechanics is probably one of the worst debunking "sources" Ive come accross. Not as bad as the BBCs Conspiracy files but still pretty bad.

The [SIZE=-1]Hearst Corporation really [/SIZE]isnt a credible name and yes being affiliated with Homeland Security doesnt make it any better. It doesnt give them a lot of credibility in terms of imagining they are doing some kind of unbiased investigation. But then theres the arguments they give, they argue against a lot of fringe theories and present them in a way that suggests this is what all the 911 skeptics believe, but they dont address many of the very real facts that show there certianly is a coverup. Again, they cant give up any ground.

One interesting mistake they made is them claiming that NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America in the decade before 911, yet this is not true at all. I also found a interview with the main spoksperson for Popular Mechanics on this piece, and he was saying that they were allowed access, a magazine company nothing to do the government, access to classified documents and evidence that we the peopke arent allowed to see. Personally I believe this was because the government intentionaly wanted people to think this was suspicious, for the same reason they havent shown any videos of the plane at the pentagon. But a more interesting thing is when they claim that they identified the hijackers with their DNA, and the presenter asks well how did they get the DNA to match it to, and the guy just completely dodges the question. I can find it on youtube for you if you want to know what Im talking about, but all this shows to me that Popular Mechanics' piece wasnt a proper investigation, it almost certianly wasnt unbiased, they misrepresented 911 skeptic arguments, ignored the most persuasive, and they made several pretty basic research errors.

All about attitude?

They did all this in 3 days? The list came out on the 14th of September. Even CSI on TV arent that good. So thats pretty good intelligence considering.

Yep, this is an area where I can entertain some "theories"

Like the idea that foreign intelligence may have been a little more watchful of the hijackers than our guys admit.

Here's some hijacker ID stuff: http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/Hijackers

 

[oldbetang]

They did all this in 3 days? The list came out on the 14th of September. Even CSI on TV arent that good. So thats pretty good intelligence considering.

What list are you referring to? A Passenger list? If so, then it certainly wasn't one in which that they were claiming to have DNA certified identifications. Those identifications were to be made later on.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

"The Commission's new story [based on the NORAD tapes] is challenged, finally, by evidence that the FAA had talked to the military about AA 77 even earlier than 9:24, which was the notification time given on NORAD's September 18 timeline. FAA official Laura Brown's aforementioned memo, after stating that a teleconference was established with the military 'within minutes after the first aircraft hit the World Trade Center' (and hence by about 8:50), said that the FAA shared 'real-time information' with the military about 'all the flights of interest, including Flight 77.' Bringing out the full implication of this assertion, she added:
'NORAD logs indicate that the FAA made formal notification about American Flight 77 at 9:24AM, but information about the flight was conveyed continously during the phone bridges before the formal notification.'
In a telephone conversation I had with Laura Brown in 2004, she emphasized this distinction, saying that the formal notification was primarily a formality and hence irrelevant to the question of whether the military knew about Flight 77.
. . .
Brown's account is supported, moreover, by other reports. A New York Times story appearing four days after 9/11 began:
'During the house or so that American Airlines Flight 77 was under the control of hijackers, up to the moment it struck the west side of the Pentagon, military officials in a command center on the east side of the building were urgently talking to law enforcement and air traffic control officials about what to do.'
Laura Brown's 2003 memo, therefore, reflects information that was available immediately after 9/11.
. . .
The Commission knew, therefore, that this was the FAA's position, and it offered no rebuttal. When The 9/11 Commission Report appeared, however, it contained no mention of this memo or its information. The Commission implicitly even claimed in effect that the memo's account could not be true by claiming that the FAA-initiated conference did not begin until 9:20- even though Laura Brown's memo, which was read into the Commission's records, said that it had begun about 8:50. (Her view, incidentally, was independently supported by another high FAA official.) As usual, inconvenient facts were simply eliminated." - Debunking 9/11 Debunking



The FAA times are wrong.

Excerpt: The Transportation Department's inspector general urged the Federal Aviation Administration on Friday to consider disciplinary action against two executives who failed to correct false information provided to the independent commission that investigated the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

The acting inspector general, Todd J. Zinser, whose office acts as the department's internal watchdog, found in a new report that the F.A.A. executives, as well as a third official who is now retired, learned after the fact that false information was given to the commission in May 2003 about the F.A.A.'s contacts with the Air Force on the morning of Sept. 11.

The false information suggested that the aviation agency had established contact with its Air Force liaison immediately after the first of the four hijacked planes struck the World Trade Center at 8:46 a.m.

In fact, the commission's investigators found, the Air Force's liaison did not join a conference call with the F.A.A. until after the third plane crashed, at 9:37 a.m. The 51-minute gap is significant because it helps undermine an initial claim by the North American Aerospace Defense Command, which is responsible for domestic air defense, that it scrambled quickly on Sept. 11 and had a chance to shoot down the last of the hijacked planes still in the air, United Airlines Flight 93.

The inspector general's report, prepared in response to complaints from the independent Sept. 11 commission, found that the three F.A.A. executives failed to act on an ''obligation'' to correct the false information provided to the commission, which found widespread confusion within the aviation agency and the military on the morning of the attacks.

The F.A.A., part of the Transportation Department, declined to identify the three executives, whose names and titles were not revealed in the inspector general's report. Nor did the agency say whether it would consider disciplinary action.

The inspector general's office found that while false information was given to the Sept. 11 commission, there was no evidence that F.A.A. executives had done it knowingly or had intentionally withheld accurate information about the agency's actions on the morning of the attacks.

That finding was welcomed by the F.A.A., which said in a statement that the ''inspector general's investigation has clarified the record and found no evidence that F.A.A. officials knowingly made false statements.'' The Pentagon's inspector general issued a similar finding last month about military officers who provided inaccurate testimony to the commission, saying their inaccurate statements could be attributed largely to poor record-keeping.

Richard Ben Veniste, a commission member, said in an interview on Friday that he was troubled that it had taken the inspector general two years to complete his investigation -- ''more time than it took the 9/11 commission to complete all of its work'' -- and that he released the report ''on the Friday afternoon before the Labor Day weekend.''

Mr. Ben Veniste said he was convinced that the failure of the aviation agency and the North American Aerospace Defense Command to provide early, accurate information about their performance had ''contributed to a growing industry of conspiratorialists who question the fundamental facts relating to 9/11.''

Mr. Zinser, the acting inspector general, said in an interview that the investigation had taken so long because of ''the very complicated issues'' his office reviewed. (NYT, Sept.2nd, 2006)

Do you agree with Griffin that the NORAD tapes, all 120 minutes, were fabricated?

LOL. The article seems to emphasize the "independent" 9/11 Commission, even though that can be drawn into serious doubt.
The article also raises more questions... Why would the military maintain a lie that made it appear more aware of the flights than it actually was? What would they (the military) have to gain from such a lie, given that they were given the opportunity to review the tapes? It can be understood why the FAA would lie, if it were to cover its own unusual incompetence on the day (which itself is questionable), but why would the military engage in such a lie, that it maintained, up until the tapes were released? Not to mention, that the military's earlier claim made it appear as equally incompetent as the FAA.
The NORAD tapes that claim to be "the authentic military history of 9/11" also seem (to my awareness) be lacking of fundamental communications between high levels of the agencies and military. This omission itself draws the tapes into questioning.

 

[Edx]

What list are you referring to? A Passenger list? If so, then it certainly wasn't one in which that they were claiming to have DNA certified identifications. Those identifications were to be made later on.

Doesnt seem to be a passenger list, and as far as I can see the names didnt change at all when they released the photographs. Seems rather specific so quickly for a government that claimed total ignorence to all of it, of course we knew that wasnt true anyway, including the 911 Commission.

FBI Announces List of 19 Hijackers - 3 days later

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The FBI releases 19 photographs of ... the hijackers - 16 days later[/SIZE][/FONT]

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Just out of curiosity, how would you rate The 9/11 Commission Report?

 

[Edx]

Just out of curiosity, how would you rate The 9/11 Commission Report?

Me?

 

[BigCedar]

Doesnt seem to be a passenger list, and as far as I can see the names didnt change at all when they released the photographs. Seems rather specific so quickly for a government that claimed total ignorence to all of it, of course we knew that wasnt true anyway, including the 911 Commission.

FBI Announces List of 19 Hijackers - 3 days later

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The FBI releases 19 photographs of ... the hijackers - 16 days later[/SIZE][/FONT]

These are not about DNA matches.

 

[Edx]

These are not about DNA matches.

How did they know who every single one of the hijackers were 3 days after the attack? And it seems have no errors as well and according to you they also had pictures before they had DNA checks? How did they know all this?

Ed

 

[oldbetang]

Doesnt seem to be a passenger list, and as far as I can see the names didnt change at all when they released the photographs. Seems rather specific so quickly for a government that claimed total ignorence to all of it, of course we knew that wasnt true anyway, including the 911 Commission.

FBI Announces List of 19 Hijackers - 3 days later

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]The FBI releases 19 photographs of ... the hijackers - 16 days
later[/SIZE][/FONT]

You mean to tell me that you've never seen the official flight manifests???? How long have you been a truther anyway?

These images show the passengers and their seat numbers from the four 9/11 flights. They were taken from a presentation given at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, and the original files may be downloaded here.

 

[BigCedar]

BJs,

You say this :

I am searching for truth,

You make a statement about the FAA memo.

Furthermore, the source you provided above gains its times and information the 9/11 Commission Report which articulated its 'official' times of the events from the tapes-based account which itself contradicts the military's first account- the testimony of the Generals and Laura Brown's memo.

I show you that your statement about the Laura Brown memo is wrong.

And you respond with LOL and shift the goalpost without admitting you were wrong about the memo.

LOL. The article seems to emphasize the "independent" 9/11 Commission, even though that can be drawn into serious doubt.

I posted the article to show that the FAA times were wrong.
Were the FAA times wrong ?

The article also raises more questions... Why would the military maintain a lie that made it appear more aware of the flights than it actually was?

Please point out the specific "lie".

It can be understood why the FAA would lie,

From the NYtimes article:
"That finding was welcomed by the F.A.A., which said in a statement that the ''inspector general's investigation has clarified the record and found no evidence that F.A.A. officials knowingly made false statements.'' "

The NORAD tapes that claim to be "the authentic military history of 9/11" also seem (to my awareness) be lacking of fundamental communications between high levels of the agencies and military. This omission itself draws the tapes into questioning.

What do you base this on? What understanding of "fundamental communications " are you bringing to the table?

Give me specific evidence that the tapes are not authentic?
Not because Griffin says so.

Your LOL is very telling.

 

[Edx]

You mean to tell me that you've never seen the official flight manifests???? How long have you been a truther anyway?

These images show the passengers and their seat numbers from the four 9/11 flights. They were taken from a presentation given at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, and the original files may be downloaded here.

Yes, I know this, but they managed to know in 3 days including 911, exactly which of them were hijackers? With no mistakes including some of the details like where they live? I suppose you'll say yes, but I want to know how especially as intelligence was apparently so bad pre911

 

[oldbetang]

Yes, I know this, but they managed to know in 3 days including 911, exactly which of them were hijackers? With no mistakes including some of the details like where they live? I suppose you'll say yes, but I want to know how especially as intelligence was apparently so bad pre911

I remember the day the Reagan was shot in Washington D.C. Federal authorities were sifting through John Hinckley Jr.'s parents home in Colorado in what seemed like just minutes after the shots were fired. So no, it's not a stretch to me at all that even minute details about the hijackers would be known three days after 9/11.

 

[oldbetang]

Yes, I know this, but they managed to know in 3 days including 911, exactly which of them were hijackers?

Look at all of the names and tell me that you couldn't reduce the potential suspects to eight in less than a minute.

 

[BigCedar]

Yes, I know this, but they managed to know in 3 days including 911, exactly which of them were hijackers? With no mistakes including some of the details like where they live? I suppose you'll say yes, but I want to know how especially as intelligence was apparently so bad pre911

The attackers weren't trying to hide their identities.
How long should it take the authorities to find details about someone once they have a name?

 

[jamesrwright3]

Look at all of the names and tell me that you couldn't reduce the potential suspects to eight in less than a minute.

My local police force could have narrowed the suspect list down and they can barely write a traffic ticket correctly.