9/11: The September 11th Attacks

[ted_bloody_maul]

Actually,documenting the event makes no sense at all. As I pointed out earlier,every TV camera in New York would be documenting the event. So,what were they really doing? Were they 'souvenir' photos? Serial killers often take souvenirs from their victims (sometimes photographs). I don't know.I do know that those responsible for 911 were operating from the inside. If there was foreign involvement,it wont come out until we get to those who were operating from the inside.

Maybe they were really doing what they said they were really doing.

Is that too much to ponder?

 

[Jerry_B]

Except,now we're down to the question of INTENT. So,I assume you now accept that Col. Marr's actions did indeed obstruct America's air defences and it's merely a question of IF that was his intent. This is like the difference between Manslaughter & murder. I'd like to hear some 'innocent' explanations for his PATTERN of obstruction.

You assume too much. It's a big IF, after all. That also includes any ideas of INTENT - the problem with that being that thus far no-one has been able to prove or show that he was intentionally doing or not doing certain things.

I do know that those responsible for 911 were operating from the inside.

If you have absolute proof, why are you wasting time here and not handing over that proof in order for criminal proceedings to take place? You have to admit that it's a pretty terrible thing if you know that mass-murder has taken place, can provide evidence of such, and yet do nothing about it.

Failing that, please outline who exactly is responsible on 'the inside'. Name names. Show exactly how, when and where they organised and orchestrated 9/11.

 

[ramonmercado]

I actually believe there was something odd about the USAF actions (and inaction on 9/11. But this is making things far too complicated.

Anyway heres an article by Gore Vidal on 9/11 and the extension of the National Security State.

Gore Vidal's essay, "The End of Liberty"
http://www.gorevidalpages.com/2001/09/g ... berty.html

Heres another on 9/11 which also brings in the USAF.

The Enemy Within
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/EnemyWithin.html

 

[McAvennie]

a) Actually,documenting the event makes no sense at all. As I pointed out earlier,every TV camera in New York would be documenting the event. So,what were they really doing? Were they 'souvenir' photos? Serial killers often take souvenirs from their victims (sometimes photographs). I don't know. b) I do know that those responsible for 911 were operating from the inside. If there was foreign involvement,it wont come out until we get to those who were operating from the inside.

a) Sorry, that is ridiculous. Just because a TV crew is filming something it is automatically suspect that you would want to film it or 'document' it yourself?

b) Okay. I assume I don't need to ask as you must have verifiable and unmistakeable proof just a click away otherwise you wouldn't have made such a wild statement.

 

[kamalktk]

Again, that's not so much the individual situations, but the repetition of individual situations that may be of significance.

You can go to the link (which you sourced), and see all the individual reasons. None are suspicious. Seeing business clients, arriving earlier than expected to the airport so able to take an earlier flight, etc.

If you want to say the fact there were so many of them that it is suspicious, then you have to show two things. First, that there were an unusual number of last minute changes, because if a good amount of the people on these flights are typically booked to them at the last minute, then there is nothing unusual about that aspect the 9/11 flights. Second, if you find it suspicious, you have to provide a plausible explanation for why these people were booked to the plane with the foreknowledge of 9/11, and how the conspirators were able to arrange all the various circumstances that resulted in the bookings.

After all, the idea that conspirators arranged for a specific person's child's soccer game to be on a specific date, on the chance that the parent would push back a flight in order to attend, strains credulity.

So if you wish to pursue this line of thinking, I would encourage you to pursue those paths.

 

[waitew]

If you have absolute proof, why are you wasting time here and not handing over that proof in order for criminal proceedings to take place? You have to admit that it's a pretty terrible thing if you know that mass-murder has taken place, can provide evidence of such, and yet do nothing about it.

The standard of evidence in a criminal case is not now,nor has it ever been, Absolute Proof. It simply doesn't exist in this word. However, there is a standard: beyond a reasonable doubt. Now what 'reasonable doubt' is can vary from person to person and jury to jury. However,Col. Marr's pattern of obstruction is more than enough to take to a jury. It isn't necessary to explain in minute detail exactly how a crime was committed. If that standard (really just a cop out on your part) were applied in the real world,no one would ever be convicted of anything.
I take it you're of the opinion that the prisons are filled with innocent people? None of them were convicted with 'absolute proof' and in no case did the prosecution explain in MINUTE detail exactly how every aspect of the crime occurred.
It is also true that there must have people living in Nazi Germany and Stalin's Russia who had 'Absolute proof' crimes were being committed by the Governments of those countries and their rulers. Why did none of them hand that 'proof' over for criminal proceedings? Same reason here.

 

[stu neville]

But surely that must apply to both sides of the argument? In which case, by your own reasoning, the "official" version (or a near version thereof) actually makes a more compelling case than any of the CTs. You can't decry the usually accepted version of events as being unrealistic, whilst presenting a theory that relies on so many strained points and twists and then expect everyone to accept it without question?

Again, I don't buy every detail of the "official" version. I think things have been obfuscated along the line, but in my opinion it's more a sign of arse-covering by agencies that know they screwed up massively than said agencies having instigated the whole thing.

A sin of omission rather than a sin of commission,

 

[Jerry_B]

The standard of evidence in a criminal case is not now,nor has it ever been, Absolute Proof. It simply doesn't exist in this word. However, there is a standard: beyond a reasonable doubt. Now what 'reasonable doubt' is can vary from person to person and jury to jury. However,Col. Marr's pattern of obstruction is more than enough to take to a jury. It isn't necessary to explain in minute detail exactly how a crime was committed. If that standard (really just a cop out on your part) were applied in the real world,no one would ever be convicted of anything.

There's no cop-out. Thus far you nor anyone else has proven that Marr was actively and purposely obstructing some events on 9/11. There are various assumptions. You've mentioned intent, but haven't proved that in any way.

I take it you're of the opinion that the prisons are filled with innocent people? None of them were convicted with 'absolute proof' and in no case did the prosecution explain in MINUTE detail exactly how every aspect of the crime occurred.

More assumption. As far as I am aware, they're in prison because there was enough evidence to convict them. If the same level of evidence exists for various criminal acts during 9/11, why aren't you and others presenting it to the courts?

Then again, you also then say that...

It is also true that there must have people living in Nazi Germany and Stalin's Russia who had 'Absolute proof' crimes were being committed by the Governments of those countries and their rulers. Why did none of them hand that 'proof' over for criminal proceedings? Same reason here.

Are you're comparing modern America to Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia?

Remember that I also asked that you 'please outline who exactly is responsible on 'the inside'. Name names. Show exactly how, when and where they organised and orchestrated 9/11.'

Can you at least do that?

 

[Analis]

with al these facts now available, it's of course still not proven that Colonel Marr made all these decisions in order to intentionally weaken the air defense.

Quite. This line pretty much undoes the whole slew of text that goes before it.

But what would te alternative be,? That Marr was extremely moronic (I cannot think of a better word) ?

Also, using terms like 'abandonned his post' is hardly what one would call the outlook of a neutral stance - it seems instead to be a deliberate effort to paint things in a certain light.

There again, this was strange a strange behaviour. Morons, deserters, incompetent beyond any description, the US defence really looked like an insane asylum this day.



http://shoestring911.blogspot.fr/2007/0 ... plane.html

MONDAY, 6 AUGUST 2007
New Details About The 9/11 Mystery Plane

The morning of 9/11, CNN reported a mystery jet plane flying above Washington, DC. At 9:54 a.m., correspondent John King, who was standing near the White House, reported that about ten minutes earlier (hence, around 9:44 a.m.), there was "a white jet circling overhead." He added: "Now, you generally don't see planes in the area over the White House. That is restricted air space. No reason to believe that this jet was there for any nefarious purposes, but the Secret Service was very concerned, pointing up at the jet in the sky. It is out of sight now, best we can tell." [1] Shortly after, another CNN correspondent, Kate Snow, also reported having seen a plane, "circling over the Capitol" building at around the same time. She said: "Now whether that may have been an Air Force plane, it's unclear. But that seemed to be the reason, according to security guards that I talked with, towards the evacuation of the Capitol." [2]

Yet the identity of this "white jet" aircraft has been a mystery. Indeed, there has been virtually no discussion of its existence, even though it was flying above Washington at a time when America was under attack, and when the only aircraft in the area should have been fighter jets, there to protect against possible further attacks. The 9/11 Commission, which claimed that its aim had been to present "the fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9/11" appears not to have investigated the identity of this plane, and made no mention of it in its final report.

THE MYSTERY PLANE IDENTIFIED
In his recent Internet article "The 9/11 Mystery Plane," Mark H. Gaffney presented compelling evidence--including a clear photo and video footage--indicating that this "white jet" had in fact been an E-4B National Airborne Operations Center (NAOC) plane. These are highly modified Boeing 747s that act as flying military command posts. [3]

Important new evidence corroborates Gaffney's conclusion, and raises further questions about the role played by the E-4B planes on 9/11. This evidence appears in the 2003 book Black Ice: The Invisible Threat of Cyber-Terrorism, written by Dan Verton, a former intelligence officer in the U.S. Marine Corps and former senior writer for Computerworld magazine, who has written extensively on national security, the intelligence community, and national defense topics. Verton reported that, the morning of September 11, an E-4B was launched from "an airfield outside of the nation's capital." (He did not, however, state which specific base.) This plane was carrying "civilian and military officials," and was going "to conduct a previously scheduled Defense Department exercise." This exercise would involve "the use and testing of the aircraft's various advanced technology and communications equipment."

According to Verton, the E-4B launched from near Washington "had only just taken off" at the time of the Pentagon attack, which was at 9:37 a.m. This would mean it could, quite plausibly, have been circling above the White House and Capitol building at around 9:44 a.m., when CNN's John King and Kate Snow spotted a plane up above. Verton adds that, once airborne, the E-4B "was immediately ordered to cease the military exercise it was conducting and prepare to become the actual national airborne operations center." [4]

GLOBAL GUARDIAN
The exercise the E-4B was participating in would have been Global Guardian, which was being conducted at the time by the U.S. Strategic Command (Stratcom), to test its ability to fight a nuclear war. The Omaha World-Herald has reported that three National Airborne Operations Center planes were airborne the morning of 9/11 for this exercise. Following the attacks, all three remained in the air. [5] According to the World-Herald, Global Guardian was canceled after the second WTC tower was hit, at 9:03 a.m. [6] This is what we would logically expect, since it was quite obvious by that time that America was under attack, and an ongoing massive war exercise could, presumably, have led to great confusion within the military about what was real and what was just simulation. Yet, according to Verton's account, it was only around the time of the Pentagon attack that the E-4B launched near Washington was ordered to stop the exercise. This would therefore have been over half an hour after the second attack had occurred. If Verton is correct, we need to know why there was such a delay in pulling this aircraft out of the exercise.

DOOMSDAY PLANES
It is important to note that the E-4B is no ordinary aircraft. It is a militarized version of a Boeing 747-200, equipped with advanced communications equipment, and capable of carrying a crew of up to 112 people. Nicknamed "Doomsday" planes during the Cold War, E-4Bs serve the president, the secretary of defense, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In times of national emergency, they can act as highly-survivable command, control, and communications centers to direct forces, execute war orders, and coordinate actions by civil authorities. The U.S. military possesses four of them in total. One is always kept on alert, with a full battle staff. Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska is the "Main Operating Base" for the E-4B, though there are also numerous "Forward Operating Bases" (FOB) throughout the U.S. [7]

As well as the three E-4Bs in the air the morning of September 11 due to the Global Guardian exercise, what appears to have been the fourth of these planes--presumably the one kept on alert--was apparently activated and launched simply in response to the attacks. Reportedly, minutes after the attack on the Pentagon, it took off from Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, near Dayton, Ohio, bound for an undisclosed location. The plane returned to the base at some unspecified time later on in the day. [8] Like the E-4B launched near Washington, little attention has been paid to this aircraft and what its purpose was on 9/11. Again, no mention was made of it in the 9/11 Commission Report.

This highlights the fact that, approaching the sixth anniversary of the attacks, we still only really know a very small fraction of what was going on during the day of 9/11. As Mark Gaffney rightly concludes, there is an "urgent need for a new 9/11 investigation: It must be nonpartisan, independent, adequately funded, and empowered with the authority to subpoena witnesses." [9]


NOTES
[1] "The White House Has Been Evacuated." Breaking News, CNN, September 11, 2001. The clip can be viewed online at: http://www.archive.org/details/cnn200109110929-1011.
[2] "America Under Attack: Terrorists Attacks in Both Washington, DC and New York." Breaking News, CNN, September 11, 2001. The clip can be viewed online at: http://www.archive.org/details/cnn200109111011-1053.
[3] Mark H. Gaffney, "The 9/11 Mystery Plane." Rense.com, April 5, 2007.
[4] Dan Verton, Black Ice: The Invisible Threat of Cyber-Terrorism. New York: Osborne/McGraw-Hill, 2003, pp. 143-144.
[5] Joe Dejka, "Inside StratCom on Sept. 11 Offutt Exercise Took Real-life Twist." Omaha World-Herald, February 27, 2002.
[6] Joe Dejka, "When Bush Arrived, Offutt Sensed History in the Making." Omaha World-Herald, September 8, 2002.
[7] Stephen I. Schwartz (Editor), Atomic Audit: The Costs and Consequences of U. S. Nuclear Weapons Since 1940. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 1998, p. 210; "E-4B National Airborne Operations Center." Federation of American Scientists, April 23, 2000; "E-4B." U.S. Air Force, August 2007.
[8] Timothy R. Gaffney, "Wright-Pat Air Force Base Goes to Highest Alert." Dayton Daily News, September 12, 2001.
[9] Mark H. Gaffney, "The 9/11 Mystery Plane."
Posted by Shoestring at 13:28

 

[lawofnations]

Now put yourself into the mindset of someone who not only has a fundamental belief that God guarantees they will win, no matter the odds, but also that dying in the name of your God will give you even more rewards than enjoying an earthly victory..

You mean the Islamic fundamentalists who drink alcohol,snort coke & live with pink haired strippers?

Yes, precisely those ones. What's that, uber-religious types are prepared to do unspeakable things in the name of their interpretation of their religion yet conveniently turn a blind eye to other rules when it suits them and so behave hypocritically and yet are still fundamentalist.

If you've never met a religious person who wilfully and hypocritically violates tenets of their religion yet still claims to be a faithful adherent to it, then you're either highly naive or have led an incredibly sheltered life.

Morevoer, as you've pointed out yourself. Religion is for the footsoldiers. The expendable cannon fodder. The ones in charge don't really believe in it.

Cannon fodder tend to be the ones who die first. So what's so unbelieve that the cannon fodder (y'know, the ones you yourself admit are the only ones who "buy" religion) were the ones who were on the planes?

 

[Analis]

http://digwithin.net/2011/12/04/gofer-a ... fb-on-911/

Gofer and Trout: Questions on Two Flights Out of Andrews AFB on 9/11
Posted on December 4, 2011

Due to the incredible number of coincidences proposed by the official reports on the events of September 11, 2001, it makes good sense for citizens to question any improbable claims related to that day. We have been given at least two such odd stories about flights that left Andrews Air Force Base that morning. One represents a highly improbable flight path and the other has produced a contradiction in official accounts.

The first of these flights concerns a large military cargo plane, a C-130H, called Gofer 06. This plane was from the 133rd airlift wing of the Minnesota Air National Guard. The 9/11 Commission Report claims that the Gofer 06 pilot and crew were first-hand witnesses to the demise of both Flight 77 and Flight 93.

It was said that the C-130H pilot, Lt. Col Steve O’Brien, was returning from delivering supplies to the Carribean, which more specifically meant the U.S. Virgin Islands. Air Force Magazine recently reported that seven other crew members were on board, including copilot Maj. Robert Schumacher and flight engineer MSgt Jeff Rosenthal.

The official timeline of this improbable flight begins as follows: Just after 09:30, Gofer 06 took off from Andrews AFB and Flight 77 flew “right in front of [it], a mile and a half, two miles away.”[ii] Air traffic controllers (ATCs) from Reagan National Airport (in Arlington, VA) asked the C-130H pilot to identify and follow the “suspicious aircraft.”[iii] According to the Commission report, Gofer 06 identified the aircraft as a Boeing 757 and, seconds after impact, Lt. Col. O’Brien said — “it looks like that aircraft crashed into the Pentagon, sir.” In the recent Air Force Magazine article, Rosenthal claims that – ”We saw it crash into the Pentagon.”

Therefore, thirty minutes after millions of Americans had witnessed a second aircraft crash in the World Trade Center (WTC), routine flights were taking off from Andrews AFB, the military base with several interceptor jets at the ready only 10 miles from the Pentagon. The interceptor jets would not take off from Andrews until approximately 90 minutes later. This was all happening just minutes after a series of exchanges between Vice President Cheney and a “young man,” which Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta witnessed and testified were focused on “the plane that came into the Pentagon.”[iv]

Numerous questions come to mind when reading just this small part of the official narrative.

° Why would Andrews AFB launch a cargo plane instead of interceptor jets at a time when three airliners had been hijacked and two of them had crashed into the WTC 30 minutes earlier?
° How could civilian ATCs expect an unwieldy cargo plane, which had a cruise speed of 336 mph (and a maximum speed of 366 mph), to keep up with a Boeing airliner which the official report says was traveling at 530 mph?
° Even if Gofer 06 had time to reach its maximum speed immediately, the difference in speeds would have put the two aircraft 3 miles apart for every minute that passed.
° Some reports state that copilot Schumaker looked down on Flight 77.[v] How could he look down on something that was at first right in front of him, at a distance of two miles, and five minutes later was up to 15 miles (more than was possible) further ahead of him?
° And if military cargo planes could take orders from civilian ATCs, why didn’t the ATCs ask Andrews AFB to launch its at-the-ready interceptors, which could travel several times faster than the errant airliner?

It was reported that Lt. Col. O’Brien turned on the news after he witnessed Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, and that’s when he and his crew finally learned what most of us already knew — that the nation was under attack. It was claimed by MSgt Rosenthal that, at this time, “We circled. We loitered briefly.”[vi]

One of the documents released by the 9/11 Commission in response to FOIA requests is the flight tracking strip from Andrews AFB for September 11, 2001. This tracking strip indicates that Gofer 06 took off from Andrews at 9:33 am.[vii] Given that the flight engineer for the cargo plane stated that they circled after witnessing the crash, and a large aircraft takes a few minutes to circle, we must assume that Gofer 06 could not have left the vicinity of the Pentagon any earlier than 9:41 am.

Originally the crew had planned to return to their home station in Minnesota. But then they decided “the prudent thing to do was to get to a safe haven and take a time out.”[viii] They did not go to the nearest safe haven, however, but instead continued on in an improbable path that ended in landing at Cleveland airport, approximately one hour later.

One problem with this new self-determined route taken by the Gofer 06 crew was that Benedict Sliney, the FAA’s national operations manager, had issued a ground stop at 9:42 am, just as Gofer 06 was leaving the Washington area. Per the 9/11 Commission Report, this meant that all aircraft were ordered to land at the nearest airport. Gofer 06 did not land as required by the FAA. Instead, it flew for another hour and passed over numerous airports in Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Ohio.

Of course the truly amazing thing is that Gofer 06 is credited for witnessing not only the crash of Flight 77, but the smoke from the crash of Flight 93. At 10:05, just 27 minutes after seeing the Pentagon crash, the crew of Gofer 06 witnessed black smoke from United 93 at a distance of only 17 miles.

The Andrews AFB flight tracking strip does indicate that Gofer 06’s approved flight plan was from Andrews to the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport. A direct route between these two points would take the cargo plane right by Meyersdale, PA, which is in a direct line to Minneapolis/St. Paul and about 17 miles away from Shanksville.

The direct distance, as the crow flies, between the Pentagon and Shanksville is 127 miles. If we accept that Gofer 06 “circled and loitered” for only 3 minutes starting at 9:38, then it would have had just 24 minutes to reach Meyersdale, PA at 10:05, which is the time that its crew is said to have seen the black smoke from United 93 at a distance of approximately 17 miles. At its rated cruise speed of 336 mph, Gofer 06 would have needed 23 minutes to make this trip. So it is just barely possible.

One might ask a few more questions about this though.

° For example, of all the flight paths that an aircraft taking off from Andrews AFB might have taken, what are the odds that the one plane that was asked to tail Flight 77 just happened to be vectored directly toward the crash site of Flight 93? Just taking the radial probability of all possible flight paths away from the Andrews/Pentagon area would seem to put the odds at 1 in 360, or about 1 in 180 for only land-based paths.

° What are the odds that this one plane that happened to be vectored directly between the crash of Flight 77 and the crash of Flight 93 would have just exactly the time needed to fly between these two historic events? Most military aircraft and any commercial airliner would have been traveling much faster and would have missed seeing the smoke from Flight 93. Therefore, since a C-130H is an unusual type of plane and is relatively slow, the probability would seem to drop considerably lower.

° Why did the crew of Gofer 06 immediately respond to a civilian request to follow Flight 77 but then, for nearly one hour, ignore the FAA’s national operations manager’s order to land at the closest airport? It ultimately landed at Cleveland, another 181 miles (32 minutes at cruising speed) away, after passing by several cities including Pittsburgh.

It could be that these questions amount to nothing more than coincidence and that Gofer 06 really was just a spectacularly improbable flight on the most spectacular day in U.S. aviation history. But another flight that took off from Andrews that morning is the center of yet another paradox. And with regard to that flight, someone seems to either be lying or spectacularly mistaken.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on 9/11, Hugh Shelton, was reported to have been one of the many national leaders who were absent or indisposed on that fateful morning. The official line is that he had taken off from Andrews AFB to fly to a NATO meeting in Hungary and was 1.5 hours out when he was told about the first WTC event. After being told about the second plane going into WTC 2, he told his crew to turn around and go back. Apparently he had to tell them again after they heard about the Pentagon crash, possibly because they had not yet gotten clearance to fly back.[ix]

In any case, Shelton’s plane, a modified C-135 called the Speckled Trout, was about two hours away from Andrews AFB when it turned around. Yet Shelton did not return to the National Military Command Center (NMCC), where his leadership was desperately needed, until 5:40 pm. The exact time that the Speckled Trout landed has not been officially reported although it was listed in the FOIA-released document noted above.

Upon return, Shelton’s plane landed at Andrews Air Force Base, and from there, three patrol cars and about a dozen motorcycle cops escorted him and his staff to the Pentagon. It was said that when Shelton got back to the Pentagon, he initially went to his office and then visited the site of the attack to see the wreckage. After re-entering the building, he finally headed to the NMCC.

Therefore, Shelton’s account appears to say that it took him about six hours to return to the NMCC, after taking only about two hours to return to Andrews on the Speckled Trout. It seems odd that he would spend six hours (8 minus the 2 needed to fly back) in his office and examining wreckage before reporting to the command center when he was in charge.

Shelton’s 2010 autobiography, coincidentally named “Without Hesitation", confirms this timeline and adds a few more details. On page 433, Shelton describes what happened after his initial order to return to the U.S., when he learned of the second WTC crash. He wrote — “Ten minutes later they called back with confirmation that we had been officially cleared to fly through the shutdown airspace. One of our pilots stuck his head out of the cockpit and announced, ‘Sir, our flight path will take us right over Manhattan, if you’d like to come up here about ten minutes from now.’”
Furthermore, Shelton elaborated on the return journey in that he claims to have flown right over the WTC site just minutes after the buildings were destroyed. “We flew directly over what had been the Twin Towers, just a few minutes after they collapsed,” he wrote. And then — “We vectored directly back to Andrews.”

Shelton furthered described what happened when he arrived at Andrews. He claims that an entourage of DC patrol cars met him there and he was escorted immediately to the Pentagon, “which was still ablaze and spewing plumes of thick gray smoke.” And (interestingly) “...the smell of cordite was overwhelming.“

Suzanne Giesemann, an aide to Shelton who was on the Speckled Trout that morning, has confirmed Shelton’s account in her own book. In this account, she reiterates that the plane was routed over the WTC site seemingly just minutes after the towers fell. There is even a photograph of smoke rising from Ground Zero that is attributed to Shelton’s personal photographer, named Jones.[x]

Unfortunately, the September 2011 edition of Air Force Magazine, mentioned earlier, contradicts both of these accounts.[xi] Another article in this issue includes comments from Captain Rob Pedersen, who was the flight navigator for Shelton’s plane on 9/11. This article states that after Shelton instructed his pilot to return to the U.S., the crew didn’t get clearance to return for several hours. This article also claims that the plane did not have any destination and “so we went into a holding pattern near Greenland,” Pedersen said. The new report says that it was Pederson’s, job as the navigator, to come up with a list of alternative landing sites, the possibilities for which included Thule AB, Greenland and NAS Keflavik, Iceland.

The new article suggests that Speckled Trout finally came back through Canada hours later, but was still being denied entry to US airspace, and therefore it was placed in another holding pattern. Pederson states that – “It took a little bit of time, and I’m sure there were a lot of phone calls made, before they let us back in.” The article does mention that the return flight from Canada took the plane over the WTC site and that Pederson took his own photograph out one of the small windows. It is interesting that the route through Canada and the route back over the Atlantic would both go over the WTC site, but the new story concludes that — “By early afternoon, they had made their way to Andrews.”

The flight tracking strip from Andrews AFB indicates that the Speckled Trout, call name “Trout 99,” took off at 7:09 am ET (11:09 Zulu time). The official time that Trout 99 landed back at Andrews is recorded as 4:40 pm.

Many obvious questions arise when considering these contradictory reports.

° Why does Pederson now claim that it took hours to get clearance to return when Shelton said in his book that it took only ten minutes?
° If the Speckled Trout had flown over the WTC just minutes after the buildings were destroyed, meaning before 11 am, how could it have taken nearly six hours to land at Andrews AFB?
° If Shelton’s account was true and the plane landed much earlier, what was he doing for the next six hours, before arriving at the NMCC at 5:40 pm?
° If he did not fly back until hours later after having been in a long holding pattern over Greenland and then another in Canada, why did he not mention any of this in his autobiography? Did he not know what the plane was doing?
° How could Shelton not know the difference between “just minutes” and a period of five or six hours?
° If Shelton’s 2010 account was correct, why would Air Force Magazine make up a story in September 2011 about his plane having been delayed in Greenland for hours and not landing at Andrews until the afternoon?

These may or may not be the most critical questions to answer regarding the events of 9/11. But the story of Gofer 06 has been used to provide evidence for the official accounts, and the question of why so many of the nation’s leaders were absent on that morning should be of great concern to anyone who is interested in the truth. Getting to the truth will require that all such improbable scenarios and contradictions be investigated.

Air Force Magazine, Airmen on 9/11, September 2011 edition, www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/…/0911airmen.pdf

[ii] Andrew Wackerfuss, The Air National Guard Responds on 9/11, New Patriot, July/August 2011. In this article, Lt. Col O’Brien gave details of this encounter — “By then, he [AA 77] had pretty much filled our windscreen. Then he made a pretty aggressive turn so he was moving right in front of us, a mile and a half, two miles away.”

[iii] The 9/11 Commission Report

[iv] See the videotaped testimony of Norman Mineta, given to the 9/11 Commission, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y

[v] Bill Catlin, Museum features Air Guard’s history and role in the war on terror, Minnesota Public Radio, May 31, 2004, http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/f ... ardmuseum/

[vi] Air Force Magazine

[vii] Flight tracking strip from Andrews AFB for September 11, 2001, 911 Working Group of Bloomington

[viii] Air Force Magazine

[ix] History Commons 9/11 Timeline page for Hugh Shelton, http://www.historycommons.org/entity.js ... h._shelton

[x] Suzanne Giesemann, Living a Dream: A Journey from Aide to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to Sull-Time Cruiser, Paradise Cay Publications, 2008, pp 26-27

[xi] Air Force Magazine

 

[kamalktk]

"Why would Andrews AFB launch a cargo plane instead of interceptor jets at a time when three airliners had been hijacked and two of them had crashed into the WTC 30 minutes earlier?"
Because the cargo plane was already on the tarmac for it's scheduled flight/

"How could civilian ATCs expect an unwieldy cargo plane, which had a cruise speed of 336 mph (and a maximum speed of 366 mph), to keep up with a Boeing airliner which the official report says was traveling at 530 mph?"
Because they're civilians and so don't know the max speed of a military plane.

"Some reports state that copilot Schumaker looked down on Flight 77.[v] How could he look down on something that was at first right in front of him, at a distance of two miles, and five minutes later was up to 15 miles (more than was possible) further ahead of him?"
Because down in aviation means ahead. Downrange is the intended path.

"And if military cargo planes could take orders from civilian ATCs, why didn’t the ATCs ask Andrews AFB to launch its at-the-ready interceptors, which could travel several times faster than the errant airliner?"
Because civilian ATC doesn't have the authority. Gofer was already in the air and nearby. Also because it was already too late to launch interceptors.

"For example, of all the flight paths that an aircraft taking off from Andrews AFB might have taken, what are the odds that the one plane that was asked to tail Flight 77 just happened to be vectored directly toward the crash site of Flight 93? Just taking the radial probability of all possible flight paths away from the Andrews/Pentagon area would seem to put the odds at 1 in 360, or about 1 in 180 for only land-based paths."
Those are completely wrong odds. Planes don't get to fly off any which direction they please, they'd constantly crash into each other if they did. They follow predefined paths through the air, rather like being on an expressway. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=H2qTwvaQ_F4

etc.

 

[waitew]

Are you're comparing modern America to Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia?

Every country controls it's own judiciary and every Government is above it's own laws. It's a testament to exactly how successfully people have been 'dumbed down' that it needs to be pointed out.

 

[Bigfoot73]

Interesting that Gofer 06 landed at Cleveland airport - not just because it is a civilian airport a very long way from it's home base but because the supposedly hijacked Delta flight 1989 landed there, followed by a second '1989'. That second plane taxied to the NASA building and disgorged it's passengers who then went inside. Wonder what Gofer 06 did on landing?

 

[waitew]

"And if military cargo planes could take orders from civilian ATCs, why didn’t the ATCs ask Andrews AFB to launch its at-the-ready interceptors, which could travel several times faster than the errant airliner?"
Because civilian ATC doesn't have the authority. Gofer was already in the air and nearby. Also because it was already too late to launch interceptors.

Even the 911 Truth debunkers here at Fortean Times aren't very good. You guys need to take lessons from the experts at JREF or (formerly) the debunkers assigned to RKOwens ' 911 debunked' YouTube videos.
What you've done here is admitted that they were "at the ready" fighters at Andrews (just 10 miles from Washington DC). That's not the 'official' 911 debunking talking point (though it is exactly what Andrews ABS official website said on 911). You're suppose to deny there were "at the ready" fighters at Andrews & blame it on Bill Clinton and budget cuts. Just a heads up you're not following 'official' Debunker protocol.

 

[waitew]

Remember that I also asked that you 'please outline who exactly is responsible on 'the inside'. Name names. Show exactly how, when and where they organised and orchestrated 9/11.'

Can you at least do that?

What we have to 'prove' depends upon what we choose to charge Col. Marr with. I wasn't thinking of charging him with murder or even criminal conspiracy. I was thinking more along the lines of manslaughter or criminal negligence. The idea being to get him in court,under oath & in a position where he's forced to defend himself. If we can do that,the conspiracy will unravel by itself.

 

[McAvennie]

Just a heads up you're not following 'official' Debunker protocol.

Maybe that is cos most people here have a mind of their own and judge a statement or series of events on a case-by-case basis based on the information available and a rational appraisal of the most likely cause rather than follow a pre-ordained 'protocol'?

 

[Jerry_B]

Just a heads up you're not following 'official' Debunker protocol.

Again, you're assuming that people who don't share your views are 'debunkers'. Big mistake if you're trying to have a reasoned discussion here.

Every country controls it's own judiciary and every Government is above it's own laws. It's a testament to exactly how successfully people have been 'dumbed down' that it needs to be pointed out.

That sounds like more assumptions, and nothing to do with things being 'dumbed down'. If you take the UK, for example, the govenerment has lost various cases over the years. Surely this wouldn't happen if your assumptions are correct?

What we have to 'prove' depends upon what we choose to charge Col. Marr with. I wasn't thinking of charging him with murder or even criminal conspiracy. I was thinking more along the lines of manslaughter or criminal negligence. The idea being to get him in court,under oath & in a position where he's forced to defend himself. If we can do that,the conspiracy will unravel by itself.

I thought that you didn't belive in the US judicial system?

Aside from that, you didn't fully answer my question. If we take Marr as being one part of it, you still need to go into more detail. Just to remind you again:

'Please outline who exactly is responsible on 'the inside'. Name names. Show exactly how, when and where they organised and orchestrated 9/11.'

 

[Analis]

"How could civilian ATCs expect an unwieldy cargo plane, which had a cruise speed of 336 mph (and a maximum speed of 366 mph), to keep up with a Boeing airliner which the official report says was traveling at 530 mph?"
Because they're civilians and so don't know the max speed of a military plane.

Civilian or not, they're supposed to know the various planes, notably a plane that is widely known as a Hercules. And even if they didn't, the crew couldn't tell them that it was a propeller aircraft ?

"And if military cargo planes could take orders from civilian ATCs, why didn’t the ATCs ask Andrews AFB to launch its at-the-ready interceptors, which could travel several times faster than the errant airliner?"
Because civilian ATC doesn't have the authority. Gofer was already in the air and nearby.

But the ATC certainly could ask them...

"For example, of all the flight paths that an aircraft taking off from Andrews AFB might have taken, what are the odds that the one plane that was asked to tail Flight 77 just happened to be vectored directly toward the crash site of Flight 93? Just taking the radial probability of all possible flight paths away from the Andrews/Pentagon area would seem to put the odds at 1 in 360, or about 1 in 180 for only land-based paths."
Those are completely wrong odds. Planes don't get to fly off any which direction they please, they'd constantly crash into each other if they did. They follow predefined paths through the air, rather like being on an expressway.

So that's one more coincidence... Many questions remain unanswered.

And one more 'coincidence' :
http://911blogger.com/news/2007-10-10/s ... d-down-911

The Stratcom Stand Down on 9/11
submitted by Shoestring on wed, 10/10/2007 - 3:35pm

It has been established that at the time the 9/11 attacks began, the United States Strategic Command (Stratcom) was in the middle of a major annual training exercise called Global Guardian. Stratcom is responsible for the readiness of America's nuclear forces, and the exercise aimed to test its ability to fight a nuclear war, being described as "one of many practice Armageddons" that the U.S. military routinely conducts. [1]

Questions arise over whether this exercise impeded the military--particularly the staff at Offutt Air Force Base near Omaha, Nebraska, where Stratcom is headquartered--in its ability to respond to the crisis. Global Guardian was not canceled until after 9:03, when the second WTC tower was hit. [2] In fact, some accounts suggest it did not end until after 9:37, when the Pentagon was struck. [3] So could military personnel have mistaken reports of the real attacks for part of the exercise? And might vital resources that could have helped stop the attacks have been unavailable, being used instead for the exercise?

Other evidence indicates that Stratcom may have been further hindered that morning. Perversely, this obstruction came in the form of preparations for a charity fundraiser event.

THE OMAHA CLASSIC
September 11, 2001 happened to be the day that multibillionaire Warren Buffet was scheduled to host his annual golf and tennis charity event, the Omaha Classic. [4] As the Omaha World-Herald reported: "The attacks on that Tuesday morning occurred as a tour group was preparing to visit Stratcom's underground command center," which is located below Offutt Air Force Base. The tour group was "in town for the ninth annual Buffett Classic golf tournament," which "attracts high-powered business and news media people from around the country." The group was scheduled to tour the command center and receive an unclassified mission briefing. [5]

Therefore, before the attacks in New York occurred, "Staff members had left the command center in anticipation of the tour group's visit." Furthermore, "Some of the visitors already were at Stratcom, having breakfast with then-commander in chief Adm. Richard Mies." It was only after 9:03 a.m., when the second World Trade Center tower was hit, that "Mies had to excuse himself from the group." And it was only after the visitors' "tour was canceled" that "the battle staff reconvened in the [command] center." [6] In other words, at the one time when the Stratcom battle staff was most urgently needed, they had just cleared out of their command center. And when the Stratcom commander in chief was needed to defend his country, he was instead having breakfast with a group of VIPs.

THE UNDERGROUND COMMAND CENTER
Although it is unclear what effect the absence of Mies and the members of the battle staff had upon Stratcom's ability to respond effectively to the 9/11 attacks, the underground command center where they should have been had significant capabilities that could, presumably, have been of much use. The command center is a large, theater-like bunker, 60 feet below Offutt, with sophisticated communications systems. The Lincoln Journal Star described it as "a military nerve center that collects and assesses information from high-tech 'eyes and ears' across--and above--the globe." [7] According to Stratcom's website, the senior controller in the command center had "a direct line to the National Military Command Center in Washington, DC, and to the other major command headquarters." This system of communication, called the Joint Chiefs of Staff Alerting Network, gave the commander in chief of Stratcom (i.e. Admiral Mies) the ability to make "prompt contact with the president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and other unified commanders." Furthermore, "Through satellites and radio networks (VLF, LF, UHF and HF), the command center can communicate with aircraft in flight over any part of the world. A principal purpose of these networks is to pass National Command Authority [i.e. the president and secretary of defense] orders to the alert forces." Although only the U.S. president can order nuclear strikes, the commander in chief of Stratcom "can launch aircraft for survival." [8]

The command center had eight massive video screens on the wall. After Richard Mies finally returned from his breakfast, these were "loaded up with data" that provided him with "the latest information on the unfolding drama." [9] Later in the day, at around 2:50 p.m., President Bush arrived at Offutt. At that time, the battle staff in the Stratcom command center was reportedly "watching the skies over the United States," and "tracking a commercial airliner" that was suspected of having been hijacked, "on its way from Spain to the United States." [10] We can gather, therefore, that the center's capabilities ought to have been of much use earlier on, when the attacks began. Yet, at that time, the command center had apparently been vacated.

At present, we have few hard answers, but many questions. Did all the command center's personnel leave it in advance of the visitors' tour, or just some of them? At what time exactly were they back in the center and able to effectively resume their duties? What effect did Richard Mies' absence have? Precisely what capabilities did Stratcom possess that might have been useful in responding to the kind of attacks that occurred on 9/11? The 9/11 Commission appears not to have investigated any of these crucial questions. Yet while we have few answers, one thing is already clear: This all looks highly suspicious.

NOTES
[1] William Arkin, "The Beat Goes On." Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, November 1, 1997; Joe Dejka, "Inside Stratcom on Sept. 11 Offutt Exercise Took Real-Life Twist." Omaha World-Herald, February 27, 2002.
[2] Margo Bjorkman, "Weather Guard and Reservists Activate." Air Force Weather Observer, July/August 2002; Joe Dejka, "When Bush Arrived, Offutt Sensed History in the Making." Omaha World-Herald, September 8, 2002.
[3] Joe Dejka, "Inside Stratcom on Sept. 11 Offutt Exercise Took Real-Life Twist"; Dan Verton, Black Ice: The Invisible Threat of Cyber-Terrorism. New York: Osborne/McGraw-Hill, 2003, pp. 143-144.
[4] Grace Shim, "Warren Buffet, Others Speak About Terrorism at Omaha, Neb., Event." Omaha World-Herald, September 12, 2001; Stephen Buttry, "Final Words, Final Hours Before All Changed." Omaha World-Herald, September 10, 2002.
[5] Joe Dejka, "Inside Stratcom on Sept. 11 Offutt Exercise Took Real-Life Twist."
[6] Ibid.
[7] Don Walton, "Nelson, Stenberg on Nukes." Lincoln Journal Star, October 25, 2000; Joe Ruff, "Stratcom Commander: Mission is Broadening in Fight Against Terrorism." Associated Press, February 21, 2002.
[8] "Strategic Command Command Center." U.S. Strategic Command, June 22, 2001.
[9] Joe Dejka, "Inside Stratcom on Sept. 11 Offutt Exercise Took Real-Life Twist."
[10] Dan Balz and Bob Woodward, "America's Chaotic Road to War." Washington Post, January 27, 2002; "The President's Story." CBS News, September 10, 2003.

 

[Jerry_B]

At present, we have few hard answers, but many questions. Did all the command center's personnel leave it in advance of the visitors' tour, or just some of them? At what time exactly were they back in the center and able to effectively resume their duties? What effect did Richard Mies' absence have? Precisely what capabilities did Stratcom possess that might have been useful in responding to the kind of attacks that occurred on 9/11? The 9/11 Commission appears not to have investigated any of these crucial questions. Yet while we have few answers, one thing is already clear: This all looks highly suspicious.

Er, no it does not look suspicious. It looks like people doing normal day-to-day things getting caught up in a situation and there being some lag time. Articles such as the above just seem to be exercises in pattern forming along the lines of chasing windmills.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Well, at least it gets Col. Marr off the hook. Evidently these non-coincidental events rendered a favourable resolution of the hijackings by him a near impossibility. Or may have. Or indications might be that they may have. Or it is unknown whether they did but they may indicate that they etc etc

I'm frankly disgusted with Warren Buffet for taking part in all these shenanigans, though. You'd expect better from him, you really would.

 

[kamalktk]

"And if military cargo planes could take orders from civilian ATCs, why didn’t the ATCs ask Andrews AFB to launch its at-the-ready interceptors, which could travel several times faster than the errant airliner?"
Because civilian ATC doesn't have the authority. Gofer was already in the air and nearby. Also because it was already too late to launch interceptors.

Even the 911 Truth debunkers here at Fortean Times aren't very good. You guys need to take lessons from the experts at JREF or (formerly) the debunkers assigned to RKOwens ' 911 debunked' YouTube videos.
What you've done here is admitted that they were "at the ready" fighters at Andrews (just 10 miles from Washington DC). That's not the 'official' 911 debunking talking point (though it is exactly what Andrews ABS official website said on 911). You're suppose to deny there were "at the ready" fighters at Andrews & blame it on Bill Clinton and budget cuts. Just a heads up you're not following 'official' Debunker protocol.

I quoted a link saying they were ready, What I did not say was that they were ready. "too late to launch interceptors" could indicate they were anywhere from on the runway for takeoff to still sitting in the hangars. So while you say I "admitted" it, I did no such thing.

I don't follow any "debunker protocol". It's already been noted many times in this thread that people here don't follow any "debunker protocol", mostly because the truth is more important.

 

[kamalktk]

THE UNDERGROUND COMMAND CENTER
Although it is unclear what effect the absence of Mies and the members of the battle staff had upon Stratcom's ability to respond effectively to the 9/11 attacks,

I say the US should lock all the people responsible for it's safety in a room, and not let them have lives. Goodness forbid they do something as non-protecting as attend a charity function, perhaps they would be best chained to their desks, feeding and excreting via tubes, so they never are not at maximum ready.

The link even says that Mies excused himself from the breakfast when the second tower was hit, but then then accuses him of being not there when needed because he was having breakfast with VIPs. He excused himself when it was clear he was needed.

Your other links have been of higher quality.

 

[kamalktk]

"For example, of all the flight paths that an aircraft taking off from Andrews AFB might have taken, what are the odds that the one plane that was asked to tail Flight 77 just happened to be vectored directly toward the crash site of Flight 93? Just taking the radial probability of all possible flight paths away from the Andrews/Pentagon area would seem to put the odds at 1 in 360, or about 1 in 180 for only land-based paths."
Those are completely wrong odds. Planes don't get to fly off any which direction they please, they'd constantly crash into each other if they did. They follow predefined paths through the air, rather like being on an expressway.

So that's one more coincidence... Many questions remain unanswered.

You realize, the odds are actually something like 1 in 5, not 1 in 360. 1 in 5 is not some spooky coincidence.

 

[waitew]

Well, at least it gets Col. Marr off the hook. Evidently these non-coincidental events rendered a favourable resolution of the hijackings by him a near impossibility.

Explain to me exactly how it gets Col Marr off the hook.

 

[waitew]

THE UNDERGROUND COMMAND CENTER
Although it is unclear what effect the absence of Mies and the members of the battle staff had upon Stratcom's ability to respond effectively to the 9/11 attacks,

I say the US should lock all the people responsible for it's safety in a room, and not let them have lives.

The question is how did Al Qeada know this was going on? And it isn't just this there was also an exercise called Vigilant Guardian that NEADS was participating in that day. It had been going on for 3 days and involved a hijacking. When the phone rang at NEADS that day & the caller said he was from Boston Center & was calling to report a hijacking,they were expecting JUST THAT (it was suppose to happen an hour later though) down to the call originating from Boston Center. The FAA violated protocol by calling NEADS directly using the protocol from the scheduled/expected exercise and as a results NEADS personnel thought they were dealing with an exercise NOT a real life situation because had these been real life events the call would have come the NMCC NOT the FAA at Boston Center. How did Al Qeada know the FAA wouldn't follow protocol?

 

[waitew]

'Please outline who exactly is responsible on 'the inside'. Name names. Show exactly how, when and where they organised and orchestrated 9/11.'

I've seen this before. This is the unreasonable and illogical assertion that UNLESS we can explain in intricate & minute detail exactly when,where & how 911 was planned (behind closed doors & in secret) and exactly what day,time & place they met at,who was present & exact contents (word for word) of their conversations THEN we can't know that 911 was an inside job!
So,tell me,what are you expecting? A transcript or secret recording of their conversations? Reasonable people see through this bogus assertion.

 

[Jerry_B]

I've seen this before. This is the unreasonable and illogical assertion that UNLESS we can explain in intricate & minute detail exactly when,where & how 911 was planned (behind closed doors & in secret) and exactly what day,time & place they met at,who was present & exact contents (word for word) of their conversations THEN we can't know that 911 was an inside job!

That's not unreasonable nor illogical, especially as I'm not asking for minute detail. If there's a clear trail of evidence that shows a conspiracy, then show it. And by 'evidence' I don't mean 'assumptions'.

So,tell me,what are you expecting? A transcript or secret recording of their conversations? Reasonable people see through this bogus assertion.

Note that I used the term 'outline'. I want you to say who was responsible. Give us some inkling about when you think it started, who was involved with planning it, and who helped to orchestrate it. Like I said, names names. Surely that should be part and parcel of the TRUTH?

I ask this as I assume that you hold your beliefs because you've made a rational set of choices based on such information. You've seen that trail of evidence and have seen that it can only point to certain individuals. Hopefully also there's some evidence to go with this.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

Explain to me exactly how it gets Col Marr off the hook.

If there were so many obstacles deliberately laid in the path of a successful resolution to the crisis - military drills, billionaire soirees, understaffing in key areas etc - then why the need to have a further obstacle in the shape of Colonel Marr?

If a decision was taken to introduce these obstacles in the belief that they would severely hamper - perhaps fatally so - any military response to the hijackings then Marr is somewhat superflous to the whole operation. If Marr was capable of issuing instructions which would prevent the attacks then the elaborate diversions and planned sabotage elsewhere would have either been rendered ineffectual (if he had executed his orders properly) or unneccessary (if his deliberate misdirection was capable of assisting the attack).

In short, if Marr's actions alone were sufficient to determine the outcome then why expand the conspiracy to include many more people than required? I'm not suggesting that Marr is innocent on this basis, simply that it seems Truthers, as ever, wish to take the existence of contradictory facts as a doubling of the evidence.

See also arguments about the various deaths of Bin Laden where the volume of reports is presented as compelling even though they must by definition invalidate each other.

 

[ted_bloody_maul]

'Please outline who exactly is responsible on 'the inside'. Name names. Show exactly how, when and where they organised and orchestrated 9/11.'

I've seen this before. This is the unreasonable and illogical assertion that UNLESS we can explain in intricate & minute detail exactly when,where & how 911 was planned (behind closed doors & in secret) and exactly what day,time & place they met at,who was present & exact contents (word for word) of their conversations THEN we can't know that 911 was an inside job!
So,tell me,what are you expecting? A transcript or secret recording of their conversations? Reasonable people see through this bogus assertion.

I'd settle for an explanation which is at least as logically and internally consistent as the official account. I've yet to see an outline which doesn't raise more questions about the conspiracy theory being offered than the version of events submitted by the authorities.