I have no interest in reviving the whole tiresome 9-11 imbroglio, but perhaps Members will indulge me in debating a couple of points that seem to diverge wildly from the official report.

Flight 93, and the "Lets roll" story.

It is no secret that US air defences had been massively reduced following the end of the cold war. During the 60s, 70s and 80s the US had literally thousands of fighters on alert, by the time of 911 this number had been gradually reduced, and now stood at between 30-40 fighters.

Even this though does not, IMO, explain the slow responce status, nor the full extent of NORADS failure's that awful day. Lets start with the times NORAD claims it heard of the hijackings. By 8-43am they had information concerning the probable hijackings of the first two planes, it was now, that any system wide crisis emergency plan should have kicked in.At 8-46 flight 11 crashes into the first WTC Tower, surely at this point all regional air traffic controls would have been recieving reports of seemingly co-ordinated hijackings taking place over American airspace, yet when flight 77 is hijacked at 8-46, Norad claims not to hear about it until 9-24, a mere 13 minutes before it crashes into the Pentagon.

The time officially taken to react to the hijack of flight 93 is, if anything, even more staggering, NORAD claims to hear of the hijacking at 9-16, the Pentagon position is that it had not yet intercepted the plane before it crashed, just minutes away from Washington at 10-06, an almost unbelievable 50 minutes after they recieved the report. But some evidence strongly suggests that flight 93 was shot down after all. Officials have never disputed that a secondary debris field existed, more than six miles from the main crash site, local pres claimed it contained one of the planes engines, if true, this points to either an onboard explosion, or an external missile strike, as there has never been the merest suggestion that the terrorists were carring explosives, and a handfull of eyewitnesses reported seeing low flying US military jets in the area at the time of the crash it raises a question, why, if 93 was shot down, the only right thing to do, given the circumstances, has it been repeatedly denied. Conversely, if no fighter jets were on the scene, given the amount of time they had to be there, why on Earth wern't they......Steve.

Some other info to consider. Before 911, the only intercept by NORAD over the continental US was of Payne Stewart's jet. All other intercepts had been over international waters. That is what they trained for. Further, the intercept of Stewart's jet took over an hour and 15 minutes. Even then, the jet was intercepted not by an armed jet used for air defense but instead by and unarmed jet that was already airborne for another unrelated mission and diverted. The air defense jets got there much later.

Matthew thanks for the above, given your background I shall give it the weight it deserves.

a question (and I really dont know the answers) What is the essential difference between an airborn interception over the sea, and one over land.

To your knowledge was no training given to pilots in intercepting, and disabling potential enemy aircraft over the continental United States.

Is the Payne Stewart example, in your opinion, a Like-for like with the situation that pertained on 911. Because it seems a little bit apples and oranges to me.

Regards, Steve.

8-46, Flight 11 hits WTC North Tower.
9-03, Flight 175 hits WTC South Tower.
9-16, Flight 93 goes off course.
9-16, NORAD claims notification of hijack of 93
9-37, flight 77 crashes into the Pentagon
10-06, 93 crashes in Pennsylvania.

The closest airbase was Langley, near Norfolk Virginia, about 129 miles south of Washington. So what is the maximum airspeed of an Airforce Jet, on an emergency intercept proceedure.

Steve – If you don’t mind – I happened to do a lot of research about this topic when I had a discussion with a conspiracy believer a few years back -

NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command) was set up as command and control for the defense of the US and Canada's from outside aerial attack (aircraft and missile). As such, most if not all of the sensing equipment looks outside of our boarders.

The goal was to intercept enemy aircraft long before they got close the boarders. In the case of a real attack, the goal was to destroy the enemy, NOT disable them – didn’t matter if it was over water or land. During the cold war, our interceptors would simply fly in close proximity to the other aircraft – a mostly friendly game of tag – they tested us, we let them know we spotted them.

There is no practical way to force another plane to change course or land if the other pilot’s #1 goal isn’t living.

He gave you the Stewart example because, as far as we know, it is the only time NORAD intercepted a civilian aircraft over the US. There wasn’t any clear channel between the FAA and the military and the military had no pre-established rules for such an intercept, which is the primary reason that it took so long for the Stewart flight to be intercepted. Those channels had not been established on 9-11.

As for the airspeed of an intercept, all aircraft are limited to below Mach 1 over the US in peacetime. IRRC, that was one of the quandaries for the pilots dispatched to intercept Flights 11 and 175 – whether or not to go supersonic. Also, there was much confusion about who had the authority to order a shoot-down of a civilian airliner. Another factor governing the response time for an intercept is how long it would take to pre-flight and arm an aircraft, assuming there was a pilot available. I don't think there were many USAF bases with interceptors at the ready between the end of the Cold War and 9-11.

The Payne Stewart example was already addressed well by Steve Ulman. As for the question about fighters from Langley, I don't believe Langley was one of the bases that had alert fighters. IIRC, there were only 4 fighters on alert status in the east that day. That was normal at that time with the drawdown with the disappearance of the Russian threat. Even if they did, there would be some time associated with getting the aircraft running (only in the most extreme cases are alert aircraft already running and ready to go), taxi to takeoff and get airborne. Then they have to climb to altitude. Depending on their alert status, they could be running and airborne in as little as 10-15 minutes also depending on the alert training they have had. Already addressed was the issue of going supersonic over land. I believe that the situation has changed now since 911 that they are allowed in the case of an emergency but they weren't before. Even if they had been allowed, it takes some time to get to an altitude to go supersonic (much easier to go fast at higher altitudes than at sea level, not to mention safer) and it takes some time to speed up. It is not instantaneous. There also has to be a consideration of how much fuel going supersonic will use. It does no good to get there fast on the afterburner if you can't do anything when you're there.

I too have spent considerable time on this subject. I'd like to know what Steve U. and Steve T. and Matt Lewis have to say about my report, as it stands so far.

The 177^th New Jersey Air National Guard on 9/11

Why none of the hijacked airlines were intercepted
By William Kelly –

The new, multi-million dollar state-of-the-art communications facility at the 177th New Jersey Air National Guard base at the Atlantic City airport is now there because of the events of September 11, 2001, a belated effort to ensure that there are no more breakdowns in the lines of communication and command like those that occurred on 9/11.

While some of the problems have been addressed by the 9/11 Commission Report and recommendations, there are still unanswered questions about what happened that day, among them – why none of the hijacked planes intercepted by jet fighters.

There is also the question as to why no one been held responsible and accountable for the breakdown in our national and personal security that day. Most of those in command positions that day remained there or have been promoted.

At the Atlantic City Airport, the new communications facility is there as a direct result of what happened on 9/11.

It was just another typical Tuesday weekday morning for most of those who worked at the 177th New Jersey Air National Guard base at Atlantic City airport, including James Cusak, an F-16 pilot who, with his wingman, taxied out to the runway shortly before 8:30 am on September 11, 2001.

Sometime after 8 a.m., Cusak, whose radio handle is "Gilligan," along with his wingman, a former Navy pilot who attended Annapolis, were all fueled and ready to go. They slowly made their way out to the end of the runway, prepared to go on a practice bomb run in upstate New York. They waited at the end of the runway for quite a while, without being given the signal to take off. After about twenty minutes, both pilots later said they sensed something was wrong, and suspected something had happened, perhaps a personal family emergency, but not what was really going down.

Eventually they were told not to take off and return to headquarters.

It would be fifteen minutes before the first hijacked plane would crash into the World Trade Center and the world would know something was wrong, but some of those on duty at the 177th headquarters knew because they had received a troubling telephone call from a Boston Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) official requesting jet fighter support for a hijacking in progress.

The 177th has jet fighters, except that after being on 24-7, 24 hour, seven days a week alert status for decades, that's more than twenty years, the unit was taken off alert two years earlier, in 1999.

Usual missions for the 177th included escorting Soviet planes down the coast heading for Cuba and South America, and buzzing Russian nuclear submarines offshore. Now they were occasionally enforcing the no-fly zone over Iraq and running training exercises, as they were on that Tuesday morning, September 1, 2001.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which has a large facility (The William Hughes Technical Center) right there at the Atlantic City Airport, is responsible for air traffic safety in the continental United States. When FAA officials in Boston realized there was an air emergency, and more than one plane was being hijacked by terrorists, they notified the military.

The FAA Boston Center made the call – but apparently to the wrong number. The closest base to Boston with jet fighters on alert status was Otis AFB at Cape Cod, Massachusetts, but Boston FAA Center called Atlantic City, outside the routine chain of command.

Apparently the person who received the call in Atlantic City informed Boston FAA that they were off alert and Otis was the closest base on alert because Otis also got a panicky call from Boston FAA requesting jet fighter assistance for a hijacking. But because that call too, did not come through the regular chain of command, the pilots there got ready, but didn't take off until ordered to do so.

According to the 9/11 Commission Report [p. 20 Military Notification and Response], "Boston Center did not follow the protocol in seeking assistance through the prescribed chain of command. In addition to notification within the FAA, Boston Center took the initiative, at 8:34, to contact the military through the FAA's Cape Cod facility. The center also tried to contact a former alert site in Atlantic City, unaware it had been phased out. At 8:37:52, Boston Center reached NEADS. This was the first notification received by the military – at any level – that American 11 had been hijacked."

[Footnote p. 458- (115) FAA memo, "Full Transcript: Aircraft Accident; AAL1; New York, NY: September 11, 2001," April 19, 2002, p. 5; Terry Biggio interview (Sept. 22, 2003); Collin Scoggins interviews (Sept. 22, 2003; Jan. 8, 2004;): Daniel Bueno interview (Sept. 22, 2003)."]

According to transcripts of a tape of that conversation, it went like this:

"FAA: Hi Boston Center TMU [Traffic Management Unit], we have a problem here. We have a hijacked aircraft headed towards New York, and we need you guys to, we need someone to scramble some F-16s or something up there, help us out…"

NEADS: Is this real-world or exercise?

FAA: No, this is not an exercise, not a test."

At the time the Northeast Air Defense Sector was involved with NORAD in a number of war games [ Vigilant Guardian – simulated Russian attack over the Artic; Vigilant Warrior – simulated hijackings; Northern Vigilance – simulated attack over Alaska and Canada; Northern Guardian and a CIA/NRO exercise of a plane crashing into a defense contractor building.], so the confusion was mounted by these war games.

If a similar call came in to the 177th, they would have been told that the 177th was not on alert and to try Otis, which was on alert. It is probable the 9/11 Commission Report got the order of phone calls backwards, and the call to the Atlantic City came in before the call to Otis, since Otis was on alert and there would have been no need to notify Atlantic City if Otis was already called, unless they called Atlantic City before notifying NEADS. Notifying NEADS would have been the correct chain of command rather than notifying the alert base(s) directly.

While it has yet to be determined exactly who in Boston made the call and who in Atlantic City received the request, (and if there is a tape recording or transcripts of the conversations), the call set off an alarm at the 177th base that is still being heard. It delayed the take-off of two F-16 jet fighters from their bombing practice mission, and brought them back to their headquarters and led to the construction of the new, multi-million dollar communications facility at the base.

By the time the two pilots arrived back at their 177th headquarters that September 11th morning, helmets in hand, they saw the first burning tower on television, and realized what was up. But they also realized how unprepared they were for what was happening. For one thing, while their planes were fueled and ready to go, the bomb displacements on their planes had to be reconfigured from bombs to air-to-air missiles, and the missiles had to be retrieved from a remote former nuke bunker hundreds of yards away and then mounted under their wings.

If the two F-16s on the runway at 8:30 am would have taken off on time, they would have intercepted the first plane before it crashed into the WTC, although without any weapons, they would only have been able to observe the situation.

When United Air Flight 175 was hijacked at approximately 8:42 am [See map: 9/11 CR p. 32], it flew directly south before cutting over the New Jersey Pine Barrens and North to strike the WTC. It was a path that would have intersected the 177th F-16s had they taken off anytime before 9 am, a full half hour after the first request for assistance came in to Atlantic City.

Piloted by Victor Saracini, an Atlantic City native, whose daughter was an acquaintance of Cusak, UA 175 out of Newark, N.J. was one hijacked plane that could have been intercepted by the jet fighters, but it wasn't because the planes were refitted with air-to-air missiles.

Cusak later said that he wondered what he could have done if he intercepted a hijacked airliner without being armed. Could he have tipped its wings or rammed the plane or otherwise prevented the hijacked plane for completing its suicide mission? He concluded that he couldn't have done so without dying himself, and maybe would have done so, but was never presented with that circumstance.

As General Richard Meyers USAF, then the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said, "We are the last line of defense," and the air forces should come into play only after the failure of all other lines in the multi-layered defense including the penetration of the country at the borders, evading airport security, breaching the cockpit and hijacking the plane, so the air defense failures are magnified by those before it.

117th MISSION STATUS – OFF ALERT

Then there's the issue of the change in the mission status of the 177th N.J. Air National Guard that for over two decades, always had two planes on alert status, on the tarmac, armed, fueled and ready to go, and two pilots on standby, within a few hundred yards of the planes. They had the ability to intercept planes or boats from upper New York state to Virginia, or to put up a protective air umbrella over New York, Philadelphia or DC within a matter of minutes.

Historically, the 177th NJANG began in September 1917 as the 199th Aero Squadron, an active duty training unit during World War I. In 1958, the 199th Fighter Squadron moved to Egg Harbor Township, N.J., and was activated in 1961 during the Berlin crisis. In 1962 it was re-designated the 177th Tactical Fighter Group, and was reactivated during the Pueblo incident in 1968, as well as during Desert Storm and in Panama. But the 177th was most proud of its active, alert status protecting the skies from New York to Virginia.

With 17 single-seat F-16C "Fighting Falcon" aircraft, the wing maintains its base in buildings on a 296 acre tract at the Atlantic City International Airport, which is also the home of the William Hughes FAA Technical Center. The airport's extra-long runways are cleared for landings of the Concord, when it was flying, and Air Force One.

A typical mission at the height of the Cold War would be to intercept and escort Soviet Russian aircraft heading for Cuba and South America, or buzz a Soviet nuclear submarine offshore, but after the fall of the Berlin Wall and Soviet Communism in Russia, the mission of the 177th changed. They were taken off alert status in October, 1998, according to the Defense Reform Initiative (DRI).

As Cusak later explained, the new defense posture would be a quadrangle grid, with an alert base responsible for each grid, a sort of zone defense, which he attributed to Gen. Colon Powell, then Commander of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

When General Meyers testified before the 9/11 Commission, Commissioner Jamie Gorelick asked him, "….You know 20/20 hindsight is perfect, but if I were sitting at the Pentagon and seeing the kinds of threats that were coming in that summer, I would say to myself, is business as usual appropriate? I mean, the question I have is whether you thought to say: Should we have defenses pre-positioned in a way that we don't? We know that our forces, that our aircraft from NORAD came to late to the Pentagon."

Meyers response: "Sure, we changed our whole air defense posture at the end of the Cold War. We went from about 22 sites [on alert status – including the 177th] down to about 7, I believe, between the United States and Canada, PURPOSELY AND AT DIRECTION OF OUR LEADERSHIP." (Emphasis added –BK).

So a subtle, but profound change in military and defense policy occurred in 1997-1998 when the Defense Reform Initiative was enacted, and "designed to streamline the organizational structure and business practices of the Department of Defense."

Still unasked is why did it cost more to do less? As 9/11 Commissioner and former Navy Secretary John Lehman, a pilot himself publicly pondered, "We have hundreds of jet planes that cost millions of dollars each all along the coast, so how much more would it cost to keep some of them armed and fueled?"

At the time, as part of the Quadrennial Defense Review proposals of May, 1997, the Air Force removed the Air National Guard (ANG) fighter wings, including the Atlantic City and Andrews AFB units, from their traditional and historic air defense alert mission status and made them part of the general-purpose fighter force, reducing the number of dedicated air defense units from 10 in 1997 to 4 in 2001. Others have sited statistics that they went from 20 to 7, including those in Canada and Alaska, but in any case, the number of jet fighter bases on alert was dramatically decreased before 2001.

Reported in the 177th's 1998 Annual Report, "As a result of NORAD tasking, the 177th Fighter Wing began conversion to the general purpose F-16 mission on October 1, 1998. This action ended the wing's 25-year association as part of NORAD's alert force. During that tenure, the wing's NORAD responsibility included providing air sovereignty of the mid-Atlantic between Long Island, New York and the Virginia Capes. As of October 1, the wing extended into its extensive period of general-purpose F-16 role, the 177th will be capable of assuming a variety of air force missions to include overseas deployments and assignments to one of the newly created Air Expeditionary Force." One of the overseas deployments the 177th participated in was enforcing the "No-Fly Zone" over Iraq.

In the months leading up to September 11, 2001, the 177th ran simulated and real bombing runs, and simulated and live air-to-air missile training at Tyndal Air Force Base in Florida, the home of the First Tactical Air Force Headquarters of the NORAD defense system of the Northeast Sector of the continental United States.

The 177th also participated in Operation Stand Down, a community effort to assist homeless veterans, that through its name, infers the non-alert status of the deactivated wing.

On the morning of September 11th 2001, the 177th was not part of the NORAD defense command, which was engaged that morning in an annual war game exercise – VIGILANT GUARDIAN, or any of the other war games being enacted.

According to S. Rowan Wolf, another change in command status occurred on May 8, 2001, when it was announced that President Bush placed Vice President Dick Chaney in charge of Domestic Counter-Terrorism. Wolf interprets that, "…dramatically changed the decision making chain of authority, effectively centralized all response to Chaney, not to NORAD."

In addition, as the military would repeatedly point out during the 9/11 Commission inquiry, the FBI, FAA and domestic law enforcement agencies were tasked with the primary response to a terrorist attack, not NORAD, which as a military department, was prevented by "Pose Comatas" from engaging in domestic law enforcement activities.

Nor were the pilots trained to respond to a situation such as being ordered to shoot down an unarmed commercial airliner with Americans on board, even though that scenario was part of some of the war imagined war games being conducted by the military.

An order to shoot down an unarmed commercial airliner would have to originate with the president and come down the official chain of command, opposite the way the early warnings of hijacked planes went up the chain of command.

Regardless of the possible armed military response, they do have a clear role to intercept, monitor, survey and escort planes that have strayed from their planned route, which they did many times over the preceding two years under the new quadrangle zone defense posture. They did not need to know if this was a hijacking to respond as they had in the past when the first sign of an air emergency was clear – off course, off transponder, off communications and not responding to commands. "They routinely respond to any plane that drifts off-course," said John Judge, of the 9/11 Citizens Research Project, "and did so hundreds of times a year before 9/11, but not on that day."

So on the morning of September 1, 2001, the entire air defense of North America was in the hands of 14 fighter pilots on alert at 7 sites in the continental United States, Alaska and Canada.

As General Meyers testified, "In accordance with Department of Defense (DOD) directives in effect on 9/11, NORAD was to monitor and report the actions of any hijacked aircraft, as requested by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). We had procedures for potential air hijackings, which were based on the premise that a hijacked aircraft would be used for ransom or political purposes, not as a weapon."

"On the morning of 9/11, we were conducting a NORAD command post exercise and our headquarters and regions were postured for 'wartime conditions.' Six minutes prior to the first attack on the World Trade Center, the FAA informed NORAD of the potential hijack of American Airlines Flight 11. As events unfolded throughout the morning, NORAD responded immediately with fighters and appropriate airspace control measures. Unfortunately, due to the constraints of time and distance, we were unable to influence the tragic circumstances."

The entire excuse of the DOD for not intercepting any of the hijacked planes is set in the timeline-chronology. But rather than six minutes before the first plane hits the WTC, 8:40 am, when NEADS is alerted, the alarm should have gone off ten minutes earlier, at 8:30 when the FAA Boston Center first attempted to call Atlantic City and Otis. But being off alert, they could not respond.

[/size]

If that call did not come in however, the two F-16s on the tarmac would have taken off on their scheduled mission and however coincidently they would have intercepted the second plane to hit the World Trade Center, and although lacking air-to-air missiles or weapons of any kind, they could have tried change the outcome of the day.

William Kelly
Bkjfk3@yahoo.com

Parts of this article previously appeared in the Egg Harbor Township Current newspaper.



[size="3"]xxxx

In this video Rumsfeld speaks of the "plane shot down over Pennsylvania - although he's not necessarily a trustworthy source

One wonders, indeed, whether Rumsfeld could lie straight in his coffin?

Flight 93 seems to have been - like the Pentagon hit that same day - a case no apparent corpses - yet subsequent DNA analysis enabled almost perfect confirmation of the respective flight lists.

Oh, the wonders of modern science!

This page on the physics911.ca site is well worth a look - as is the rest of that fine website

Sid,
I'm sure Bill can tell you about a lady named T Carter. She was an air hostess on the route of the plane that hit the pentagon. Obviously she was not in work that day. many of her friends died in the crash. She was allowed into the crash area following the incident. She had to identify the arm of her best friend, which still had a friendship bracelet that T had given her on it.
Most of the people that believe that a plane did not hit the pentagon dismiss T's story without investigating it or verifying it for themselves. She spoke at the 2002 COPA conference about it.

A lot of people proclaiming to be 'researchers' into 9/11 simply state that they don't believe her. Research is not a case of what you believe, it is what you can prove.
I thought that this story might interest you Sid,
All the best,
John

William-

Excellent work. You've done a great job connecting the details of 9-11 to the overall defense issues in play at the time. I just wish we had some more details about just who (agency or person) was supposed to have taken responsibility that day. Unfortunately, either everyone did a great job of CYA or no one has a clue.

I'd seen some of the info from various sources before - perhaps even your article. Your info matches and expands everything I could find regarding the 9-11 response as well as the changes in our defense posture as part of the "Peace Dividend".

What has always bothered me about the our reduction in force allowing the "Peace Dividend", is that the bureaucrats were more concerned about making it look good for JQ Public, than they were about making sure everything still worked. Of course, no one knew just how messed up the system was until it was really needed. History tells us that 9-11 wasn't the first time that has happened - and probably won't be the last.

Well, she's a new new for me, John. As you didn't provide a reference, i thought I'd google her up.

So I googled "flight 93" and "T Carter".

First and only liunk was to the COPA 2002 conference.

Here she is...


So it seems that T Carter is what the cricketing community call an "all-rounder".

Not only does she claim to have witnesses one of the 'hijackers' doing test flights.

She also was a regular on Flight 93.

She can also put a presentation together about the MLK assassination.

And you tell me, John, that some folk think she may not be the full quid? A disinformationalist, even?

Surely not!

How could anyone be so horrid!

Whatever happened to the Age of Innocence?

Diane Burley (sp?) called me last week and asked me to be on her Chicago radio talk show and discuss John O'Neill and 9/11.

Another guy was on as co-host, whose name I didn't get.

In any case, in the course of the program I mentioned Peter Lance's new book Triple Cross, and his assertion that John O'Neill and the FBI covered up the terrorist bomb that was planted on Pan Am 800 - which blew up after taking off from NY. O'Neill got help from the CIA to show that what appeared to be a missle hitting the plane was actually flames shooting out of fuel tank. They tried to show that it was a electrical malfunction that sparked the empty center fuel tank to explode.

Lance shows that the alQaeda terrorist on trial in NY -Yossef, from prison, order there was resudue of a small bomb like the Boshinka plot bombs, assembled from different parts aboard the plane and placed under a seat near the fuel tanks and set to explode on the next flight, so it was not a sucide mission. I don't know why O'Neill, the FBI and the CIA would cover up the terrorist bomb plot to make it appear a malfunction, but it appears they did.

In any case, because Lance's scenario didn't include a missile shooting down the plane, or a missile hiting the Pentagon, this other host, when asked his opinion, merely branded me a disinformation agent of the government.

Where these missiles come from doesn't seem to concern some people.

As for T. Carter, she doesn't need anyone to stick up for her.

BK

Sid,
You have just jumprd, two footed, into the account of T Carter and dismissed her without any deliberation. Dismissing witnesses because they do not fit into the scenario that you believe in is not critical thinking, it is selectivee evidence.

You accuse her of disinformation, a groundless statement. The fact that she was a JFK and MLK researcher previous to 9/11, the fact that she knew the flight crew on board that day, the fact that she was at the Pentagon crash site shortly after it happened, and the fact that she saw one of the hijacker on a practise run would immediately tweak my ears as an item of interest for any 9/11 researcher. I would give her analysis of events considerably more credibility than I would yours Sid, condiering that she has first hand experience of the evidence and did not come to her conclusions based on the information circulating the internet.

Jack White, too dismissed T Carter as having been duped in an elaborate hoax propogated by the govt. My word they do cover all the angles don't they! As well as being a researcher, T is also a very good friend of John Judge, life long researcher and general Government watchdog.

People seem to have preconceived notions about 9/11 and the only new evidence that is deemed credible is that which fits with their existing paradigm.

Sid, just what exacty do you mean by your insinuations, are you branding her a disinformationalist based solely on the fact that her account does not fit with your explanation of the Pentagon crash. Will you not even consider her account before summarily dismissing it?
Selective research is just as bad as no research.

John

It's an accusation I don't usually make lightly, Bill.

In this case, it was a quip - and in no way directed at you.

I'm well aware of the destructive, unproductive directions that discussions on these important topics take once folk start accusing each of being spooks.

I have no idea whether T Carter is for real or not. Perhaps she is?

But if she is, I would suggest she's ham-fisted in the extreme.

The following citation almost cries out for disbelief:



What's she up to now, I wonder. Does she have a full name - or does everyone call her 'T'?

Does anyone have more recent references about 'T Carter', her theories and remarkable first hand experiences?

John

I've already explained - in my previous post to Bill - the extent of my comment.

It was a light hearted quip.

Had you provided references to this woman and her output, revealing her background - and not left me to google her up and take pot chance - I might have come sooner to your indubitably sound and very respectful opinion of her.

Do you have any such references, by the way?

- duplicate post deleted - see next -

John,

You have me concerned that I may inadventently have cast aspersions on a decent human being.

So I googled a little more for T Carter.

Here she is! ....



All of which is interesting and most praiseworthy.

It does not, however, fully explain the staggering co-incidence that this same person, with so much prior interest in the topic of conspiracies, was also "was a regular stewardess on that flight (93?) and had witnessed one of the alleged hijackers doing a pre-911 test flight"

BTW, John, do you know what "inside information on disinformation related to telephone calls associated with this flight" T Carter has to share?

John,

One other minor point about 'T Carter'.

This page on the COPA site says "Researcher T Carter explains her relation to flight 93 which slammed into the Pentagon September 11th, 2001."

Yet Flight 93 didn't fly into the Pentagon - on anyone's account of what happened! The plane that (supposedly) did that was Flight 77.

Presumably it's just a typo?

It had me confused, because this thread was initially about Flight 93...

Anyhow, the next line says "She is a flight attendant and one of her usual routes was Flight 77 - the plane that went into the Pentagon."



Perhaps you can clear this up for us and for posterity?

Gentlemen, thanks for the information, Bill, great research, usual.

Lets take some time to see what the few eyewitnesses to this event had to say.

Susan McElwain, local resident, "It was a small jet, it came right over my head, I reckon about no more than 40, to 50 feet above me, it was so low I ducked instinctively, it was traveling real fast, but hardly made any sound. It had two rear engines,a big fin on the back like a spoiler on a car, and two upright fins on the side."(f-16?) So, in the immeadiate area she observes a twin engine jet from a maximun of 50 feet, just prior to flight 93 crashing. Five other witnesses also reported seeing this jet, one less than half a mile from the crash site, he observed flight 93 as it crashed, he then saw a small white jet fly low to the ground over the crash site, circle, then leave the area at high speed.

ohn Fleegle, Jim Brant and Carol Delasko were about two and a half miles from the crash site, according to a Pittsburg newspaper they heard," Engines screaming close overhead, the biulding shook, we ran outside HEARD THE EXPLOSION, and saw a fireball mushroom"....Delasko.."I thought a boat had blown up on the lake,it looked like confetti raining down in the air over the lake." Within a second or two flight 93 passed over the marina where they stood, debris from the plane was falling into the lake, a lot of debris, some of it on fire. The plane was still about twenty seconds from crashing when this occured, its cargo, and passenger areas had been blown open by an explosion.

double post. Sorry

Sid,
The flight 93 reference is indeed a typo. It is not a COPA site, it is a report of a COPA conference on the parapolitics site. T Carter does not administrate the site so take it up with whoever does.
With regards to T Carters account of inside information re: phone calls, you could have found that on the COPA page at the parapolitics site ...

I will email John Judge in reference to T Carters account and I will also try to obtain a copy of the COPA 2002 conference so that you can hear her testimony in full.

Here is another account of T's MLK and JFK research



The question still stands Sid, what are you basing your mistrust for T Carter on? You have made insinuations that because she has researched MLK and JFK she, therfore, must be some kind of conspiracy nut and is writing herself into history. Correct me if I am wrong, but that is the general feeling that I get.

I will post more info later today.
All the best,
John

John, with all due respect, how about you start a thread on T Carter, so you and Sid can debate her bona fides there, this one is about flight 93. Regards, Steve.

I have ordered the 2002 COPA conference on dvd, anyone that wishes to do the same can do so at http://justicevision.blogspot.com/2004/11/...-late-2002.html .
When I get the dvd I will make a transcript of T's account.
John

Steve,

Getting back to Flight 93 - The 177th pilots that I talked to, who would have intercpted the second WTC flight had they taken off as scheduled on their routine bombing practice run - although without being armed - after retrning to base and rearming with air to air missiles - a procedure that took about an hour, they took off armed.

At first, they said, they were ordered vector - west - from Atlantic City, which is heading directly for Western Pa. - Ohio - but after only a few minutes heading in this direction they were reordered to fly to NYC, where they were the first non-alert jets to arrive.

They speculated to me that they think they were headed to meet up with Flight 93 and after it crashed, were redirected to NYC, though I haven't put this on an accurate timeline to check it.

Also, one of the biggest coincidence of the day was the takeoff of a Military cargo plane from DC, who witnessed the plane hit the pentagon, and then headed west and witnessed the crash of Flight 93. What are the odds of one witness seeing both?

I would have been more curious about this flight but noone seems to bother with it.

As for checking Tamara's bonifides, anyone who questions her integrity merely looses their own.

BK

Of course Steve, sorry for getting off topic.
John

It is indisputable that the government has lied and covered up about Flight 93. The military lied, in a detailed scenario, about being aware of and sending interceptors after 93 before it crashed. (Or else the military subsequently lied about not knowing anything about 93 until after it crashed. Which was it?) The government has suppressed all information about a NetJet, a "private" jet tracking Flight 93 at the time it crashed, as acknowledged by NetJets. And the government has suppressed the identity of the FAA highjack coordinator on 9/11, who sat in the hot seat as the link between FAA and the military. That person would have some tough questions to answer, except that the person virtually doesn't exist and is therefore unaccountable. If there was no designated highjack coordinator at FAA on that particular day of all days, the government has suppressed that information too.

The story stinks, but the general public, and the controlled media that it listens to, doesn't care.

Ron

I'd guess that fewer than 1% of the American population could put together a paragraph about Fight 93 - as you have done - that cogently summarizes key problems with the Government's official story.

So.. again, I think you're too harsh on Joe Public. You tend to blame the victim, Ron.

Perhaps some Americans don't care. But I think most Americans would care very much if they became as well-informed about 9-11 as you are - even more so if they saw how to help bring the real perpetrators to justice.

As for the 'controlled mass media' - that's a whole different matter...

I believe that in a democracy people get the government they deserve.

Two American crime families, the Bushes and Clintons, have occupied the White House now for 18 years (26 if you include the Reagan years during which George H.W. Bush ran things behind the scenes while claiming to be "out of the loop"). Hillary is now ready to take her turn. How are the people who keep voting for these crooks the victims?

In the support they get from the voters, the Bushes and Clintons are not unlike the TV evangelist Jim Bakker in his heyday. Someone reportedly asked him privately why he, ostensibly a man of God, had such a luxurious life style, and Bakker said, "Because fools keep sending me money."

The problem with theories that flight 93 was shot down is the absolute dearth of evidence to support them. Numerous witnesses saw the plane crash or shortly before or after it crashed both on the ground and in the air. None (that I know of) reported seeing:

- the plane struck by a missile.

- damage consistent with a missile stike.

- an F-15, F-16 or other fighter in the vicinity.

True a few witnesses describe seeing a white “military style jet” but their descriptions of the plane resemble that of the executive jet reported in the area and don’t match that of any fighter except possibly the A-10 “Warthog” (Ron suggested this a while ago) which is unlikely to have been used since:

Its top speed of about 438 MPH is much slower that other fighters and less even than a 757.

It is designed to provide air support for ground forces e.g. attack tanks etc and would not be well suited to shooting down an airborne and faster flying Boeing.

One also wonders why they would use such a plane and fly it low when they could have shot flight 93 more easily, quickly and inconspicuously with an air to air fighter at high altitude. (Hopefully Evan will further elaborate on this point)

Shot down theorists point to the debris field but with the exception of an engine turbine found about 1000 feet down hill from the crash site there is little evidence of anything other than lightweight debris paper, seat covers and some screws found far from the rest of the wreckage. As for the turbine one has to take into account the energy of the crash of a 100 ton aircraft at an acute angle at 580 mph (930 kph) and that of a spinning turbine providing half the thrust to keep a 100 ton aircraft airborne and flying at 580 mph and that it was found downhill from the rest of the plane.

CNN report on Flight 93:

America Under Attack: FBI and State Police Cordon Off Debris Area Six to Eight Miles from Crater Where Plane Went Down

"DARYN KAGAN, CNN ANCHOR: Yes, we want to take our viewers live to Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Our Brian Cabell is standing by. This of course is the site where United
Airlines flight 93 crashed on its way from Newark to San Francisco, crashed on Tuesday, and I understand, in this investigation, there's some breaking news. Brian, what can
you tell us?

BRIAN CABELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Daryn, in the last hour or so, the FBI and the state police here have confirmed that have they cordoned off a second area
about six to eight miles away from the crater here where plane went down. This is apparently another debris site, which raises a number of questions. Why would debris from
the plane -- and they identified it specifically as being from this plane -- why would debris be located 6 miles away. Could it have blown that far away. It seems highly unlikely.
Almost all the debris found at this site is within 100 yards, 200 yards, so it raises some question. We don't want to overspeculate of course. But there were some cell phone
callers, one cell phone caller in particular, who said saw a bomb, or something that looked like a bomb with one of the hijackers. Also, the man who took over the plane
apparently announced at one point, he had -- there was a bomb on board the plane.
Again, we don't want to speculate, we don't want to jump to conclusions. But what we do know is that there's a site about half mile behind me, where the plane went down, where
most of the debris is, and then about six miles away up by a lake, there is another area that's been cordoned off, and state police and the FBI have said definitely there is
debris from the plane located there. We have a crew on the way right now. We should have pictures of that a little bit later on.

KAGAN: Which was first question, so I'll move on to my next one, Brian.
WE don't want to speculate about this large debris field. But it seems to me from covering a number of plane crashes on the scene, that if nothing else, this is not typical for a
plane crash to be spread across an area this large.

CABELL: It's certainly doesn't make sense, because most of the debris has been found in a very compact area, within 100 yards, 200 yards, maybe a little bit beyond that.
Then all of a sudden they're telling us six miles away, they have another concentration of debris, very small pieces. Most peoples here no bigger than the size of briefcase. The
debris six miles away may be smaller. We have talked to a number of individuals here. They say they have talked to people who saw this plane during the final moments. They
haven't confirmed whether they saw -- whether they talked to anybody who saw this plane actually land, or crash rather, and as to whether it broke up on the way, we don't
know that. The FBI being very tight-lipped about that.
But again, at It leads to that possibility. It certainly leads to a number of questions.

KAGAN: You mentioned they have yet to find the black box. It would seems to me when you compare the four plane crashes of Tuesday, this would be the site where they
would be most likely to find a black box.

CABELL: That's what they told us initially, and I think they're somewhat disappointed they haven't found it. It's been 48 hours, but they are still hopeful they will find it. There
is a pond nearby this particular site. They may have to send divers into the pond. They haven't done that yet, but conceivably, it could be in the pond, it could be anywhere, it
could be at this other debris side. They've also found some other debris scattered around this area. They say in fact some individuals have been collecting it. Again, we're
talking about very, very tiny parts. The biggest part they found at this site is an engine, an engine part, and most of the other pieces are probably no bigger than this particular
notebook.

In regard to the alleged cell phone calls made from Flight 93:

February 1, 1999 - Los Alamos National Laboratory has developed a voice morphing technology that can
clone another person's voice by taking a few minute digital recording of someone's voice.

When Seeing and Hearing Isn't Believing

"Gentlemen! We have called you together to inform you that we are going to overthrow the United States government." So begins a statement being
delivered by Gen. Carl W. Steiner, former Commander-in-chief, U.S. Special Operations Command.

At least the voice sounds amazingly like him.

But it is not Steiner. It is the result of voice "morphing" technology developed at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.
By taking just a 10-minute digital recording of Steiner's voice, scientist George Papcun is able, in near real time, to clone speech patterns and develop an accurate facsimile.

Steiner was so impressed, he asked for a copy of the tape.

For Hollywood, it is special effects. For covert operators in the U.S. military and intelligence agencies, it is a weapon of the future.

Digital morphing — voice, video, and photo — has come of age, available for use in psychological operations. PSYOPS, as the military calls it, seek to exploit human
vulnerabilities in enemy governments, militaries and populations to pursue national and battlefield objectives.

Voice-morphing? Fake video? Holographic projection? They sound more like Mission Impossible and Star Trek gimmicks than weapons. Yet for each, there are corresponding
and growing research efforts as the technologies improve and offensive information warfare expands.

Whereas early voice morphing required cutting and pasting speech to put letters or words together to make a composite, Papcun's software developed at Los Alamos can far
more accurately replicate the way one actually speaks. Eliminated are the robotic intonations.

Video and photo manipulation has already raised profound questions of authenticity for the journalistic world. With audio joining the mix, it is not only journalists but also
privacy advocates and the conspiracy-minded who will no doubt ponder the worrisome mischief that lurks in the not too distant future." - Washington Post (02/01/99)

Some good info against the possiblility of the calls being faked.
http://www.911myths.com/html/calls_faked.html
Particularly of interest is the passenger telling where her will was located and the combination of the safe that held it.

Why would the government fake a cell phone call from a passenger locked in the bathroom on Flight 93 who referred to an explosion and smoke from the plane (before the government got there to confiscate the tape and shut people up)?

Why would they fake a cell phone call from a Flight 93 flight attendant to her husband that included wind noise, a sure sign of the plane being hit by a missile or otherwise holed?

1/ The fakers need not necessarily be \'the government\'. If indeed they were within the US Government, they\'d only be a tiny part thereof.

2/ The alleged cell calls were central to the promotion of this story - from the first few hours of day one - as a case of hijacking by Arab terrorists.

If you recall, one of the alleged callers was none other than Barbara Olson, wife of the US Solicitor General.

That account, for me, was crucial in pursuading me (and many others, I suspect), in the first few days, that the official story was no lie.

The accounts of the cell phone calls therefore had a crucial function in the spinning the official story, from the outset.

If the calls weren\'t, in fact, possible - then the entire official story of 9-11 is exposed as a gigantic fraud,

That\\\'s the significance of Dewdney\'s \'Project Achilles\' work.

The website cited above (http://www.911myths.com) that purports to debunk Dewdney\\\'s findings and analysis are, IMO, the 9-11 equivalents of John McAdams JFK Assassination website.

Cleverly presented disinformation, quite pursuasive on a casual browsing.

I would prefer not to stray too far from the central question, was flight 93 shot down, I have posted two main planks of evidence supporting this postion namely, the crash site anomilies, and the eyewitnesses accounts, is anyone able to offer counter testimony here?

There is evidence that 93 was shot down, but it is not conclusive, basically because not a single person among the eyewitnesses, as far as I know, saw it get hit by anything. Also, I don't think anyone saw what they specifically identified as a jet fighter. They saw a small white jet that some said looked like a military aircraft. According to the government, a NetJet was indeed tracking 93. But we are not entitled to know any details about that. There was a suspicious debris field and a suspiciously empty hole in the ground. The military lied about the whole thing, saying first that no jet fighters took off in time to intercept 93, then saying that fighters did get to the area but did not shoot down 93, and then saying the military knew nothing bout 93 till it crashed. When the government suppresses information and lies with impunity, and witnesses change their stories as happened in this case, there is no practical way for private researchers to get to the bottom of anything.

Fleegle, Brant and Delasco, about two and a half miles from the crash site describe hearing engines screaming, and hearing an explosion, followed by a fireball,and then debris, lots of debris, some on fire, crawshing into the lake. Now, unless their lying, this explosion must have been either internal or external, as nobody has ever claimed that the terrorists were carrying explosives it must therefore have come from an external source, nothing else makes any sence.

Did they see an explosion in the air? If they heard an explosion and then saw a fireball, that is consistent with a plane crashing into the ground, producing an explosion and fiery smoke in the air.

Ron, they describe the plane as being in the air at this time, above their heads, and some two, to two and a half miles from its crash point. The debris falls directly from the cargo hold area. Part of this debris was, apparantly an engine block.

Stephen, do you have links to their statements, as I apparently missed them in researching 93.

Nowhere do they indicate what was found at the site except that it was small except that Cabell seems to be indicating the engine part was found where he was this contradicts all other counts.

The Pittsburg Pulp an alternative paper from the closest major city to the crash site spoke to a weapons expert about such theories:

Robert Sherman, a conventional weapons expert with the Federation of American Scientists who worked for the state department as former executive director of the Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Advisory Board, and also wrote extensively about F-16s and Sidewinder missiles, looked at the missile theories on flight93crash.com and deemed it "the usual paranoid crap."

"There was nothing there that gets me very worked up," he says. "Maybe [the plane] did break up. A crash is not a sanitary event. By definition, the uncontrolled impact of an airplane does strange things."

Sherman said that if a missile had hit Flight 93, there would have been more evidence. "If a Sidewinder had hit it, there would have been pieces of the fan or the fuselage in a larger area," he says. "If the engine breaks up, then the fan blades are going to come off like bullets. Pieces of the wing and fuselage would be all over the place."
http://web.archive.org/web/20041101190530/...ver_story.shtml

Sherman’s FAS bio can be read here:
http://www.fas.org/faspir/2001/v54n1/staff.htm

Another oddity if 911research is correct the distant debris was found east of the crash site and flight 93 was flying west to east i.e. the 757 never flew over the area where the supposed debris was found.
http://911debunker.livejournal.com/6447.html

There is little merit to the 1st claim. The operator who took the 911 call denied that the passenger said that. Ron you know that we’ve been over it already.

http://911myths.com/html/explosion_and_smoke.html

The flight attendant’s husband’s account is odd but he says she called at 9:58 just about the same time as the 911 call and that “he heard a whooshing sound, a sound LIKE wind," * 5 – 8 minutes before the plane crashed. Are we to believe that the plane flew that much time holed and none of the witnesses on the ground noticed the hole. Why would such an in effective missile been used? 5 – 8 minutes would have been enough time to land the plane if there had been a live pilot aboard. Also from what I understand most air to air missles are heat seeking meaning they’d hit the engines not the fuselage. The husband didn’t mention the sound in other accounts of the call**

* http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0060099097...=13&go.y=13

** http://911myths.com/html/plane_holed.html


Steve, I hope you feel that this fits into the confines of the thread also I second Ron’s request for the complete quotes and links I haven’t seen them either.

Len

[font="Courier New"][/font]

Before 9-11, the only intercept by NORAD over the continental US was of Payne Stewart's jet. All other intercepts had been over international waters."

Between September 2000 and June, 2001, there were 67 scrambles/intercepts by NORAD, according to a joint statement released by FAA and NORAD on August 5, 2002. This was further reported the next week by the AP. The same sources stated that in the calendar year 2000, there were 129 scrambles/intercepts. FAA/NORAD estimated that 80-85% were of domestic planes flying in the continental U. S. There is evidence that an intercept took place in the skies near Fresno, California, in the week before 9-11.
Further, the Boston Globe, in an interview published 4 days after the attacks, quoted Marine Corps Major Mike Snyder, NORAD spokesman as saying that "its fighters routinely intercept aircraft." Snyder then goes on to describe NORAD's graduated response--wing-waggling, overpass, tracer rounds--to an intercepted plane.
According to an FAA regulation which went into effect in July, 2001, an FAA official--the Air Defense Liaison Officer (ADLO) is stationed in NORAD headquarters full-time to work together to handle emergencies.
In June, 2004, Laura Brown, Public Affairs Director of the FAA, submitted to the 9-11 Commission a memo stating by 8:45 AM phone bridges linking NORAD, Sec of Defense Rumsfeld, NSC, Secret Service, FAA and the National Military Command Center were in place. This is virtually the instant that Flight 11 hit WTC North Tower. Any claims of "being in the dark, of the left hand not knowing what the right was doing, of radars which couldn't see without transponder input" are negated.
There is evidence that the White House (and some media outlets) were in the know even before 8:45. As Bush was preparing to leave Longboat Resort for the Emma Booker School (a time which is placed at 8:35-36), he was seen to be in conversation with Andrew Card. A newsman then asked if the President had anything to say about "the situation in New York." Bush replied that he would have a comment after his school visit. At 8:35 or 8:36, two planes had been hijacked--but in Boston, not New York. The planes were en route to New York. This story was aired on ABC News the night of 9-11, reported by John Cochran to Peter Jennings on the evening newscast. Cochran and ABC stand behind the story. And certainly it would have been difficult for Cochran to have confused the time and place of the comment, since it included the President's statement that he would have some comment after his school visit. This is awfully early in the events of the day and indicates that Laura Brown of the FAA may have been right in her original statement about the phone bridges--that they were put in place at 8:20 or 8:25, not 8:45. But how would one explain the reference to New York City.
NORAD has revised its timetable on four occasions--three after originally stating (both Acting JCS General Myers and spokesman Mike Snyder) that NORAD scrambled no planes at all until the Pentagon was hit. NORAD's stance that it was always "looking outward" and had no experience in handling intra-continental intercepts is belied both by the record it admits to and also to the fact that some aspects of the 5 wargames in progress on September 11 involved hijackings over the U. S. and also involved injecting false radar images onto scopes.

Yes, we've been over it, and I wouldn't bring it up again if it had no merit. Which has more credibility, the operator's supervisor's statement on the day of the call about what was said, or the operator's denial, days or weeks later, after the FBI had been around? Why would the supervisor lie about the call? He had no reason to. Why would the operator lie later, post-FBI visit(s)? The answer is obvious.

All info I've seen still indicates that all intercepts before 911 were offshore. That info indicates that the 67 intercepts all happened offshore in international waters. Do you have a source for this intercept near Fresno? Or a source that states where these planes are that are "routinely intercepted"?

Here's another viewpoint
http://www.911myths.com/html/67_intercepts.html

Ron you forgot or ignored that Gordon Felt the brother of Mark Felt (the person who made the call) heard the tape and said there is no mention of smoke or an explosion. Oh yeah the tape was altered

Why would Cramer make such a thing up? Perhaps he was an attention seeker, what about all the people who have made dubious statements (including confessions) regarding the JFK assassination. There are also numerous attention seeking liars tied to 9/11

- Mike Bellone the supermarket manager and Ground Zero volunteer who dressed up like a fireman before audiences and told them he was the “NYFD safety director” at Ground Zero”
- Lalo Chavez – Who claims he served in the USAF and was deployed to Kabul airport September 16, 2001 which was before the US invasion let alone the capture of the Afghan capitol or the reopening of it’s airport.
- The guy (I can’t remember his name) who claims he is a pilot and Amtrak electrical engineer in Washington D.C. and that he saw a Global Hawk hit the Pentagon but only came forward 5 years later, never held a pilot’s license, isn’t a licensed engineer in DC, Maryland or Virginia, and whose own son and other truthers say he is an attention seeking liar.

The fact that Cramer at first made it sound like he took the call makes the attention seeker hypothisis seem likely. Also he made his statement a few hours after the fact. Later after John Shaw, who took the call, contradicted him he said he read off a transcript. There are many things about Cramer’s version of the call that don’t make sense. How could Felt see smoke if he was locked in the bathroom? For example. Are we to believe that on the day one of the biggest emergencies they ever faced the 911 people took timeout to prepare a transcript? And then not retain a copy for theirown use? Are we to believe that everyone or most people Westmoreland Co. 911 know what happened but are silent?

Before I go any further I’d like to ask the people who think the plane was shot down some questions:

- How fast do you think the plane was flying? If you don’t want to venture to guess a specific speed do you think it was flying fast or slow?

- Who do you think was flying?

- What time do you think the plane crashed 10:06 or 10:03?

I won’t answer my first question so as not to bias answers by others and of course think one of the hijackers probably Ziad Jarrah was flying and take no position as to the crash time.

I would also like to see Wallace back his claims about intercepts.

Len

Of course the tape was altered if the FBI confiscated the tape and got Shaw, his supervisor, and the Pittsburgh newspaper to change their stories.

Perhaps. The fact is you have no way of knowing if Cramer was an attention seeker. I have no reason to think he was not simply doing his job.



Maybe the bathroom had a window, or maybe he saw the smoke before he went into the bathroom.

For a call that important, yes. Or the "transcript" could have been handwritten notes. Have you seen it?



If they changed their stories, I doubt they would keep copies to prove themselves liars.



I have no idea how many people of Westmoreland County 911 know what. But it is obviously important to you that the supervisor was lying. I have no such need for him to be lying.

[quote name='Len Colby' post='90755' date='Jan 24 2007, 03:37 PM'][quote name='Ron Ecker' post='90693' date='Jan 23 2007, 05:38 PM'][quote name='Len Colby' post='90670' date='Jan 23 2007, 05:32 PM'][quote name='Ron Ecker' post='90552' date='Jan 23 2007, 12:24 AM']Why would the government fake a cell phone call from a passenger locked in the bathroom on Flight 93 who referred to an explosion and smoke from the plane (before the government got there to confiscate the tape and shut people up)?[/quote]
........
The fact that Cramer at first made it sound like he took the call makes the attention seeker hypothisis seem likely. Also he made his statement a few hours after the fact. Later after John Shaw, who took the call, contradicted him he said he read off a transcript. There are many things about Cramer's version of the call that don't make sense. How could Felt see smoke if he was locked in the bathroom? For example. Are we to believe that on the day one of the biggest emergencies they ever faced the 911 people took timeout to prepare a transcript? And then not retain a copy for theirown use? ...........Len [/quote]

I don't know who Shaw and Cramer are, but after all the planes were on the ground on 9/11, and the days activity slowed down, FAA technicians (radar and communications operators) who were on duty that morning (in either Boston or New York and maybe both) were taken aside and debriefed. They were asked questions and orally supplied an account of what happened that day on an acoustical cassette tape.

The FAA official who took the tape acknowledged to the 9/11 commission that he destroyed the tape - physically breaking the plastic and disposing it in the trash.

BK

Shaw was a 911 dispatcher in PA who took the cell phone call from Felt in the bathroom of Flight 93. Cramer was Shaw's supervisor, who told the AP later that day what Felt told Shaw, which included hearing an explosion on board and seeing smoke from the aircraft.

The FBI came and confiscated the tape, Cramer was told to stop talking, and Shaw later said the call included nothing about an explosion and smoke. This was confirmed by "the tape" that the FBI played for Felt family members.

No, one changed their story. Shaw never said Felt said anything about smoke or an explosion, Cramer AFAIK never recanted, as to the newspaper changing their story I don’t know what you are talking about.



And you have no way of knowing if Shaw was pressured to lie by the FBI, we’re both speculating. You asked why he would lie and I gave a plausible answer. Do you believe James Files? What about the other confessed shooters and participants or those who claimed to have heard confessions or overheard the conspirators? I don’t think it’s possible to construct a coherent version of what happened that day 1963 if you accept all of them. Obviously some of these people are attention seekers like the 9-11 attention seekers I mentioned. As I said his making it seem like he took the call gives weight to the attention seeker theory.



That’s you’re famous ironic sense of humor at work, right?



“He did hear some sort of an explosion and saw white smoke coming from the plane, but he didn't know where” not conclusive but this makes it sound like he saw the smoke while in the bathroom.

AFAIK no one ever saw it, the only person who said there was one is Cramer. Why would they specially prepare a transcript unless asked to? Who would ask them other than the FBI?



No one changed their story, only Cramer said Felt mention smoke and an explosion,



Cramer, Shaw and whoever prepared the transcript, if there ever was one, would know, it’s hard to believe they wouldn’t have discussed it with their colleagues before the FBI showed up.

But you have a need for Shaw to be lying and the tape to be altered and numerous people at the 911 center to be keeping quite and the local FBI office to be in on the cover up by seizing and altering the tape, a transcript to have been prepared and Cramer to have read it that day before the press and Feds showed up. Let’s apply Occam’s Razor!


To be fair you should have said Cramer claimed (alleged) that he was told to stop talking and that Felt mentioned smoke and an explosion to Shaw.

Also you have yet to answer my questions; I’d be especially interested to hear your answers.

Len