"Do the orders still stand?" - Person identified
- Thread starter Childlike Empress
- Start date
Senenmut
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2008
- Messages
- 1,372
it looks as though belger agrees with sliney in respects to the ground stop. i dont know what sliney is thinking with regards to mineta and the national ground stop?
MR. GORTON: It wasn't the formal protocol for Mr. Sliney to
have gotten headquarters permission before he put in these
ground stops?
MR. BELGER: I don't agree with that personally. I think -- I
agree with Mr. Sliney completely. I think they had the authority
to make that decision. I think they made the right call.
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/archive/hearing12/9-11Commission_Hearing_2004-06-17.pdf
as for the "order to land", sliney says this:
"As to the order to land, that was the product of the men and
women in the Command Center who gave me advice on that day, the
supervisors and the specialists. We were searching for something
more to do, and that was made and decided on, and the impetus
for that of course was the crash into the Pentagon when we gave
that order."
???? he is speaking about the involvement of individuals in a decision making process. i havent read anything about sliney speaking to mineta around this time.
got any links to suggest that anyone tried to make it look like mineta ordered the ground stop???? or is sliney just blowing smoke up someones buttt! .
many "assertions." who is this "personnel?" not even belger disputes sliney ordering the national ground stop. but belger also states mineta ordered the planes down around 945. it does NOT sound like belger is trying to "cover" anything up. he is just telling us what happened. it sounds like the interviewer is leading sliney into a desired statement.
I don't know if this idea will be too stupid, but...
In the Washington Post there's this text:
Presumably it's getting the info from the Commission Report and I haven't checked with it yet, but that false alarm made me wonder if that was the plane Cochrane(?) was reporting about.
In the Washington Post there's this text:
Within minutes, Cheney would use his authority. Told -- erroneously, as it turned out -- that a presumably hijacked aircraft was 80 miles from Washington, Cheney decided "in about the time it takes a batter to swing" to authorize fighter jets scrambled from Langley Air Force Base in Hampton, Va., to engage it, the commission reported.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50745-2004Jun17.html
Presumably it's getting the info from the Commission Report and I haven't checked with it yet, but that false alarm made me wonder if that was the plane Cochrane(?) was reporting about.
I've just typed out about another page, but then deleted it, because what's the point? You don't care about the truth. And I don't care about your opinion. Goodbye.
The Platypus
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2009
- Messages
- 1,883
How sad. 911 kooks have been falling back to these juvenile threats of "you'll see" almost for 10 years now and been totally wrong everytime.
Last edited:
Andy_Ross
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2010
- Messages
- 68,600
This whole thing is bollox. There is no way that the full accurate sequence of events is going to be worked out. You are going to chase each other round forever all thinking you know the truth. I remember what happened when Argonaut, Brillian and Antelope were hit in the Falklands. Some of my Oppos who were there swear it happened in a different order over the 3 days. It doesn't mean there is a conspiracy or coverup of anything.
Give it up.
Give it up.
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
When does he state this? Because he doesn't state it in his official testimony. In any event, whether he states it or not is immaterial. Monte Berger was at the ATCSCC, which does not have primary radar. That is a fact.
In fact all this does is reinforce the argument that Mineta wasn't particularly clear about what was actually going on, which gives even less reason to put much weight on the timeline for his testimony.
Senenmut
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2008
- Messages
- 1,372
hey bcr-
ya made it on 911blogger.
http://911blogger.com/news/2011-03-...netas-testimony-about-vp-dick-cheney#comments
ya made it on 911blogger.
http://911blogger.com/news/2011-03-...netas-testimony-about-vp-dick-cheney#comments
And what does this stuff have to do with 911? What is the conspiracy?
Childlike Empress
Banned
Well done, Jeff.
I guess its better than I was a few years ago when you and Ron did the Hardfire show
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
Actually you're misrepresenting the data. Here's what the USSS notes actually say:
0927 - two aircraft missing
0930 - one of the missing aircraft is heading to Washington DC
0931 - aircraft is 30mi from DC
0934 - aircraft is 10mi from DC
0935 - aircraft is turning south
0936 - aircraft is (looks like "circles" and something else)
0938 - aircraft has crashed into Pentagon
Notably, according to the notes all of this has come from the FAA (looks to be either Senior Vice President, Operations or Vice President, System Operations Services, both part of the Air Traffic Organisation). Neither of these positions has access to primary radar. It's unclear if the position is at FAA HQ or the ATCSCC. If at Washington DC, they were reliant mostly on what the ATCSCC told them. If at Herndon they had only what the TSD showed, plus what the ARTCCs told them.
The phone connection was only established at 0925, so some of these reports can be assumed to be a case of "tell us what has been happening" as opposed to "this is happening right now".
Only information from 0931 onwards is definitely in reference to a specific aircraft identification of some kind (be that a primary, a secondary, or a TSD track). You'll note the greatest distance reported is 30 miles, not 50, which already directly contradicts Mineta's testimony and further reinforces that his account was probably in relation to a separate and unrelated tracking of an aircraft later in the day.
At 0931 AA77 was indeed about 30 miles from Washington DC, however your claim that it wasn't supposedly detected until 6 miles away is false. The aircraft was detected supposedly at 0932, at which time the aircraft was 20 miles from Washington DC. I can easily see how a little give or take in those times due to reporting delays would put the discovery at about the right time for 30 miles distance, which matches up perfectly with the official account - that AA77 wasn't detected until it was right on Washington DC (had it not slowed and turned it would have passed central DC by about 0934).
The "six miles" report is in reference to when the FAA notified NEADS, which was at 0936. By this time Dulles TRACON had been tracking AA77 for at least 4 minutes.
The question then comes back to the first two points in the USSS notes, what we can conclude from them, and what they might tell us.
Firstly we have "two aircraft missing". That's obviously just a general summary of the situation and doesn't relate to anything particularly specific. Given it's immediately after the phone bridge is established, this could easily be historic information. The second point has to be taken with this in mind - one of those aircraft is heading to Washington DC. At 0930.
Well, at 0930, the FAA was aware of at least two flights that might be heading to Washington DC, in fact.
The first was AA11, which, due to a ghost TSD display, was erroneously though to still be heading south to Washington DC at the time. NEADS first learned of this at 0921, and as late as 0934 they were still directing Quit 2-5 to Washington DC to intercept AA11.
The second was AA77 which was lost heading west, but by now was being considered as a hijack. In fact as early as 0921 Dulles TRACON were told to look for AA77 on primary radar, so by now there was clearly concern that AA77 might be heading to Washington DC. In fact it was almost certainly because of that 0921 directive that Dulles TRACON detected AA77 at 0932.
The 0930 report of an aircraft heading to Washington DC wasn't based on any sort of radar return or tracking of an actual aircraft at all, but on simple deduction based on what was happening.
I think John is a 'truther' of the real truth kind ie. security lapses, intel lapses etc rather than of the 'inside jobby' kind. Nobody is immune to discussing irrelvent issues in their search for the truth or in their research for a book. That rabbit hole can be peared into occasionally, just strap yourself to something rational first!
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 26, 2006
- Messages
- 21,961
Hmmmm, looking at the original, I see this notation:
That's not even close. How could the Secret Service be so far off on their time for that event? Accounts differ but there is general agreement that Bush left Booker at 9:35 and Air Force One was airborne at 9:55 (or 9:57). Note as well that Mineta told Tim Roemer that when he met Cheney in the PEOC, that Bush was en route from Florida to Louisiana.
Err, are we starting to see a problem with these times?
Ditto.
BCR
Master Poster
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2008
- Messages
- 2,278
You see, this is what both sides of the aisle have in common, when it gets uncomfortable, you both start accusing the messenger of 'misrepresenting the data' (lying) and stating stuff like you were actually there with leaps of speculation.
Captain Swoop, book sales has nothing to do with it. I've spent so much money over the past years on 9/11 related FOIA's and research that I'll never break-even. The book is for my kids and I really could give a rats ass if anyone buys it or not.
Excuse me John,but this could use some clarification.
Are you saying they admit to some recordings, besides parking lot cams existing? If so can you be more specific? Who exactly has said this, and by what means? How exactly is this being "implied", that some were given to the FBI? I feel as if you're dancing the dance of the vague here. Maybe it's just me.
Thanks in advance for any information you can provide.