The Case of the Missing E3

[Sabretooth]

1) Kuczynski
2) Integrity of the data

You're kidding, right? Even when that same log says UAL93 was downed by a bomb?


Regarding Kuczynski, I got this from wikipedia talk:

Thomist wrote: "I have seen the Magazine of the University of St. Thomas and the article with the photo of their alumnus, Lt. Kuczynski '98, who said he was ordered to shoot down UAL Flight 93."

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_Airlines_Flight_93/archive

In interests of "data integrity", how was Kuczynski going to shoot down UAL93 when E3's don't have any onboard weapons?



ETA: I see that Kuczynski may have been refering to the two F-16's he supposedly had with him.

What bothers me here is that Kuczynski didn't tell anyone else this story except a college newspaper. No major outlet seems to see this as a valid issue. Right now I'm inclined to think Kuczynski is full of crap.

 

[Reheat]

Right now, all I see is a wild goose chase. What is the significance of an E3 not being found in radar tracking of the immediate area around DC at ~1430 UTC?

Whether BCR finds the E3 or not, what's the point?

It's somewhat equivalent to why folks post in silly threads! It's more or less a kind of hobby and helps to fill time with an endeavor.

The skunk already expressed it quite well. John is retired and is interested in data and math to satisfy every single question that doesn't already have a valid answer. Quite frankly, it's harmless as long as one doesn't make unjustified accusations without sufficient evidence. I don't recall John ever doing this RECENTLY.

At least he's not ranting and raving on lunatic conspiracy oriented sites, but is asking a very legitimate questions on an EDUCATIONAL Forum. He actually contributes more in the way of credible knowledge that he does asking an occasional question. The way I see it is that it causes no harm to anyone or anything, so why object?

 

[Reheat]

I may be wrong; NEADS may very well require it.

Sabrina, it's not just NEADS. The entire USAF uses UTC time in virtually everything. Command Post Logs, schedules, everything that I can think of is recorded in UTC or Zulu time (same thing).

 

[BCR]

Okay, I guess I should let the 'cat out of the bag' before this goes any further. I was asked by a someone who Reheat knows to help track this down. That person is tying up lose ends related to 9/11. He and I reached about the same point a few months ago in working this. So some of you might not find it very interesting or 'see the point', but there are some rather talented people on JREF with direct military (and E3) experience who might be able to shed some light on this.

 

[Sabretooth]

It's somewhat equivalent to why folks post in silly threads! It's more or less a kind of hobby and helps to fill time with an endeavor.

The skunk already expressed it quite well. John is retired and is interested in data and math to satisfy every single question that doesn't already have a valid answer. Quite frankly, it's harmless as long as one doesn't make unjustified accusations without sufficient evidence. I don't recall John ever doing this.

At least he's not ranting and raving on lunatic conspiracy oriented sites, but is asking a very legitimate questions on an EDUCATIONAL Forum. He actually contributes more in the way of credible knowledge that he does asking an occasional question. The way I see it is that it causes no harm to anyone or anything, so why object?

I get all that, and I'm not trying to be an ass. I guess I'm just looking for a justification to the question.

I just don't see the ends justifying the means. Whether or not the question gets a reasonable answer, it doesn't change the facts from the day.

 

[Sabretooth]

Okay, I guess I should let the 'cat out of the bag' before this goes any further. I was asked by a someone who Reheat knows to help track this down. That person is tying up lose ends related to 9/11. He and I reached about the same point a few months ago in working this. So some of you might not find it very interesting or 'see the point', but there are some rather talented people on JREF with direct military (and E3) experience who might be able to shed some light on this.

Fair enough.

As I said above, I'm not trying to be a prick or anything. I just didn't see where this was going.

Anyway, I guess my question for the moment is: Are we sure Kuczynski is not simply full of crap?

 

[Reheat]

I see the term "Shoot down Order or Orders" needs clarification again.

The word order in this case does not mean a directive to execute action without question as it might mean in another military connotation. It is merely authorization to execute something for which authorization is required from a higher authority.

It is not surprising that this Lt might have seen or in fact, had Shoot Down Authorization that we know came from Cheney and was later confirmed by Bush from AF 1. True, an E3 does not have weapons, but they are an Airborne Command Post. They could have received National Command Level Authorization for that type of authorization if it was issued as we know from other sources it very well may have been. They would then pass that Authorization to a fighter under their "control." Even the word "control" likely doesn't mean what you think it means. In this connation it simply means the same things as if we speak of the "control" exercised by an FAA Controller. The Pilot-In-Command of an Aircraft has the FINAL Authority to determine any and all actions to be executed that are directed by ANYONE at ANY TIME, PERIOD.

A valid question arises as to why an AWACS received this authority, but NEADS didn't. That is bassackwards, but a lot of things on 9/11 were bassackwards.

In the end analysis it means nothing. Just because Shoot Down Authorization actually was given by the National Command Authority, that in no way means a Shoot Down actually occurred. We know from other evidence that it didn't.

Yes, I suspect it is a dead end and means absolutely nothing at all in the REAL WORLD. However, I'm sure it is intriguing to a suspicious mind who is unfamiliar with how things work in that REAL WORLD.

 

[WildCat]

Personally I find it likely that the E-3 was diverted AFTER the fact to monitor for any further possible flights, so a timeframe of around 2:30 EST seems likely to me. I don't think all flights were grounded yet at that time, so there was still the possibility of another hijacked flight. Plus, who's to say in all the confusion that we might not have been attacked from outside the US if we weren't watching?

The note says "needs tanker by 1830Z", presumably to refuel the E-3.

Z = zulu time = GMT, yes?

 

[BCR]

I just don't see the ends justifying the means. Whether or not the question gets a reasonable answer, it doesn't change the facts from the day.

And see, that is the frustrating part of all of this. I am an amateur scientist and engineer. I have always gone from data to a conclusion. What I have found in 9/11 is that most folks deal with it from conclusion to exclusion of data that does not fit the conclusion. As almost anyone on the 911 Commission will tell you, they had to do their job through a political filter with constant stone-walling and obstruction by government agencies. It was a tooth-and-nail fight at times. In the end, they ran up against a fixed time and funding limit.

The question many of them have is whether or not in the midst of the obstruction efforts that they encountered, did they miss anything? Most of this is political ' covering'. None-the-less, it is very important that these details are reviewed.

I have no issues working with people from both sides of the debate on 9/11. Some on the truth side do fine work and research (Stutt and Larson come to mind). This is important stuff from a historical perspective. We have an E3 pilot who made statements that he and fighters assigned to him were dispatched with orders to 'shoot down' UAL93. He did not make it in time, but was diverted to the DC area (according to the report). There is an entry in the NEADS MCC-T log supporting his 'reported' assertion. The question of course is, did this historical event happen or not? The conclusion thus far is that it did not.

If the historical event did not happen, then why is there an entry in the NEADS log in reference to an E3 being diverted during that time frame? Hypothesis on the table is that the activity of the E4 out of Wright Patterson is what is reflected by the log entry. I am putting that hypothesis to the test with the brightest collection of folks I know of.

Also, there may be another hypothesis that explains the data that I am not aware of. Hopefully someone at JREF can lend some insight in that area as well.

 

[Sabrina]

Sabrina, it's not just NEADS. The entire USAF uses UTC time in virtually everything. Command Post Logs, schedules, everything that I can think of is recorded in UTC or Zulu time (same thing).

Ah; see, I was basing my thoughts off of how the Army does it. We use local time in our logs so far as I'm aware (although the Aviation branch may use UTC). Thanks for the correction Reheat!

 

[Reheat]

The note says "needs tanker by 1830Z", presumably to refuel the E-3.

Z = zulu time = GMT, yes?

Z = zulu time = GMT = UTC

All of these are exactly the same as the time in Greenwich England at the 0 degree Prime meridian.

 

[Reheat]

Also, there may be another hypothesis that explains the data that I am not aware of. Hopefully someone at JREF can lend some insight in that area as well.

I can see where you're headed with this and it is of the remotest possibility. They don't have the equipment NOR (more importantly) the training to do this.

If you head there it will take more evidence than you're likely to find. In other words, it would need PROOF of the highest order and I don't think you're likely to find it......

 

[Reheat]

I can see where you're headed with this and it is of the remotest possibility. They don't have the equipment NOR (more importantly) the training to do this.

If you head there it will take more evidence than you're likely to find. In other words, it would need PROOF of the highest order and I don't think you're likely to find it......

ETA: Even if you do have suspicions or circumstantial evidence there is nothing it could possibly have affected one way or another.....

 

[BCR]

I can see where you're headed with this and it is of the remotest possibility. They don't have the equipment NOR (more importantly) the training to do this.

If you head there it will take more evidence than you're likely to find. In other words, it would need PROOF of the highest order and I don't think you're likely to find it......

You lost me on that one. As you know, I act as a sanity check for Gaffney on his writings. He is working this one for his book Black 9/11. I think the order to 'squawk' rules out Romulan cloaking technology in use at the time. It will be interesting to see how this fits into his research.

However, back on point. I have found a plane out of Langley that looks like it diverted back to Langley when it reached Wright Patterson and seems to coincide with the E4B departure there. It 'shadows' VIVI36 (altitude 25000) but at 37100 feet. I have some radar data from a site in WV that in horizontal has them flying 'together'.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|130021.6|PACER19 568|FSP 20F |O ENR | LFI 12 LFI WAIKS ORF290 |
| | | | | PACER19 13 390 ORF290079 MOL130 MOL 7077 |
| | | | | GEFFS J149 FWA GIJ |
| | | | | T/LJ35/G 1300 OSH |
| | | | | T430 G381 |
| | | | | 20 |
| | | | | 568 02 ORF 290/079 |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I did not consider this guy before because it is a Learjet. When VIVA36 took up its 'cap', PACER19 continued back to Langley. He squawked 7077 from the time he took off until his return.

FYI: This guy seems to like flying at high altitudes ....
39,000
38,900
38,900
38,900
38,900
38,900
38,900
38,900
38,900

 

[Reheat]

Well, if you don't understand, forget what I said. It's very, very remote anyway.

I did not consider this guy before because it is a Learjet. When VIVA36 took up its 'cap', PACER19 continued back to Langley. He squawked 7077 from the time he took off until his return.

FYI: This guy seems to like flying at high altitudes ....
39,000
38,900
38,900
38,900
38,900
38,900
38,900
38,900
38,900

I don't think a Lear 35/36 would fly at those altitudes, but a Lear 50 could easily fly at those heights. So could a Gulfstream IV

To my knowledge the USAF has only 35/36's, so that was not LIKELY a USAF asset.

ETA: On second thought the USAF does have some G IV's for VIP transort. (Remember the hoopla when Pelosi demanded one!) However, I don't know when they were acquired nor why one might be flying with a E4B. All of the VIP stuff in the USAF inventory are based at Andrews, unless their out on a job......

ETA: After checking, I find that the service ceiling on the C-21 (Lear 35A) is 45,000', so I stand corrected on the above comments.

 

[BCR]

I did a screen capture of these three planes that might help people understand what I am looking at.

 

[JAStewart]

Your 'ineligible' word looks like "Sandison, K" to me.

 

[Oystein]

And see, that is the frustrating part of all of this. I am an amateur scientist and engineer. I have always gone from data to a conclusion. What I have found in 9/11 is that most folks deal with it from conclusion to exclusion of data that does not fit the conclusion. As almost anyone on the 911 Commission will tell you, they had to do their job through a political filter with constant stone-walling and obstruction by government agencies. It was a tooth-and-nail fight at times. In the end, they ran up against a fixed time and funding limit.

The question many of them have is whether or not in the midst of the obstruction efforts that they encountered, did they miss anything? Most of this is political ' covering'. None-the-less, it is very important that these details are reviewed.
I have no issues working with people from both sides of the debate on 9/11. Some on the truth side do fine work and research (Stutt and Larson come to mind). This is important stuff from a historical perspective. We have an E3 pilot who made statements that he and fighters assigned to him were dispatched with orders to 'shoot down' UAL93. He did not make it in time, but was diverted to the DC area (according to the report). There is an entry in the NEADS MCC-T log supporting his 'reported' assertion. The question of course is, did this historical event happen or not? The conclusion thus far is that it did not.

If the historical event did not happen, then why is there an entry in the NEADS log in reference to an E3 being diverted during that time frame? Hypothesis on the table is that the activity of the E4 out of Wright Patterson is what is reflected by the log entry. I am putting that hypothesis to the test with the brightest collection of folks I know of.

Also, there may be another hypothesis that explains the data that I am not aware of. Hopefully someone at JREF can lend some insight in that area as well.

I don't see why you deem this important, before having arrived at a conclusion? To me, it is only a footnote to the historical record of 9/11. It is all very well to gather data and go from there, but if you obsessively gather any and all data you can get about any particular day, you are certain to discover any number of oddities. You happen to look with utmost scrutiny at logs for 0/11/2001. What happens if you look with the same scrutiny at logs for 9/10/2001 or 9/11/2000? Would you not expect to find similar unexplained inconsistencies between some two logs that record the same events from different perspectives, and maybe a third and still different testimony from some witness?
If the resolution of any oddity is important is determined not by the data but by the conclusion.


Having said that, I agree that the affair may be interesting in its own right (to those who are so inclined), and possibly the conclusion might turn out to be important. Then again, possibly or even likely it might turn out to be unimportant.

 

[BCR]

Having said that, I agree that the affair may be interesting in its own right (to those who are so inclined), and possibly the conclusion might turn out to be important. Then again, possibly or even likely it might turn out to be unimportant.

The funny thing is, what may be unimportant to one person, may be very important to another. If this hits the masses (you know, the average person, 99% of which have never heard of JREF) in the wrong context, then there can be a significant impact.

I have a friend who is a retired Germantown police officer who read Gaffney's 911 Mystery Plane and loved it! Of course he has me to provide him with context and stuff we learned latter after the book was released. Most people will not go beyond to internet forums to put things in context. So although not important to you, it is important to me that such details are in context (especially if my name is on them) before going to the masses for consumption.

 

[BCR]

Your 'ineligible' word looks like "Sandison, K" to me.

Mean anything to anyone?