We now turn our attention to the American Airlines flight 77, one having allegedly crashed into the Pentagon to 9:35. Like other facets of the September 11 attacks, it certainly has its share of irregularities and deserves attention.
Let's start with the extract following article, which reported that in the minutes before the fatal impact, the Boeing 757 had executed a maneuver particularly complicated. This excerpt comes to us from the Washington Post, dated September 12, 2001.
"[...] Someone on board Flight 77 had turned off the transponder, this tool makes the identification of the airline's aircraft, flight number, speed and elevation on the screens radar controllers. [...]
controllers have had time to warn the White House that the jet was heading directly to the president's house and it was moving at breakneck speed - at full speed.
But just as the plane seemed to be a suicide mission to the White House, the unidentified pilot executed a pivot so tight that observers compared him a fighter aircraft maneuver. The aircraft made a turn 270 degrees on its right to approach the Pentagon from the west, and then Flight 77 fell below the radar, disappearing from controllers' screens, the sources said. [...]
aviation sources said the aircraft was flown with extraordinary skill, and it was highly likely that an experienced pilot at the controls, possibly one of the terrorists. Someone even knew how to turn off the transponder, an operation that is far from obvious.
Details on those who were aboard Flight 77, on takeoff and what happened on board were tightly held by airline, airport and security officials yesterday evening. All have said that the FBI had asked them not to reveal any details. [...]» C4
The maneuver 270 degrees mentioned in this article, later corroborated by official reports, we therefore indicates that a veteran pilot at the controls of Flight 77. However, when trying to learn more about who was flying the Boeing, the situation becomes problematic. Indeed, among the five terrorists aboard Flight 77, one of whom was a licensed pilot: Hani Hanjour (W36).
Come revealed that a Washington Post article about him, dated October 15, 2001.
"[...] Even when he followed his flight training required for his final project, the instructors were reclusive, slow to get used to the cockpit. [...]
Even today, his family can not understand his alleged role in the conspiracy. They recognized his photograph as the person designated by the investigators for crashed American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon Sept. 11.
˝ We are in shock ˝, said his older brother, Abulrahman Hanjour, in a recent telephone interview from Saudi Arabia. ˝ We thought he loved the United States. ... I thought he would give his life to save others, not to do that.
˝ [...]
FBI agents have told people they have interviewed about Hanjour as ˝ matched his personality [than someone] who could be manipulated and 'brainwash'.
˝
Always Is it the morning of Sept. 11, investigators said, Hanjour was not one of the soldiers in the field plot contained purely in order to frighten the passengers of the Boeing 757 while it is headed to Dulles International Airport to Washington and the Pentagon. He was in the cockpit. [...]
For five years, Hanjour attended flight schools in different companies and aircraft leasing, but his instructors regarded him as a poor student, even in the weeks preceding the attacks.
The archives of the Federal Aviation Administration [FAA] demonstrate that he obtained his commercial pilot's license in April 1999, but where and how it was acquired remains an unanswered question that FAA officials refuse to discuss. [...]»
Is not it strange that the authorities refuse to reveal the origin of this pilot's license? Continue the article.
"[...] His limited flying skills provide an overview of one aspect of the attacks: The conspiracy apparently did not include a surplus of pilots not talented. [...]
The precise evolution of Hanjour from the family farm until the terrorist plot remains unclear. But from the first months of 1996, he came to develop a desire to learn to fly the United States.
was a time when other members of Al Qaeda became pilots. Two years earlier, the Armed Islamic Group, who would join Al Qaeda had hijacked an Air France plane in Algeria with the intention of the project against the Eiffel Tower. They were arrested by French special forces at the airport in Marseilles. [...]
Conspiracy [September 11] was in full swing in the second week of August [2001] when Hanjour arrived in the Washington area for what seems to have been his last preparation - this time at Freeway Airport in Bowie. Once again, his instructors questioned his competence. After three sessions in a single engine airplane, the school decided qu'Hanjour was not ready to rent a plane by himself. [...]» G13
First, how Hanjour Can you perform a maneuver also pushed the controls of a Boeing while three weeks earlier, we do not even deemed fit to fly a Cessna single? Then is it not strange to hear In 1994, the French intelligence services were able to thwart a terrorist plot similar to that of 11 September, however, imply that only one plane, while the U.S., despite the inherent military capabilities under greater world power, can not even defend themselves against one of the four hijacked planes in 2001? But
enchaînons. The electronic newspaper Newsday, New York, also was preparing for visits to Hani Hanjour's flying school in Bowie, Maryland, in its edition of September 23, 2001.
"[...] However, when [Sheri] Baxter and fellow instructor Ben Conner accompanied the slim and discreet Hanjour for three flight tests during the second week of August, they discovered that he had trouble controlling and landing the aircraft at single engine, a Cessna 172. Despite the fact qu'Hanjour they had filed a federal pilot's license and a log book cataloging 600 hours of flight experience, the chief flight instructor Marcel Bernard declined to rent him a plane without more lessons. [...]» W49
So Hanjour's license had been accredited at the federal level. That could explain why the authorities refused to discuss the matter. Then look at an article published by CBS News, May 10, 2002.
"Months before Hani Hanjour had allegedly planned an American Airlines plane against the Pentagon, leaders of a flight school in Arizona have reported at least five times to the FAA [Aviation Administration Federal], reports CBS News correspondent Vince Gonzales.
It was not fear he is a terrorist it was reported, but rather because his English skills and steering were so bad, they told The Associated Press, they did not think he should keep his pilot's license.
˝ I could not believe he had a commercial license with any skills they had ˝, said Peggy Chevrette, the former leader of JetTech flight school in Phoenix. [...]
And in July last year, an FBI agent alerted Washington that a large number of individuals from the Middle East were taking flying lessons, but was ignored. [...]» W37
However, the official version states clearly that this is even that Hanjour was at the controls of Flight 77 when it crashed into the Pentagon (W2).
In light of all this information, a simple question resurfaces: how Hani Hanjour did he realize, flying a Boeing 757, a maneuver reminiscent of air traffic controllers that of a fighter plane just weeks after being deemed unfit to fly a Cessna airplane? Incredible as it may seem, it is nevertheless the official version.
add that, unlike the Pentagon, the towers of the World Trade Center were easily identifiable through the panorama New York because of their impressive stature. The Pentagon does for its five stories high, making the impact area inaccessible at high speed. According to experts, sent to lead a Boeing as accurately at a target of this size required an unparalleled ability to control, which lacked an obvious Hanjour.
Nevertheless, the commission's final report says that in the last three minutes before the crash of Flight 77, the aircraft "was five miles [eight kilometers] west-southwest of the Pentagon and undertaken a 330 degree turn. At the end of the turn, he had completed a descent of 2200 feet [670 meters] and headed for the Pentagon and downtown Washington. The terrorist pilot then advanced the acceleration to full speed and dove toward the Pentagon. W2 [...]»
At this stage it is appropriate to mention the existence of a technology dating back 80, which allows remote direct any airplane, so this very clear. Here is an excerpt from the official website of NASA.
"In 1984, the research facilities at NASA Dryden Aviation [...] and Administration of Aviation Federal [FAA] have joined forces for a unique experiment in flight named Controlled Impact Demonstration (CID) to test the crash of a Boeing 720 using regular fuel includes an additive to suppress the fire. [...]
Preceding the ultimate flight on 1 December 1984, more than four years of effort had gone to try to establish the final impact conditions, which are considered by the FAA as allowing them survive. During those years, while 14 flights with crews were flown the following major efforts were set development: [the center] NASA Dryden developed the remote piloting techniques necessary for the B-720 flying as birddog-drone, [...]. The 15 flights effectuèrent 15 takeoffs and 14 landings and a number of approaches about 150 feet [45 meters] above the crash site planned, controlled remotely. [...]» W103
After the fifteenth takeoff, the airplane crashed exactly in the right place in a huge fireball. That was in 1984.
Would it be reasonable to exclude such technology may have been used 17 years later, in 2001, to complete an operation as risky as significant?
This same technology also appeared in the center of the pilot episode of the television series 'The Lone Gunmen', aired on FOX just six months before the attacks, in March 2001. Strangely, this pilot project, inspired by characters from the series X-Files, based his screenplay on the plot of some elements within the U.S. government, which took control of a remote Boeing and then crushed cons ... the World Trade Center. Could one
find something better to ridicule the idea that the U.S. government may itself create a carousel too sordid for the sole purpose of achieving criminal purposes? Or is it just a coincidence, beyond the striking similarities with the events of September 11, this issue of great listening public has been presented to only six months before the attacks?
In this regard, include a brief excerpt of the episode in question. The next scene takes place when the son, John, asks his father, an influential American scent of imminent attack.
"Bertram [...] 'John ...'
John 'Papa ...'
Bertram: 'Will you tell me what you do? Why can not you stay out of this? Leave me alone? "
John: 'What is the scenario 12D? We know it is a simulated war game that is linked with the Terrorism and cons of commercial aviation. Why is it important to kill? "
Bertram: 'Cause this is more a game now. "
John: 'If some terrorist group wants to take action under this scenario, why would they take you you target for assassination? "
Bertram: 'It depends on who are the terrorists. "
John: 'Those who devised the plan in the first place ... You're telling me that our government is planning to commit a terrorist act against a domestic plane ... '
Bertram: 'This is it! Blame the entire government as usual. This is a faction, a small faction. "
John: 'For what reason? "
Bertram: 'The Cold War is over, John. And no tangible enemy against which accumulate ammunition, the weapons industry is flat. But take a [Boeing] 727 crammed into the heart of the city of New York, and you'll find a dozen petty dictators around the world, claiming to be responsible, and begging to be bombed. "
John: 'I can not believe it. All with the goal of increasing arms sales? "
Bertram: 'Mm-hmm. "
John: 'When? "
Bertram: 'Tonight'.
John: 'How will you stop them? Why did not you warn the world press? "
Bertram, 'You think I'm still breathing 30 minutes after placing the call? The press? Who is going to publish that story? " [...]» W203
-emphasize this point that the company Raytheon, which describes itself as the 'world leader in designing and developing solutions for landings and satellite navigation applications military and civilian 'publicly announced five days before the attack she had just completed successfully, in conjunction with the U.S. Air Force, the first phase of a system to accurately guide the aircraft from the GPS system (System Global Positioning) (W114). In other words, direct aircraft remotely without the pilot inside, using a system with extraordinary precision.
While this is possibly a coincidence additional company Raytheon lost not one, not two, but five of its employees in the attacks of 11 September. All aboard airplanes. And all had important positions within the company. Here is an excerpt from the news service PRNewswire, dated November 13, 2001.
"At a private ceremony held today at Raytheon facilities Andover, Brigadier General of the Army, Edward M. Harrington, director of Contract Management Agency Defense, awarded the Medal of the Protection of Freedom, the civilian equivalent of the Purple Heart, families Raytheon employees who perished in the tragedy of September 11: Peter Gay of Tewksbury, Massachusetts, Stanley Hall, of Clifton, Va., David Kovalcin, Hudson, New Hampshire, and Kenneth Waldie, of Methuen, Massachusetts.
Herb Homer, a corporate executive director of Contract Management Agency Defense assigned to Raytheon, also merited the Defence Medal Freedom. [...]» W115
The fact that these people were all senior positions in the hierarchy of Raytheon is it just a random extra?
Kovalcin David was a senior mechanical engineer (W116). Peter Gay was Vice President of Operations (W117). Kenneth Waldie, senior engineer in quality control (W118). Stanley Hall was director of program management, and was called the 'dean of electronic warfare' by his colleagues (W119). Herb Homer, meanwhile, was an officer specifically assigned to Raytheon Department U.S. defense, serving for 27 years (W120).
Only Flight 93 which crashed in a Pennsylvania field, was not carrying employees of Raytheon.
added that five employees of PricewaterhouseCoopers responsible for accounting and auditing the finances of Raytheon (W131), also perished aboard airplanes on Sept. 11. They are: Kelly Ann Booms, accountant (W132), Jessica Sachs, accountant (W133), Brian Kinney, Inspector (W134), Patrick J. Quigley VI, together with PricewaterhouseCoopers for 11 years (W135), and Daniel Brandhorst, Senior Accountant (W136). And since
comes to Raytheon, verify who owned a private hangar where a group of very particular Arab was filed September 13, 2001, before being escorted out of the country with the help of U.S. intelligence?
"[...] However, around 13:30 or 14h, September 13, Dan Grossi received his call. We informed him that the Arabs would be tabled to Raytheon Airport Services, a private hangar of the Tampa International Airport. [...]» L12
Note that these Arabs were none other than members of the family of Osama bin Laden. But we shall return in detail on this story a little further.
*****
now examine the photos of the Pentagon (see photos attached - PH-13.1 to 13.16). First note the absence of any debris on the terrace in front of the building after the impact, as well as the impressive amount of debris on the photos that were taken later.
Then, note particularly the size of the hole in the wall immediately after the explosion, as shown by the few photos that were taken before the roof collapsed, about 30 to 45 minutes after impact. Is this a hole big enough for a Boeing 757 embedding them (see photo attached - PH-13.7 to 13.11)? Where can we see the impact marks left by two massive jet engines attached to each wing and weighing between 7,000 to 10 000 pounds each?
quote now about Jamie McIntyre, CNN correspondent who happened to live to the Pentagon on the morning of September 11.
"[...] According to my close inspection, there is no evidence showing that a plane crashed outside the Pentagon. The only site is in fact what side of the Pentagon collapsed. And as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small enough they are held in our hand. There are no large tail section, wing, fuselage, nothing like that around which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the collapse. Even if you look at the pictures of the Pentagon and we see that the floors collapsed, this does not happen immediately. It is about 45 minutes later that the structure was weakened enough to that the floors collapsed. [...]» W146
The CNN correspondent was also not the only one to notice the absence of aircraft debris at the Pentagon. Consider, for example impressions Sergeant Reginald Powell, who was among the first emergency medical teams to appear on the site. His comments are drawn from the archives of the Office of Medical History.
"[...] I was especially impressed, really impressed by how the building has held up after they m'aient informed of the format of the aircraft. I then amazed to see no plane, there was nothing left of the aircraft. It was as if it had disintegrated upon entering the building. [...]» W147
From the same source, also include the reaction of Eileen Murphy, head nurse at the rescue that day.
"[...] I knew it was a crash site before we arrived on the scene, but I did not know what it would look like. I could not imagine because the building is solid as a rock. I expected à voir l’avion, alors je crois que ma réaction initiale a été ‘Où est l’avion? Comment se fait-il qu’il n’y ait pas d’avion?’ J’aurais cru que l’édifice l’aurait bloqué et que nous aurions vu, d’une façon ou d’une autre, quelque chose comme une partie, ou une moitié, ou la partie inférieure, ou l’arrière de l’avion. Alors c’était réellement toute une surprise que l’avion n’y soit pas. [...]» W148
Remarquons de plus l’absence de débris d’avion sur les images de l’anneau C du Pentagone, présumé point de sortie du Flight 77 (see photos attached - PH-13.19 to 13.21). Where did this huge Boeing?
then look more closely at the comments from Danielle O'Brien, air traffic controllers, published by ABC News, October 24, 2001.
"It took six weeks but the air traffic controller Danielle O'Brien is now ready to talk about Sept. 11. [...]
O'Brien was assigned to the radar room and at 8:25, she was busy routine and timely departure of American Airlines Flight 77, the plane, an hour and twelve minutes later, going to crash the Pentagon. [...]
˝ Then I noticed the aircraft. It was an unidentified aircraft in the south-west of the [airport] Dulles, who was moving at a very high speed. I had a mere 'blip' on my screen, nothing more. [...]
At a speed of 500 mph (805 kph), the plane was heading straight for what is known as P-56, protected air space 56, which covers the White House and the Capitol.
˝ speed, maneuverability, the way he turned, we all believed in the radar room, which we are all experienced air traffic controllers, it was a military plane ˝, says O'Brien. ˝ We do not fly a [Boeing] 757 in this manner. It is not safe.
˝ ˝ [...] In the room was almost a sense of relief. It must be a fighter plane. This must be one of our guys that was sent, deployed to patrol our capital, and to protect our president, and we folded our chairs and breathed for a second have ˝, said O'Brien. [...]» W38
However, contrary to what they supposed at the time, nobody had yet been sent to protect the U.S. capital. And while all air traffic controllers believed to be dealing with a military plane due to the controllability of the aircraft, we are asked to believe that it was Hani Hanjour, mediocre Cessna pilot, who headed the huge Boeing proudly with one hand master, flying to meet her destiny.
As mentioned previously, it appears questionable, judging by its size, the hole left in the wall of the Pentagon may have been caused by the impact a Boeing 757. Skeptics abound elsewhere in this issue. It would be so simple for the U.S. government to silence by releasing a video showing clearly the American Airlines plane crashing into the famous building.
To date, however, no video or photo can attest that Flight 77 had actually crashed against the Pentagon. In addition to the eyewitnesses, whose reports differ greatly, member of the public could see with his eyes what really happened here, about 9:35 in the morning of 11 September. It should be noted that some videos have been made public, but all we can see there is a trail of smoke followed by a huge fireball. No image clearly shows the object that hit the Pentagon.
Does this suggest that one of the best protected buildings in the world had no camera has captured the object that caused this hole? In addition, the U.S. government waited until May 2006 before releasing a first video, which showed yet nothing but a ball of fire dropped frames (C1). Why wait so long?
Note also the speed with which The FBI confiscated the records with potentially captured images of what struck the Pentagon that morning. The following excerpt is taken from National Geographic News, dated December 11, 2001.
"[...] Three months ago, at 9:38 on the morning of September 11, Tuesday, Jose Velasquez heard a rumble of imminent death over him. ˝ I knew something was wrong. The planes usually arrive in the north and west (to land at Reagan National Airport), not south. And not so low.
˝ [...] But Velasquez hung up the phone and ran outside when he felt the station Fuel [Citgo] he supervised suddenly begin to tremble due to a plane too close. [...]
His gas station, open only to staff of the Department of Defense, is the last structure between the Pentagon and the hill, a few hours later, would become a place of mourning. [...]
Velasquez said that the security cameras in the petrol station are close enough to the Pentagon to have recorded the moment of impact. ˝ I have never seen what the pictures looked ˝, "he said. ˝ The FBI was here within a few minutes and they took the registration. ˝ "C3
One of the photos attached to this book demonstrates the view that had the gas station on the Pentagon (see PH-13-29).
Is not it amazing that the U.S. secret services have been so quick to react and confiscated records following the attack, after all the evidence of incompetence and inefficiency in detecting and to prevent the plot?
Observe also reported that Jamie McIntyre, CNN correspondent, March 7, 2002. The images which he refers at the outset are the pictures from one of the Pentagon's security cameras, including the complete recording was finally released in May 2006. Impossible to distinguish a Boeing (see photos attached - PH-13.22 to 13.27).
"[...] These pictures are the first to be revealed to the public, but they are not the only images showing the plane hitting the Pentagon. Sources tell CNN that the FBI has confiscated September 11 to register a security camera in a hotel [Sheraton] nearby, who also captured the attack. So far, the Justice Department refused to release this record. Aaron.
[Presenter Aaron] Brown: Why? Is there any idea why they do not make it public?
[Jamie] McIntyre: Well, they say - we filed a request for access to information to get it - they say it [registration] could provide information to someone else who might want to harm the United States. But officials with whom I have spoken here in the Pentagon say they see no value in this record that might involve criminal or national security. The FBI tends to retain documentation. But the government could possibly make the public record, and if they do, we will notify you.
Brown: Jamie, thank you. I had to miss something to understand what are the possibilities of information, but it happens sometimes. [...]» C2
Again, note that the FBI was quick to retrieve another record that captured the scene at the Pentagon, one of the Sheraton this time. Moreover, the justification for not making them public for its leaves to be desired. Indeed, while the whole world is aware that a plane was used to attack U.S. military's famous symbol, how to make public the fact that registration could it provide new information to anyone, if the registration shows nothing other than Flight 77, of course? Could it be that one could see anything other than a Boeing 757 of American Airlines?
addition to records from the Citgo gas station and the Sheraton National, other cameras have captured images of impact, including the Department of Transportation of Virginia, located on highway near the Pentagon, as well as many other cameras belonging to the Pentagon itself (C1).
total of up to 80 cameras, most of them part of the surveillance system the Pentagon, would potentially have caught the impact. Yet more than seven years after the attacks, no picture shows clearly what happened at the Pentagon.
It is also interesting that the day of September 11, 2001 marked the end of the first phase of renovations at the Pentagon (W39). Surprising as it may seem, the section of the building that was attacked by the terrorists was precisely that which had just been freshly renovated.
What were then the renovations in this section? Among other things, steel columns were installed there to resist explosions. And by chance, due to these renovations, the number of employees located in the affected area this morning was more than 80% below its usual level.
Here on this excerpt from a Los Angeles Times dated September 16, 2001.
"[...] The renovation - which costs are estimated at more than one billion when it ends - is still less than one-fifth completed. [...]
But the video also showed how much damage could be worse.
The American Airlines flight 77 crashed into a portion of the building has been renovated. It was the only section of the Pentagon equipped with a sprinkler system and had been rebuilt with a network of steel columns and beams that can withstand bomb blasts. The fortification of steel, assembled to form a continuous structure between five floors of the Pentagon, has prevented this section of the building to collapse for 30 minutes - long enough for hundreds of people from the rubble s'extirpent safe.
Section struck by the aircraft was also equipped with windows to the test explosions - two inches thick and 2,500 pounds each - that stayed intact during the crash and fire. This section was also equipped with doors in the event of fire, automatic opening and exits newly constructed that allowed people to escape.
˝ It was a terrible tragedy, but I'm here to tell you that if we had not performed this work in the building, it could have been really, really worse ˝ said [Lee] Evey. ˝ The fact that they hit a section that we had built so solidly was a wonderful gift.
˝
The rest of the Pentagon it would not draw as well.
The fire spread to the building caused the most damage in a section not upgraded, no sprinkler system or windows or solid steel reinforcements. But most offices in this place were empty due to renovations.
While about 4,500 people normally would have worked in the sections most affected, he does it was about 800 at that location Tuesday through renovation, officials said. [...]» W40
course, some will not see again a mere stroke of luck for the U.S. through this tragedy. But others are more skeptical about them and wonder why the terrorists have chosen instead not to crush the Boeing directly on the roof of the building. From the point of view air, such a move would certainly have been much easier to accomplish. The aircraft, however, borrowed an approach is undoubtedly more complex, flush with the ground, as evidenced by the streetlights that were overturned on its trajectory (see photos attached - PH-13.17 and 13.18).
short, as summed up the title of the article in the Los Angeles Times quoted earlier, the Pentagon was hit to where it was less vulnerable. Additionally, include as informative a historical coincidence found in this Times article: the construction of the building of the Department of Defense began September 11, 1941, sixty years to the day before the attack.
also mention in passing the odd decision that took Hani Hanjour and his fellow terrorists of Flight 77 in the days preceding the attacks. For lodging, the small group opted for a motel in fact rather specific, as reported in this BBC article published June 8, 2002.
"[...] Nineteen men armed only with knives and their fanaticism are able to complete successfully a conspiracy that went entirely unnoticed by the machine intelligence of America She works with a budget 40 billion dollars annually.
They did it because they lived and worked, not in the shade where there are spies, but in broad daylight.
In fact, one of the most bizarre ironies of all this is that five terrorists were living in a motel just outside the gate of the NSA [National Security Agency].
Early on the morning of 11 September, when Hani Hanjour and his four accomplices left the Valencia Motel on a highway in the direction of Washington's Dulles airport, they joined the stream of NSA employees who traveled to work .
Three hours later, they hijacked Flight 77 and crash against the Pentagon. [...]» W144
The same article previously gave an overview of the power and importance of the NSA stating that the agency had secret '38 000 employees daily, more than the CIA and FBI combined. " So it was certainly a genius idea for the five terrorists to spend their last days near the mouth of the wolf ...
*****
Enchaînons with a critical yet unknown, 11 September. It would also be simply inconceivable write a book like this without mentioning the testimony of Norman Mineta, U.S. Secretary of Transportation at the time of the attacks. The latter testified publicly before the commission of inquiry 23 May 2003.
Here is an excerpt of his testimony, particularly noteworthy.
"[...] Mr. Lee Hamilton [Vice-Chairman of the Committee]: ˝ I want to focus our attention for a moment on the Presidential Center of Emergency Operations [PEOC]. You will find a good part of the day. I think you were there with Vice-President [Dick Cheney]. And when the order was given, I think it was by the president to authorize shoot down commercial aircraft that were suspected of being under the control of terrorists, were you there when that order was given?
Norman Minetta: ˝ No, I was not there. I was informed while the aircraft was heading toward the Pentagon. A young man came in and told the vice president 'The plane is 50 miles [80 km]. The plane is 30 miles [48 kilometers]. " And when he had to say in 'The plane is 10 miles [16 km]' The young man also asked the vice president 'Do the orders still stand? " The vice president turned and quickly turned my head and say 'Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything that indicates otherwise? " So at that moment I did not know what that meant.
Lee Hamilton: "The flight you're referring to is the one who ... '
Norman Mineta: "The flight that crashed into the Pentagon." [...]» W66
This information proved highly problematic since they directly contradict three of the findings published in the final report of the commission. First, the official report states that the Vice-President Dick Cheney has arrived at the Presidential Center of Emergency Operations (PEOC) under the White House at 9:58 that morning of September 11. Then, the inquiry confirms that it is only 10:25 that orders to shoot down a plane was given by the president. Finally, the commission concluded that despite evidence that the military received no warning about the Flight 77 before it crashed against the Pentagon (W2).
Thus, since the Minister Mineta became aware of the existence the order to shoot down planes suspected of being under the control of terrorists before the American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon at 9:37, so it is impossible that this order has come as such 10:25 claimed that the report of the commission. However, this evidence can be considered a fighter aircraft pilot has been given permission to shoot down Flight 93 in Pennsylvania to heaven 10:03.
Second, Dick Cheney can be reached at PEOC at 9:58 as found by the inquiry as the Minister Mineta clearly indicates the presence of Vice-President before Flight 77 struck the Pentagon at 9:37.
More importantly, it obviously can not be true that no warning had been received about Flight 77 because the staff PEOC held a real-time count of the distance from this plane.
Strangely, the inquiry commission decided to completely omit the testimony of Norman Mineta in his final report, instead of issuing contradictory information to it. Why members of the Committee they decided to ignore testimony also important to establish that Flight 77 was actually monitored closely and that Dick Cheney was in PEOC before the Pentagon is hit? Naturally, this would thereby forced the commission to address the nature of the orders that Mr. Mineta was referring to.
Lee Hamilton And why does he sought not only to clarify, at Mr. Mineta's testimony, which occurred after the count of 50, 30, then 10 miles? Of course, it is possible to infer that this aircraft will be flown into the Pentagon, but is not this something worthy of greater accuracy?
Do not doubt the evidence former Minister of Transport before the American inquiry ultimately raised more questions than answers. Therefore the interview granted by Mr. Mineta to the Academy of Achievement is very useful in the context. Here is an extract thereof.
"[...] So I went into the White House and someone told me 'You must take instructions from Dick [Richard] Clark in the Situation Room. I went there, he spoke for about four or five minutes and he said 'You must go to the PEOC'. I said 'What the PEOC? " He said it was the center of the Presidential Emergency Operations. I told him I did not know where it was or what it was. There was a Secret Service agent who stood there. He said 'I'll take you there'. In fact, this bunker that lies deep beneath the White House.
I arrived at the PEOC and Vice-President was already there. There was a big conference table, with phones everywhere. I took a phone and I called my office, I kept an open line, and I used another phone to contact the FAA - the center of operations for the Federal Aviation Administration - also keeping the line open to alternate between the two lines.
A young man came and said vice-president 'There's a plane 50 miles [80 kilometers] towards [Washington] DC' So I said to Monty Belger, who is second in charge at FAA, 'Monty, what do you have on your radar about this aircraft approaching? " He said 'Well, the transponder was turned off so we do not know who it is, and we do not know what altitude or speed. " I asked 'Where is he? " He said: 'Somewhere beyond Great Falls right now. " Then the young man came in and said it [the plane] was now 20 miles [32 km]. I said 'Monty, where the aircraft from the ground? " It is hard on the radar to define a reference point on the ground, but they may be able to determine approximately the distance no matter where we are, but they could not say speed or altitude . And then, suddenly, while I talked to him he said 'Oh, I lost signal [the plane]. I lost the target. " I said 'But where is he? " He said: 'Somewhere between Rosslyn [suburbs of Washington] and National Airport. " And about the same time, someone has stopped and said, 'Mr. Minister, we just have confirmation by a district police officer in Arlington said he saw an American plane Airlines crashed into the Pentagon. " So I said, 'Monty, ordered all aircraft to land. " [...]» W204
That makes some important clarifications. Again, there is no doubt that the vice president was in the PEOC before the Pentagon is hit, contrary to the claims of the official, who neglected to mention the testimony of Mr. Mineta.
The only discussion between the young man and the vice president yet concealed vital information. Indeed, the existence of a count of '50 miles, 30 miles, then 10 miles, we implicitly indicates that a plane was heading toward Washington and the PEOC was perfectly conscious. Then came the key question that the young man asked, 'Do the orders still stand? ". Why is this a key issue?
First, because these orders had been established before the beginning of the statement and no action came to protect the Pentagon. Second, because the issue arose in a context where the U.S. military was informed that a plane whose transponder was turned off was heading right on Washington and protected airspace, while the U.S. was' under attacked over 30 minutes already. And thirdly, because the nature of these orders remains to this day unexplained.
noted in passing that from September 2000 to June 2001, NORAD (Command Air Defense of North America) was able to deploy its fighter aircraft on 67 occasions with success without that nothing will hinder the reaction of the air defense system (W17). But on the morning of September 11, four hijacked airliners were able to slip through their fingers in under two hours.
It is interesting at this stage to focus on the reaction of the commander in chief of the Russian Air Force, Gen. Anatoly Kornukov, in the aftermath of the attacks.
"˝ It is usually impossible to perform an act of terrorism by scenario that took place in the U.S. yesterday. ˝ Those are the words of the commander in chief of the Russian Air Force Anatoly Kornukov. ˝ We faced similar facts ˝ also said candidly General. Kornukov did not specify what happened in Russia, nor when or how far the events resembled what happened in the United States. [...]
But the fact that the General has said that says a lot. It seems that the method used by terrorists in America is not unique. The notification system and control of air transport in Russia does not allow the aircraft to escape its control and triggers an immediate response to missile defense, said Kornukov. ˝ immediately that something similar happens here, I am immediately informed and we are all on alert ˝, said the General. "W138
What was so special in that famous morning in September for the American military defense system is not up to it?
To help us solve this mystery, let us focus on the progression of American Airlines Flight 77 and what the authorities knew about it. According to what made the final report of the inquiry, Flight 77 began to deviate from its path and then at 8:54, two minutes later the transponder was turned off (presumably by terrorists). At the same time, the primary signal from the aircraft disappeared from radar screens also.
should know that the information transmitted by the transponder (an issuer that air traffic controllers information about the company that operates the aircraft on the flight number on its altitude, speed, this type of information) and the signal primary reference plane (a simple signal, a 'blip' on the screen radar controller designating any substance normally found metal in the sky) are two different things. When the transponder is activated, the primary signal is still detected by radar. This primary signal is also the one that when air traffic controllers spotted the unidentified objects (UFO) or enemy aircraft in time of war, appear on their radar screens.
In the case of Flight 77, however, the primary signal was strangely lost at the same time that the transponder was turned off, which normally would not have happened since the cameras capture separately the two signals, which are independent of one another. Here is the explanation of the final report of the inquiry to explain this anomaly.
"[...] The failure to identify the primary signal on the radar for American 77 led us to investigate this issue in more depth. Radar reconstructions that occurred after September 11 revealed that FAA radar equipment had followed the flight from the time the transponder was turned off at 8:56. But for eight minutes and thirteen seconds, 8:56 to 9:05, the primary signal of American 77 was not displayed on screens radar controllers at Indianapolis Center. The reasons are technical, from the way the software handled the radar information and a poor primary radar signals to the location of the American 77. According
radar reconstruction, the primary signal of American 77 re-emerged on the radar screens of the Center of Indianapolis at 9:05, east of its last known position. W2 [...]»
According to the official report, it was not until 9:32 that the primary signal was finally spotted by an air traffic controller, or 27 minutes after it reappeared. In other words, Flight 77 had wandered in the sky of this world superpower - has the best air defense system - for 36 minutes without being detected, precisely at a time when all eyes were on military to the radar screens given the situation.
Thus, the report of the Committee explained that technical problems allowed the terrorists access to the Pentagon that day. These were not only lucky that the software processing the data-aware radar failures at the worst possible moment, but they also took advantage of a 'Poor radar coverage at the heart of the sensitive area of the United States. Is not it incredible that the nation which possesses the most advanced technologies on the planet has a 'poor radar coverage, even in its nerve center?
fact remains that within one hour and 44 minutes (since the first indication of diversion of American Airlines flight 11, 8:19 until 10:03, the official time of the crash of Flight 93 in Pennsylvania), the American sky does not proved defenseless against one or two cons, cons or even three, but against four hijacked planes.
Also, note that in carrying out their plot, terrorists have not only benefited from technical problems in the air defense system the United States, but also that some specific exercises had been planned for the same Maintained by the leaders of air defense, causing the transfer of a significant proportion of the military fleet away from Washington and New York to Alaska and northern Canada to be precise.
We will return a little further on this subject. For now, suffice it to say that one of these military exercises held On the morning of 11 September was in fact nothing less than a simulated plane crash on a federal building ...
0 comments:
Post a Comment