De grote 9/11 topic

[illwill]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Dixie

en nu de 'echte' tijden:
flight 11 FAA geeft kaping door aan NORAD om 8.37 crash om 8.46
flight 175 FAA kaping door aan NORAD om 9.01 crash 9.03
flight 77 FAA geeft kaping door aan NORAD om 9.34 crash 9.37
flight 93 FAA geeft kaping door aan NORAD om 9.36 crash 10.06
http://www.historycommons.org/timeli...e&startpos=200

De enige die ons de echte tijden kan geven zijn de vlieghavens zelf.
Niet 1 of andere oetlul welke een site uit de grond heeft gestampt. Die zijn er al genoeg.

[illwill]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Gun

Daar gaat het toch niet om

Norad werkte indertijd perfect, talloze voorbeelden waarvan Payne Stewrt er één van is

Op 9-11 waren deze volledig in stand down, forced by Dick!

Deze waren helemaal niet volledig in stand down. Wie zegt dat? idd, weer een theoristje.

[Micele]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Gun

Daar gaat het toch niet om

Norad werkte indertijd perfect, talloze voorbeelden waarvan Payne Stewrt er één van is

Op 9-11 waren deze volledig in stand down, forced by Dick!

Tja Gun, doe geen moeite die mensen zijn hopeloos gebrainwashed ofwel hopeloos naïef, ofwel ... (zelf in te vullen)

Tijdens 9/11 was er een overvloed aan radarcoverage door FAA én vooral NORAD (dezelfde radars, dezelfde radardata en comms in remote)
tabel en tekst in Link (ook onderaan geciteerd):

http://nuke.crono911.org/LinkClick.a...bid=99&mid=505
84TH RADAR EVALUATION SQUADRON (ACC)
SUBJECT: Radar Data Analysis of East Coast Terrorist Activities, 11 September 2001 (World Trade Center, Pentagon, Pittsburgh PA).

Aangezien de FAA luchtverkeersleider NORAD onmiddelijk moet verwittigen bij een ongehoorzaamheid (richting en/of hoogte) én al zeker bij een identificatie-incident (transponder-off), volgens procedure, moest NORAD onmiddelijk aktie ondernemen, die zaten "gelukkig" alle op hun posities (er was zelfs militaire oefening).

NORAD kon dus putten uit de wereldbeste opsporingsradars - (voor Atmo: die draaien echt 360° rond en hebben 360°-coverage ), namelijk 3 dimensionele Radartechniek die ook vijandelijke(=Foe) fighters, natuurlijk zonder enige secundaire identificatie of hun secundaire video of IFF-antwoord: Identification Friend of Foe, waarin hun vlieghoogte (altitude), dus perfect kunnen volgen, dit om eventueel (USA was under attack 9/11 na 1e crash) met missiles neer te halen of te onderscheppen (luchtgevecht) - weliswaar met iets mindere nauwkeurigheid als moest er secundaire echo zijn die uitgezonden wordt vanuit een transponder aan boord van de vijandelijke fighters. (Transponder-altitude wordt nu 3-D height-info van ARSR-4 3D-radar, afstand en richting is evident, zie ook links onderaan: Radar Capabilities van 84 RADES)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Rou...eillance_Radar
However, since the ARSR-4 is a 3D radar, it is capable of determining aircraft altitude independently of its associated Beacon (albeit less accurately).
ARSR-4 systems are installed along the borders and coastal areas of the CONUS, Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba, the municipality of Yigo on Guam, and a training site at the FAA's Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center in Oklahoma City. They are generally unmanned, being equipped with remote monitoring of both the radar data and the status of the radar's health and environment.

Maar ook de simpelste mensen begrijpen dat vijandelijke fighters of bommenwerpers of UFO´s of gekaapte trage simpele burgervliegtuigen die rechtuit en hoog vliegen op weg naar steden als N-Y en Washington die transponders afzetten, vijandelijke bewapende Fighters gaan bovendien proberen laag aan te sluipen of die radars te storen door jamming of ECM, maar daar zijn die radarsystemen ook op voorzien: ECCM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electro...ountermeasures

ah waar was ik nu weer... op 11 september 2001 was de koude oorlog quasi 11 jaar voorbij (val vd muur), voor de verminderde Nato-statussen al ca. 14 jaar na de perestroika (Gorbachev initiated his new policy of perestroika and its attendant radical reforms in 1986); dus tijdens 9/11 was er echt geen dreiging van de Russen via de Noordpool

Het waren natuurlijk geen mach 1-2 vliegende sluipende fighters, maar gekaapte Boeings die van hun wekelijks door iedereen gekende binnenlandse routineroutes (burger-Flightplans zijn ook onmiddelijk gekend bij de militaire NORAD "op knopdruk"), die nu met transponder-off vlogen. Gemakkelijk te volgen dus, zoals de link van 84 RADES hierboven ook bewijst.

link: http://nuke.crono911.org/LinkClick.a...bid=99&mid=505

en aangezien er gelijktijdig een militaire oefening van NORAD was, zat iedereen al op hun operationele posities(communicatiemiddelen/radarschermen), maar dat schreef ik al.

Een beter scenario om zeer snel de gekaapte binnenlandse vluchten te onderscheppen bestaat er niet. De recordtijd voor interceptievluchten zou gemakkelijk gekraakt zijn.

Uiteraard snijdt zo´n mes aan 2 kanten, een beter moment om een 9/11 scramble-standdown te doen lukken, of net genoeg Quick Reaction Alert (wat´s in a name)-vertraging, ook door de zotste excuses, af te dwingen door enkele of zelfs 1 touwtrekker bestaat er niet.

Voor gedetailleerde -hopelijk- duidelijke uitleg van die standdown, timeline met maps: (oude lange post van mij )
http://forum.politics.be/showthread.php?p=4439741

Table 1 Mishap Outline:

Location Airline/Flight AircraftType CrashTime
Tracking Radar: | Radar ID:
Location Type | USAF FAA

World Trade Center A/C #1 American Airlines (AA) – 11 Boeing 767 08:46 ET
Riverhead NY ARSR-4 J-52 QVH
North Truro MA ARSR-4 J-53 QEA

World Trade Center A/C #2 United Airlines(UA) – 175 Boeing 757 09:02 ET
Riverhead NY ARSR-4 J-52 QVH
The Plains VA ARSR-3 J-50 QPL

Pentagon AA – 77 Boeing 757 09:37
Gibbsboro NJ ARSR-4 J-51 QIE
ET Oceana VA ARSR-4 J-01 QVR
Detroit MI ARSR-1E J-62 QDT
Riverhead NY ARSR-4 J-52 QVH

Pittsburgh, PA UA – 93 Boeing 747 10:00 ET
Gibbsboro NJ ARSR-4 J-51 QIE
The Plains VA ARSR-3 J-50 QPL

2. Radar Capabilities.

The radars used in this analysis are employed for USAF air defense and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) air traffic control missions. The radars under discussion have differing capabilities. The ARSR-4 radar is a three-dimensional system providing azimuth, range and 3-D height. ARSR-4 radar data provided to military end users includes search radar 3-D height. Radar data provided to FAA end users is void of search radar 3-D height, but includes weather messages that are not distributed to the military end user.


Info ARSR-4 radars (coverage 463 km) vóór 9/11:

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/airdef/arsr-4.htm

ARSR-4 Air Route Surveillance Radar

The Joint Surveillance System is a network of long range surveillance radars, primarily operated and maintained by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), but providing communication and radar data to both FAA and USAF control centers. The newest long-range search radar in the Joint Surveillance System (JSS) that has recently been fielded is the Air Route Surveillance Radar Model 4 (ARSR-4). Providing air defense and air traffic control for the continental United States, Guam, and Hawaii, forty joint radar sites were installed during the 1992-1995 period. The ARSR-4 was fielded through a $1 billion Congressionally mandated joint FAA and Air Force program, and each station costs over $12 million.

The FAA also operates several versions of Air Route Surveillance Radars (ARSRs) for air traffic control in the adjacent 1215-1350 MHz band. These radars include the ARSR-1, ARSR-2, and ARSR-3. The ARSR-4 Long Range Radar (LRR) Replacement program is designed to replace obsolete FAA air route surveillance radars (ARSR-1/2) and Air Force long range radars (FPS-20/60 series) at 39 operational joint-use facilities with new ARSR-4 systems, establish a new ARSR-4 "FAA only" site at Caribou, Maine, provide 1 ARSR-4 system to the FAA's training and support facility in Oklahoma City, OK, and deliver 3 additional systems to the Department of Defense. Forty-three of the 44 total systems have been installed and accepted from the contractor, Northrop Grumman Corporation, as part of the FAA/Air Force Radar Replacement (FARR) program.

Compared to the radars it replaced, the ARSR-4 is more reliable, easier to maintain, and increases the radar coverage area from 200 to 250 nautical miles. This three-dimensional, solid state, unattended, long rang surveillance radar has an operational frequency range of 1215-1400 MHz and uses dual-channel frequency hopping technology for long-range and anti-jam search and tracking, and is capable of detecting small objects by minimizing clutter, weather, and multipath effects. Each channel pair requires 83 MHz of frequency separation to maintain its highest possible reliability. This radar system supports defense of the national airspace and provides initial coastal civil air traffic control.

[atmosphere]

De toestellen zijn steeds op de radar te zien geweest , net als alle andere toestellen op 9/11. Waarom heeft u het daar steeds over ? dat is het punt helemaal niet.

Verder is het duidelijk dat ze te laat waren met onderscheppen . maar ook al waren ze op tijd geweest , wat dan ?? reageer daar eens op. Voor het neerschieten van burgervluchten is toestemming nodig van de top, en dat kost tijd.

De enige conclusie die we kunnen trekken is dat er dingen mis gingen. Daarmee ben je nog lang niet bij bewijs voor een inside job.

De realiteit is ook dat onderscheppingen helemaal niet binnen 10 minuten plaatsvonden na 9/11 . Het is niet zo dat zodra de FAA constateert dat er iets mis is , de fighter jets al direct de lucht in gaan.

[atmosphere]

Norad standdown debunked :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xjBbqRJT7Q

[Dixie]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door illwill

De enige die ons de echte tijden kan geven zijn de vlieghavens zelf.
Niet 1 of andere oetlul welke een site uit de grond heeft gestampt. Die zijn er al genoeg.

deze site blijkbaar nog niet bekeken zeker...
de bronnen (oa de vlieghavens) staan er bij

[Gun]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door atmosphere

Norad standdown debunked :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xjBbqRJT7Q

[Gun]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Dixie

en nu de 'echte' tijden:
flight 11 FAA geeft kaping door aan NORAD om 8.37 crash om 8.46
flight 175 FAA kaping door aan NORAD om 9.01 crash 9.03
flight 77 FAA geeft kaping door aan NORAD om 9.34 crash 9.37
flight 93 FAA geeft kaping door aan NORAD om 9.36 crash 10.06
http://www.historycommons.org/timeli...e&startpos=200

Ook transpoder switch genoteerd?

[Micele]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Gun

Ook transponder switch genoteerd?

Idd, Transponder alarm, ook op de NORAD-scopes was om 8h19.

De NEADS notified om 8h37 is eigenlijk irrelevant, want ik kan me NOOIT voorstellen dat een FAA luchtverkeersleider ttz zijn VERANTWOORDELIJKE supervisor het WAAGT ca 23 MINUTEN (8h14-8h37) niets wezenlijks te doen nadat AA11 van koers veranderd was om 8h14 èn radiocontact verbroken had !

- Daarom die noodknop AIR DEFENSE COMMAND ! Push the button
- Daarom die noodprocedures uit vitaal gevaar voor mid air collisions !
- Daarom - even later 8 h 19 - dat "Transponder alert" !

Nog eens een stukje uit de 9/11-commissie-ondervraging (en timeline met commentaar) tot de "zogezegde Neads Notified":
(en al die leugens van de ondervraagden)
...
8:14 Two controllers discuss the fact that the pilot of American Airliners Flight 11 is out of contact. There is silence for 10 minutes until a hijacker's voice is heard. "We have some planes," it says. "Just stay quiet and you will be OK. We are returning to the airport."

8:19 The transponder transmitting identification and flight data from Fl 11 suddenly stops transmitting.

4. What happens when transponders fail in flight?

At jet speeds, the specter of mid-air collision makes every second of response time is vital. Automatic alarms on every radar screen within range would have alerted FAA controllers – as well as NORAD and NEADS battle staffs sharing the same scopes – that something was seriously wrong onboard Fl 11.

Already in progress on the morning of Sept. 11, a nationwide defense drill against simulated air attack would have picked up the loss of Fl 11’s radar “data block” immediately. Charged with protecting America’s industrial, political and population heartland, the Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) commanded eight armed alert fighters on 15-minute stand-by to escort ayward aircraft. But many more fighter jets were available to fly interceptions for the day’s practice drill.

Because of what the Pentagon calls, “bizarre coincidence,” on Sept. 11, 2001 NORAD was three days into Operation Vigilant Guardian. Held twice a year to tweak NORAD’s continent-spanning surveillance and interception web, North American air defenses that morning were aggressively alert and battle staffed, with key officers needed to make immediate decisions stationed in the "battle cabs" of each interlinked US Air Force command post.

The same officers were also perfectly placed to issue orders blocking US air defenses. According to the FSC and other sources, some air bases and military pilots pleading for orders to intercept the developing attacks were told to stand down.

We also know that despite the end of the Cold War and close ties with America’s new Russian ally, Operation Vigilant Guardian directed the attention of US air defenders to a simulated Soviet threat coming in over the North Pole.

Richard Ben-Veniste, one of 10 members of the 911 commissions, earlier pledged to pursue this suspiciously timed air defense exercise, “very, very diligently,"

And the former Watergate prosecutor did so, asking Gen. Arnold under oath on May 23, 2003:
“ Sir, given the awareness of the terrorists’ use of planes as weapons, how was it that NORAD was still focusing outward in protecting the United States against attacks from the Soviet Union or elsewhere and was not better prepared to defend against the hijackings scenarios of a commercial jet, laden with fuel, used as a weapon to target citizens of the United States?” [911 Commission Testimonies: Remarks of NORAD Personnel May 23, 2003]

Maj. Gen. Arnold admitted that “back to 1998” the Pentagon’s top brass were calling Osama bin Laden “the most dangerous man in the world. And our focus, with the demise of the Soviet Union Warsaw Pact, was that we felt like the greatest threat to the United States would come from a terrorist…or rogue nation.”

As Major Arias told the News Herald in June 2001, “The Cold War is over.” So who gave the orders for focusing US air defenses on the North Pole on Sept. 11?

5. Isn’t it true that America’s air defenses looking out for external threats were not expecting an attack from within the continental USA?
" It was initially pretty confusing," Gen. Myers later told the military press. "You hate to admit it, but we hadn't thought about this." [American Forces Press Service Oct23/01]

But they had.
Pentagon crash drill, Oct. 24-26, 2000

As John Arquilla, a Special Operations expert at the Naval Postgraduate School put it, “The idea of such an attack was well known. It had been wargamed as a possibility in exercises before Sept. 11, 2001.”

Just 11 months before - between October 24 and 26, 2000 - NORAD had trained “for a passenger plane crashing into the Pentagon". [Mirror Nov13/03; Associated Press Aug22/02; Monterey Herald July18/02]

The FSC investigation also found that NORAD exercise Amalgam Virgo One, which took place in June 2001, featured a picture of Bin Laden on its cover.

Col. Alan Scott told the commission that Operation Amalgam Virgo simulated a cruise missile “launched off a rogue freighter in the Gulf of Mexico.” But the 911 investigators believed that Amalgam ’02 - which was in the planning stages prior to September 11th - 2001, involved a “hijacking scenario.”

In another “bizarre coincidence”, even as the doomed Flight 77 took off from Dulles International on the morning of Sept. 11, the super-secret National Reconnaissance Office operating all U.S. spy satellites was conducting a simulated emergency drill in which a plane from Dulles International crashed into their building. [AP Aug 22/03]

FEMA Training Manual cover.

8:37
FAA Boston Center contacts NEADS, saying, “We need someone to scramble some F-16s or something up there, help us out.”

...]

Maar jullie wortels weten het zeker allemaal beter als een ervaren luchtverkeersleider, die zelfs op Boston dienst deed (AA11 en UA175).
Negeer dit onderstaande maar zoals altijd:
Héél conspiray van jullie wortels

http://www.communitycurrency.org/robin.html

As a former member of the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) and PATCO (Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization), Hordon’s years as an ATC are particularly relevent to 9/11 researchers.


“I was a certified ATC in Boston west-bound departures, the routing that AA11 and UA175 followed on 9/11. I know it like the back of my hand.”
He even received a letter of commendation for his role in dealing with an actual hijacking. When it became clear that there hadn’t been a systems failure of any kind on the morning of September 11th, Hordon was certain that something had gone terribly wrong within the upper echelons of authority. A pilot (third level air carrier) as well as an ATC, he is well versed on in-flight emergency protocol. He is also adamant that if these procedures had been followed on 9/11 not one of the hijacked planes would have reached their targets.


“I’m sorry but American 11 should have been intercepted over southwest Connecticut—bang, done deal.”
According to Hordon, air emergencies requiring scrambles, or “flushes,” from fighter jets occur 50 to 150 times a year.


“It’s routine. At Otis AFB we would have practice exercises two or three times a year. We’d flush aircraft, get the B-52’s up, get the tankers up, get the fighters up. Just out of Otis there’d be twenty, thirty fighter jets. And on 9/11 there were plenty of fighters as well. They were just diverted over the ocean, tied up in drills, etc.”

The vast majority of air incidents are simple communications or routing failures, common mishaps that are easily remedied. Nonetheless, when a problem does arise, it is treated as an emergency and interceptors are scrambled.

“This is exactly what’s written in our manuals. We alert our immediate supervisors, we get another set of eyes on the scope. We have, two feet away from us, a little button that says ADC, Air Defense Command [nowadays NEADS (Northeast Air Defense Sector)]. Bing, hit the button. ‘Hey, this is me at the Boston Center air space. I just lost a target or I have an erratic target. He is twenty-five miles west of Keene, last reported at such-and-such location.’”
Pilots use similar checklists when responding to problems with their airplanes:

“If I lose an engine in a multi-engine aircraft I know exactly what to do. I start to control the aircraft to fly with one engine, I’ll shut the ailing engine down, I’ll get the aircraft trimmed up. It’s check, check, check.”
Hordon is not persuaded by those who make excuses for the lack of military response on 9/11. U.S. air defenses have been on hair-trigger alert to defend the nation from attack since the early sixties. The idea that, on the morning of 9/11, there was an inexplicable wave of incompetence on the part of his former FAA “brothers in arms” offends him deeply.

“The pilots are in their ready rooms, the planes are in open-ended hangars. You have frontline players, pilots and controllers. I’m there, I’m watching. The pilot is there, he’s flying. We have direct air defense command communications. That’s the way it’s been for fifty years.”

The unfathomable delays seen in military action on 9/11 are inconceivable to those who have painstakingly investigated the matter—and for a man who worked for years keeping air travel over the U.S. safe.

“Military pilots would have their asses off the ground faster than you could imagine. I know how quickly our systems can respond. Why would you design a system that responds slowly to an emergency?”
Claims by authorities that, once a hijacked aircraft’s transponders have been turned off, the plane becomes virtually invisible to radar, is another sore point for Hordon.

“Bottom line, these aircraft were always radar monitored, we were always in communication with them, even if they were hijacked. The only way you can lose an aircraft these days is for the plane to flat out blow up.”
Since any genuine air attack would not likely announce itself as such, NORAD radar has to be able to detect anything. But there’s nothing stealthy about an enormous Boeing passenger liner, whether its transponder is operating properly or not.

“That aircraft is represented on their radar scope from the time it takes off to the time it lands. Even little puddle-jumpers out of our local airports. NORAD tracks all these aircraft. They have the world’s most sophisticated radar.”
After eleven eventful years as an ATC, Hordon naturally reacted with shock when he first heard that fifty years of tried and true in-flight emergency protocol was abruptly altered in June of 2001, just two months before the attacks.

“Rumsfeld put a third party in between the ATC and the Air Defense Controller responsible for scrambling interceptors —the Pentagon.”...]

WTF Rumsfeld ?

[atmosphere]

Die aircraft controller was niet aan het werk op 9/11 .
U negeert de genen die dat wel waren , dat is pas vreemd!

U en Pilots for the truth enzovoorts .. weten het allemaal beter als de genen die er zelf bij betrokken waren.

Voor de rest citeert u werk van William Thomas, dat barst van de fouten en selectieve quotes .

[Gun]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door atmosphere

Die aircraft controller was niet aan het werk op 9/11 .
U negeert de genen die dat wel waren , dat is pas vreemd!

U en Pilots for the truth enzovoorts .. weten het allemaal beter als de genen die er zelf bij betrokken waren.

Voor de rest citeert u werk van William Thomas, dat barst van de fouten en selectieve quotes .

de genen?

spijtig genoeg niet gunstig voor jou

[Micele]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door atmosphere

Die aircraft controller was niet aan het werk op 9/11 .

Aircraft Controller ?
Welke vliegtuigen controleert die ? Is dat een avionics-mechanieker of -electronieker, of een crewchief die de inspectie in-out doet ?

Is niet relevant. Die Air Traffic Controller weet wel waarover het juist gaat.
En ik kan daarover oordelen, jij zevert weer in de rand en gaat er niet op in wat die man zegt omdat ge er NIETS van begrijpt.

U negeert de genen die dat wel waren , dat is pas vreemd!

De genen ? U negeert alles wat niet in uw kraam past.

Ik negeer geen enkele mens die geloofwaardig is.
En de tientallen leugens heb ik hier al aangehaald en aangetoond, al zijn die pas veel jaren later ontdekt en toegegeven, onder andere door de FBI.

Minimaliseer die maar kun je heel goed, DAT is pas VREEMD mmmmh

U en Pilots for the truth enzovoorts .. weten het allemaal beter als de genen die er zelf bij betrokken waren.

The United States Solicitor General Ted Olson was er zelfs direct bij betrokken, zijn ongelukkige vrouw aan boord heeft hem de details over de kapers uitgelegd en wat er zich juist in het vliegtuig afspeelde zeven punten (1.-7. zelfs, tijdens 2 telephone calls .

Staat in het commission report waar alleen maar de waarheid instaat
mmmmmh leugens

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf
Hoofdstuk : " We have some planes "
The Hijacking of American 77 page 8
...
page 9
...
At some point between 9:16 and 9:26, Barbara Olson called her husband, Ted Olson, the solicitor general of the United States. She reported that the flight had been hijacked 1. , and the hijackers had knives and boxcutters 2. . She further indicate that the hijackers were not aware of her phone call 3. , and that they had put all the passengers in the back of the plane 4. . About a minute into the conversation, the call was cutt-off.
Solicitor General tried unsuccesfully to reach Attorny General John Ashcroft. (57)

Shortly after the first call, Barbara Olson reached her husband again. She reported that the pilot had announced, that the flight had been hijacked 5. , and she asked her husband what she should tell the captain to do. Ted Olson asked for her location and she replied that the aircraft was then flying over houses 6. . Another passenger told her they were travelling northeast 7.. The Solicitor General then informed his wife from the two previous hijacking and crashes. She did not display signs of panic and did not any awareness of an inpending crash. At that point, the second call was cutt off. (58)

Natuurlijk weten die ervaren mensen het beter, want de meeste verantwoordelijken in functie betrokken bij 9/11 liegen stinkend tegen de wind in. Heb ik toch aangetoond, al vergeten.

Feit is dat in de rechtszaak US vs Zacarias Moussaoui in 2006, er na grondig onderzoek maar 1 UNCONNECTED phone call was, dus die helemaal niet doorkwam ! Onder eed door de FBI bevestigd !

Ja Atmootje Ted Olson, zelfs The United States Solicitor General hmmmmmmmmmmm leugens. GESNOPEN die link is geen crap hé maar vette kronkelende krabsalade.

Wie is er eigenlijk nog geloofwaardig van het Bush Gouvernment na alles wat er onderzocht is, allemaal hebben ze quasi gelogen: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Condi ..., enkele verantwoordelijke generaals enz... en allemaal schaapjes die zich versteken achter de geheimhouding.

Voor de rest citeert u werk van William Thomas, dat barst van de fouten en selectieve quotes .

Oh hoe mooi kronkelend TOTAAL nietszeggend geschreven zonder maar enig bewijs voor die William Thomas fouten hier te citeren.
Gemakkelijk toch.

Post liever nog eens zo´n onnozel YT-filmpje, kan ik nog eens lachen.

[Dixie]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Gun

Ook transpoder switch genoteerd?

de transponder zeker...
ach ja de FAA zit ook in het megacomplot ik was het rats vergeten

[Dixie]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door atmosphere

Die aircraft controller was niet aan het werk op 9/11 .
U negeert de genen die dat wel waren , dat is pas vreemd!

ik heb nog niet lang geleden de docu over de airtrafficcontrollers hier geplaatst
de truthers kunnen de waarheid niet aan simple as that...

[Micele]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Dixie

de transponder zeker...
ach ja de FAA zit ook in het megacomplot ik was het rats vergeten

Natuurlijk zijt ge dat heel dik vergeten.

Heb je al uitgelegd waarom er tot 23 minuten gewacht werd vooraleer de FAA-supervisor alarm doorgaf ? Of namen ze de telefoon in het Pentagon niet op ?

Radio Call for AA11, van Boston ATC:

Hallo piloot hallo piloot hoor je mij

Hallo piloot hallo piloot hoor je mij

Hallo piloot hallo piloot hoor je mij

Hallo piloot hallo piloot hoor je mij

Hallo piloot hallo piloot hoor je mij

Hallo piloot hallo piloot hoor je mij

Hallo piloot hallo piloot hoor je mij

Hallo piloot hallo piloot hoor je mij

Hallo piloot hallo piloot hoor je mij

Hallo piloot hallo piloot hoor je mij

Hallo piloot hallo piloot hoor je mij

Hallo piloot hallo piloot hoor je mij

Hallo piloot hallo piloot hoor je mij

Hallo piloot hallo piloot hoor je mij

Hallo piloot hallo piloot hoor je mij

Hallo piloot hallo piloot hoor je mij

enz... 23 minuten lang proberend
door een ATCer die voor de luchtveiligheid verantwoordelijk is ...

Hét toppunt van Onnozelheid

Dixie ge weet toch wat 23 minuten betekent bij een Emergency ?

Ge weet toch hoe lang 23 minuten duren ?
Hoe ver vliegt een F15 aan Mach 2 op 20 minuten ?
Weet je wat een Quick Reaction Alert is ?
Weet je wat een ATCer allemaal doet ?
Blijkbaar weet je er geen bal van.

Psst schijnt dat er iemand de belangrijke FAA-tapes vernietigd heeft was een ongelukje. Ze dachten zeker dat het verboden sextapes waren, die zijn verboden tijdens hun werk.

[Dixie]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Micele

Heb je al uitgelegd waarom er tot 23 minuten gewacht werd vooraleer de FAA-supervisor alarm doorgaf ? Of namen ze de telefoon in het Pentagon niet op ?

het Pentagon?! NORAD zeker...

ik zal de man zelf aan het woord laten

Boston flight controller Pete Zalewski, handling Flight 11, sees that the flight is off course and that the plane has turned off both transponder and radio. Zalewski later claims he turns to his supervisor and says, “Would you please come over here? I think something is seriously wrong with this plane. I don’t know what. It’s either mechanical, electrical, I think, but I’m not sure.” When asked if he suspected a hijacking at this point, he replies, “Absolutely not. No way

[Micele]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Dixie

het Pentagon?! NORAD zeker...

ik zal de man zelf aan het woord laten

Boston flight controller Pete Zalewski, handling Flight 11, sees that the flight is off course and that the plane has turned off both transponder and radio. Zalewski later claims he turns to his supervisor and says, “Would you please come over here? I think something is seriously wrong with this plane. I don’t know what. It’s either mechanical, electrical, I think, but I’m not sure.” When asked if he suspected a hijacking at this point, he replies, “Absolutely not. No way

Of het toestel nu gekaapt is of niet heeft helemaal geen relevantie bij luchtveiligheidsprocedures (Mid-Air-Collision-gevaar), begrijp je dat nog altijd niet ? TTz al wat in het rood staat is totaal ongeloofwaardig. Sinds wanneer moet een ATCer zich daarmee -met speculaties- bezighouden . Hij heeft nog andere vliegtuigen in zijn sector hoor.

Als de piloot een panne heeft ofzo zal die het wel onmiddelijk zeggen (zijn eigen leven en zijn passagiers is hij ook niet beu), maar als die ATCer absoluut geen radiocontact meer heeft met AA11 en dat vliegtuig is al veranderd van hoogte of richting (ziet de ATCer op zijn scherm) dan is er gevaar voor de andere burger- en ook militaire vliegtuigen in die luchtsector, begrijp je toch ? Dan moeten al die andere vliegtuigen in die sector of buursectors gecorrigeerd worden evtl door andere ATCers die plots die AA11 in hun sector zien binnenvliegen = kan chaos geven !!!!
En dan komt die afgeweken UA 175 er ook nog bij...

Dus die tekst (die je zonder bron citeert) is totaal ongeloofwaardig.

Om 8 h14 had de FAA-supervisor direct een officiele Neads-notified moeten doorgeven voor AA11 aan NORAD dat is tov 8h38 afgerond zelfs 24 minuten eerder.

Zelfs die transponder-off -officieel pas 5 minuten later ?- mocht hij niet afwachten.


Volgens veranderde scramble-procedure 2 maanden voor 9/11 zou het Pentagon ook op de hoogte gebracht moeten worden, of dat nu uiteindelijk door NORAD of het FAA moet gebeuren lees ik nergens specifiek in de nieuwe procedures. Er staat ook niet in waarom juist. Uiteraard is het totale onzin tijd te verliezen bij Emergencys naar mensen die geen bal verstand hebben waarover het gaat.

[Micele]

vervolg,

neem eens deze links over Pete Zalewski, die kerel is toch totaal ongeschikt voor een ATCer moest dat kloppen (zou van officiele tapes en bronnen zijn).

10 minuten lang Hallo pilootje AA11 9 maal geblaat.... geblaat .... aan de telefoon, 10 minuten verloren

En hij heeft nog een Boeing op "zijn geweten". Alleszins een verdacht neerstorten van een Egyptische Boeing 2 jaar voor 9/11.

Hetzelfde filmpje heb ik overigens verleden week al hier getoond over Pete Zalewski 14:36 - 17:10 ...Pete Zalewski
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...Ki02wL88rmoCg#

maar volgens een atmosferische wortel hier negeer ik de ATCer die bij 9/11 betrokken was, onze P. Zalewski was bij AA11 en UA 175 betrokken tijdens 9/11 en zelfs bij Egyptair-990 crash 2 jaar voor 9/11, wslk toeval ?

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/i...howtopic=11080

14:36 - 17:10 ...Pete Zalewski...Why is he never mentioned in any other doc?

This post has been edited by Carl Bank: Apr 7 2009, 02:56 PM

amazed!
View Member Profile Feb 27 2008, 10:57 PM Post #2
Carl
Did I understand him correctly? The controller for American 11 and the Egyptair 990 was the same guy? And also a third aircraft?

Yep. Looks that way, Flight AA11, UA175 as well as Egyptair 990.

Who is this Pete Zalewski? Maybe the question should be who WAS he? Followed by another, what was he? How long had he been ATC prior to 9/11 and how long afterwards was he an ATC?

Perhaps he came from the same spook pool as that guy with the Harley emblazoned sweat shirt and BB cap who explained on the day how the WTC fell '...mostly due to structural failure because the fires were just too intense.'

Yes. Pete Zalewsi was Responsible for AA11, UA 175 and for Egyptair 900 in '99...
I am wondering, why he isn't mentioned here more frequently.

A Pete Zelowski who claimed to be a has a letter WRT a medical complaint posted here:

http://www.immed.org/letters.htm


My name is Pete Zalewski, I was a Special Operations Intelligence Officer during the Gulf War and I believe I may have contracted the Mycoplasma you suspect maybe-causing problems in some veterans.

This might be an explaination, Pete. But it doesn't work as an excuse.

...

My symptoms over the past two years included a constant sore throat (with cobblestoning), night sweats, shortness of breath, dizziness, joint pain, short term memory loss, headaches, double vision, diarrhea, and other bowl problems, skin inflammations and severe moderate fatigue. My whole immune system seemed effected.

See, Pete, is there any poetic justice?.

...

...Putting that together with the matching symptoms (I even noticed, like Darrell, that flying in aircraft and dealing with pressure/altitude changes makes it very likely that the symptoms will occur),

Doesn't sound as if Flight Controller is the aprropriate job then.

the efficacy of particular antibiotic treatment, and the fact that I had frequent contact with all sorts of suspect things (SCUD missile parts, Iraqi prisoners, etc.)

Yep. SCUD missles and Iraqi prisoners. (Sic!)

I saw too many pieces fitting together to treat this all as mere coincidence.

2nd on that last sentence: Carl

---
cooperative research with great links to original news articles about peter:
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache......;cd=1&gl=us



9/11 commission's referrences to "peter zalewski":
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache......;cd=3&gl=us

65. FAA audio file, Boston Center, position 46R, 8:24:38 and 8:24:56; Peter Zalewski interview (Sept. 23, 2003).

106. Peter Zalewski interview (Sept. 22, 2003);

107. DOD radar files, 84th Radar Evaluation Squadron, "9/11 Autoplay," undated; Peter Zalewski interview (Sept. 22, 2003);

108. Peter Zalewski interview (Sept. 22, 2003);

109. FAA memo,"Full Transcript;Aircraft Accident;AAL11; New York, NY; September 11, 2001," Feb. 15, 2002, p. 11; Peter Zalewski interview (Sept. 23, 2003). 110. Peter Zalewski interview (Sept. 23, 2003);


actual sections from their report:
http://www.archives.gov/legislative/...t-sept2005.pdf

QUOTE
FAA air traffic controller Peter Zalewski, stationed at the Boston Air Route Traffic
Control Center (Boston Center) radioed directional instructions: "American 11 turn
twenty degrees right." Flight 11 replied: "twenty right American 11." This was the last
routine communication received from the flight. Seconds later, air traffic control radioed
Flight 11 again, this time instructing the aircraft to climb to 35,000 feet. The flight did
not respond. Over the next ten minutes, air traffic control tried nine times to contact the
flight. All attempts were unsuccessful. 47(47 NTSB report, Air Traffic Control Recording-American Airlines Flight 11, Dec. 21, 2001;'FAA report,
Aircraft Accident File ZBW-ARTCC-148, Feb. 15, 2002)


QUOTE
Shortly before 8:25 A.M., air traffic controller Zalewski heard two clicks over the
frequency assigned to the flight, and radioed in response, "Is that American eleven trying
to call?" Five seconds later, a voice with a foreign accent addressed the passengers. "We
have some planes. Just stay quiet and you'll be okay. We're returning to the airport." 65
(65. FAA audio file, Boston Center, position 46R, 8:24:38 and 8:24:56; Peter Zalewski interview (Sept. 23, 2003)


QUOTE
Because the wrong button was pushed, this message was heard not by the passengers but
by air traffic control. The controller did not comprehend the first sentence ("planes"); it
was understood 30 minutes later after a facility manager was able to locate and replay the
tape. (See 9:03 A.M. entry below.)

(At about 9:03 A.M., Boston Center reported to the FAA's New England regional office
that the hijackers stated, "We have some planes" during the 8:25 A.M. transmission from
Flight 11 - 106)
(106 Peter Zalewski interview (Sept. 23, 2003.)


QUOTE
Seconds later, Boston Center heard the following transmission from the same foreign
voice: "Nobody move. Everything will be okay. If you try to make any moves, you'll
endanger yourself and the airplane. Just stay quiet." 66
(66 - FAA memo -F'Full Transcript; Aircraft Accident; AAL l1;NewYork, NY; Septemberi 11,-20.01,"1' Feb.. - :. -
- 5, 2002. p.-11; Peter Zalewski interview (Sept 23, 2003).


QUOTE
According to Ong's simultaneous reporting, no announcements had been made from the cockpit to
the passengers. This suggests that the hijackers' announcements were not heard in the cabin, and
that they did not know how to operate the radio properly.

8:25 A.M. After hearing the second transmission from the aircraft, controllers at Boston
Center believed that Flight 11 had been hijacked.67
(67 Peter Zalewski interview (Sept. 23, 2003); John Schippani interview (Sept 22, 2003)


QUOTE
Also at 8:25 A.M., an American Airlines air traffic control (ATC) specialist at the SOC
sent another ACARS message to Flight 11: "Plz contact Boston Center ASAP.. .They
have lost radio contact and your transponder signal." Again, the aircraft did not respond
to this or subsequent ACARS messages attempting to reestablish contact with the
cockpit.68
(68 American Airlines record, Dispatch Environmental Control/Weekly Flight Summary for Flight 11, Sept
l 1, 2001)



the rest of the commish's "peter zalewski" referrences:
QUOTE
107 AAL transcript, telephone call from AAL system operations control to FAA Air Traffic Control
System Command Center, Sept. 11, 2001.

108 Boston Center was reporting information it had received from an FAA headquarters teleconference.
NEADS audio file, Identification Technician position, Channel 7, at 9:21:10.

109 The report of Flight 11 heading south - the cause of the Langley scramble - is reflected not just in
taped conversations at NEADS, but in taped conversations at various FAA centers, on NORAD's instant
messaging system, and on taped conversations of the Pentagon-convened "significant event" (which
transitioned to an "air threat") conference call. The report was also readily acknowledged in Commission
interviews of operational personnel in FAA and NORAD. Nonetheless, it is not recounted in a single
public timeline or statement issued by the FAA or the Department of Defense. Instead, the scramble at
Langley was publicly attributed to the reported hijacking of Flight 77, Flight 93, or some combination of the two.

enz...

en dit vooral nog post 8:

single post:

http://govtloyalistsite.org/showpost...;postcount=434
QUOTE
That is when Pete Zyleski slid back in his chair and calimed he had a hijack. I think Atta had said something before that but Pete couldn't recognize what he said, I beleive put it in speaker either after the first transmission or the second. Anyway Pete claimed he had a hijack and the supervisor questioned him twice on the matter asking if he really had one or not. Pete's respones was F _ _ _ You John, I know a hijack when I hear one.

is heel wat anders als jou post hé.

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Dixie

ik zal de man zelf aan het woord laten

Boston flight controller Pete Zalewski, handling Flight 11, sees that the flight is off course and that the plane has turned off both transponder and radio. Zalewski later claims he turns to his supervisor and says, “Would you please come over here? I think something is seriously wrong with this plane. I don’t know what. It’s either mechanical, electrical, I think, but I’m not sure.” When asked if he suspected a hijacking at this point, he replies, “Absolutely not. No way

post 9:

zalewski is a ghost online. outside of the 9/11 referrences, i havent found any information on him. searches at http://www.natca.org/ and http://www.atca.org/ show no results for him.

also missing, is any info linking him to the Egypt Air crash. i hate to disappoint anyone, but if im not mistaken, Peter Zalweski of 9/11 was working the Boston ATC center, while the record shows egypt air was in contact with New York's ATC before its crash:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EgyptAi...#_note-ntsb-3a
QUOTE
U.S. Air Traffic Controllers provide trans-Atlantic flight control operations as a part of the "New York Center" (referred to in radio conversations simply as "Center" and abbreviated in the reports as "ZNY"). The airspace is divided into "areas", and "Area F" was the section that oversaw the airspace through which Flight 990 was flying. Trans-Atlantic commercial air traffic travels via a system of routes called North Atlantic Tracks, and Flight 990 was the only aircraft at the time assigned to fly North Atlantic Track Zulu. There are also a number of military operations areas over the Atlantic, called "Warning Areas", which are also monitored by New York Center, but records show that these were inactive the night of the accident.[5]

Interaction between ZNY and Flight 990 was completely routine. After takeoff, Flight 990 was handled by three different controllers as it climbed up in stages to its assigned cruising altitude.[5] The aircraft, like all commercial airliners, was equipped with a Mode C transponder, which automatically reported the plane's altitude when queried by the ATC radar. At 1:44, the transponder indicated that Flight 990 had leveled off at FL330. Three minutes later, the controller requested that Flight 990 switch communications radio frequencies for better reception. A pilot on Flight 990 acknowledged on the new frequency. This was the last transmission received from Flight 990.

more specific info on the ATC aspect of the 990 crash:
http://www.ntsb.gov/events/ea990/docket/Ex_3A.pdf

atc transcript:
http://www.ntsb.gov/events/ea990/docket/Ex_3A_attA.pdf


***

karl is there an index of sources for the video (are any mentioned in the video)? it would be helpful to find out where they got the information that connects Zalewski to Egypt 990. im not saying its claim about zalewski/990 is not true, but so far i havent been able to corroborate it.

by the way - thanks karl for posting the video...

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/cheers.gif)

ETA:
just to be clear, egyptair crashed in late oct 1999, 2 years prior to 9/11. so there is every possibility that Zalewski may have worked in NY in 99 and Boston in 2001, nothing rules this out. it just awaits confirmation (somehow)...


hoppla post 14 bron NBC of...



btw - at the moment i am busy watching an NBC dateline special online, that tells 911 from an ATC point of view. there are 5 vids there that i recommend watching:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14754701/

look for this box:
(IMG:http://aycu01.webshots.com/image/465...5372736_rs.jpg)


the interview with Pete Zalewski starts around 3:33 of the first video.
this screencap is from the second video:
(IMG:http://aycu11.webshots.com/image/450...3597693_rs.jpg)
(Pete Zalewski)


also on that NBC page is the following transcript:
QUOTE

8:14 am.: 14 minutes since take-off
American 11 is headed up to its cruising altitude of 35,000 feet, but not before Zalewski radios the pilot a routine order to turn, to keep enough space ! between American 11 and another plane.

Zalewski: I turn him to 20 degrees right, he took the turn. I then told American 11, “Climb and maintain flight level three-five-zero, 35,000 feet.” There was no response.

A moment of concern perhaps, but that was not uncommon.

Zalewski: At that point, I was just thinking that it was, you know, maybe the pilots weren’t paying attention, or there’s something wrong with the frequency.

Zalewski followed procedures, continuing to try to raise American 11 on the frequency.

Zalewski: And at first, it was pretty much, you know, American 11, you know, “Are you paying attention? Are you listening?” And there was still no response. I used the emergency frequency to try and get a hold of him through that. There was no response.

By now Zalewski is running a mental checklist, trying to account for the loss of communication — a technical problem or maybe a mistake on the pilot’s part?

Zalewski: I went back the previous sector to see if the pilot had accidentally flipped the switch back over on the radio. At that point there was still nothing. We weren’t hearing from him.

American 11 was “NORDO”—“no radio contact.” Zalewski stepped up his efforts.

Zalewski: I would go on to call that aircraft 12 times.

And as it went on, I begin to get more concerned.

Hier schrijven ze 12 times geblaat...

[illwill]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Micele

Aangezien de FAA luchtverkeersleider NORAD onmiddelijk moet verwittigen bij een ongehoorzaamheid (richting en/of hoogte) én al zeker bij een identificatie-incident (transponder-off), volgens procedure, moest NORAD onmiddelijk aktie ondernemen, die zaten "gelukkig" alle op hun posities (er was zelfs militaire oefening).

Hoe weet je dit? Even de bron voor deze procedure aub.

[illwill]

Oorspronkelijk geplaatst door Dixie

deze site blijkbaar nog niet bekeken zeker...
de bronnen (oa de vlieghavens) staan er bij

Ik heb geen link nodig naar de site waar je vluchten kan boeken.

Ik heb een link nodig waar de info te zien is welke men beweerd te halen van deze sites.
Je kan wel zeggen dat FAA iets gemeld heeft deze middag om 13h02...en er een linkje bij plaatsen naar de site van een luchthaven...maar daarmee heb je nog niet de info van 13h02 op deze site gevonden.

Kortom, je zegt dat de FAA deze info heeft gegeven? Graag dan ook de locatie waar de FAA zelf deze info vrijgeeft.