wow! new info on Pentagon 9/11 plane

[donsu]

http://www.tomflocco.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=110&mode=&order=0&thold=0

Missile & remote control systems added to small jets before 9-11; same parts found at Pentagon


Two civilian defense contractor employees--told to remain silent--say other workers quietly retro-fitted missile and remote control systems onto A-3 jets at Colorado public airport prior to September 11 when similar A-3 parts much smaller than a Boeing 757 were found at Pentagon

Presidential candidate says scores of retired and active military and intelligence officials would testify before current grand jury probing government involvement in 9/11 attacks
---------------

According to two civilian defense contractor employees working at commercial corporate facilities at Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport (left), in the months before the September 11 attacks U.S. Air Force defense contractors brought in A-3 Sky Warrior aircraft under cover of darkness to be completely refitted and modified at the small civilian airport in Colorado.

-snip-

The two witnesses say that separate military contractor teams--working independently at different times--refitted Douglas A-3 Sky Warriors (above) with updated missiles, Raytheon's Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) remote control systems, fire control systems, engines, transponders, and radio-radar-navigation systems--a total makeover, seemingly for an operation more important than use as a simple missile testing platform for defense contractor Hughes-Raytheon.

-snip-

The witnesses were quite fearful about several recent "suicides, car wrecks--mysterious deaths--directly related to the aviation experts" working on the systems that were installed on the A-3’s at Fort Collins-Loveland--having breached the government-blocked information flow at great personal risk, according to Schwarz--but providing more evidence for a New York 9/11 investigation.
-snip-
----------------------------------

there is also this:

One air traffic controller from another Northeast sector revealed to a 9-11 widow that FBI threats were made of both a personal and career nature: "You are ordered never to speak about what you saw on your screen during the attacks; and if you do, things will not go well for you and your family."



the criminal, murdering, bloody hands bushgang belong in prison

[TexasLawyer]

1. But only if...

The presidential candidate told us "there are about 150 retired and active U.S. military and federal intelligence officers who will come forward and testify regarding government involvement in the September 11 attacks--but only if there is a serious criminal grand jury."

Where there's smoke, often times there's fire. There's an awful lot of smoke out here. We need to know the truth of 9/11 one way or another.

[whistle]

2. Is Tom Flocco a credible writer and journalist?

[ArkDem]

6. LOL

[MrMonk]

7. Is "Presidential candidate" Karl Schwarz a credible source?

He seems to have suddenly appeared on the scene with nothing but a raft-load of anonymous "sources" of his own.

[whistle]

15. What does Karl Schwarz have to do with Tom Flocco, I'm....

...simply asking if this guy's web-site blog stands up the other claims he has made? In this article he says there are 100's of eye witnesses who can be brought forward to testify to the truth of what he says in his piece.

Is Flocco the type of journalist who goes out and gets the facts, checks the sources, gets cross sources, whatever real journalists do to get to the truth of things, or does he make stuff up, just to get things published and read on his blog?

If you know one way or the other, please respond, otherwise kindly refrain from flaming my naivete.

[philb]

23. Flocco seems to be a real investigative journalist

Flocco seems to be a real investigative journalist, though I don't know much about him.
This story does appear to come mainly from Schwarz, who is still a somewhat questionable source, though he clearly has had some connections in the past. He seems to be self promoting though, not that that is unusual.

Here is Flocco's web page
http://tomflocco.com/index.php

[JackRiddler]

36. Flocco exaggerates

and I know from having been at events on which he reported. His exaggerations & "mistakes" all skew to the spectacular. He got suckered or suckered himself into reporting that Kathrine Harris had died in a plane crash. At last year's final 9/11 Commission hearing, two people were approached by uniformed security people when they began to call out objections to the farce of non-questioning during the NORAD session. One got to stay inside, the other was escorted to the door and left alone. Flocco turned that into an outright disappearance by "federal agents."

His site is full of links to assorted pod and webfairy highlights, plus the Minutemen are big heroes (let's replace Arabs with Mexicans for enemy of the state). The article flies apart under the weight of so many assertions, all sourced to Schwarz & Schwarz alone.

Better thread on latest from Flocco & Schwarz here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x40901

[philb]

27. Schwarz is CEO of a competing UAV company to predator

Also of critical importance to a 9/11 criminal investigation is the fact that Fort Collins-Loveland Regional Airport was being used as a final testing site for remote control UAVs, and that is what originally drew the attention of Karl Schwarz.

Schwarz is the CEO of a company which designs remote control/UAVs for the U.S. Army and had a $392 million dollar Defense Department order for 32 UAVs canceled "because they would see too much over in Iraq, and because we could put in a fleet of them for what our competition was paying for a couple."

Lockheed-Martin's Missiles and Fire Control Systems UAV used in Iraq is called the Predator, which costs $45 million for each unit, has three sensors and requires a crew of 55 individuals to operate one of them, according to Schwarz.

"Our Project Medusa has 11 high-powered sensors that can all operate simultaneously, can stay aloft at least 24 hours, has the world's most advanced hyper-spectral system augmented by two technologies to speed up pixel analysis and detect minute anomalies in the field of view (FOV) if the operator is paying attention or not, or if his human eyes cannot even see the detail that the software detects and highlights for the operator to zoom in on," said the UAV corporate CEO.

"A crew of 55 is required to operate 5 Medusa Skypods simultaneously. A single pilot operator flies them from a single laptop or personal computer. In short, 55 operators running 55 high powered sensors with far more processing and pixel engine detection power versus 55 operators running a single Predator and only one sensor capable of running at a time. The five Medusas cost about $65 million each but have far more technology capabilities and at any given time cover a far larger area with more visual assets, " said Schwarz.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dbt]

4. Don't worry...

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[whistle]

8. So, what about Tom Flocco, believable or flako?

[genius]

10. Definitely believable.

His information has always checked out when I've looked.

[meppie-meppie not]

12. good to know. thnx genius :) n/t

[whistle]

16. Thanks

[suziedemocrat]

9. Then what happened to the plane that they said hit the Pentagon? n/t

[genius]

11. In your heart, you know what happened to that plane.

Though there is a record of it landing in Cleveland. I'm sure there are no survivors.

[meppie-meppie not]

14. yep, that's my thoughts too n/t

[philb]

25. Here is the report of Fl 93 landing in Cleveland

What was Flight X in Cleveland and why the secrecy about it?
http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=323
http://256.com/gray/thoughts/2001/20010912/travel_story.html

[progressoid]

13. Shhh - don't ask.

Really - you don't want to know.

:tinfoilhat:

[philb]

24. remember that FAA reported Flight 77 crashed or landed near Kentucky/Ohio

border see Dr. Griffin's book or other sources

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hack89]

18. So, in a city full of active and retired military pilots...

Not a single eye witness has said he/she saw a Global Hawk or an A-3. Knowing that they would have to fly over a crowded highway packed with eyewitnesses - why didn't the plotters simply use a 737 or some other commercial airliner? There are thousands of airliners laying unused around the world - why resurrect an old warplane that would have been instantly identifiable to many witnesses?

[meppie-meppie not]

20. that's a question to ask the planners of it all

that is if we can ever get them to testify under oath and in a real investigation.

[hack89]

21. No - the question is directed at you!

Surely you have an opinion?

[philb]

26. I think the story talked about night operations, not daytime

[Frederik]

31. Several eyewitnesses reported seeing a

smaller jet.

It is my understanding that A-3s are used as UAVs when testing missile systems (according to Schwarz, anyway). There would perhaps have been a concern about the damage a larger plane could cause to the Pentagon? If I'm not mistaken, Schwarz's theory has the plane shoting a missile at the building immediately before impact, for whatever reason. Which would require a military jet.

[Old and In the Way]

32. Just what could witnesses have seen?

First, it's not like anyone is intently waiting for the aircraft to hit. People are driving on the freeway probably focused on the road, the news about the attacks in NYC, or any of a zillion normal distractions that we are all preoccupied with, every waking second.

If this flying object is traveling at 400MPH, its covering over 500 ft per second. Maybe it's only 200 MPH, or 250' per second. The event time that people have to absorb and ID the object is maybe 2-4 seconds. And that's assuming they are prepared to critically evaluate the approach of the aircraft...which there'd be no reason for anyone to be doing. So the actual view time is probably only 1, maybe 2 seconds.

If this was a mock-up of 77, I could imagine that, the one thing everyone who witnesses the flight notices and imprints, is the "AA" logo on the tail. From there, the brain fills in the rest of the details. "AA" means American Airlines which means passenger plane. Whatever else they think they saw is probably an amalgam of a few actual and a lot of imagined details.

So it's really not surprising to me that we have an incredible range of descriptions from people who saw something streaking into the Pentagon. Perhaps a few, like Erberle, have their own agenda to convey when sharing their story, but most are simply recollecting an event that lasted a few seconds and probably is more fabrication that reality.

[Frederik]

33. I agree

It isn't awfully credible when eyewitnesses say things like "I could see it was an American Airlines 757". Though it may well have been, I'm basically agnostic on that question. I actually find the trajectory of the plane to be more interesting - why would a terrible pilot like Hani Hanjour not simply dive into the Pentagon, causing maximum damage with minimum effort, and instead perform these acrobatic maneuvers to hit the wedge of the Pentagon that was nearly empty, thus causing minimal damage compared to any other way of crashing into the building? The opposite side of where the big brass is located, of course.

[Old and In the Way]

34. That story's a joke....

a guy who didn't belong in a Cessna, can bring a 757, at cruising speed, thru a 270 degree turn while dropping 7000 feet, to put it exactly in an area that did the least amount of damage?

Not likely....I can believe one might be able to fly a 757 straight into the WTC, but that manuever at the Pentagon requires a high degree of skill weithout destroying the airframe in mid-flight. No way does "Hans flew the 757 into the Pentagon" make any sense.

[hack89]

35. And how many eyewitnesses saw a missile? (nt)

[Frederik]

37. I'm not arguing that theory

But if I were to, I would say that a missile fired from the plane a second before impact wouldn't necessarily be noticed. The white exhaust seen (purportedly below the small plane) on the security camera tape is seen as corroboration of the missile theory by those who support it.

[ROH]

22. Beware of disinformation...

particularly regarding Flight 77 / the Pentagon.

The article might be useful, but it's worthwhile to be cautious of the suggestions.

[philb]

28. Solid documentation of official complicity in Pentagon event and cover-up

Fl 77 Pentagon
Original FAA/NORAD Time Line

8:20 AM Takeoff from Dulles Airport, D.C.
8:25 FAA notified all Regional FAA offices of Flight 11 hijacking
8:25 bridge call between FAA, NMCC, DOT, DOD, etc. started by NMCC as significant incident conference when Fl 11 hijacking reported and later upgraded to air threat conference dealing with all “planes of interest”
8:42 FAA confirmed radio and transponder off on Flight 175
8:43 FAA notifies NORAD that a second plane appears to be hijacked and has turned towards N Y
8:46 NEADS(NORAD) scrambles 2 jets from Otis AFB to N Y
8:46 FAA notes FL 77 significantly off course; this is supported by USA Today published flight course time line
8:47 WTC1 hit by airplane;
8:50 bridge call between FAA, DOD, DOT, NORAD, NMCC re: “all planes of interest”
8:56 transponder off on Fl 77 and plane turned around over NE Kentucky
8:57 report by FAA that Fl 77 crashed or landed near Kentucky/Ohio border/ lost on radar
9:03 a plane hits WTC2; notification sent out by FAA
9:24 FAA contacts NORAD and says Fl 77 heading towards D.C.
9:25 NORAD scrambles jets from Langley AFB heading to D.C.
9:30 jets in the air heading to D.C. (130 mile trip, 5 minute trip at 30 miles per minute)
9:38 something hits the Pentagon, jets reported to be off course and still 105 miles away

Note: General Richard Myers, commander of U.S. Forces, and the NORAD spokesman Mike Snyder both originally reported that no jets were scrambled by the military until after the Pentagon was hit. After considerable criticism of an apparent military stand down, the new report was issued indicating that FAA notified NORAD at 9:24 and planes were scrambled but got lost and arrived too late.
After more criticism of both earlier scenarios as implying a military stand down, the 9/11 Commission revised the time line and official scenario again in 2004, stating that the Pentagon was unaware that there was a plane heading towards D.C. until it was hit. And that the earlier report that planes had been scrambled to intercept Flight 77 were in error.

New Revised 9/11 Commission Time Line(2004)
8:20 Flight 77 takeoff from Dulles Airport
8::38 FAA contacts NORAD that Fl 11 hijacked, NORAD spends 8 minutes on calls up chain of command
8:46 jets scrambled from Otis AFB to New York
8:47 WTC1 hit, notice goes out to FAA offices
8:52 2 jets from Otis AFB are in air to N Y
8:54 Flight 77 significantly off course
8:56 transponder signal and radar track lost, assumed to have crashed or landed
9:00 FAA head Jane Garvey notifies the White House that a plane has crashed in Kentucky
9:03 a plane hits WTC2 South Tower, military was never notified by FAA
9: 21 FAA reported to NORAD that Flight 11 did not hit WTC1 and is headed towards D.C.
9:24 NORAD scrambles 3 jets form Langley AFB to Washington to intercept Fl 11 but does not know where target is; pilots make a mistake and fly out to sea far away from D.C.
9:25 FAA controller tells FAA HQ they think Flight 77 may have been hijacked
9:36 FAA Boston notifies NORAD of plane heading towards DC
9:38 plane hits Pentagon; NORAD never notified that plane was headed to D.C., Pentagon notified only 2 minutes before building was hit

The new revised 9/11 Comm. Scenario for Fl 77 said that the previous report of course changes and turning around(as also reported by news reports) were wrong and that the FAA was not aware that the plane had turned around and was heading towards D.C. So the plane flew undetected towards Washington for 36 minutes. The Comm. Report states that the military was never notified that the plane was headed towards D.C. and was never aware that the plane was hijacked. The Commission said that earlier reports and statements that NORAD was notified about the Fl 175 and Fl 77 hijackings were in error. The Comm. Said that the real reason that the Langley jets were scrambled to D.C. was that the FAA had reported at 9:21 that Flight 11 that had earlier been reported to have hit WTC1 was actually still in the air and heading towards D.C. They were aware of this new report for the first time in 2004 and used it to correct the time line. The Comm. said however that it was unable to identify the source of the report or who took the report. The Comm. Said that at 9:36 when the jet pilots were contacted to intercept Flight 11 which was thought to be headed towards D.C., the planes were still 105 miles away because the pilots had misunderstood their instructions and headed east out to sea.

There is considerable evidence contradicting the 9/11 Comm. Revised time line and scenario.

1. Journalist Tom Flocco reported in 2003 that Laura Brown of FAA said that a phone bridge between the FAA and Charles Leidig of NMCC had begun between 8:20 and 8:25 after Fl 11 was known to be hijacked. This conference call was begun as a significant incident call after Fl 11 was hijacked but was upgraded later to an air threat call dealing with all “planes of interest”. A source at the Dept. of Transportation confirmed the 8:25 time period for the bridge call between NORAD, Secret Service, DOD, and DOT.
Tom Flocco stated his opinion that after talking to several parties, he is convinced the call started at the earlier time]

2. Laura Brown(senior FAA official at Boston Logan) (memo of May 23, 2003) The FAA and military and NORAD had been in constant communication from just after the first WTC crash and prior to the WTC2 crash(since approx. 8:50) Many sources confirm this call and that they were talking about “all flights of interest”.

3. Matthew Wald, NY Times published story supports the Laura Brown version of the call. It reported that according to his sources: “During the hour that the Fl 77 was under the control of the hijackers, up to the moment it struck the west side of the Pentagon, military officials in a command center on the East Side of the Pentagon were urgently talking to law enforcement and air traffic control officials about what to do” (the command center is the NMCC and air traffic control is FAA)

4. Statement by Captain M. Jellinik, NORAD command director on 9/11, According to news reports quoting him, a bridge call between NMCC, NORAD, and FAA began just after the first strike on the WTC, consistent with the time of the original Laura Brown memo.

5. According to a report by Richard Clark, National Security Coordinator: He reported that the deputy director of the White House Situation Room told him at 9:15 that they had been on the air threat call with NORAD and FAA. This call had been going on a considerable time as it had begun as a significant event call and had been upgraded to an air threat call, and there had been many exchanges of information. According to Clarke, the FAA head Jane Garvey was at the White House teleconference answering questions about the hijackings before 9:20 am. The Commission report said that it could not determine who from DOD participated in the teleconference with Clark and the FAA; however Richard Clarke had testified that Gen Myers and Donald Rumsfeld and Jane Garvey were on the call. Others confirm this.

6. Norman Mineta, Secretary of Transportation, said he met with Richard Clark who was on a conference call before going to the White House PEOC room to meet with V.P. Cheney at 9:20. So Clark was on the conference call by 9:15.

7. Norman Mineta, Sec. of Transportation, testimony before 9/11 Comm.: on a meeting he was at with V.P. Cheney at the White House PEOC that he arrived at about 9:20:
“During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the vice president, “The plane is 50 miles out”; “The plane is 30 miles out” ; And when it got down to “the plane is 10 miles out” the young man said to the vice president, “Do the orders still stand?” And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said “Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?”

[philb]

29. See similar documentation on Flights 11 and 175 & WTC in 571page lie threa

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x40408

[philb]

30. Rumsfeld, Gen Myers Complicity

Discrepancies in General Myers and Donald Rumsfeld’s statements

The 9/11 Commission Report apparently tries to deflect the criticism that Gen Myers complicit in the stand down by stating that Gen Myers was on Capital Hill meeting with Senator Cleland from 8:45 to 9:45 am about personnel matters during the period prior to the time that WTC and the Pentagon buildings were attacked. Thus he never took part in dealing with 9/11 events.

Also this statement is contradicted by the report and testimony of Richard Clarke, the National Security Director. He said that Myers, Rumsfeld, Tenet, Muller, and Garvey were on a teleconference call about the attacks and that he had a discussion with Gen Myers about getting fighters up over Washington. He said Myers gave a report that we have 3 F 16s from Langley up over the Pentagon and Andrews is launching fighters from the DC air national guard(DCANG). This also contradicts Gen Myers statements to the effect that Andrews AFB had no planes on alert to defend the D.C. area. One of these men clearly isn’t telling the truth, and given the number of people on the teleconference call it is easy to confirm who it is.

Shortly after 9/11, Sec of Defense Donald Rumsfeld made a statement carried by news reports and on the DOD web site about his actions on 9/11. Apparently he was also anxious to imply that he had not been aware of the 9/11 events before the buildings were hit. He said that he heard something happened and went downstairs to see what happened and was told a plane had hit the Pentagon (he was in the East wing, plane hit the west wing which is a considerable distance away). He said he went to the crash site and helped with putting people on stretchers for loading in ambulances and returned to his office at about 10:20. In testimony to the 9/11 Comm., he gave a slightly different story. He said that when the plane hit the Pentagon shook and he went out to see what had happened. He said he wasn’t there long and returned to his office at about 10:00. Note that actions and times are important due to other events.
The 9/11 Comm. agreed with the first report regarding actions and with the 2nd statement regarding the time of return to the office. But note the time that the plane hit and the fact that it is about a 10 minute walk from Rumsfeld’s office in the East wing to the west wing parking lot. Also there is contradictory testimony to any of these statements.

All of these statements are in conflict with Richard Clarke’s report, which is easily verifiable. Clarke said that Myers and Rumsfeld were on the teleconference call with him and others about the hijackings from about 9:15 until the plane hit the Pentagon. When the plane hit, Rumsfeld said that smoke was getting into the secure conference room so he moved to another studio at the Pentagon. This contradicts Rumsfeld’s statements on where he was and what he was doing. It also contradicts Myers and Rumsfeld’s statements that they were unaware of the status of Fl 77 before it hit the Pentagon.

The Comm. Report appears to be an obvious attempt to cover up these discrepancies by not looking at or reporting information from testimony that was not consistence with the statements of Cheney, Myers, Rumsfeld, and other top DOD and military leaders. The testimony of Transportation Secretary who was in charge of all response to the non military response to the hijackings , and the testimony of National Security Coordinator Richard Clarke, that of many FBI agents such as Sibel Edmunds and Crowley and of other officials was not included or mentioned in the Comm. Report. The FBI agents testified that they were aware of prior warnings of the plans for the attacks and that they and others had warned the administration and pentagon officials, and also that their efforts prior to 9/11 to prevent the attacks were stifled by FBI top level officials. Although the Commission Report says that the Pentagon only became aware of the plane heading to the Pentagon at 9:36 which was 2 minutes before the building was hit, it is clear this was not the case. Note another suspicious event that is contradictory to this statement besides the previous reports and testimony. The Comm. Report says that the Pentagon became aware of an unarmed military C 130H cargo plane in the Washington area and ordered it to find the plane and identify it. The C 130H pilot said that he spotted the plane, identified it as a Boeing 757, attempted to follow its path, and reported that it crashes into the Pentagon. Rather a lot of action in an extremely short time period when talking to a C130 pilot would not be high on official’s agenda. This is the primary source identifying that the plane that hit the Pentagon was a Boeing 757. Besides the obvious time complications, this story does not seem to be compatible with another story in the Commission Report about the plane that hit the Pentagon’s approach and actions. And another strange story of this C 130H being involved in Pennsylvania with the Flight 93 crash incident also have very confusing statements.

This information come from Chap 14 of the book of Dr. D.R. Griffin, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions; the book has references for the sources of information quoted.