portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts united states

9.11 investigation

77 and 93 on 911

The statements of the witnesses in the following compendium of extracts were not selected because they are the most frequently ignored testimonies (which they are), but because they are mutually-compatible, non-contradictory, and convergent on a highly-plausible, remote-controlled theory of both flight 77 and 93 that was already published in July 2001 by James Hatfield. For me it was "like a domino effect" - a really bad day for airplanes in the vicinity of Lt. Col. Steve O'Brien. (Bonus 9.25AM FAA Stand-Down Order included)

Why would Osama bin Laden want to kill Dubya, his former business partner?
By James Hatfield

July 3, 2001

[...] According to counter-terrorism experts quoted in Germany's largest newspaper, the attack on Dubya might be a James Bond-like aerial strike in the form of remote-controlled airplanes packed with plastic explosives.


A personnel attorney at the Pentagon, Goldsmith was riding a shuttle bus to work on Tuesday, Sept. 11, when she learned of the attack on the World Trade Center. [...] "We saw a huge black cloud of smoke," she said, saying
it smelled like cordite or gun smoke.
-Jewish Bulletin News

WASHINGTON, D.C. ? The airliner crashed between two and three hundred feet from my office in the Pentagon, just around a corner from where I work.

I'm the deputy General Counsel, Washington Headquarters Services, Office of the Secretary of Defense.

A slightly different calibration and I have no doubt I wouldn't be sending this to you. My colleagues felt the impact, which reminded them of an earthquake. People shouted in the corridor outside that a bomb had gone off upstairs on the main concourse in the building. No alarms sounded. I walked to my office, shut down my computer, and headed out.

Even before stepping outside I could smell the cordite.
Then I knew explosives had been set off somewhere."
McSweeney's

The second plane looked similar to a C- 130 transport plane, [Keith Wheelhouse] said. He believes it flew directly above the American Airlines jet, as if to prevent two planes from appearing on radar - while at the same time - guiding the jet toward the Pentagon.
Daily Press, September 14, 2001

Kelly Knowles, a First Colonial High School alumnus who now lives in an apartment a few miles from the Pentagon, said some sort of plane followed the doomed American Airlines jet toward the Pentagon, then veered away after the explosion.

At the same time, [Keith Wheelhouse] and his sister, Pam Young, who lives in Surry, were preparing to leave a funeral at Arlington National Cemetery, which is less than a mile from the Pentagon, when they watched the jet approach and slam into the Pentagon. Both of them, as well as at least one other person at the funeral, insist that there was another plane flying near the hijacked jet.
Daily Press, September 15, 2001

?Then the plane -- it looked like a C-130 cargo plane -- started turning away from the Pentagon, it did a complete turnaround. - New York Lawyer

Off to the west, Sucherman saw another plane climb steeply and make a sharp turn. "I thought, 'Is this thing coming around to make a second attack? If there is another explosion, we're toast.'" - eWeek

As we watched the black plume gather strength, less than a minute after the explosion, we saw an odd sight that no one else has yet commented on. Directly in back of the plume, which would place it almost due west from our office, a four-engine propeller plane, which Ray later said resembled a C-130, started a steep decent towards the Pentagon. - Cloth Monkey

Within moments there was a very loud bang, which seemed to come from the direction of Henderson Hall. At least, all the heads turned towards Henderson. It is possible that this was a secondary explosion from the Pentagon or possibly an F-16 going supersonic.[...] The only large fixed wing aircraft to appear was a gray C-130, which appeared to be a Navy electronic warfare aircraft, he seemed to survey the area and depart in on a westerly heading. - Our Net Family

[Keith Wheelhouse] and at least two other witnesses to the Pentagon attack were troubled that Pentagon spokesmen had until now said they were unaware of a C-130 being in the area at the time. In the days immediately following the Sept. 11 hijackings, the Pentagon had no knowledge of the C-130's encounter, because........all reports were classified by the Air National Guard. [!]
Daily Press, October 17, 2001

Business jet, military cargo plane were in area of hijacked United Flight 93

Sunday, September 16, 2001

By Bill Heltzel and Tom Gibb, Post-Gazette Staff Writers

Two other airplanes were flying near the hijacked United Airlines jet when it crashed in Somerset County, but neither had anything to do with the airliner's fate, the FBI said yesterday.

In fact, one of the planes, a Fairchild Falcon 20 business jet, was directed to the crash site to help rescuers. The request for the jet to fly low and obtain the coordinates for the crash explains reports by people in the vicinity who said a white or silver jet flew by moments after the crash.

A C-130 military cargo plane was also within 25 miles of the passenger jet when it crashed, FBI spokesman Bill Crowley said yesterday, but was not diverted.
At 9:25, [Jane] Garvey, in an historic and admirable step, and almost certainly after getting an okay from the White House, initiated a national ground stop, which forbids takeoffs and requires planes in the air to get down as soon as reasonable.

The order...applied to virtually every single kind of machine that can takeoff - civilian, military, or law enforcement.

Lt. Col. Steve O'Brien started his day at the controls of a Minnesota National Guard C-130 cargo plane. He and his crew were heading back to the Twin Cities after moving military supplies around the Caribbean. About 9:30 a.m., O'Brien throttled the lumbering plane down a runway at Andrews Air Force Base, just southeast of the District of Columbia.

"When we took off, we headed north and west and had a beautiful view of the Mall," he said. "I noticed this airplane up and to the left of us, at 10 o'clock. He was descending to our altitude, four miles away or so. That's awful close, so I was surprised he wasn't calling out to us.

"It was like coming up to an intersection. When air traffic control asked me if we had him in sight, I told him that was an understatement - by then, he had pretty much filled our windscreen. Then he made a pretty aggressive turn so he was moving right in front of us, a mile and a half, two miles away. I said we had him in sight, then the controller asked me what kind of plane it was.

"That caught us up, because normally they have all that information. The controller didn't seem to know anything."

O'Brien reported that the plane was either a 757 or 767 and its silver fuselage meant it was probably an American Airlines jet. "They told us to turn and follow that aircraft - in 20-plus years of flying, I've never been asked to do something like that. With all of the East Coast haze, I had a hard time picking him out.

"The next thing I saw was the fireball. It was huge. I told Washington the airplane has impacted the ground. Shook everyone up pretty good. I told them the approximate location was close to the Potomac. I figured he'd had some in-flight emergency and was trying to get back on the ground to Washington National. Suddenly, I could see the outline of the Pentagon. It was horrible. I told Washington this thing has impacted the west side of the Pentagon."

O'Brien asked the controller whether he should set up a low orbit around the building but was told to get out of the area as quickly as possible. "I took the plane once through the plume of smoke and thought if this was a terrorist attack, it probably wasn't a good idea to be flying through that plume."

He flew west, not exactly sure where he was supposed to land. Somewhere over western Pennsylvania, O'Brien looked down at a blackened, smoldering field. "I hoped it was just a tire fire or something, but when I checked with Cleveland center, he told me he'd just lost a guy off the scope pretty close to where we saw it. By then, we were able to patch in AM radio, so we heard about all the planes. It was like a domino effect - a really bad day for airplanes."

Independent.co.uk
13 August 2002 15:34 BDST

Unanswered questions: The mystery of Flight 93

[...] Everything is speculation - that is the problem with the story of Flight 93. And unless the US government reveals more of what it knows, provides a detailed account of the last 10 minutes in the life of Flight 93 and the 44 people who were aboard, there will not only be scope but sound reasons for the conspiracy theorists to continue to speculate as to what really happened in those last few minutes before the plane plunged into the earth; to cast doubts on the soft-focus legend that the traumatised American public has seized upon so gratefully.

Some conspiracy theorists will say that the plane was shot down by a missile, perhaps a heat-seeking missile that honed in on one of the plane's engines - a theory possibly substantiated by the 2,000yd flight of the 1,000lb engine part, but arguably refuted by consistent eye-witness accounts, including Lee Purbaugh's, that when last sighted the plane was not emitting smoke.

Others might say, as they have done about a TWA flight that fell to the sea in 1996 after taking off from New York, that the plane was a victim of electromagnetic interference. In the case of the TWA flight, the argument, put forward in a series of exhaustive articles written in the New York Review of Books by the Harvard academic Elaine Scarry, is that it happened accidentally. However, as Scarry's articles relate, documentation abounds showing that the Air Force and the Pentagon have conducted extensive research on "electronic warfare applications" with the possible capacity intentionally to disrupt the mechanisms of an aeroplane in such a way as to provoke, for example, an uncontrollable dive. Scarry also reports that US Customs aircraft are already equipped with such weaponry; as are some C-130 Air Force transport planes. The FBI has stated that, apart from the enigmatic Falcon business jet, there was a C-130 military cargo plane within 25 miles of the passenger jet when it crashed. According to the Scarry findings, in 1995 the Air Force installed "electronic suites" in at least 28 of its C-130s - capable, among other things, of emitting lethal jamming signals.

Thanks for posting this 15.May.2004 11:04

reader

The more lies that come out, the more regular people are willing to look at the absurd lies around 9/11, the biggest scam of them all, the scam that started ALL these other fucking threads - war, abuse, beheading, budget, etc.

white house spokesman, scott mcclellan... 15.May.2004 11:05

this thing here

"please. look, the white house just doesn't understand why people want to keep questioning the official version of events. everyone knows exactly what happened on that fateful day, right?. there couldn't possibly be any questions or looose ends about those events, right? so why all the questions, why the recounting of events?

i guess people have too much time on their hands. they should all be working in the factory or the office, not engaging in detective work..."

9-11 an Inside Job 15.May.2004 13:26

Luna

We need to focus attention back on the terrorists' running our government and their complicity with the homicides committed on 9-11.

Dick Cheney and his organ grinder monkey Bush are trying sleight of hand to focus the people's attention away from the looting and pilaging of our families, our homes and our communities. The reversal of our economic, social and educational systems has been monumental. The gutting of our rights and the reinvention of our government for the corporations and against the people has been devastating.

The 9-11 crime was more symbolic to these criminals than mere death and destruction. It signified the deconstruction of the entity called the United States of America and all it once stood for.

This is war and they play for keeps, so we can never let the message die out that the perpretrators of the 9-11 crime are still in the White House and their Masters are yet unnamed...for now.

Where were the fighter jets? 15.May.2004 13:41

ridiculous

These people have no excuse. Rumsfeld said that he sat in his office until the 'plane' hit the pentagon. One would think that our secretary of defense would be particularly alarmed when two planes hit the WTC, but no...just another day at the office.

When asked about the fighter jets he stated that was 'domestic airspace and therefore a law enforcement issue'

so has NYPD recieved their fighter jets for intercepting hijackings yet?

listen to Rummy yourself
 http://colorado.indymedia.org/usermedia/audio/13/rummy_caught_lying.mp3

listen to Bush explain his day
 http://michiganimc.org/usermedia/application/6/bush-911morn.mp3
these assholes are just too pathetic

This administration is the most freaking corrupt and disgustingly evil ever...and it sure as shown me just how corrupt our entire system of checks and balances is. The judiciary went down with the 2000 election, congress soon followed allowing Bush to dismantle our constitution when it is their one main job(as well as Bush's) to uphold our constitution.

It is time to activate the youthful voters, we CAN easily over power the evangelist vote and throw the whole corrupt group out of there so we can start over.

wasn't Garvey 28.May.2004 20:39

me

from the above:

"At 9:25, [Jane] Garvey, in an historic and admirable step, and almost certainly after getting an okay from the White House, initiated a national ground stop, which forbids takeoffs and requires planes in the air to get down as soon as reasonable.
The order...applied to virtually every single kind of machine that can takeoff - civilian, military, or law enforcement."

Other stories I have read claim:

(a) it was the actual 'first dayer' in charge of the FAA's big board, who initiated the air clearance.
(b) That Mineta (DEpt. of Transportation head) begs the corporate media to keep the lie going that he or Garvey were in charge.

YOU Claim, YOU Assert, YOU refuse to reference 27.Jun.2004 07:49

Already Published

quote:
==========================
Other stories I have read claim:

(a) it was the actual 'first dayer' in charge of the FAA's big board, who initiated the air clearance.
(b) That Mineta (DEpt. of Transportation head) begs the corporate media to keep the lie going that he or Garvey were in charge.
==========================

Thanks for the references to these CLAIMS of YOURS.

starts regionally from NYC, Boston, Newark; then 'authorized' afterwards 27.Jun.2004 08:46

cooperative

("Already Published" your manners are atrocious.)

stories posted above the 'official word' everywhere. However, it seems that they are inaccurate as well!

What follows is from Cooperative Research, www.cooperativeresearch.org

(9:03-9:08 a.m.)

In a series of stages, flight control managers ban aircraft from flying near the cities used by the hijackers. First, takeoffs and landings in New York City are stopped within a minute of the Flight 175 crash, without asking for permission from Washington. Boston and Newark follow suit in the next few minutes. Around 9:08, departures nationwide heading to or through New York and Boston airspace are canceled. [AP, 8/12/02, Newsday, 9/10/02, AP, 8/19/02, USA Today, 8/13/02] The actual order to stop all planes from taking off at New York's La Guardia airport is given to the airplanes on the ground at 9:07. [New York Times 12/30/03] Also "a few minutes" after the Flight 175 crash into the WTC at 9:03, all takeoffs from Washington are stopped. [USA Today 8/12/02; USA Today 8/13/02]

STILL no references? - How to Do It 03.Jul.2004 09:05

Already Published

("Already Published" your manners are atrocious.)

Consistent refusial to provide references is a "mannerism" I personaly find "atrocious".

Nevertheless, your cooperative reserach quote - unreferenced - has none of the embedded references that cooperative research uses.

Furthermore, the only stand down order mentioned was issued to MILITARY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AIRCRAFT was published in TIME MAGAZINE, September 14.


 http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,174912,00.html

easy, huh?

Incidentally, writing as "Boolean", I WAS RESPONSIBLE for bringing Jane Garvey's Stand Down order to the attention of Paul Thompson, via the original cooperative research forum.

Time Magazine and Bones 05.Jul.2004 19:47

back to ya

Well, go find it your self you fool. That's the point. Your obviously familiar with the site. Or got get the originals at places as common as USA Today for this story? The above is a quote from a website that even you have posted at, you claim, yet you disbelieve it?

And I'd be careful in trusting what Time Magazine puts out, founded by Skull and Boner Mr. Luce, don't cha know!

Faith No More 14.Jul.2004 14:01

Already Published

Jane Garvey's order - as quoted and referenced by me above, applied to all "MILITARY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT AIRCRAFT"


Still no references to these other alleged orders that applied to these types of aircraft.

It is your responsibility to support statements and reference quotes supplied by you - not mine.


You lose.

you think you are 'supporting' something. 05.Aug.2004 19:51

hmm

you think you are 'supporting' something. You are only quoting government sources, sort of what the parrots of the corporate media do...

Supporting Facts 12.Oct.2004 22:23

hmmmm #2

think you are spinning shit in an attempt to deflect the reader's attention from the diversity of mutually-compatible, non-contradictory references proving, without a shadow of doubt, that


STEVE O'BRIEN FLEW HIS C130 CREW DIRECTLY ABOVE THE AMERICAN AIRLINES JET, TO PREVENT TWO PLANES FROM APPEARING ON RADAR--WHILE AT THE SAME TIME--GUIDING THE JET TOWARD THE PENTAGON. (see first post)