Two radar sources in the PEOC...was one military?

..."And a little later on, someone [the unidentified military assistant in the PEOC] said, "Mr. Vice President, there's a plane 50 miles out." So, I [Norman Mineta] was talking to Monte Belger, the Deputy Director of the FAA, and I said, "Monte, what do you have 50 miles out?"

For the longest time I have been wondering about the "radar source, or sources" of the flight following of the UNIDENTIFIED target that was inbound to WDC, the one some folks think hit the Pentagon, the one some think flew over the Pentagon, the one some think is a A$, the one some think is a B737, the one some think is a cruise missle, the one some think is a commuter know the one I talking about. Well, things just didn't compute in my air traffic controller's mind about the sources of radar information...still don't.

I knew that the FAA was being contacted by Mineta from the PEOC via phone, and whatever radar target information that the FAA had, was being transferred to Mineta...a clumsy process even in the best of circumstances. But this other radar target tracking information, information that seemed to me was immmediately available, what was that source? After all, for an airplane travelling 480mph it computes out that it is travelling at eight miles per minute, so, ten miles goes by very, very fast...75 seconds in fact. So, the young fellow updating Cheney about the location of this inbound and UNIDENTIFIED primary target HAD to be getting his radar flight following information from either a radar scope, or a phone line very close by...and we know that the source was in another room nearby...and we know that he was part of the military.

The reason that this data just didn't fit well in my mind is because if there WAS another radar tracking source other than the FAA's radar data being made available in the PEOC, then it had to be a source provided by the US Military. So, when the above noted testimony came back across my desk, BAM...right in my face...right where it should have been during my first readings.

The above conversation establishes that there were indeed TWO completely separate circuits of radar target flight following information being fed into the to Cheney...and one to Mineta. This has major implications to me, again, because of my air traffic controller background.

Another major point that still doesn't compute from my view is that AA77 was the ONLY airliner that was completely lost to positive radar contact on 9/11, and that happened hundreds of miles away in eastern Ohio. And then, when everybody [but me] began to ASSUME that the primary target, that was the subject of an ABC feature with Danielle O'Brien, the target that she saw a few miles west of Dulles, WAS AA77, well, I saw just another psy-op in place. This likelyhood would be like a person being miles high above south Chicago, looking down at the highway and following a US EXpress truck WESTBOUND on I90, then, when it runs into a fog bank, you lose track of it in that fog. Then, when trying to find the truck, you can't...BUT THEN... some 200 miles EAST near Toledo, you see another truck, but its NOT positively identified as even being a US Expres truck heading EASTBOUND approaching Toledo. SO THEN, you suddenly make the claim that the newfound eastbound truck is the same US Express truck that you lost in the fog back in Chicago. DUHHH?

You see, to me its always been THAT glaring a problem to an air traffic controller's mind when it comes to properly identifying an aircraft and first establishing it, or keeping it in POSITIVE RADAR CONTACT. Of course, it IS possible the the US EXpress truck got so lost in Chicago that it was the truck in Toledo...we must be dillgent throughout all of this. I am serious because the target in question could be AA77...but no one knows for sure...except the US Government.

Back to the issue of two independent radar flight following sources in the PEOC, one of them being a military radar information flow.

Much of the questioning about when the military knew about the off course airliners has always surrounded a discussion about how soon the FAA had told the US Military about these off-course airliners. So, I have a few questions about the MILITARY SOURCE of this radar flight positioning information being fed to Cheney in the PEOC. Here are they are:

1. Which military radar facility was flight following this primary target?

2. Was it part of NORAD, part a local Military air traffic control facility, or part of the ground-to-air missle defense system that was "allegedly" in place to defend the WH and Pentagon from stray aircraft...the one that Cheney "allegedly" had "stood down". As was noted in that cute little story between himself and Mineta that somehow got out of the PEOC in record time!

3. If, as the testimny explains, this military radar facility sees this primary target some 50 miles out, well, did it see this target 60 miles out?...a hundred miles out?...200 miles out? After all, the recent release of RADES [a military radar target "re-construction" facility] target data, and perhaps some FAA radar data shows that a high speed eastbound primary target was seen some eight minutes after AA77 was totally lost to positive radar contact still over a hundred miles away from, some radar facility saw something that far away on 9/11.

4. Was it a military radar facility that saw this target that far away?

5. Was this early data available in real time?

6. Was this target seen hundreds of miles away the subject of Cheney's stann down order?

7. And if so, when was that stand-down order established by Cheney?...51 miles out?...100 miles out?...200 miles out?

8. Or, was it part of an integrated scenario or plan for the day...the War Games thing?

9. And, if there WAS such a stand-down order issued at least 51 miles out, was it Cheney that issued it? After all, from Mineta's testimony, we can establish Cheney in the PEOC around 09:20-25. This is at a time when the UNIDENTIFIED primary target would have been between 50 and 100 miles out. If he arrived at 09:25, the primary target would have been approximately 50-60 miles out [6 miles per minute times 8-9 minutes-don't forget the 2-3' turn].

10. If Cheney arrived between 09:20-25, would not his first order have to have been to establish the stand-down immediately?...yet we do not hear of that happening in any testimony.

11. Does the lack of knowing the "timeline" of the stand down order not support the point that an entire pre-planned scenario on 9/11 was in full motion including that there was such a stand-down order established in place as part of that program as the War Games started earlier on 9/11?

12. And of course the big question regarding this specific stand-down order...why, after a "nation under attack emergency" had been established sometime after UA175 hit WTC2 some 20-30 minutes earlier, would anyone take the steps to deliberately establish for the first time, or to continue such a stand down order for the.........White House and the Penatgon?

So, in conclusion, we now have the military watching the UNIDENTIFIED primary target on its own radar systems at least 50 miles/9 minutes away...and probably twice that far away if not hundreds of mies away. Therefore, the US Military, and NOT just Cheney was in on this deal.

This stuff may not be very big to you all, but its very big to me...just like the fact that NOBODY ever positively re-radar identified AA77 at any point after it was totally lost to positive radar contact out in Eastern Ohio. Awww, its just that tricky US Express truck thing again!

If anyone is interested in reading a few rules and regs regarding air traffic controlling, google FAA Order 7110.65 and find radar identification...primary targets. When you do, remember that there needs to be communication between the pilot and air traffic controller. Something that as never re-established with the pilot. AND PLEASE...if anyone has any information showng where this primary target was POSITIVELY RADAR IDENTIFIED as being AA77, lemme brain is hurting.

Good questions. Do you know

Good questions.

Do you know how long #77 was lost to positive radar contact in Eastern Ohio? And what is the significance of that time figure? Is it a short time or longer? What might have heppened to the plane during that time period? Is it in any way credible that the military ever lost radar contact with the plane?

Good post, thanks.

JFK on secrecy and the press

Radar contact lost for 8 minutes

Radar contact was lost for about 8 minutes.

"According to the 9/11 Commission, “Radar reconstructions performed after 9/11 reveal that FAA radar equipment tracked [Flight 77] from the moment its transponder was turned off at 8:56 [am.].” However, for eight minutes and 13 seconds, this primary radar data is not displayed to Indianapolis flight controllers. “The reasons are technical, arising from the way the software processed radar information, as well as from poor primary radar coverage where American 77 was flying.”"

Of course, NORAD has its own radar...

"Think about it. NORAD's job is to protect us from enemy bombers and missiles sent over our skies by foreign powers. Would those foreign powers be considerate enough to put transponders on their bombers and missiles so NORAD could locate them and shoot them down? Of course not. NORAD is expected to find unidentified flying objects without transponders."
Arabesque: 911 Truth

AA77 lost on radar...What might have happened to AA77?

Robin Hordon

One of the main points that I am trying to make is that AA77 was lost to positive radar contact PERMANENTLY!

Nobody ever positvely re-radar identified any target anywhere at any time as ACTUALL being AA77.

What has emeregd AFTER THE days AFTER the events of 9/11, is that some combination of FAA and RADES [military radar re-construction facility] has put out information that shows an eastbound PRIMARY TARGET pops up 8 minutes later much farther east of where AA77 was TOTALLY LOST to positive radar contact.

What could have happened to AA77 is totally speculation and I have only one FACT that can be counted upon. IF, and I say again, IF it is concluded that AA77 did not strike the Pentagon, then there comes about a very good question which is: "What happened to AA77?" Well, I don't know, but I do know exactly where we need to begin the search. In close vicinity to where AA77 was totally lost to positive radar contact in eastern Ohio.

Credible loss of radar observation by the US Military?

I offer only speculation because I don't have the hard data. is not credible to me that the US Military did not have radar facilities that could have seen AA77 almost all the way with one exception.

Other than Pave Paws [sp] radar sytems that opertate at very low frequencies allowing its radar signals to somewhat bend over the horizon, almost all other radar systems operate at radio frequencies that function only along straight lines. Consequently, most of the radar systems in operation in eastern Ohio, FAA and or Military, [and I suspect with considerable OVERLAP], are of the higher frequency types which means that they cannot see behind mountains or into moutain range valleys, and, the farther away from the radar antennae, the higher the lowest levels of the radar "coverage" becomes. [Hence the modern need for "overlap" be able to "see" down low almost everywhere.

The reason that I say this is because what also strikes me as being unique about the location of both the LOST radar contact of AA77 and the EMMERGENCE of another primary radar target in the vicinity of West Virginia, Virginia, and Maryland, is that the Appalachian Mountain range runs in a northeast-southwest orientaion with mountain ridges and its matching valleys. This creates a considerable number of geographical zones where there is NO RADAR coverage in these valleys or behind these mountain ridges.

Since the NEW target is a primary target, and it suddenly "appears" to the afrementioned Military radar "re-creation" facilities, it is more likely that the target came from a lower altitude than a high altitude. Its good to remember that without a transponder there is no altitude information made available by the target.

If this is indeed the case, then the low flying target would NOT be flying on a nothwest-southeast axis because the mountain ridges would be in the way, and, the air-vehicle would pop "in and out" of radar presentations as it climbed above the ridges allowing the radar signals to strike the air-vehicle showing up on the radar system, and then dropping down below radar coverage in the valleys. Even a quick look at a highway map in this area will expose two major northeast-southwest Interstate Highways [Rte 79 and Rte 81] and they are basically routed along the bottoms of the valleys which is the case here.

Instead, the air-vehicle would have to have been flying in a easterly-northeastery heading which indeed, is the case.

The point that I am trying to expose here is that there are long stretches of geographical areas in this VERY REGION where NO RADR COVERAGE exists, EVEN WITH ALL RADAR SYSTEMS FUNCTIONING PROPERLY. The facts are that all sorts of aviation activities occur down in these valleys regularly because these lower flatter areas are where most airports end up being located alongside the cities and towns, the railroads and the rivers.

The facts are that AA77 was lost to positive radar contact in eastern Ohio because of "supposed" and yet-to-be-explained "computer glitches" of the FAA radar, and that this area is just west of the Appalachian Mountain ridges and valleys and that the NEW target "popped up" in the exact same area of these ridges and valleys, and that NOBODY ever positively re-radar identified THAT NEW PRIMARY TARGET as being AA77.

These are the hard, cold facts.

"...information that shows

"...information that shows an eastbound PRIMARY TARGET pops up 8 minutes later much farther east of where AA77 was TOTALLY LOST to positive radar contact."

Is it possible to know with decent precision how much farther east? And if so, is it possible for the plane to have turned around and gone that far in 8 minutes? And without ever appearing on radar, even briefly?

If that much is knowable and if it is not possible for the flight to have done all that in 8 minutes, that becomes yet another huge anomaly and may even be sufficient prove that #77 did not hit the Pentagon.

How much time does it take for a plane like that to simply turn around? Are the radar dead spots large enough for that maneuver to occur without the plane ever showing up on radar? Does the plane have to be at a relatively low altitude to be in a radar dead spot? That would slow it down considerably, wouldn't it? If the time required for the turn is subtracted from the 8 minutes, is it at all possible for the plane to show up where it supposedly does? If that is not #77, where did #77 go? Is there a place where it could have landed?

Seems that the turn would use a lot of time and that coming out of it, the plane would have a much lower air speed.

Thanks again for your thoughful work. I am sure everyone most appreciates it.

JFK on secrecy and the press

How far can an airliner go in 8 minutes?

Robin Hordon,

Alvin, you have asked some of the same basic questions that I am asking, but in different ways. So, I can't answer them YET!

I am still seeking the RADES/FAA? radar data to give it a look...and I'll report later if I get it.

First, one of the two big "errors" contained in the popularized FDR and animation "allegedly" from AA77 out there now, is that AA77 was seen initiating a descent as it began its left turn and this FDR and animation fail to show these flight characteristics.

AA77 made a PARTIAL left turn and started a descent...BOTH of which occurred just moments before AA77 was TOTALLY lost to positive radra contact.

In fact, the main reason that the air traffic controller at the Indianapolis Center thought that AA77 had crashed, and began to look for it SOUTHWEST of its last known position, was because AA77 was last seen on a southwesterly heading and in a descent. This is exactly what every air traffic controller would "think"...and exactly what they would "do"...start an air and ground search for an airliner that may have crashed...southwest of its last known position.

This is extremely important information, and are facts that have been successfully buried with the helping hand of some 9/11 truthers who have admitted that they did not look at early information...they only are considering the information provided them by the HI PERPS!

I will answer your questions noted in your large paragraph one at a time...if I can:

...I suspect that had AA77 made a full 180 degree turn, that it would have taken between 3 and 4 minutes to accomplish this. However, if an unknowledgeable pilot [?] were flying the aircraft, then they may have really banked it "uncomfortably" to the left and this may have cut the time down to about 2 minutes.

Also, had the aircraft indeed been in a steep descent, it would have perhaps slowed it forward speed in that turn which would have tighetened the turn also. Its hard to tell because the FDR data that the HI PERPS gave out does not show a descent at all. shows it maintaining its assigned altitude.

With the use of wing/lift spoilers, such modern aircraft can now slow and descend at the same time much, much better than could the older airliners...


...the size of the empty "computer" radar spots could easily be well larger than the size of the area needed to make any turns. If you are asking about the size of the empty radar spots down in the valleys along the mountains, well, that could be measured accurately from topographical maps, but from my first glimpse, the valley areas are plenty large enough to have this happen within those valleys...or in between the ridges...whichever way that you wish to describe it...


...In order to be in the no-radar spot that I mention between the mountain ridges, yes, the aircraft has to be at a low altitude.

But, regarding being in the "no-radar" zones noted where AA77 ws lost to radar contact, NO, the aircraft need not be at a low altitude for it to be lost on radar. The reason that is the case is because there was NO PRIMARY RADAR avialable in that area that day, so ALL targets, regardless of altitude, who were flying in that area that did not have a working transponder were not able to be detected by the radar at all. The targets needed to have a transponder because the FAA only had what is known as "secondary" radar coverage in that area that it saw only transponders...


...Without truthful radar data that is accurate in its "time" of recording, it will be difficult to tell if it is a viable possibility that the location of the NEW primary radar target "could be" the missing AA77. And, still at best, it would be only an educated guess. But we could get pretty close to making a sound judgement. Hopefully I can get some radar data, and that it hasn't been hacked...

...IfF...AA77 didn't hit the Pentagon, and didn't crash elsewhere, then it is fair to conclude that it was "part of the plan". And IF that's the case, then there needed to be a COOPERATIVE pilot on board which rules out a hijacker. Since we didn't "see" AA77 again, it coud easily have snuck out of the area at a low altitude, turned its transponder onto a VFR code, or left the transponder totally off, and flown at a SLOW speed to an agreed upon facility within a thousand miles of where it was lost to radar contact. Remember, it had enough fuel to make it across the country...but at higher and more efficient altitudes.

Flying at a slow speed would have made it look like any other VFR general aviation aircraft to a very, very busy air traffic control system. If it flew at a higher altitude, it most likely would nothave been noticed by a witness on the ground.

Consequently, IF all the above are true, then AA77 could have landed at any number of pre-arranged airports that were secured to serve this purpose. Again, I do not KNOW where AA77 is...crashed at the Pentagon?..crashed at Camp David?...landed at a secure airport? PLEASE REMEMBER...the above is only speculation because we just do not know...


I hope this is helpful.

One point implicit in all

One point implicit in all this is that it is very strange/coincidental that AA77 just happened to perform it's 180 turn inside a radar dead spot. I have heard that the flights that hit the Towers also coincidentally had their transponders turned off inside radar dead spots over the Northeast, though these spots were much smaller, I believe. I have not double-checked this, but it is surely worth looking into.

I hope you will be successful in getting good radar data. It is obvious that there is something being hidden; otherwise they would WANT you to have the facts.

Looks like the analysis of whether AA77 hit the Pentagon or not can be done at two points--at the Pentagon itself, which is a gnarly issue, or at or around the time it was lost to radar and made its supposed 180 turn over Ohio. If that turn and reappearance was not possible according to available data, that would constitute strong evidence that something else happened to AA77.

Thanks again for your interesting post.

JFK on secrecy and the press

Radar Dead Spots...

Robin Hordon,
Alvin...first, its not a given that AA77 made a 180 degree turn...this is what I am challenging anyone, anywhere to establish as a FACT. The last heading that AA77 was seen flying on was a southwesterly heading...NOT and easterly heading. That whatever happened to AA77 being within an area of no primary radar coverage, and that "lack of coverage" is described as being an unexplained "computer glitch", is of great issue.

Additionally, both the reasearch and data that I have been able get hold of, including all of my own personal experince working aircraft in New England YEARS AGO, had no such dead spots for AA11 and UA175 in southern NH, southern VT, and eastcentral NY...and the radar return, tracking data and controllers all establish this to be the case. At no time were either AA11 or UA175 "lost" to positive radar contact. And this includes transponders being on, off and on the wrong codes. Controllers know how to do things, know when to do things, and in fact do things to keep track of flights...when they can see them, and when they can talk to them.

Clearly, the radar systems in the New Englnd area are even better now than they were back then.

I think that if you look into the NEADS/NORAD aspects of "not being able to see" flights such as AA11 when it was pointed out to them in a variety of ways, well, now that's a different story. I do not have the inside stuff on that issue except that later flight path data "re-constructed" by a Military Radar Facility, RADES, has re-constructed radar returns on 9/11, and indeed this data does show the targets. Why NEADS didn't see them is critical...and yet to be explained.

Robin: I am still following


I am still following this page. Thanks for your replies. If you get new info, I guess you better make a new post.

On the AA77 turning in the radar dead spot, I just meant that what are the odds that it would choose that very spot to make its turn? If it can be shown that the plane could not have performed that turn there, then something else must have happened and yet another huge anomaly has opened in the OCT. With the info we have available to us, it is tough to nail things down much more than that. But each of these points is highly significant.

Thanks for your work. I look forward to reading an update on your progress.


JFK on secrecy and the press

Good work, Robin. I

Good work, Robin. I strongly encourage you to pursue this and write it up for the Journal of 9/11 Studies for the detective work you are doing.

What is your source for this quote, "So, I [Norman Mineta] was talking to Monte Belger, the Deputy Director of the FAA, and I said, "Monte, what do you have 50 miles out?""

This is new information for me, and important.


"What is your source for this quote, "So, I [Norman Mineta] was talking to Monte Belger, the Deputy Director of the FAA, and I said, "Monte, what do you have 50 miles out?"

This apparently comes from a statement on the first 9/11 anniversary.

MSNBC, September 11, 2002
Norman Mineta
9/11 interview
Interview with Robert Hager

He repeats this fact in another 2002 account:

"Some young man came in and said to the Vice President, "There's a plane 50 miles out coming towards D.C." So I said to Monty Belger, who is the No. 2 at FAA, I said, "Monty, what do you have on radar on this plane coming in?" He said, "Well, the transponder has been turned off, so we don't know who it is, and we don't know the altitude or speed."

Woody Box has a compilation of Mineta's statements here:
Arabesque: 911 Truth

New Information:

Robin Hordon


David or Sofia have my email address and I would appreciate an email explaining what you mean...and how I might do this.

Believe this or not, I have long felt that IF it is concluded that AA77 did not hit the Penatagon, the the fact that AA77 was THE ONLY off-course airliner that was lost to positive radar contact AND that nobody ever positively re-radar identified the "primary target" that went into WDC and perhaps the Pentagon as being AA77, is a very, very big issue.

And, should Honegger's evidence of an interior explosion at the Pentagon happening at 09:32 instead of 09:38 stand up as it appears that it will, it may combine with my beliefs about AA77 never being officially "found" to destroy the official version of the events at the Pentagon. I might point out two things:

The HI PERPS' proof that the inbound "air-vehicle" seen on radar scopes for over 50 miles west of WDC, the one that "struck"? the Pentagon, was indeed AA77 is also reverse engineered. They claim that the target is AA77 because of the debris and DNA evidence found at the crash site. Yet, there are fairly solid arguments that this evidence is NOT conclusive. Consequently, even without my unique input, just by association, there are fairly solid arguments that the evidence is also NOT conclusive establishing that the primary target is NOT AA77.

BUT...the HI PERPS' psy-ops have been so very successful at getting almost everyone in the 9/11TM, the press, and the public to "accepet" that the primary target in question WAS AA77. Again, not me, not yet!

That the Military, perhaps in conjunction with the FAA, revised its first time of an impact of an "air-vehicle" or something?, from a time closer to 10:00AM, to the time it finally settled upon as being 09:38, may also be indicative of "reverse engineering on the fly" cover their butts on 9/11 because some folks in the Pentagon knew that they were going to be in BIG, BIG trouble...and they knew immediately.

My sources of these conversations have been kindly identified by bloggers, and thank you for your interest.

I truly believe that AA77 is "the Achilles Heel" of ALL the events on 9/11, and this is with all massive respect due to you and Richard and so many others who are doing such exceptional work at the WTCs, and that eventually we will have this flight fully investigted sufficiently enough to show this.

That Burlingame was in the left seat on 9/11 is also an extraordinary, extraordinary coincidence.

I also know a great deal about VERY low altitude flying and bombing runs that the Air Force has been honing its skills at for happens overhead without the "local citizens" even knowing about it...

Excellent Questions

As far as I know, no evidence has ever been given to directly confirm that the incoming flight to the Pentagon was flight 77.

As for Mineta, he has always maintained his testimony about the incoming flight even before his infamous 9/11 commission testimony. See:

Steve Sexton, Full-Length Interview With Norman Mineta, The Daily Californian, Monday, March 18, 2002.  See also: 

Academy of Achievement, Norman Mineta Interview, June 3, 2006.

Specifically, Mineta mentions that:

"And I said to the people with me, 'Is there something wrong with this picture? We are driving into the White House and everyone else is running out of it. [note: the White House was likely evacuated due to the incoming E-4b. Very interestingly, no similar action was taken to evacuate the Pentagon, despite knowledge of the incoming plane on radar.] So I went into the White House and was briefed by Dick Clark of the National Security Council and he said, 'You have to get over to the Presidential Emergency Operation Center to be with the vice president.' ... We started to monitor what was going on. We knew that there were now two airplanes that had gone into World Trade Center 1 and World Trade Center 2, and I had a direct line set up with the FAA. Someone came in and said, 'Mr. Vice President, there is a plane 50 miles out.' I asked our FAA people, 'Can you see an aircraft coming in 50 miles out?' and they said, 'Yeah, we're tracking it, but the transponder is off, so we don't know what the identification of that airplane is.' Pretty soon the same person came in and informed the vice president, sitting right across from me at the conference table, that the airplane is 30 miles out. I asked the FAA about it and they said, 'Yeah, we know where the plane is, but we don't know who it is.' Then they came in and said it was 10 miles out. Soon after that, I was talking to the deputy director of the FAA, and he told me they had lost the target off the screen. Soon after that, then, the vice president was informed that there was an explosion at the Pentagon. So I was trying to relate with the air traffic controllers where that plane went to see whether it was close to the Pentagon. The radar is very difficult to pinpoint it to a ground location. But while I was talking to the FAA, someone broke into the conversation and said, 'Mr. Secretary, we have just had confirmation from the Arlington County Police Department that they saw a commercial airliner-an American airline-go into the Pentagon."

Elsewhere, Mineta reported:

"I got to the PEOC and the Vice President was already there. Big conference table, and there are phones all along here. I took a phone and called my office, kept it an open line, and then I took another phone, called FAA -- Federal Aviation Administration Operations Center -- and kept it at open line and kept working the two phones. Some young man came in and said to the Vice President, "There's a plane 50 miles out coming towards D.C." So I said to Monty Belger, who is the No. 2 at FAA, I said, "Monty, what do you have on radar on this plane coming in?" He said, "Well, the transponder has been turned off, so we don't know who it is, and we don't know the altitude or speed." I said, "Well, where is it?" He said, "It's somewhere beyond Great Falls right now." Then, the young man came in and said it's 20 miles away. I'd say, "Well, Monty, where is this plane in relationship to the ground?" On radar it is hard to associate with a ground point, but they'd be able to tell you roughly the distance from wherever you are, but he couldn't tell you the speed or altitude, and then all of a sudden, as I was talking to him, he said, "Oh, I lost the bogie. Lost the target." I said, "Well, where is it?" He said, "Well, it's somewhere between Rosslyn and National Airport," and about that time someone broke into the conversation and said, "Mr. Secretary, we just had a confirmation from an Arlington County police officer saying that he saw an American Airlines plane go into the Pentagon." [note: this could very well have been William Lagasse, but this is just a guess --Arabesque] So then I said, "Monty, bring all the airplanes down." When you see one of something happen, it's an accident; when you see two of the same thing happening, it's a trend, something. When you see three, it's a plan. So I said, "Bring all the planes down."

This report confirms the approximate location of the plane:

"9:29 a.m. September 11, 2001... The plane is flying at 7,000 feet and is about 38 miles west of the Pentagon."

As far as I know, there has never been any positive ID of this incoming plane.

Furthermore, Mineta's testimony is supported by FAA spokesperson Laura Brown:

“Within minutes after the first aircraft hit the World Trade Center, the FAA immediately established several phone bridges that included FAA field facilities, the FAA Command Center, FAA headquarters, DOD [meaning the NMCC in the Department of Defense], the Secret Service… The US Air Force liaison to the FAA immediately joined the FAA headquarters phone bridge and established contact with NORAD… The FAA shared real-time information on the phone bridges about the unfolding events, including information about loss of communication with aircraft, loss of transponder signals, unauthorized changes in course, and other actions being taken by all the flights of interest.

Arabesque: 911 Truth

Excellent questions

I was closely following the news that morning since I had friends that not only commute to D.C., but also work in the Pentagon and I swear I heard on one of the stations that the Pentagon was being evacuated. I never heard anything again about an evacuation after that. I wonder if my ears were deceiving me, or is it possible that an evacuation was called, but then overruled by someone.

Also, the young man who was reporting to Cheney must be dead. I can't imagine them allowing him to survive this.

Thanks for the research

I appreciate that it is in the careful form of hypotheses, questions and information, and not as a DVD asserting claims being put out directly to the public.

One caveat I would mention, is that saying --

"Therefore, the US Military, and NOT just Cheney was in on this deal,"

might be better stated as --

"Therefore, military insiders, and NOT just Cheney was in on this deal."

Afterall, Mineta was with a government dept too, but he didn't even know what was going on, which is likely a broad phenomenon with compartmentalization. Nor did high level people at Abu Graib. Some know, but most likely don't know anything.

Hey Robin

what's your take on the refusal of the Freedom of information act requested for identification on the parts from the plane wrecks?

Freedom of Information requests...

Robin Hordon

My opinion is that whenever we receive a refusal of a Freedom of Information Resquest, it is because the information that would be contained in their response is adequate and expository enough to END the freedom of those who are refusing to release the information in the first place.

There is a caveat:

...unless the information has been hacked and shaped by the HI PERPS to tell their stories and cover their tushes such as some of the radar data on the NTSB Flight Path Analyses of the four flights, and to me, the FDR and animation data about AA77 that is "out there" via a FOIA that went through England?...I say again...England?. Hmmmm...not that the Brits might have a hand in this play...

Also, when I was engaged in the break-out and analysis of radar and communications data in my years in the FAA, the FIRST, SECOND, and THIRD concerns were: "Who is libel"...hope that it is not US!

Our governemnet is set up this way, even back then, and they protect themselves first.

Missile defense system

In 1994 a plane landed on the White House lawn. The threat was clearly demonstrated and we were assured that all steps had been taken to protect D.C. against a suicide attack with an airplane.

It is unthinkable that D.C. did not have a missile defense system. The argument that they wouldn’t have one for fear of shooting down a passing authorized aircraft is silly. They would be tracking every aircraft within at least 50 miles 24/7/365. Only when it was clear that an airplane was off its assigned flight path and headed for the White House, the Pentagon or the Capitol, would it be shot down.

Cheney’s order to stand down could have been given before Mineta got to the PEOC or in advance.

The young man would not question an order to shoot down the plane down. imo

As you pointed out, the planes could have been ‘switched’ as per Operation Northwoods.

Shoot downs near WDC,,,

Robin Hordon,

Chris, thanks for opening up this subject...shoot downs...its more complicated than you think.

One of the jobs that NORAD and NEADS flight monitors do all day long is to observe EVERY AIRCRAFT that gets airbourne in the US of A, with special emphasis on the bondaries of North America. Their job is to do the best job that they can to identify EVERY TARGET as being either "Friend or Foe". This is where the nomenclature of an IFF transponder comes from...IFF...Identification, Friend or Foe.

Both civilian and military transponders are basically read as being Friendly. However, primary radar targets are not always considerd fact...they are the suspicious ones and are given much, much deeper scrutiny. THIS is why the Military is lying straight through its teeth when they say that their radars are inadequate. NYET! [to use a term of the cold war] The military's radars are THE most adequate, competent and sophisticated on planet earth...especially to identify PRIMARY TARGETS...PERIOD!

So, they really do see almost everything with the exceptions noted in another thread on this post.

Summing up, the NORAD flight followers are constantly scanning their scopes and EVALUATING EVERY TARGET that they see to make a determination about IF that target is...a Friend...or if it is a Foe!

And when doing so, there are a significant number of "checks" to make sure that a Friend is not determined to be a Foe because, if that mistake were too often the case, and many targets were considered "Foes, when in fact they were Friends, then the military air defenses would be flying about North America rather wildly...and that would defeat the entire purpose of NORAD.

So, in simplifying their "analysis" of the aircraft that they do see, I will break my examples into two parts:
...scheduled airline traffic that fly the same routes every day squawking an approved FAA ATC transponder code...

...and general aviation traffic that flitters around smaller airports squawking VFR [Visual Flight Rules] transponder codes...[those are the types of flights that occasionally, and unknowingly drift into Prohibited airspaces...]

NORAD watches the likes of AA11 and UA175 depart Boston and head west every day, and I believe that there is an interface between FAA computers and NORAD computers in which the transponder codes are "shared" so, NORAD can easily establish that AA11 is a Friend because they "know" that it is AA11.

Likewise, most little "puddle jumpers" who operate at smaller airports and fly all over the country WITHOUT a flight plan, still squawk a VFR transponder code such as 1200. NORAD "gets this fact" and can see these "puddle jumpers" not only near the little airports, but they have a chance to "flight follow them" all across the country as they squawk 1200 or 1400. They make a determination that most are Friends...but they watch. what DOES a Foe look like?

How about like an unidentified, unreprorted, non-communicative high speed primary target flying directly at WDC!

This type of target gives ALL THE SIGNS of being a Foe! its really that simple.

So, back to your point about "the looseness or tightness" of the trigger finger on NORADS' "guns" protecting WDC...there is constant analysis going on as to the threat of targets that stray too close to areas such as P56. NORAD, or the WDC ground-to-air missle defense radar personnel actually are doing their analyses all the time as they monitor the WDC area...the FAA also helps out with this also because VFR aircraft moving in, around or through the WDC area are usually required to "check in" and identify themselves and the FAA notifies the military.

BUT...not every little "puddle jumper" does this, ie: check in with some FAA control facility. Consequently, upon occasion, a "puddle jumper" does get sorta close to a Prohibited Area such as the WH and Pentagon, BUT truthfully, they are not really a surprise because they have usually been monitored, tracked, or watched for quite some time before they get near P56 etc....its NORAD's flight followers' jobs to specifically do this.

In the end, THIS is why many "puddle jumpers" are not shot down...because the military defense flight followers make a determination that the aircraft in question may not be a Foe. And for those who just don't fit that "Friend" profile, well, then the military takes some action and that usually involves getting a military asset into the sky to "say hello" to the "wanderer".

So, we are right back where we started:

...why didn't some military facility and defense system take some action regarding the HIGH SPEED PRIMARY TARGET SCREAMING TOWARDS WDC?...

It certainly was behaving like a Foe. Puddle jumpers without transponders usually don't fly that fast!

I am bookmarking this post

I am bookmarking this post in the hope that you will keep adding to it, and I hope that others who have been following this string will do so as well. Good strings like this one often get buried on back pages. I hope that this one keeps going. There are many interesting questions being raised here.

JFK on secrecy and the press

911 official report pag. 58

911 official report pag. 58 "we have some planes":

[...] At 10:02 the communicators in the shelter began receiving reports from the Secret Service of an inbound aircraft-presumably hijacked-heading toward Washington. That aircraft was United 93. The Secret Service was getting this information directly from the FAA. The FAA may have been tracking the progress of UA93 on a display that showed its projected path to Washington,not its actual radar return. Thus, the Secret Service was relaying on projections and was not aware the plane was already down in Pennsylvania.[...]

This is how "Official Omission" explains the story of an incoming aircraft to WH
( i know time doesn't match with mineta's and clarke story). The questions for mr Hordon are: Does a tool with "projected path" exist? How can be possible FAA was not aware they were getting not "real information from radar" but "projected"?
Is it beleviable?

best regards