New 9/11 Timeline Entries: Pre-9/11 Warnings about Al-Qaeda, Cheney's Military Aide on 9/11, and More

From the History Commons Groups blog:

New entries have been added to the Complete 9/11 Timeline at History Commons, which cover various events relating to the 9/11 attacks. Many of them describe warnings about the danger posed by al-Qaeda that were given in the 12 months leading up to 9/11 and some describe events from the day of September 11, 2001, itself.

Donald Rumsfeld Was Concerned about a Possible 'Modern-Day Version' of Pearl Harbor

A couple of new timeline entries deal with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's preoccupation, in the months before 9/11, with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, in December 1941 that led America to enter World War II. In March 2001, Rumsfeld sent members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff a copy of the foreword to a book, which discussed the US government failures that led to the attack on Pearl Harbor. And in July that year, he wrote a note to himself in which he expressed his fear of the United States experiencing a "modern-day version" of the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Other senior officials talked, in the months before 9/11, about the possibility of a Pearl Harbor-like event happening in the future. In June 2001, Army General Tommy Franks, commander in chief of the US Central Command, gave a speech in which he said the US needed to prepare for an "asymmetric" attack resembling the attack on Pearl Harbor. And on the day before 9/11, Charles Nemfakos, deputy under secretary of the Navy, said during a briefing that the US would have to suffer an attack comparable to the attack on Pearl Harbor before it would address the problems with its defense policy.

Officials Warned about the Danger Posed by Al-Qaeda

A number of new entries describe warnings that were made, in the 12 months before 9/11, about al-Qaeda and the possibility that it would carry out an attack in the United States.

In September 2000, CIA officer Ben Bonk warned Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush of the threat posed by Islamic extremist groups and said that, in the next four years, Americans would be sure to die in a terrorist attack. At the end of May 2001, terrorism experts Steven Emerson and Daniel Pipes wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal in which they stated that al-Qaeda was "planning new attacks on the US."

In the summer of 2001, Tommy Franks raised concerns that al-Qaeda would attack Western facilities in the Middle East using planes loaded with explosives. Four days before 9/11, Franks actually told his intelligence officers his greatest fear was that terrorists would attack the World Trade Center.

One week before 9/11, White House counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke wrote a memo in which he warned that "hundreds of Americans" could die in an al-Qaeda attack. And on the day before 9/11, a report was issued to Congress, which stated that al-Qaeda "wants to strike within the United States."

There were also concerns that the Pentagon could be the target of an attack. At some time in the year 2000, a software system commissioned by the Department of Defense determined that the building was vulnerable to a terrorist attack. And, prior to 9/11, some Pentagon Renovation Program workers were concerned about the possibility of a "crazy pilot" deliberately crashing a plane into the Pentagon. And yet, at some unspecified time before 9/11, senior FBI agent John O'Neill told Senate Intelligence Committee staffers there were no threats to aviation in the United States.

Air Defense Exercise Was Based on Bin Laden Attacking Washington

A couple of entries reveal how personnel at NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector, who were responsible for protecting the airspace in which the hijackings occurred on September 11, were made aware of the al-Qaeda threat. They were briefed about the danger posed by Osama bin Laden in July 2001, and on August 4, 2001, they participated in a training exercise based around the scenario of bin Laden using a drone aircraft to attack a prominent target in the Washington, DC, area.

An entry describes three "economic security exercises" held between 1997 and 1999 by the Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island, and Wall Street bond firm Cantor Fitzgerald, in which participants considered scenarios such as terrorists attacking the US financial community with bombings using aircraft. The Naval War College and Cantor Fitzgerald subsequently held three "war game workshops" at the World Trade Center, which apparently served as good preparation for the challenges of the post-9/11 world.

NORAD Didn't Tell the Pentagon about the Hijackings on September 11

Other new timeline entries describe events from the day of September 11.

For more than 50 minutes after it learned a plane had been hijacked, NORAD (the North American Aerospace Defense Command) failed to inform the National Military Command Center at the Pentagon about the hijacking. And for at least 50 minutes after its fighter jets set up a combat air patrol (CAP) over Washington, NORAD failed to tell the Pentagon's air threat conference call that the CAP had been established.

Several entries describe the actions of Douglas Cochrane, Vice President Dick Cheney's military aide, in response to the terrorist attacks. After he learned a plane had crashed into the World Trade Center, Cochrane went from his office to the White House Situation Room and then, briefly, to Cheney's office. After he saw the second crash at the World Trade Center live on television, he returned to his office to fetch the "nuclear football"--a briefcase that holds the codes necessary for the vice president to initiate a nuclear attack. He subsequently joined Cheney in an underground tunnel that leads to the Presidential Emergency Operations Center below the White House, where he was told that an aircraft had hit the Pentagon.

Please consider donating to History Commons, to help it continue as a leading informational source for the 21st century. To make a donation, click here.

Source.

Evidence that Cheney was evacuated from office after 9:35 a.m.

Note that the following timeline entry is further evidence against the claims that Dick Cheney was evacuated from his White House office at around 9:03 a.m. on September 11 and was informed about an aircraft approaching Washington, DC, by his military aide, Douglas Cochrane:

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a958cochraneintunnel&scale=0
Shortly Before 9:58 a.m. September 11, 2001: Vice President Cheney’s Military Aide Joins Cheney in a Tunnel below the White House, Learns about the Pentagon Attack

As is stated in the entry, Cochrane has indicated that he was with Cheney in the tunnel leading to the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC) below the White House after the Pentagon was hit (i.e. after 9:37 a.m.), since, he has said, he was informed that the Pentagon had been hit while he was in the tunnel. This suggests Cheney was taken from his office to go to the PEOC after 9:35 a.m.

Cochrane has also said he was unaware that an aircraft was approaching Washington before he received this notification. He therefore could not have been telling Cheney "The plane is 50 miles out. ... The plane is 30 miles out. ... The plane is 10 miles out," etc.

Not My Job, Man.

I offer a clarification and a challenge to dig up more facts.

Douglas Cochrane is not the young man that Mineta described.. Douglas Cochrane was Cheney's military aide. He doesn't do gopher duties like updates on radar reports. His job is to carry the "football", the briefcase with the nuclear codes.

There is no direct connection between Cheney's evacuation and Cochrane. He may have seen Cheney in the tunnel after Cheney first arrived in the EBR/PEOC area. They were having telephone problems. Perhaps Cheney had to go to a different phone in the tunnel to communicate in the early stages.

Do we see Cochrane walking calmly from the EEOB to the WH? If the CNN video hasn't been tampered with, this suggests after 9:38 if we use the banished reporter's "Explosion at the Pentagon" statement (@ mark 1:21), Lynne Cheney's over the sidewalk arrival (@ mark 4:55) and the high flying E4B (@ mark 5:13), which departed ADW at 9:45, as reference points.
See white suit Cochrane @ mark 3:38
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ay-xFiZC948

It makes no sense that they would evacuate the serfs from the castle and not evacuate the vice-king. The most important cog in the wheel would have been protected damn early.

While I do agree with the

While I do agree with the content of this entry, as it fits well with everything else we know, I note that the only source cited by historycommons is the 9/11 Commission Staff notes of an interview with Cochrane done 2 1/2 years later. Plenty of time for an incorrect story to get fixed in minds.

I tend to agree also with kawika that Cochrane was not Mineta's "young man". I had also seen the man in Navy uniform and white or fair hair that kawika spots in the video with Lynne Cheney's arrival, but IMO the image quality is insufficient to be certain it's Cochrane.

In the notes on the Cochrane interview...
http://de.scribd.com/doc/231427857/DH-B2-Doug-Cochrane-VP-Military-Aide
...Mineta is explicitly mentioned. Page 2:

"Went to EBR - VP; Dr. Rice; Nick Calio; Scooter Libby; Eric Edelman; Mrs Cheney
Secretary Mineta a bit later"

In the NARA photoset we discussed recently, all these, except Calio, are seen in the PEOC before Mineta is seen entering.

Another interesting entry is:

"South Tower came down live in EBR after a substantial time"

"EBR" is a room adjacent to the PEOC conference room where plenty of aids sit on screens and phones and do the busy bees' work for the principals. It isn't shown in any photos, AFAIK. The tower came down at 9:59. This statement would speak against a PEOC enty time of 9:58, but it is hard to gauge what "substantial" means.

Another candidate for "young man" is mentioned on page 3:

"Capt. Barnes came in to announce unidentified aircraft not squaking; several times; North; more than 60 miles; then 60 miles; tracking toward DC; telling VP directly"

(I am not always 100% sure I read the handwriting correctly; see for yourself!)

After that, Cochrane is said to have no recollection about any talk about rules of engagement. (Of course, in 2004 he would have been very well aware that not remembering decisions that may have violated authorities might be advised to cover for the boss).

Cochrane said "North"

"Capt. Barnes came in to announce unidentified aircraft not squaking; several times; North; more than 60 miles; then 60 miles; tracking toward DC; telling VP directly"

American 77 was never at a point that anyone could consider north of Washington DC, the Pentagon or the White House. It was always to the west or to the south.

Projected United 93 was though.

Help me understand

Please help me understand what a "projected" track would look like and on what equipment it could be seen in real time.

 

How does a non-existent plane (already crashed) get projected?   Is this simply a function of a route plan being entered?

 

The route change,  made by ATC Linda Justice, from SFO to DCA was entered at 9:56,  This can be seen within FAA file 2 DCC 1738 Radar Track Data UAL93 Radar Track.pdf

https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=E097D925456F1330!310&authkey=!ACkZhDbXMBQj4NY&v=3&ithint=photo%2cjpg

 

You'll note that there is a big gap right after 14:03 (10:03 am) while the rest of the series is being updated every two minutes.

 

Someone please explain what could be seen by either the SS (Nelson Garabito) or FAA (Terry Van Steenbergen) or DCA air traffic controllers which then found its way to Captain Barnes.

 

Remember this is around 20 minutes after the ground stop.  Traffic has been banned from entering DC's airspace, so anything headed in, not communicating, not able to be seen on primary radar, not squawking a transponder code, is going to stick out like a sore thumb. 

 

Let's not forget that there are three F-15s capping DC, so anything really suspicious on a scope would be a target for their intervention.  I don't see how any aircraft could get within 40 or even 60 miles of DC with those birds watching the area.

 

Traffic Situations Display

"Please help me understand what a "projected" track would look like and on what equipment it could be seen in real time."

A projected track would only show up on the TSD, not on actual radar screens. They are two separate systems.

"How does a non-existent plane (already crashed) get projected? Is this simply a function of a route plan being entered?"

Yes, they show up on the TSD when they have a flightplan filed in the system. They do not show up without a flightplan. Once the flightplan is filed in the system, they show up on the TSD whether they actually take off or not.

As an example, an air traffic controller can enter a flightplan for American 123. If for some reason American 123 never departs, it still shows up on the TSD flying from its scheduled departure airport at its scheduled departure time and flying to its scheduled arrival airport at its scheduled arrival time if the flightplan is not removed from the system.

If the flightplan is updated, as Linda Justice did, the projected path will change according to what is changed in the flightplan.

This is why projected United 93 "landed" at DCA at 10:28. This is why Monte Belger was describing an aircraft flying the Down River Approach from Great Falls.

"You'll note that there is a big gap right after 14:03 (10:03 am) while the rest of the series is being updated every two minutes."

Yes, there is a big gap after 10:03 because United 93 crashed. Everything you see before that was based off of real primary radar returns.

"Someone please explain what could be seen by either the SS (Nelson Garabito) or FAA (Terry Van Steenbergen) or DCA air traffic controllers which then found its way to Captain Barnes."

Depends on what they were looking at. If they were looking at a TSD, they would've seen a projected United 93 coming from HGR, past Great Falls on the Down River Approach and landing at DCA.

If they were watching radar screens at DCA and Dulles, or the DCA feed into the PEOC, they wouldn't have seen anything because United 93 crashed in Pennsylvania. We know nothing was on actual radar screens because the controllers at Dulles said they were watching for United 93 and they didn't see any primaries.

Mineta said the young man was giving updates from "radar" but there is no way of knowing that for certain. Capt. Barnes could've been receiving updates from someone else watching a TSD like Mineta when he was receiving from updates Belger. They may have even had a TSD in the PEOC, but I don't know.

"Remember this is around 20 minutes after the ground stop. Traffic has been banned from entering DC's airspace, so anything headed in, not communicating, not able to be seen on primary radar, not squawking a transponder code, is going to stick out like a sore thumb."

"Let's not forget that there are three F-15s capping DC, so anything really suspicious on a scope would be a target for their intervention. I don't see how any aircraft could get within 40 or even 60 miles of DC with those birds watching the area."

It baffles me when you still post statements like this.

United 93 crashed in Pennsylvania. It was never near Washington DC.

Do you not understand what "projected" means?

TSD Information

ADDIS77 wrote: A projected track would only show up on the TSD, not on actual radar screens. They are two separate systems.

Thank you for this clarification.

Question: Does the TSD have a range capability? Would someone watching the TSD be able to accurately countdown the miles? How many people at the ARTCC, DCA or FAA HQ have access to a TSD? Does the WH have a TSD?

ADDIS77 wrote: This is why projected United 93 "landed" at DCA at 10:28.

The Flight Explorer shows arrival at 9:34, which is long before Linda Justice made any changes.
https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=E097D925456F1330!311&authkey=!AE_nDXFPUVsZ9e4&v=3&ithint=photo%2cjpg
This has always remained a curiosity for me. FE works off some type of system data, so where did this come from? Yes, it did show 10:28 in the early stages, but changed to 9:34.

ADDIS77 wrote: This is why Monte Belger was describing an aircraft flying the Down River Approach from Great Falls.

Belger also said he "lost the bogey" somewhere between Rosslyn and the airport. Why didn't the TSD continue right into the airport? They were not using the DRA (Down River Approach) on 9/11. They were landing from the south. If you watch the scope view file, 1 AEA 2869 disc 1 DCA CDRTM AAL-77 9-11-01 you'll see them taking off up river.

Additionally, why doesn't this incoming craft headed south cause concern for first responders at the Pentagon? Wasn't their pull back related to a northbound target?

Additionally, why doesn't this cause concern for the cap fighters? This event, if it is related to UA93's TSD projected path, would be their prime focus of attention.

ADDIS77 wrote: Yes, there is a big gap after 10:03 because United 93 crashed. Everything you see before that was based off of real primary radar returns.

Source: https://onedrive.live.com/redir?resid=E097D925456F1330!310&authkey=!ACkZhDbXMBQj4NY&v=3&ithint=photo%2cjpg

Primary returns? Not exactly. It shows the altitude at 21,000 feet at 10:08. It also shows an altitude of ZERO at 10:27 a minute before the projected path has it landing at DCA. If based upon primary radar, why does it show entries after the 10:03 crash time?

It also shows the altitude as 40,700 feet at 9:39, dropping drastically within one minute back to 35,000.

It also shows the altitude at 35,000 feet for 23 minutes before crash time, which is not possible. Didn't Linda Justice say something about 8,200? In her MFR she says this: "Within one minute, she took the hand-off back because UA 93 had again changed directions. If he had continued flying in her air space, she would have had him for plenty
of time. Instead, she "watched him disappear off the radar scope-Ua 93 had 2-3 radar
returns at 8,200 feet and then it was gone."

Source: PDF page 2, http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00154.pdf

ADDIS77 wrote: It baffles me when you still post statements like this. United 93 crashed in Pennsylvania. It was never near Washington DC. Do you not understand what "projected" means?

I admit I am baffled and this is why I continue to seek answers. Why is a projected path on a TSD a concern for Garabito? (Not to harp on this fine point, but he does confirm that he is concerned before the Pentagon is hit) There is no primary radar to support any threat by UA93. It was 25 minutes between crash time and projected landing at DCA. I guess nobody could join the data and conclude there was no real threat. Not Steenbergen at FAA HQ, who probably did have a TSD, not DCA, not ADW, and certainly not the SS at the WH.

One last thing. The TSD must have been quite the confusing mess at this time, with planes being told to land anywhere close by, EXCEPT in the DC area. There must have been numerous flight plans through and to the DC area that wouldn't have been immediately updated. You've got DCA, BWI and IAD all within striking distance of the WH, not to mention all the smaller airports.

TSD

"Question: Does the TSD have a range capability? Would someone watching the TSD be able to accurately countdown the miles? How many people at the ARTCC, DCA or FAA HQ have access to a TSD? Does the WH have a TSD?"

Yes, the TSD has the capability to change its range. Yes, the way it was explained to me, it can be fairly accurate, but not exacting.

There were no real radar feeds at either the ATCSCC or the FAA HQ, only TSDs. I can only assume that DCA had a TSD because Baltimore TRACON also had one. I would be very surprised if they didn't have one considering how busy the airport is and of their need to know how much traffic is going to be showing up in the future.

I do not know if the White House has a TSD.

"This has always remained a curiosity for me. FE works off some type of system data, so where did this come from? Yes, it did show 10:28 in the early stages, but changed to 9:34."

Flight Explorer told me their information is based off of flight plans just like the FAA TSD. If someone assigns a "block" to a flight on the TSD, the radar will update its path as long as it stays within certain parameters. That's why United 93 can be seen making its turn back towards DC in their imagery.
I called flight Explorer in an attempt to buy all of their information from 9/11/2001, but they wanted $800 for the files.

The FAA produced a document back in 2008 that shows the projected landing time of flight 93 at DCA at 10:28. The document came through an FOIA request that originally asked for a record of landing and departure operations at DCA on September 11, 2001. They sent information from filed flight plans instead of actual landing strips from Reagan Tower. I no longer have access to the document, but it can easily be found at PFT, Loose Change, CIT and ATS. Here's a link to the thread at Loose Change.

http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/700788/2/

"Belger also said he "lost the bogey" somewhere between Rosslyn and the airport. Why didn't the TSD continue right into the airport? They were not using the DRA (Down River Approach) on 9/11. They were landing from the south. If you watch the scope view file, 1 AEA 2869 disc 1 DCA CDRTM AAL-77 9-11-01 you'll see them taking off up river."

I'm not sure if the TSD is accurate enough to give that kind of detail. Yes, they were still landing from the south up until the time, and even one aircraft after, the Pentagon was struck. You've seen the radar depictions and heard the ATC recordings where the controller says that there is a 757 5 miles west of Reagan. It couldn't be more obvious that they are describing something different than what Belger was describing.

"Additionally, why doesn't this incoming craft headed south cause concern for first responders at the Pentagon? Wasn't their pull back related to a northbound target?"

It did. They halted the fire operations, evacuated the area and even made the Park Police cease their rescue operations and land because they thought another aircraft was approaching. In the book "firefight" they say rescue operations were halted because of the aircraft that crashed in Pennsylvania, same for the Park Police helicopter pilots.

I can think of only one instance where somebody said anything about a "northbound" aircraft when discussing the Pentagon, the rest of them describe the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania, from the north or down the river.

"Additionally, why doesn't this cause concern for the cap fighters? This event, if it is related to UA93's TSD projected path, would be their prime focus of attention."

Because United 93 was never close to DC. The people with real radars (NEADS, DCA) never got too concerned because United 93 was never on their radars.

"Primary returns? Not exactly. It shows the altitude at 21,000 feet at 10:08. It also shows an altitude of ZERO at 10:27 a minute before the projected path has it landing at DCA. If based upon primary radar, why does it show entries after the 10:03 crash time?"

I was referring to the coordinates. There are coordinates for United 93's position up until 10:03 which should come from primary radar returns. I can't explain the altitudes at 10:08 and 10:27, I don't know if someone changed them in the flightplan because it was spotted at a lower altitude before it crashed. We know for certain it wasn't at 21,000 feet at 10:08 because it had already crashed.

Linda Justice mentioned 8200 feet altitude because radar picked up two hits off its transponder shortly before it crashed, thus giving an altitude reading.

As far as your last two paragraphs, yes, people had a hard time discerning when it came to projected United 93 and what was actually happening, mainly the Secret Service. A lot of bad information came out of there without being corrected. As I mentioned before, fighters from Andrews were launched at the direction of the Secret Service looking for projected United 93. Same with the Park Police helicopters and the rescue operations at the Pentagon.

Have you heard ATC reporting American 77 still airborne over Illinois in any of the ATC recordings? It's in there somewhere. It's the same situation with United 93. Even though it had lost its transponder, turned around and eventually crashed, it's projected path continued on to LAX.

TSD Backup

If I am understanding the argument correctly, the TSD was the source of the concern for potential targets inside DC.

Do you know whether there are tapes that save the TSD data?

We know that the CDR (Continuous Data Recorder) is the means by which certain data can be extracted and published into a readable format. Would there be similar data available for just the projected path of UA93?

What data did the Flight Explorer rely upon to create its animations?

The SS and TSD

http://www.scribd.com/doc/17218142/T8-B6-FAA-HQ-Terry-Van-Steenbergen-Fdr-3-30-04-MFR-875

 

Shortly after 9:03 Garabito (WH Secret Service) and Steenbergen (FAA HQ) decide to turn away all aircraft from the Class Bravo airspace.

 

This must have not been implemented because planes continued to land at DCA near 9:37.

 

They mention that the TSD was showing AA77.   Garabito must have been getting updates from Steenbergen about this activity, but we are now asked to believe that Cheney is still watching TV in his easy chair.

 

Returning to UA93, on Page 2, it says Steenbergen doesn't know if UA93 was on the TSD.  Don'tcha think if it were on the TSD he would have remembered? Come on! Talk about selective memory.

 

If the Mineta/young man countdown is about UA93, where is this information coming from? Garabito, who is in charge of securing the WH airspace and his counterpart at FAA HQ are tracking AA77 on the TSD. Then what? They go for coffee until after 11am, when the threatening UA93 is still being projected into DC? This is too much leeway being given.

 

They are not tracking UA93 on the TSD because it isn't on the TSD.  It dropped off the TSD as soon as it crashed.

 

None of the three Langley fighters, that arrived at ~9:50, were sent to intercept this projected threat. For the Mineta testimony to be associated with the projected UA93, it would have to be a countdown after 10:05 and before 10:28, the projected arrival time at DCA. 

 

Please always keep in mind that there is no actual plane headed for DC.  The Class Bravo airspace is shut down.  Everything headed into it is considered hostile.  Plenty of time has elapsed since 9:10 for the ATCs to inform all pilots to stay away from DC.

 

 

 

 

According

According to
http://de.scribd.com/doc/17218142/T8-B6-FAA-HQ-Terry-Van-Steenbergen-Fdr-3-30-04-MFR-875
Steenbergen was at his office in the FAA Headquarter, 7th floor, where he has a TSD screen.

" Dianne Creen, Karen Pontius,andScott Hagen werein his office that day."

"Karen Pontius and Diane Creen left the building when it was evacuated. He and Scott stayed behind. Scott went into the TSD room while Steenbergen stayed on the line with Garbido. Scott said he had AAL 77 spotted on the TSD."

Do we have any documentation about when the FAA Headquarter was evacuated?

The question I'd ask at this point would be
- Was AA77 on the TSA at all at any time, showing the return to DC? I don't understand how that could even be possible - who would have plugged it in after it was "lost" from radar?
- Is Steenburgen's recollection that they were watching AA77 on the TSD therefore perhaps mistaken?
- Is his recollected timeline mistaken?

Steenbergen

Steenbergen has some very obvious faults in his recall.

He claims that he ordered aircraft away from DC shortly after 9:03. That never happened. We can see it on the radar and we can hear in the air traffic control recordings.

He also claims that someone is watching American 77 on the TSD? That never happened, either. No one knew where American 77 was until 9:33, no way his people at FAA HQ were watching it approach Washington from "80 miles out." There is zero documentation showing where American 77 had its flightplan changed to reflect a DCA arrival. No one ever added a tag to American 77's primary that would make it appear on the TSD because they lost it from radar. In fact, Washington Center and Indy Center were watching projected American 77 on the TSD in the middle of Indiana at 9:20.

http://www.oredigger61.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/ThomasJohnson.mp3

I would recommend reading this webpage for more information on 9/11 in the TSD:
http://www.oredigger61.org/?p=47

"They are not tracking UA93 on the TSD because it isn't on the TSD. It dropped off the TSD as soon as it crashed."

Sorry, but you are wrong. Air traffic control recordings prove it. Baltimore TRACON called Dulles TRACON at close to 10:30 to say they were tracking him on the TSD not too far from where they were at, they being Dulles. Unless you consider 130 miles "not too far."

"None of the three Langley fighters, that arrived at ~9:50, were sent to intercept this projected threat. For the Mineta testimony to be associated with the projected UA93, it would have to be a countdown after 10:05 and before 10:28, the projected arrival time at DCA."

The Langley fighters were never sent to intercept projected 93 because the people controlling the Langley fighters (NEADS, DCA), as well as the Langley fighters themselves, all had actual radar so there was nothing on their radars for them to intercept. Only the people watching the TSD thought United 93 was anywhere near Washington DC. This isn't that hard to figure out.

Something else you keep missing is the fact that there were no fighters airborne for the approach of American 77. There could be no shoot down/standdown from Cheney because there were no fighters near Washington DC.

" Please always keep in mind that there is no actual plane headed for DC."

Now you're catching on.

"The Class Bravo airspace is shut down."

Not until approximately 9:40.

"Everything headed into it is considered hostile."

Correct, after 9:40.

"Plenty of time has elapsed since 9:10 for the ATCs to inform all pilots to stay away from DC."

Now you've lost me. What does 9:10 have to do with anything? DCA did not start refusing arrivals until after American 77 crashed into the Pentagon, close to 9:40.

.

1) For the approach of projected 93 from the north, yes. No others that I'm aware of.

2) I've never tried requesting TSD information from the FAA so I can't say for certain.

3) see above

4) Flight Explorer told me flight plans and FAA data is what their system works off of. That's all I know.

"Do you know whether there

"Do you know whether there are tapes that save the TSD data?"

While looking for info on AA77 on TSD on Miles Kara's blog, I came across this:
http://www.oredigger61.org/?p=1374

"I should note here that when I observed the TSD playback of 9-11 at Herndon Center the icon for UA 93 visably jumped on the screen to its new location as determined by ZOB."

So yes, TSD data had been saved and could be replayed.

What is source of the tunnel reference?

This is interesting. I hadn't heard about a revised statement from Cheney. He plainly told Tim Russert on Meet the Press, just a few days after the event that he had learned about the Pentagon hit after he had arrived at the PEOC.

Where can we find the actual statement he made about learning of the Pentagon in the tunnel?

The statement was made by Cochrane, not Cheney

Where can we find the actual statement he made about learning of the Pentagon in the tunnel?

The statement was made by Douglas Cochrane, not Dick Cheney. You can read it in the handwritten notes of Cochrane's interview with the 9/11 Commission, here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/231427857/DH-B2-Doug-Cochrane-VP-Military-Aide
On p. 2 of the document, it states that Cochrane said an "Agent said 'they just got the Pentagon' on walk to EBR" (the executive briefing room, next to the PEOC).

In fact, Cheney has also stated that he learned the Pentagon had been hit while he was in the tunnel leading to the PEOC. On p. 1 of his memoir, In My Time, he wrote that while he was in the tunnel, Secret Service agent Jimmy Scott told him, "Sir, the plane headed for us just hit the Pentagon." You can read the relevant excerpt from Cheney's book here:
http://www.today.com/id/44290381/ns/today-today_books/t/dick-cheney-we-were-living-fog-war/

Cheney stated:

In fact, Cheney has also stated that he learned the Pentagon had been hit while he was in the tunnel leading to the PEOC. On p. 1 of his memoir, In My Time, he wrote that while he was in the tunnel, Secret Service agent Jimmy Scott told him, "Sir, the plane headed for us just hit the Pentagon." You can read the relevant excerpt from Cheney's book here:
http://www.today.com/id/44290381/ns/today-today_books/t/dick-cheney-we-were-living-fog-war/

"Just hit the Pentagon"--This shows that the SS was already aware of the plane headed for the P-56. This confirmation has to be received right after 9:38.

He's in the tunnel prior to 9:38 and the spin-up about him getting there around 10 is wrong.

And this can't possibly be confused with UA93 headed on a projected ghost track to DC.

We must still consider that Cheney was already in the PEOC and went back into the tunnel, where the SS agent followed him.

Look, everybody who had half a brain knew at 9:03 that the nation was under attack. As a precaution they would evacuate the VP to the secure location, not wait until a direct threat to the WH was received from Dulles ATCs. I'm not buying that load of manure.

"Just hit the Pentagon"--This

"Just hit the Pentagon"--This shows that the SS was already aware of the plane headed for the P-56. This confirmation has to be received right after 9:38.

Yes, it is well established that the USSS, in their offices at the Eisenhower Executive Building, were alerted by ATC to AA77 approaching P-56. The ATC had added a tag "R" to AA77's primary return at 9:34, and the USSS watched that on their own scopes. This is what prompted the VP personal detail to evacuate Cheney - who was usheres out of his office no earlier that 9:37 - we know he was still watching TV at 9:36 and 43 seconds because David Bohrer shot a recently published photo of Cheney watching TV unapprehended by his personal detail.

The confirmation that AA77 had crashed into the Pentagon no doubt took a few minutes to permeate through to the VP's detail, such that James Scott heard on his radio when they were in the tunnel. It wasn't even immediately clear to the ATC working AA77 and talking live to Gopher 06 that watched the crash!

He's in the tunnel prior to 9:38 ...

No, you are making this up. He is most definitely in the tunnel no sooner than, but quite possibly a bit later than 9:38, because we know that he had been sitting comfortably in his offcice chair at 9:36:43, and the distance to the PEOC is substantial enough to take more than a minute (straight line from VP office to East Wing is something like 300 feet, plus you need to get underground several stories).

... and the spin-up about him getting there around 10 is wrong.

What are you talking about? No one claims he got "there" (to the tunnel) only around 10 - what everybody's story converges on is that he got to the tunnel a substantial number of minutes before 10 - they say they entered the PEOC proper from the tunnel shortly before 10, after Cheney had talked on the phone in the tunnel for a while (during that while, others had arrived bit by bit). Realistically, Cheney and Scott got to the tunnel at like 9:40, then he talked to the Prez. Lynne Cheney arrived at the WH premises perimeter at 9:45, as you very well know, and found her husband still on the phone in the tunnel when she had made it to the bunker - which took a few minutes no doubt.
The group no doubt entered the PEOC from the tunnel at some point after 9:50 and before 10:00.

And this can't possibly be confused with UA93 headed on a projected ghost track to DC.

No one is confused about this. In the tunnel, and before, and after, the talk is - correctly - about AA77 and the Pentagon event. The confusion around UA93 was later, after they had entered the PEOC conference room and established communication. After 10:03 no doubt.

We must still consider that Cheney was already in the PEOC and went back into the tunnel, where the SS agent followed him.

You make this up.

Look, everybody who had half a brain knew at 9:03 that the nation was under attack. As a precaution they would evacuate the VP to the secure location, not wait until a direct threat to the WH was received from Dulles ATCs. I'm not buying that load of manure.

This is monday quarterbacking, and this is a monday 14 years after the game. Why should anybody take you serious?

Any doubt?

Can there be any serious doubt now that Mineta was wrong about what time he arrived?

Mineta's account is likely wrong

Yes, I am now sure Norman Mineta's account about the reports of an aircraft approaching Washington before the Pentagon was hit is wrong.

I actually think that once you dismiss Mineta's account, what remains is highly incriminating and is strong evidence that 9/11 was a black operation--i.e. an "inside job." If the Secret Service evacuated Dick Cheney from his office after 9:35 a.m., this would indicate that it was in a state of paralysis--it effectively "stood down"--for about 50 minutes after the first plane crashed into the World Trade Center. Cheney should have been taken from his office to somewhere more secure much earlier than 9:35 a.m., as the White House was a likely terrorist target. I find it very suspicious that he was left in potential danger for so long.

I explained this in detail in my article, "The Dangerously Delayed Reactions of the Secret Service on 9/11," which you can read here:
http://shoestring911.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/the-dangerously-delayed-reactions-of.html

Gross incompetence.

…is what I see rather than a black operation of some sort. I believe your expectations of the Secret Service being some kind of omnipotent organization that should have acted flawlessly on 9/11 to be too high.

I, like you, I believe, would think the Secret Service is the most competent law enforcement agency in the country given who and what they're supposed to be protecting, even more so than the FBI. But, after some of the incidents that have happened in the last few years, they would be closer to the Looney Tunes gang rather than the Avengers.

Here are some of the headlines from the last few years:

"New Allegations in Secret Service Prostitution Scandal"
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/secret-service-prostitution-scandal-in-spotlight-with-new-allegations/

"Secret Service Fumbled Response after Gunman Hit White House Residence in 2011"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/secret-service-stumbled-after-gunman-hit-white-house-residence-in-2011/2014/09/27/...

"Report: Drunk Secret Service Agents Crash into White House Barrier"
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/11/politics/drunk-secret-service-agents-white-house/index.html

"Secret Service Agents Sent Home after One Found Passed out in Amsterdam"
http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/25/us/secret-service-amsterdam/

"Secret Service Agents in South Florida for Obama Visit Had Traffic Accident in South Keys"
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article2087749.html

"White House Fence Jumper Made It All the Way to the East Room"
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/white-house-fence-jumper-made-it-all-the-way-to-the-east-room/

"Armed Felon Allowed on Elevator with the President"
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/10/01/1333527/-Armed-Felon-Allowed-On-Elevator-With-the-President#

"Two Secret Service Agents Caught Snoozing on the Job"
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/two-secret-service-agents-caught-sleeping-on-job-raise-concerns-of-employee-fatigue/

The 'incompetence' explanation makes no sense

I really don't think incompetence explains the Secret Service's initial lack of response to the terrorist attacks on September 11, since, from the many accounts I have read, it appears that Secret Service agents did eventually respond to the attacks with clear competence.

Between 8:46 a.m.--when the first plane hit the World Trade Center--and around 9:35 a.m., Secret Service agents apparently did nothing to properly respond to the attacks, as if they were incompetent. But then, at around 9:35 a.m., agents appear to have suddenly started acting like the competent and highly skilled professionals we would expect them to be, and responded rapidly and decisively to the situation.

So it makes no sense to me that an entire agency like the Secret Service would suddenly go from being incompetent to competent in an instant. There must be a more sinister explanation for the Secret Service's initial lack of response to the 9/11 attacks.

Competent response requires

Competent response requires actionable information.

What actionable information did the USSS have between 8:46 and 9:03 that should've, could've, might've triggered a personal detail response in Washington? None, right? There was a single incident in another city at that time. You don't remove government principals from their work places when there is a single incidence hundreds of miles away. I bet if the USSS had dragged Cheney (and everyone else) away from their phones, their meetings, their current activities, we would today be considering THAT as highly suspicious, along the line of "the CIA thwarted an early and decisive response by getting Cheney out of the way".

So I wish folks would stop saying that nothing was done for "almost hour". The information of a coordinated, multi-pronged attack did not reach Washington and the USSS until 9:03. Should it have been immediately clear, that the dual New York event meant a threat to DC? Perhaps. Did the USSS have actionable information after the second hit? Not necessarily, not immediately.

We know what prompted the quick and decisive response after 9:35: The news, coming from Dulles and Reagan ATC at 9:33/9:34, that there was an inbound plane - AA77. THAT was actionable information.

Now there can be debate if the vaguer information before 9:33 ought to have triggered a safety response earlier, and I decline to have a definite opinion on that - I am not a professional, trained personal security agent, experienced in assessing threats to government officials. Declaring moves right or wrong is monday morning quarterbacking.

From within

It appears they did not respond sooner because there was no direct threat to Washington. One example would be their response with Dick Cheney. Even after the initial report of an aircraft approaching Washington from the FAA, the Secret Service's reaction was to evacuate the VP but did not follow through because they received another update that the approaching plane had turned to the South. They left him in his office until the FAA reported that the aircraft had turned back towards Washington DC. This would indicate that they were not going to evacuate anyone until under direct threat.

If there was something sinister about their response, it would have had to come from within, correct? At least according to your article, all of the decisions of who was evacuated and when were made by the Secret Service themselves. Are you saying that their delayed response is an indication that they knew beforehand exactly what was going to happen, i.e. which building flight 77 was going to hit, indicating there was no hurry to evacuate the VIPs under their protection because they knew they were not in danger?

Agents may have thought attacks were part of an exercise

Are you saying that their delayed response is an indication that they knew beforehand exactly what was going to happen, i.e. which building flight 77 was going to hit, indicating there was no hurry to evacuate the VIPs under their protection because they knew they were not in danger?

Possibly. Or perhaps some Secret Agents thought the reports they were receiving about America being under attack were part of a training exercise.

Training exercise.

Okay, thanks for the clarification.

I personally find that hard to believe because all of this unfolded live on national and local television for everyone to see. They may be able to fool themselves if the training exercise was somehow compartmentalized to the Secret Service in a vacuum, but not when they could have seen what was happening in New York simply by turning on an outside source. Or by talking to anyone else who had access to information outside of the Secret Service.

Evidence of a Secret Service exercise on 9/11

I provided a lot of evidence that suggested the Secret Service was participating in a training exercise on September 11 in my article, "Targeting the President: Evidence of U.S. Government Training Exercises on 9/11." You can read this here:
http://shoestring911.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/targeting-president-evidence-of-us.html

Don't Forget About Nelson

Nelson Garabito was responsible for the WH airspace. He says they were aware of two DC bound planes, one 45 minutes out and one 30 minutes out. He took this seriously. The EEOB was ordered evacuated. The WH staff was let go. This is about AA77, not UA93.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUEYAJiLB2c

On Page 10 we see that Garabito was in touch with Barnes. The actual timing is unclear.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/14353654/DH-B5-Secret-Service-Requests-Fdr-Entire-Contents-5-Withdrawal-Notice-Doc-Req-Notes-Gar...

Do you really believe this early report (45 or 30 minutes out) wouldn't be transmitted as a threat to Cheney's detail and get him underground to the very command center that is specifically designed to coordinate responses to national emergencies? On pages 9 and 10 it says he was talking to the PEOC. This is within minutes after 9:03, right after he gets in touch with his counterpart at FAA, Terry van Steenbergen.

It appears the PEOC was up and running shortly after 9:03.