John White
Site Admin
Joined: 27 Mar 2006
Posts: 3187
Location: Here to help!
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 11:49 pm Post subject: Evidence of involvment of a third jet in WTC attacks |
 |
|
this is a straight forward passing-this-on from elsewhere on the net
Have we seen this already? Any views?
| Quote: | This is a great article...note that the author has been threatened with his childrens lives..pretty appaling but symbolic of its importance. This is a clear smoking gun.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/
The Flying Elephant: Evidence for Involvement of a Third Jet in the WTC Attacks
Scholars for 9/11 Truth
No mention of a large, commercial-class aircraft loitering in the restricted airspace of lower
Manhattan during the strikes on the WTC towers will be found in the 9/11 Commission Report.
It does not appear in any version of the Official Story. It is largely unknown even in critical
studies of 9/11. Yet substantial evidence exists to support its presence coincident with the
attacks, actually orbiting in close proximity to the towers for several minutes while the North
Tower burned and the South Tower was struck. Photography, video footage and eyewitness
accounts, including FDNY transcripts and mainstream media audio, confirm this fact.
Why is this significant? Let us consider the commercial air traffic on a typical Tuesday morning
over New York City. There are three major airports servicing the city: La Guardia and JFK
International to the east, and Newark International across the Hudson to the west. Normal
holding patterns for these airports do not intersect the borough of Manhattan at any point. Lower
Manhattan is, and was on the morning of 9/11/01, a low-altitude flight-restricted (no fly) zone
for commercial jets, as designated by the FAA, for the obvious reason that heavy, fast-moving
aircraft and tall buildings pose mutual hazards. Air traffic near the WTC towers was doubly
restricted, with a minimum ceiling extending two thousand feet above the towers (3,300 feet)
within a radius of one nautical mile, excepting only police aviation without special permit. These
were the VFR (visual flight rules) parameters in effect on the morning of 9/11. Once WTC1 was
hit, the black smoke plume expanding southeast from the tower would pose an additional threat
to navigation.
No avoidance warning from Air Traffic Control would be necessary, as no rational commercial
pilot (no matter how curious) would risk his aircraft, crew or passengers in a "fly-by" of the
burning North Tower. But in this anonymous Camera Planet segment we see a large, twin-jet
aircraft (757/767-class) doing just that at approximately 8:58am (assuming the time signature is
uncorrected by one hour), five minutes before WTC2 will be struck. Even disregarding the
indicated time, as WTC1 is burning and WTC2 is not, the segment is clearly recorded between
8:46am and 9:03am. Note this white aircraft with dark engines and vertical stabilizer is not the
aircraft that will impact WTC2.
http://terrorize.dk/911/wtc2hit13/911.wtc.yet.another.plane.wmv
This still from the video isolates the aircraft:
According to the 9/11 Commission, two F-15s were scrambled from Otis Air Force Base at
8:46am (some 33 minutes after flight controllers lost contact with AA11), and were inbound to
NYC at high speed, presumably to intercept suspicious airliners. Presumably commercial flights
in NY airspace would be alerted to this danger. Yet this aircraft cruises slowly near the stricken
North Tower, seemingly unconcerned its behavior makes it a logical target for these fighters. Of
course, the absurdly late scramble and non-arrival of the F-15s is a serious problem for the
official narrative, which remains obscured by contradictory accounts from the FAA, NORAD,
NEADS, the news media and the pilots themselves. (The Commission has these fighters finally
arriving for Combat Air Patrol over NYC at 9:25am, after being vectored into a holding pattern
off Long Island.)
At least one photograph captures this aircraft (or one with a similar profile) in the interval
between the tower strikes, flying another pass almost directly above WTC2 at an altitude of
approximately 2,000 feet, judging by its size and position relative to the smoke plume, to which
it appears recklessly close:
At 9:03am, "UA175" approaches from the south at an improbably high speed and impacts the
South Tower. CNN aired this "amateur video" of the event, which captures (without notice by
Aaron Brown or Paula Zahn) what is evidently the same jet seen in the Camera Planet segment,
making a similar northwest pass (but farther west, approximately over Battery Park) as the South
Tower hit occurs.
www.areadownload.com/video/wtc/WTC%20-%20Amateur%20Video%2004.mpg
This still from the video isolates the aircraft as "UA175" rips through the South Tower:
At 9:04am, Diane Sawyer of ABC News made remarks on-air about the "circling" jet she and her
colleagues "all saw" prior to the second strike. She admits she "just assumed" it was the same
one that struck the South Tower.
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/comments/911.wtc.plane.circling.around.wmv
Of interest with respect to this "mystery jet" is the phenomenon, acknowledged but unexplained
by the Commission, of the "phantom Flight 11". At 9:21am, after both towers had been hit, and
long after "AA11" had struck the North Tower, Boston flight control, relaying information from
FAA headquarters, informed NEADS that "AA11" was still in the air and heading south, perhaps
to Washington, DC. Were they tracking this "third aircraft"?
http://www.terrorize.dk/911/flight11/911.wtc.the.real.flight.11.ng.wmv
Notable in this context are reports by FDNY personnel that they received a warning about a third
aircraft. Deputy Chief Peter Hayden, in an interview with Firehouse Magazine in April 2002,
explained "We had a report from OEM that there was possibility of a third plane coming in."
Even more intriguing, in the Naudets' documentary 9/11,a firefighter is filmed explaining what
caused the collapse of the South Tower: "The FBI thinks it was a third plane."
Much research has focused on the details and effects of various military exercises apparently
underway on 9/11, especially "live-fly" NORAD drills designed to mimic multiple terrorist
aircraft attacks on high-profile US targets. One NORAD drill, "Vigilant Guardian", is admitted
by the Commission to have been in progress but is dismissed in a footnote as being unrelated to
the hijacking scenario and as posing no impediment to defensive response, despite the well-
documented confusion among NORAD personnel as to whether the attacks were "real world or
exercise", the presence of artificial radar "injects" on their screens, and the recognition of as
many as eleven simultaneous potential hijackings.
Was the "third jet" an actor in such an exercise? Was it meant to confuse defensive
response? Was it monitoring (or controlling) the attacks? Was it a back-up in the event of a
miss on the towers? Was it one of these? www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=90
If it is a civil aircraft, records of its take-off and landing must exist. A FOIA request to the
FAA should be filed. If it is military, it is automatically suspect. Any proper investigation of
9/11 must account for this aircraft.
Grateful acknowledgment is made to Brian P. Duncan and Robert E. Moore, Esq. for their
research in support of this study.
* Scholars for 9/11 Truth has been appalled to learn that the author of this study has received
threats against himself and his family for having written this article. The source of these threats
has suggested that he drop out of our organization and that this study should "go away". He has
withdrawn from S9/11T, but this piece of research cannot "go away". It has already been widely
read and no doubt copied. Under the circumstances, it would be a huge mistake to allow this
organization and its journal to be manipulated by external threats. Since the author has nothing
to do with our decision to keep it in place, responsibility shifts to the organization. We hope
others will pursue its leads.
Journal of 9/11 Studies 29 June 2006/Volume 1
more on this:
Member's children threatened by name; teacher's position under assault.
Duluth, MN (PRWEB) July 4, 2006 --- The author of an article about the attack on the World Trade Center has found himself under attack for having published it in a new on-line publication, Journal of 9/11 Studies. Entitled "The Third Elephant", the article discusses evidence that a third airplane was captured on video at the time of the WTC attack. He has now received a thinly-veiled threat against his children, who are cited by name, suggesting it would be a good idea if his article were to simply "go away".
When teachers are intimidated against seeking and speaking truth on a campus renowned for its liberal and progressive traditions, we are in trouble
Scholars for 9/11 Truth is a non-partisan society of experts and scholars committed to exposing falsehoods and revealing truths about the events of 9/11. The journal, which is archived at journalof911studies.com, is its latest attempt to create forums for discussion and debate about these important issues beyond its web site, which is archived at st911.org. The author, Reynolds Dixon, a writer and Professor of English, former lecturer and Fellow at Stanford University, has withdrawn from the society.
"Threats of this kind have no place in a democratic nation", said James H. Fetzer, the founder of S9/11T. "These are the tactics of brown-shirts and totalitarians who fear the discussion of controversial questions that threaten the government's control over the governed. This is a despicable act and we are not going to back down!" He added that the organization itself will assume responsibility for the study, which Reynolds has relinquished. "We cannot allow advances in understanding what happened on 9/11 to be suppressed by threats to our members. The stakes are simply too high."
In Wisconsin, another member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, Kevin Barrett, who has been active in efforts to inform the American people about discoveries that have been made by Scholars--including that the Twin Towers were destroyed, not by the impact of airplanes or the ensuing fires, but by sophisticated controlled demolition; that Vice President Dick Cheney gave a "stand down" order to not shoot down the plane approaching the Pentagon; and that the FBI has now confirmed that it has "no hard evidence" connecting Osama bin Laden to 9/11--confronts the loss of his job.
A Wisconsin legislator, Stephen Nass, Republican of Whitewater, has called for the University of Wisconsin-Madison to immediately fire him from his teaching position. The UW Office of the Provost has announced that it will conduct a 10-day review of Barrett's plans for an introductory fall course in Islam and of his past performance as a teacher at UW-Madison. Provost Patrick Farrell has endorsed his freedom of speech, but "We have an obligation to insure that his course content is academically appropriate, of high quality, and that he is not imposing his views on his students."
Prominent experts and scholars who are members of S9/11T include Steven Jones, a professor of physics at Brigham Young University; Morgan Reynolds, former Chief Economist for the Department of Labor in the George W. Bush administration; Bob Bowman, who directed research on the "Star Wars" program in both Republican and Democratic administrations; Andreas von Buelow, the former director of Science and Technology for Germany; and David Ray Griffin, professor emeritus of theology at the Claremont Graduate School and author or editor of four books on the events of 9/11.
Concern about academic freedom at UW-Madison extends beyond the Scholars group. Ron Rattner, an attorney from San Francisco, CA, for example, has written to Provost Farrell with the observation that, "When teachers are intimidated against seeking and speaking truth on a campus renowned for its liberal and progressive traditions, we are in trouble". He added, "Universities are for inquiries, not inquisitions. UW must operate in the traditions of La Follette, not McCarthy". Robert La Follette was noted as a progressive leader, while Joe McCarthy portrayed his opponents as subversives.
Fetzer observed that the right wing is continuing to attack faculty who speak out on 9/11. "During an appearance on Hannity & Colmes (June 22, 2006), with Ollie North sitting in for Hannity, I made points about controlled demolition, the "stand down" order, and the FBI's position," he said, "but they were more interested in whether I was discussing these things with my students than whether they were true." On a subsequent appearance on Laura Ingraham's program (June 30, 2006), "She had her staff chanting about 'nutty professors' before I was even introduced. Then, after I made some telling points at the end of the program, they edited their archived copy and cut it off after a long harangue attacking me. That is intellectually dishonest."
Many other members of S9/11T, including Morgan Reynolds and David Ray Griffin, have spoken out in defense of academic freedom and in opposition to censorship and curtailing research into 9/11. "These nasty threats against the children of one member and the freedom of speech of another", Fetzer said, "make a sorry statement about this nation on the eve of the 4th of July." Coincidentally, Fetzer will appear with Barrett at the Mid-West Social Forum on Sunday, July 9, 2006, from 9-10:30 AM, at the Student Union of UW-Milwaukee, to discuss 9/11.
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2006/7/prweb406904.htm |
_________________
Free your Self and Free the World
Last edited by John White on Fri Jul 14, 2006 10:17 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
