New full feature presentation from CIT now realeased!

People - JThomas included - there is indeed an 'official story.' It's contained in official reports and such. It states that a B757 piloted by Hani Hanjour crashed into the Pentagon at a certain angle, etc... You know the one. I put quotes on it to emphasize for those who believe it's JUST an official story without any backing. Facts happen to bolster this official story.

And also for JThomas, you don't need to ignore the current evidence to make your point. Yes, the plane hit the building and CIT has not been able to well explain HOW they think it was all faked to that end. But their 'ironclad' case that it must be so, based on some witnesses and stuff, is also fraudulent on every level. This is not all their doing - there are some fraud witnesses too.

Ranke will not admit ever your points, no matter how right you are or how many times you repeat it, so at least maybe watch the vid and start tearing down this new info he's asking you to focus on. So far you're playing into his hands by bumping the thread with no input on the new 'evidence' which he will spin as a fear of confronting it.

Myself I have nothing more concrete to add just yet.

Originally posted by ipsedixit
Maybe you could answer a question for me "Why doesn't Bushelzebub's administration release the video footage of the impact at the Pentagon of what Ronald Dumsfeld refers to as a missile in one interview?"

Exactly. And lets face it. If it was a plane, with all this controversy and conjecture, they would have released the video years ago proving their claim conclusively.

Fact is, they wont release the video because they can't without incriminating themselves conclusively as liars and being shot for treason..

No wait, this just in from CNN - they wont release the video because relatives of passengers on the plane would be traumatised seeing it. Yea thats it, their such a sensitive bunch they dont want anyone upset by it..(where would be be without the media).

Bit like the news supression on the war in Iraq. "Lets not show whats really going on there. Might distress a few people". Such a loving, caring bunch in the white house these days..hell you only gotta take one look at cheney to realise that..

[edit on 29-2-2008 by dscomp]

Hi Craig, I'm going to take a few shots at the 'Fly Over' theory.

I'll start with the C-130 pilot Lt. Col. Steve O'Brien. He says,'' We flew to the north and west which took us by the south side of the mall." That matches the RADES data.

He most likely flew the Andrews Air Force Base standard departure procedure called CAMP SPRINGS ONE.

CAMP SPRINGS ONE requires an aircraft departing to the north to turn left to a heading of 270°(magnetic west/260° actual with 10° west magnetic variance) within 3 miles of the DME. The DME is located between the two runways on the south side of the field. CAMP SPRINGS ONE also requires that the departing aircraft be at an altitude of 3000' within 8 miles of the DME after turning west. That matches the RADES data and O'Brien's statement of being around 3000' to 3500' when he first interacted with Flight 77.

You note in your video that it is suspicious that Lt. Col. Steve O'Brien was unaware of the attacks in New York. The RADES data has him departing at 9:32 a.m., work back from that time.

Pretakeoff checklist, taxi out, pre-taxi checklist, start up, pre-start up checklist, preflight walk around, and all the other preflight procedures before departing. It's not like he was flying a fighter that was on alert and ready to depart within 10 minutes. It takes time near or in the aircraft to prepare for a flight. I don't see anything suspicious.

The news started broadcasting the first impact at 8:50 a.m., that leaves roughly 42 minutes for him to become aware of the attack before he took off.

Also, you mention the 9:25 a.m. ground stop. The ground stop did not apply to military aircraft.

It is my understanding that CIT has been in e-mail contact with Lt. Col. Steve O'Brien. Why don't you guys ask him these five questions;
Does the RADES data match your flight path?
Did you depart Andrews Air Force Base using CAMP SPRINGS ONE?
Who worked up your flight plan that day?
Did you ever lose sight of Flight 77?
If so, for how long?

If the Citizen Investigation Team is really after the truth of what happened that day, then those five questions should help you find answers.

The point of this whole exercise is to demonstrate that 9/11 Truthers cannot deny the known evidence that is inconvenient to them.

The cannot claim that anyone is "hiding" anything or AA77 didn't hit the Pentagon because they haven't seen videos that may or may not show AA 77 hitting the Pentagon. The other evidence exists and 9/11 Truthers must deal with it. They refuse.

9/11 Truthers cannot claim that ALL of the evidence is available to them on the Internet and conveniently forget that most of the evidence is not on the Internet. I have illustrated this by forcing Ranke in a corner into explaining why he has not interviewed the 1,000+ people who are known to have seen and/or wreckage inside the Pentagon.

Those people exist but only a handful of their statements are available on the The Internet. Those reading carefully understand the implications: Craig Ranke does not know what wreckage they saw and recovered. Neither is he able to explain why over 1,000 people have never once or in unison ever say that the reports that it was AA77 are false. Is it Ranke's responsibility to find out those answers? You bet it is.

This all serves to demonstrate that the burden of proof is, has been, and always will be on Ranke and ALL 9/11 Truthers to refute all of that evidence, whether it is available on the Internet or not. It is their responsibility to demonstrate and support their cases by demonstrating their claims are consistent with ALL of the evidence, and by refuting ALL of the existing evidence against their claims. Period.

It matters not what Ranke posts as a new video when hecontinues to deny his responsibility to deal with the all of evidence, all of which he knows is against his claims. So, yes, I have bumped him in these threads to remind him, and other truthers, where THEIR responsibility lies. It is no one's obligation to "refute" his latest claims when they are based on the full denial of all the evidence.

Finally, there is a vast difference in using the canard and strawman that there is an "official story." The implications have been know for years and they are false. There are "official, government-sponsored investigations" and their reports BUT they are anything BUT a story. They contain the evidence from thousands of independent sources and eyewitnesses that demonstrably have nothing to do with the government, were never controllable by the government then or now. Those investigations and their reports report what happened, how, and why. They are not a government story neither originating with, or controlled by, the government.

The government is not charged with a crime nor is it a defendant in any crime. This is merely a charge by the 9/11 Truth Movement whose foundation is based on the strawman that the government was in control of ALL of the evidence from the beginning and therefore could make up any story it wanted.

9/11 Truthers bought into the canard early on, and that canard originated with the movement's leaders. Truthers have never questioned the basis for it and they have become victims and fodder for the the leaders of the movement.

If 9/11 Truthers were serious about "just asking questions" they would first ask if what they are being told by the 9/11 Truth Movement is valid. A little work on their part to examine and critique their own beliefs and assumptions and just where those beliefs originated would reveal that the 9/11 Truth Movement is built on a house of cards - and whyCraig Ranke thinks he can get away with conning so many of you.

Originally posted by Boone 870
Hi Craig, I'm going to take a few shots at the 'Fly Over' theory.

I'll start with the C-130 pilot Lt. Col. Steve O'Brien. He says,'' We flew to the north and west which took us by the south side of the mall." That matches the RADES data.

He most likely flew the Andrews Air Force Base standard departure procedure called CAMP SPRINGS ONE.

No it does not match the RADES data which has him traveling southwest or westsouthwest to the south side of Reagan. Not north and west to the south side of the mall. Big difference.

His statements fit infinitely better with the morningside one departure procedure:

204.108.4.16...

CAMP SPRINGS ONE requires an aircraft departing to the north to turn left to a heading of 270°(magnetic west/260° actual with 10° west magnetic variance) within 3 miles of the DME. The DME is located between the two runways on the south side of the field. CAMP SPRINGS ONE also requires that the departing aircraft be at an altitude of 3000' within 8 miles of the DME after turning west. That matches the RADES data and O'Brien's statement of being around 3000' to 3500' when he first interacted with Flight 77.

But he would have seen the jet approach from his right not his left like he states so that debunks your theory right off the bat.

Plus he said he was on the south side of The Mall and had just passed it traveling westbound when he first interacted with the decoy jet.

Not south of Reagan. Big difference.

No matter how much irrelevant technical information you use to spin and confuse people you can not change the statements of the pilot.

Furthermore the testimony of Steve Chaconas proves that our interpretation of the C-130 flight path is correct and yours is wrong.

You note in your video that it is suspicious that Lt. Col. Steve O'Brien was unaware of the attacks in New York. The RADES data has him departing at 9:32 a.m., work back from that time.

Pretakeoff checklist, taxi out, pre-taxi checklist, start up, pre-start up checklist, preflight walk around, and all the other preflight procedures before departing. It's not like he was flying a fighter that was on alert and ready to depart within 10 minutes. It takes time near or in the aircraft to prepare for a flight. I don't see anything suspicious.

So he would not be in communication with ATC during any of these procedures including take-off? Why wouldn't ATC inform him of the unprecedented world historical emergency implementation of national ground stop and halt his take-off?

The news started broadcasting the first impact at 8:50 a.m., that leaves roughly 42 minutes for him to become aware of the attack before he took off.

Also, you mention the 9:25 a.m. ground stop. The ground stop did not apply to military aircraft.

The 2nd plane hit at 9:03 so we were confirmed under attack. Andrews should have been on high alert and fighter jets should have been preparing to scramble. The notion that a military base was not aware of the attack OR the nationwide implementation of national ground stop is plain old silly.

But you are completely wrong about your claim that it did not apply to military aircraft which is why you did not source it.

Time magazine later reports that Jane Garvey, head of the FAA, “almost certainly after getting an okay from the White House, initiate a national ground stop, which forbids takeoffs and requires planes in the air to get down as soon as is reasonable. The order, which has never been implemented since flying was invented in 1903, apply to virtually every single kind of machine that can takeoff—civilian, military, or law enforcement.” Military and law enforcement flights are allowed to resume at 10:31 a.m. (see 10:31 a.m. September 11, 2001) A limited number of military flights—the FAA will not reveal details—are allowed to fly during this ban. --Time, 9/14/2001

Garvey later calls it “a national ground stop… that prevented any aircraft from taking off.” --(US Congress, 9/21/2001)

Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta later says he was the one to give the order: “As soon as I was aware of the nature and scale of the attack, I called from the White House to order the air traffic system to land all aircraft, immediately and without exception.” --US Congress. Senate. Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, 9/20/2001

Why would you make an incorrect statement as if you are so sure of the answer without providing a source or even bothering to research it?

It is my understanding that CIT has been in e-mail contact with Lt. Col. Steve O'Brien. Why don't you guys ask him these five questions;
Does the RADES data match your flight path?
Did you depart Andrews Air Force Base using CAMP SPRINGS ONE?
Who worked up your flight plan that day?
Did you ever lose sight of Flight 77?
If so, for how long?

If the Citizen Investigation Team is really after the truth of what happened that day, then those five questions should help you find answers.

Rob Balsamo had the initial email contact with O'Brien BEFORE the RADES data was released.

We attempted follow up with all of those questions and more shortly after the release of the RADES data.

He replied saying he would answer our questions when he found the time but never replied again with the answers. We have followed up with him and with public relations many times trying to force an answer but they can't force him to answer.

He already said that he lost sight of the jet, did not see an impact, and even that he was too far away to be able to tell that the explosion came from the Pentagon.

We did not mention the RADES data in our questions in hopes that he would give us his honest uninfluenced answers.

Perhaps our questions got him poking around and he found the RADES data.

Perhaps he is now scared.

The ball is in his court because we have exhausted all possible efforts to get further confirmation from him but the fact is that his previous statements are enough already and the testimony of Steve Chaconas proves we were right.












[edit on 29-2-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Here's a list of some of the airliners that landed at Reagan National Airport after the 9:25 a.m. national ground stop. These are scheduled flights only.

American Airlines Flight 684 landed at 9:29 a.m.
America West Flight 98 landed at 9:39 a.m. Airbus A320
Continental Flight 803 landed at 9:33 a.m. MD-82
Delta Flight 730 landed at 9:31 a.m. Boeing 757
USAirways Flight 1610 landed at 9:31 a.m. Boeing 737
USAirways Flight 6511 landed at 9:34 a.m.
United Airlines Flight 338 landed at 9:37 a.m. Boeing 737

The BTS site will not hyperlink the individual pages that shows these records. Sorry, you'll have to dig through it like I did.

Notice that United Airlines Flight 338 landed at 9:37 a.m.

This could have been the airliner that Steve Chaconas saw approaching Reagan National.

As you can see from the list above, there were aircraft landing after the 9:25 a.m. national ground stop ordered by the FAA.

Originally posted by Boone 870


Notice that United Airlines Flight 338 landed at 9:37 a.m.

This could have been the airliner that Steve Chaconas saw approaching Reagan National.

Wrong.

Commercial aircraft do not approach Reagan from east of the river.

You have to identify the craft that Chaconas saw on the RADES data yet you can not proving it could not have been UA 338.

As you can see from the list above, there were aircraft landing after the 9:25 a.m. national ground stop ordered by the FAA.

So?

What does that have to do with departures?

And why did you authoritatively state that national ground stop did not apply to military craft when it did?

Are you going to be a man and admit you were wrong?

Originally posted by Caustic Logic
But their 'ironclad' case that it must be so, based on some witnesses and stuff, is also fraudulent on every level. This is not all their doing - there are some fraud witnesses too.

Excuse me?

Fraudulent on "every level"???

You have not demonstrated ANYTHING fraudulent at all let alone on "every level".

Those are some hefty accusations to make without ANYTHING to back them up. I should report this as it is a personal attack. If you have evidence of this you better back it up or retract your libelous claim.

Myself I have nothing more concrete to add just yet.

Uh-huh.

Of course you don't because the information we present is solid so all you can pull out of your hat is hollow ad hominem ridicule as you have done on your blog.

You have offered nothing to refute the info other than libelous accusations based on nothing "concrete" as you just admitted.

Shameful.





[edit on 29-2-2008 by Craig Ranke CIT]

Originally posted by beachnut
77 hit the Pentagon, you have nothing again. Final heading is wrong on your story. Love the hearsay you slip in! Funny stuff and total fantasy conclusions. At least you present enough in your own video to debunk your conclusions. Once again the lines you drew as the flight path are impossible due to g force and bank required proving your witnesses false and your ideas are fabricated. Just the flight path requires 8 gs with a 80 degree bank in a split second.

Total rubbish.

Different person to the above
My batteries are fully charged. You guys are the silly ones who think that the wreckage in the Pentagon doesn't count and that you need a "video" to determine if AA 77 hit the Pentagon or not.

Tell me. If there is nothing to hide, why permanently sequester 80+ videos and silence the witnesses to those same videos, when all of the above were released for the flights that hit the WTC? What is there to hide, if all is as they say it is?

Talk about bassackwards logic!

Hmm... quite.

Don't forget also that pesky DME readout. There isn't a DME at that distance. The next furthest DME is at 7 nm. It has it at 3.5 nm (IIRC). The DME at 1.5 nm looks like DCA VOR, and seems to match, but the other doesn't exist either on that frequency or in the area of the Pentagon or DCA. DME can't just invent itself.

[edit on 29-2-2008 by mirageofdeceit]

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

No it does not match the RADES data which has him traveling southwest or westsouthwest to the south side of Reagan. Not north and west to the south side of the mall. Big difference.

His statements fit infinitely better with the morningside one departure procedure:

204.108.4.16...

Yes, Craig, it does. It matches the RADES data and it matches his statements of 'West'. Look at the chart so that you understand what heading is required for that departure. Is 270° west or not? How can you possibly look at the two departure procedures above and say that Morningside One looks more plausible than CAMP SPRINGS ONE?

But he would have seen the jet approach from his right not his left like he states so that debunks your theory right off the bat.

No it doesn't. He saw Flight 77 after Southern to Western to northern turn.

Plus he said he was on the south side of The Mall and had just passed it traveling westbound when he first interacted with the decoy jet.
Not south of Reagan. Big difference.

Where is Reagan National located from the mall? It looks like south to me.

No matter how much irrelevant technical information you use to spin and confuse people you can not change the statements of the pilot.

I didn't change the statements of the pilot. Is West considered 270°, yes or no?

But you are completely wrong about your claim that it did not apply to military aircraft which is why you did not source it.
Why would you make an incorrect statement as if you are so sure of the answer without providing a source or even bothering to research it?

Summary of Activities
We're responsible for the safety of civil aviation.faa.gov

There's my source. The very thought of the FAA not allowing the military to launch aircraft during a crisis is laughable, or any time for that matter. Do you have any links or documentation proving that the FAA can overrule military or where the FAA has authority over the military?

Of the three external quote you provided, only two of them have links. The first one, with Mineta's testimony, he's talking about grounding the airplanes. The second one, does not have quotes around any of the statements in the paragraph regarding the military. So I will take that as the author's interpretation.

He already said that he lost sight of the jet

Link please? I remember him saying that they had a hard time keeping track of it, but not losing sight of it. I could possibly agree with you that he lost sight of it right before it hit the Pentagon, but not right after the two crossed paths in the air. Using your alleged flight path, he would have had to mention that the aircraft turned south from East and then south to west and then back to North and then back to East. He never said anything like that. He just said that it turned from a northerly heading to a easterly heading.

The ball is in his court because we have exhausted all possible efforts to get further confirmation from him but the fact is that his previous statements are enough already and the testimony of Steve Chaconas proves we were right.

Shame on you Craig! You are using a witness that could not have possibly seen the flyover to prove that there was a flyover. I know that one of the cornerstones of your argument is to not use witnesses that could not have witnessed anything.

Originally posted by Craig Ranke CIT

Originally posted by Boone 870


Notice that United Airlines Flight 338 landed at 9:37 a.m.

This could have been the airliner that Steve Chaconas saw approaching Reagan National.

Wrong.

Commercial aircraft do not approach Reagan from east of the river.

You have to identify the craft that Chaconas saw on the RADES data yet you can not proving it could not have been UA 338.

Who says that they can't? I'm going to need a link.
I'm afraid that you are wrong on this Craig. That particular flight was landing as the same time that flight 77 was inbound to the Pentagon. ATC could have deviated flight 338 anywhere they wanted to.

As you can see from the list above, there were aircraft landing after the 9:25 a.m. national ground stop ordered by the FAA.

So?

What does that have to do with departures?

And why did you authoritatively state that national ground stop did not apply to military craft when it did?

Are you going to be a man and admit you were wrong?

So? Your video implies that there was no other traffic in the area and that the plane Steve Chaconas witnessed had to be Flight 77. That's simply not true.

I'm not catching your angle on the departures bit? I posted a list of arrivals. That means landings. According to Rob Balsamo, they were coming in from the south that day.

The FAA is in control of civil aviation, not military. I will admit I'm wrong when you prove me wrong.

Originally posted by Boone 870
Yes, Craig, it does. It matches the RADES data and it matches his statements of 'West'. Look at the chart so that you understand what heading is required for that departure. Is 270° west or not? How can you possibly look at the two departure procedures above and say that Morningside One looks more plausible than CAMP SPRINGS ONE?

He says he traveled NORTH and west to the south side of the mall, not the south side of Reagan. Big difference.

He says he just passed the mall when he first saw the jet, not just passed Reagan. Big difference.

Where is Reagan National located from the mall? It looks like south to me.

Passing by the south side of Reagan would not be described as passing by The Mall headed westbound. Big difference.

This is what the C-130 pilot describes with his interaction of the decoy jet as corroborated by Mineta, Scoggins, and of course Steve Chaconas.


He does not describe this:

I didn't change the statements of the pilot. Is West considered 270°, yes or no?

The pilot says NORTH and west to the south side of the Mall, not westSOUTHwest to the south side of Reagan. Big difference.

Summary of Activities
We're responsible for the safety of civil aviation.faa.gov

There's my source. The very thought of the FAA not allowing the military to launch aircraft during a crisis is laughable, or any time for that matter. Do you have any links or documentation proving that the FAA can overrule military or where the FAA has authority over the military?

Ummm...your link doesn't say anything about national ground stop at all!

Who said they overrule the military? Didn't you read the links I posted? National ground stop DID apply to military aircraft! I hate when I have to repost things I already posted because people are too stubborn to admit when they are wrong.

Time magazine later reports that Jane Garvey, head of the FAA, “almost certainly after getting an okay from the White House, initiate a national ground stop, which forbids takeoffs and requires planes in the air to get down as soon as is reasonable. The order, which has never been implemented since flying was invented in 1903, apply to virtually every single kind of machine that can takeoff—civilian, military, or law enforcement.” Military and law enforcement flights are allowed to resume at 10:31 a.m. (see 10:31 a.m. September 11, 2001) A limited number of military flights—the FAA will not reveal details—are allowed to fly during this ban. --Time, 9/14/2001

It says that a "limited number of military flights" are allowed to fly during the ban.

Do you REALLY think that includes cargo planes?

Ground stop applied to military flights. I sourced my claim. Your source does NOT say that national ground stop did not include military flights.

Therefore you are wrong and I am right.

Now are you going to be a man and admit you were wrong or what?

Of the three external quote you provided, only two of them have links. The first one, with Mineta's testimony, he's talking about grounding the airplanes. The second one, does not have quotes around any of the statements in the paragraph regarding the military. So I will take that as the author's interpretation.

I provide a source for my claim, you have none and state that the respected journalist with a national magazine is WRONG because you don't want to admit you were wrong.

Wow.

Link please? I remember him saying that they had a hard time keeping track of it, but not losing sight of it. I could possibly agree with you that he lost sight of it right before it hit the Pentagon, but not right after the two crossed paths in the air. Using your alleged flight path, he would have had to mention that the aircraft turned south from East and then south to west and then back to North and then back to East. He never said anything like that. He just said that it turned from a northerly heading to a easterly heading.

The plane had already passed them and they continued westbound so of course they didn't see it anymore.

It wasn't until 3 radio calls later that he turned around to follow it so it wouldn't have been in his sight the whole time.

There were 3 radio calls between us and Washington departure before we turned east bound to follow the AA flight.

So they weren't watching it because it had already passed them and they were still headed westbound.

But then he says:

I distinctly remember having a difficult time keeping the AA flight in sight after we turned back to the east to follow it per a request from Wash. Departure Control. When I saw the initial explosion I was not able to see exactly where or what it had impacted, but remember trying to approximate a position to give to ATC. It was then that I was able to see the sun reflecting off the Potomac and the runway at Wash. Nat'l and thought to myself that the AA flight must have had some sort of IFE and was trying to make it back to National Airport. It was a few more seconds on our eastbound heading before I saw that the aircraft had impacted the west side of the Pentagon.

Get it yet? They weren't watching it after it passed in front of them and they continued westbound. They had the first interaction, it passed in front of them from the left to the right, they continued westbound......and then AFTER 3 radio calls later they turned around as requested but were so far away that they could barely see it and could not even tell the explosion came from the Pentagon!

Those quotes are from the email with Rob Balsamo.

Shame on you Craig! You are using a witness that could not have possibly seen the flyover to prove that there was a flyover. I know that one of the cornerstones of your argument is to not use witnesses that could not have witnessed anything.

Excuse me??

We are NOT!

I simply said that the direction Chaconas saw the plane come from CONFIRMS our interpretation of O'Brien's account.

We never said Chaconas proves a flyover.

The north side witnesses do that.

Chaconas does however independently prove a military deception by proving the RADES and NTSB data fraudulent.

Originally posted by Boone 870
Who says that they can't? I'm going to need a link.
I'm afraid that you are wrong on this Craig. That particular flight was landing as the same time that flight 77 was inbound to the Pentagon. ATC could have deviated flight 338 anywhere they wanted to.

Chaconas says that and he is on the river every day.

The planes do not fly east west in the area they fly north south.

Go there and you will see this.

Now as far as flight 338 being diverted....that is a baseless wild claim that you have absolutely no evidence for.

Steve Chaconas saw one plane come from the east and he saw it loop around and head north again and fly over what he though was Crystal City and then crash at what looked like to him might have been the north side of the airport.

Strangely.......the fraudulent RADES data shows what's supposed to be the C-130 and some other mysterious blip BOTH crossing the river from the east side at the same time.

This is not what Steve Chaconas saw.

The RADES data is fraudulent.

So? Your video implies that there was no other traffic in the area and that the plane Steve Chaconas witnessed had to be Flight 77. That's simply not true.

It's not true because it was not flight 77.

But it was the plane that was meant to fool people into believing it hit the building.

It fooled Steve Chaconas, the Citgo witnesses, and many others.

I'm not catching your angle on the departures bit? I posted a list of arrivals. That means landings. According to Rob Balsamo, they were coming in from the south that day.

Planes were in the air. Of course they had to LAND after national ground stop.

This is not evidence that Andrews would allow a regular cargo plane to DEPART after national ground stop.

Get it now?

The FAA is in control of civil aviation, not military. I will admit I'm wrong when you prove me wrong.

National ground stop is an unprecedented action taken only in sever catastrophic emergencies.

I proved you wrong with a source.

It says straight up that military flights are grounded with the EXCEPTION of some flights for national security.

We know that the E4B took off at 9:43 and we know that fighters were still launched.

It's clear that a regular cargo plane would have been grounded.

I sourced my claim and you have not.

Prove you are not completely intellectually dishonest and admit you were wrong.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

Ground stop applied to military flights. I sourced my claim. Your source does NOT say that national ground stop did not include military flights.

Therefore you are wrong and I am right.

Now are you going to be a man and admit you were wrong or what?

9:26 a.m.: FAA bans takeoffs of all civilian aircraft.www.washingtonposthttp...

At 9:25 a.m., with Flight 77 still unaccounted for, Sliney issues another order that no one has ever given: full groundstop. No commercial or private flight in the country is allowed to take off.www.usatoday.com...

Out

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT


From your link.

At 9:25, Garvey, in an historic and admirable step, and almost certainly after getting an okay from the White House, initiated a national ground stop, which forbids takeoffs and requires planes in the air to get down as soon as reasonable. The order, which has never been implemented since flying was invented in 1903, applied to virtually every single kind of machine that can takeoff — civilian, military, or law enforcement. The Herndon command center coordinated the phone call to all major FAA sites, the airline reps in the room contacted all airlines, and so-called NOTAMS —notices to airmen — were also sent out. The FAA had stopped the world.

Your source is wrong. The FAA ordered a ground stop at 9:25 a.m., they ordered ATC zero at 9:42 a.m. and if that person can't get that part right, then what makes you think she's right about the military being part of the ground stop?

You still have not shown ANYTHING that says that military craft were NOT included in national ground stop!

Whether it was 9:25 or 9:26 is not an issue and has NOTHING to do with the fact that military craft are included in national ground stop.

It's a ridiculous logical fallacy to say that it does.

What's so fantastically hilarious and entertaining about this exchange is that it is simply you scrambling to save your ego even though this detail in our documentary has no bearing whatsoever on the evidence in general or any of the claims we make proving a military deception!

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

You still have not shown ANYTHING that says that military craft were NOT included in national ground stop!

Whether it was 9:25 or 9:26 is not an issue and has NOTHING to do with the fact that military craft are included in national ground stop.

You haven't shown anything saying that the military was included in the national ground stop.

Well, with the exception of one journalist that can't get the basic facts straight and who does not quote anyone directly.

You've given me three links so far, one of which was the above-mentioned journalist, the second was to an unlinked external source(I'll come back to that shortly), and Norm Mineta talking about the ATC Zero order that occurred 17 minutes after the national ground stop that you think should have included the C-130.

Now back to your unlinked external source, Jane Garvey.

On the morning of September 11th, there were 4,873 instrument flight rule (IFR) flights operating in U.S. airspace. As soon as Secretary Mineta was aware of the nature and scale of the terrorist attack on New York and Washington--that we were faced with, not one, but four possible hijackings, and several other rumors of missing or unidentified aircraft--the Secretary ordered the air traffic system shut down for all civil operations. Our Air Traffic Control System Command Center (ATCSCC) sent a verbal notice to all air traffic facilities about the first suspected hijacked aircraft at 9:06 a.m. At 9:08 a.m., a written advisory was issued that "sterilized" the New York airspace, meaning that all aircraft operating in the airspace of the New York Center were ordered to leave that airspace. At 9:26 a.m., before either American Airlines Flight 77 or United Airlines Flight 93 had crashed, a national ground stop was issued that prevented any aircraft from taking off. At 9:45 a.m. all airborne aircraft were told to land at the nearest airport--the first time in our history that all civil aircraft in the United States were grounded. At 10:39 a.m., a formal Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) was issued closing all operations at all airports.

No mention of the military there.

You are the one making the claim that the military was grounded. Please back that up with more than one article from a journalist who can't get the basic facts straight and who does not quote any officials.

I have Gopher 06 and the three F-16s launched from Langley Air Force Base on my side.

reply to post by Craig Ranke CIT

What's so fantastically hilarious and entertaining about this exchange is that it is simply you scrambling to save your ego even though this detail in our documentary has no bearing whatsoever on the evidence in general or any of the claims we make proving a military deception!

That's where you're wrong, it has everything to do with it. You are claiming that Lt. Col. Steve O'Brien was duped by the massive military deception because you believe that the military was included in the national ground stop.

It's all about the details Craig. ''North and West'' is the perfect example. Speaking of that, is 270° considered West, yes or no?

You are the one making the claim that the military was grounded. Please back that up with more than one article from a journalist who can't get the basic facts straight and who does not quote any officials.

My claim is backed up with a source.

You have no source to back up your claim.

Therefore I am right until you can find a better source to prove my source wrong which you have not done.

I have Gopher 06 and the three F-16s launched from Langley Air Force Base on my side.

Even my source says that SOME military flights can still go so naturally that would mean fighters, not cargo planes.

The fact that gopher6 was allowed to take off IS the contradiction we are discussing so it is not "on your side".

I know boone...your ego is bruised and it hurts.

I really suggest you suck up and do what real men do when they have been proven wrong.