PDA

View Full Version : I Had A Theory...



Gold9472
09-05-2006, 07:47 PM
I Had A Theory

And I wanted to see if it stood up to scrutiny.

Norman Mineta stated during his testimony (http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing2/9-11Commission_Hearing_2003-05-23.pdf) before the 9/11 Commission:

"During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, "The plane is 50 miles out." "The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to "the plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the Vice President, "Do the orders still stand?" And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?"

During this testimony, Lee Hamilton made sure that Norman Mineta eventually "agreed" that the order was a "Shoot-Down" order.

MR. HAMILTON: Let me see if I understand. The plane that was headed toward the Pentagon and was some miles away, there was an order to shoot that plane down.

MR. MINETA: Well, I don't know that specifically, but I do know that the airplanes were scrambled from Langley or from Norfolk, the Norfolk area. But I did not know about the orders specifically other than listening to that other conversation.

MR. HAMILTON: But there very clearly was an order to shoot commercial aircraft down.

MR. MINETA: Subsequently I found that out.

As you can see, Norman Mineta didn't find out until later that it was a "Shoot-Down" order. We have no idea what that order was. The "young man" was never brought before the 9/11 Commission that I know of. If he was, it wasn't mentioned in the 9/11 Report.

The biggest question I have about this part in Norman Mineta's testimony is why would the "young man" feel the need to run in and out of the room if he was given a "Shoot-Down" order?

I would think, and if you're in the military, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I would think that if the "young man" was given a "Shoot-Down" order, he would wait for confirmation of the shoot-down, and then go tell Cheney about it.

He wouldn't run in and out of the room, finally asking if the orders still stood would he? The very question itself indicates that whatever the orders were, he questioned them.

I have speculated in the past that the order he questioned was in fact, a "Stand-Down" order. It made sense because the plane was never intercepted, and ultimately crashed into the Pentagon.

The problem with that theory is that the young man questioned the orders at 10 miles out. Would they have been able to stop the plane with an intercept with such short notice? I don't think so. I could be wrong.

The other possibility for a "Stand-Down" is for the Pentagon's defenses. Whatever they may have been at the time. According to April Gallup (http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2006/07/interview-with-april-gallop.html), the Pentagon had missile batteries. According to Wayne Madsen, the Pentagon didn't have missile batteries at the time, but did have what are known as "Phalanx Close-In Weapon System (CIWS) (http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11699)." According to WorldNetDaily (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24426), the Pentagon didn't have any defenses.

Defense Department officials actually considered a terrorist scenario in which Islamic fundamentalist martyrs crashed planes into the otherwise impregnable Pentagon, but they ruled out countermeasures, such as anti-aircraft batteries and radar, as too costly and too dangerous to surrounding residential areas, a senior Pentagon official specializing in counterterrorism told WorldNetDaily in an exclusive interview.

If the Pentagon, America's Military Headquarters, is undefended, then I would certainly fire whoever is in charge of the Pentagon's security.

Some have speculated that the reason they won't release the Pentagon's video tapes is because they may show the Pentagon's defenses being activated, and that's "classified".

Anyway, back to the "young man". If the order he received that he questioned was not a "Shoot-Down" order, and was not a "Stand-Down" order, then what kind of order was it?

Some of you may remember former state secretary of the German Federal Ministry of Defense (1976-1980), and former Minister of Research and Technology (1980-1982) Andreas Von Bulow (http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2627).

He once said:

"The Americans had developed a method in the 1970s, whereby they could rescue hijacked planes by intervening into the computer piloting [automatic pilot system]."

According to Joe Vialls, it was DARPA (http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2682) who was contracted to develop this technology.

I've never been able to verify that this technology was developed. My whole theory can fall apart right here. It does make sense though considering 3 planes (http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3000) were simulateously hijacked on September 12th, 1970.

However... what if the "young man" was questioning an order to guide Flight 77 into the Pentagon? We all remember hearing how Cheney had at his disposal technology that superceded everything else that day.

If Cheney was the "Maestro (http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6405)", then maybe he was in charge of those "Live Fly" drills from the PEOC. What if the "young man" simply used whatever technology he was using to take over the "hijacked" aircraft, and guide it into the Pentagon?

Or...

Perhaps the "young man" was in communication with those who were in control?

My theory is essentially, he was questioning whether or not to guide Flight 77 into the Pentagon.

Feel free to blast this theory to shreds.

Gold9472
09-05-2006, 08:12 PM
I'm going for scrutiny that doesn't consist of, "It was a missile..."

Gold9472
09-05-2006, 08:14 PM
Joe Vialls is dead by the way. I don't know how he died... apparently he was sick.

Tonya
09-05-2006, 08:33 PM
Hmmm..., I don't know Jon. Good questions.
I don't have any helpful thoughts on it at this time though.
It is very curious as to what exactly this young man was questioning.

Gold9472
09-05-2006, 08:36 PM
Hmmm..., I don't know Jon. Good questions.
I don't have any helpful thoughts on it at this time though.
It is very curious as to what exactly this young man was questioning.

Yep... He was obviously very intent on letting Cheney know exactly where the plane was.

Gold9472
09-05-2006, 08:40 PM
If Cheney was the "Maestro (http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6405)", then maybe he was in charge of those "Live Fly" drills from the PEOC.

aceace
09-05-2006, 08:54 PM
Mr. Jon.... your theory sounds very plausible. I agree with it. Soldiers are taught to follow orders under any circumstance.

Gold9472
09-05-2006, 08:54 PM
Mr. Jon.... your theory sounds very plausible. I agree with it. Soldiers are taught to follow orders under any circumstance.

No criticism at all?

werther
09-05-2006, 09:07 PM
I never thought of comandeering via the auto-pilot. That at least makes perfect sense. For christ sake of course they could do that. It would be so easy to implement.....especially now (1990s and on). I swear, if they didn't have such a 'safety' precaution in place then that is criminal in and of itself.

If you really want critical analysis of your theory then post it on blogger! lol

Gold9472
09-05-2006, 09:09 PM
I never thought of comandeering via the auto-pilot. That at least makes perfect sense. For christ sake of course they could do that. It would be so easy to implement.....especially now (1990s and on). I swear, if they didn't have such a 'safety' precaution in place then that is criminal in and of itself.

If you really want critical analysis of your theory then post it on blogger! lol

I've sent it out to the experts. ;)

thumper
09-05-2006, 09:30 PM
i've been saying the same thing for a while now

sinsanity2006
09-05-2006, 09:31 PM
Didn't Joe Kennedy die in WWII when his remotely piloted plane blew up prematurely?

Gold9472
09-05-2006, 09:56 PM
I gave it another variation... the "young man" was in communication with those who were controlling Flight 77.

thumper
09-05-2006, 11:14 PM
I gave it another variation... the "young man" was in communication with those who were controlling Flight 77.that wouldn't be neccessary since they were remote controlled

Eckolaker
09-05-2006, 11:40 PM
Well here is my thought.

Following your theory, it actually does support the evidence. The recent release of the ntsb data from flight 77 definately suggests that the plane was being controlled by either a very experienced pilot, or a computer program.

It is possible however that based on that data, there may have been ample time to intercept the flight while it flew towards and over washington.

Reasonable theory that addresses some of the evidence. Thus it should be considered.

Well done goldie!

thumper
09-06-2006, 12:02 AM
Well here is my thought.

Following your theory, it actually does support the evidence. The recent release of the ntsb data from flight 77 definately suggests that the plane was being controlled by either a very experienced pilot, or a computer program.

It is possible however that based on that data, there may have been ample time to intercept the flight while it flew towards and over washington.

Reasonable theory that addresses some of the evidence. Thus it should be considered.

Well done goldie!we have to remember everything is compartmentalized.

cheney and the higher ups know it is remote controlled and probably empty, whereas the young officer doesn't know that and that's why he questions things.

AndrewLoweWatson
09-06-2006, 02:16 AM
Why would I want to attack your research? Why would I want to discourage honest truthers from honestly looking at the evidence and drawing their own conclusions, uncompromised by 'what the public will buy'?

Gold9472
09-06-2006, 08:51 AM
Professor Jones said this was "interesting", and asked who the "young man" was.

Eckolaker
09-06-2006, 11:24 AM
Professor Jones said this was "interesting", and asked who the "young man" was.

I think that is a questions we all should have.

AndrewLoweWatson
09-07-2006, 10:21 PM
I think it is highly plausible if difficult to verify.

YouCrazyDiamond
09-08-2006, 03:12 AM
I think it is highly plausible if difficult to verify.
I tend to agree with that assessment.

________________

When searching the site http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/ take a look at the ‘help’ page.

It turns out that the search engine on that web site is case sensitive.

I could use some help with search words and phrases.

It would also help to tabulate some words to exclude from the search in order to help narrow (or focus) the results.

Gold9472
09-12-2006, 03:17 PM
Well... it appears Nafeez Ahmed thinks I'm brilliant.

Snatched from here (http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=12572).

For instance, technologies were in place to remotely direct the hijacked aircraft to avoid the terrible scenario unfolding. “Most modern aircraft have some form of autopilot that could be re-programmed to ignore commands from a hijacker and instead take direction from the ground,” Jeff Gosling of the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California, Berkeley, told the New Scientist one day after 9/11. Why were these technologies not used to save the aircraft? Why did the 9/11 Commission not bother to ask the same question?

shorebreak
09-12-2006, 04:08 PM
I think you're right and that it was a stand down order.

I also think that there's no way to get an honest confirmation of that.

The best approach is to look at the plans of the PNAC, the modification of existing procedures that allowed the PNAC members to control the situation, and the response of the PNAC in accordance with plans established long before 9/11.

That's the legal snafu that they can't get around. Intent, means, and planning are all foundational elements to establishing an iron clad legal prosecution. PNAC has left a trail of bread crumbs that looks more like loaves of bread, if the public ever had it detailed in one comprehensive yet short piece. Add that to the fact that 9/11 was used to attain theor pre-planned objectives, and even the die hard GOP/Dem insiders will have no place to hide.

I've lately backed away from my approach of presenting the physical evidence and I've fallen back to the position of who, what, when, and where. The how isn't necessary from a legal standpoint when you can prove the rest. The cornerstone is the "Who" and we've got that in black and white - no questions asked.

Gold9472
09-12-2006, 04:27 PM
I'm not saying it was a "stand down" in this case.

shorebreak
09-12-2006, 04:49 PM
I'm not saying it was a "stand down" in this case.oops...

Don't ask me where I came up with that - that's what I get for trying to work and respond to a discussion at the same time. I agree that the orders from Cheney were directed at continuing the mission as planned.

The problem is trying to verify that. I hope it happens.

Gold9472
09-12-2006, 04:56 PM
If we get a new investigation, we can find out who that "young man" was. ;)

Gold9472
09-12-2006, 05:21 PM
Autopilot could land hijacked planes

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1280

Catherine Zandonella, San Francisco
9/12/2001

Aeroplane hijackings could be halted in progress with existing technologies, say aviation researchers, but the attempt would be risky.

"Most modern aircraft have some form of autopilot that could be re-programmed to ignore commands from a hijacker and instead take direction from the ground," says Jeff Gosling of the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California, Berkeley.

If a hijacking were detected in progress, being able to control a plane from the ground would be crucial, says Gosling. "The only other thing you could do is shoot the target down."

Autopilot, the system that maintains altitude, speed, and direction during flight, is fully capable of landing a plane without help from the pilot, says aviation engineering researcher Dale Oderman at Purdue University in Lafayette, Indiana. "We are already capable of flying unmanned military spy planes, so it is not far off to think that a remote system could land a commercial passenger jet."

Hijacking the fail-safe
However, Jeffrey Speyer, an aerospace engineer at the University of California, Los Angeles has qualms about the idea of remote control, saying that system could be a terrorist target itself.

He is devising a control system that would allow planes to fly close together in bird-like flocks. He says it could be adapted to override a hijacker's instructions, but "the system might be tampered with by the very people who you don't want taking over the plane."

The US Federal Aviation Administration experimented with remote landing of a commercial jet during the 1980's, says spokesperson Holly Baker at the FAA's William J. Hughes Technical Centre in Atlantic City, New Jersey. However it has not been an active topic of research in recent years.

Cockpit monitor
Detecting a hijacking is another area in which new technologies could play a role. Currently, if the pilot cannot use the radio to call for help, he or she can flip a switch to emit a distress signal that can be picked up by radar, says Oderman. The FAA could not confirm whether any distress signals were heard prior to Tuesday's attacks.

Numerous new technologies could call for help even if the pilot and crew were incapacitated. On board computers could detect when the plane has veered off course and then radio for help. Or, video cameras and voice recognition systems in the cockpit could alert ground-based crews, says Lewis Mingori, chairman of the mechanical and aerospace engineering department at the University of California, Los Angeles.

In future, researchers could deploy thousands of miniature networked sensors, or MEMS (microelectromechanical systems), to detect odd behaviour in the cockpit, says UC Berkeley computer scientist David Culler.

Security solution
To date, most of the FAA's research has been centred on preventing hijackings through increased airport security, says FAA's Baker. But advanced systems, like InVision Technologies' computerised tomography scan for explosives, are only now being adopted due to high costs.

In the case of Tuesday's attacks, it is difficult to predict how government agencies will respond in terms of air security, says Gary Ackerman, a terrorism expert at the Monterey Institute for International Studies.

"Until we know how they got around existing security measures, it will be difficult foresee how to strengthen them," he says.

Uber Commandante
09-14-2006, 11:16 PM
OK, Gold - I will take up your challenge.

at any given time there are literally thousands of planes in the sky in North America. In fact, a few weeks ago I was in a plane, and I saw another plane swoop by in the opposite direction at a distance that I felt was much to close for comfort. If this was a remote control from the ground, you would need to know the real time location of every plane in at least a several hundred mile zone so that you could avoid mishaps. In other words, I don't belive this technology exists by default on every commercial plane - I DO believe it could have been placed there, though - after all, if you are willing to kill thousands in the towers, what dif. if you accidently run into another plane?

So, the main question still stands - who was the young man, and what were his orders? If Senator whatshisface was so interested in the order, why didn't he just ASK the young man, instead of putting words in Mineta's mouth?

AuGmENTor
11-24-2006, 05:19 PM
but they ruled out countermeasures, such as anti-aircraft batteries and radar, as too costly and too dangerous to surrounding residential areas

Since when does the government worry about A: How much of our money they piss away. B: Weather or not we die if they have to shoot down a plane that was gonna hit a government installation (ie to close to residences)?

royster
11-24-2006, 05:45 PM
Gee, Jon, what an interesting theory. I really don't find any holes in it.
Incidently, that is a Pleiadian craft in the upper right-hand corner, with Donkey Kong and pot leaf. It was photographed by Billy Meir, who only had one arm. royster

MrDark71
11-24-2006, 08:32 PM
Maybe it's just me....but maybe "young man" was awaiting Cheney to say "OK shoot it down" and was just being pro-active for an order that would never come.

AuGmENTor
11-24-2006, 08:33 PM
Maybe it's just me....but maybe "young man" was awaiting Cheney to say "OK shoot it down" and was just being pro-active for an order that would never come.Thats a thought....

Gold9472
11-24-2006, 08:40 PM
Maybe it's just me....but maybe "young man" was awaiting Cheney to say "OK shoot it down" and was just being pro-active for an order that would never come.

That doesn't make any sense because he had already been given an order, and asked if that order still stood.