Scholar receives threats, resigns, over 9/11 research

[Guest guest]

" Donna C " <donna2222002

Fri, 30 Jun 2006 04:17:00 -0700 (PDT)

AB_Progressives Scholar receives threats, resigns, over

9/11 research

 

Cathy wrote:

 

A member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth receives threats, then resigns

from the Scholars group. Here are the events as reported on the V911T

(ie, Veterans for 9/11 Truth) .

 

It perhaps may appear that this professor was getting a wee bit

too close to the truth...

 

The only way to prevent another false-terror attack upon the US by

our own government and military? All Americans MUST do the research

into 9/11 for themselves and then go on to teach everyone we know (and

even those we don't know) the reasons why the " official story " - told

to us by government and mainstream media - is simply not true.

 

The mainstream media has failed us - they are not reporting all

the news -and we, each and every one of us, must *BE* the media.

 

Some good places to start: http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/

and http://www.geocities.com/killtown/ and

http://www.tvnewslies.com/html/9_11_facts.html and

http://www.911blogger.com/

 

 

Friday June 30, this posting appears at Vets for 9/11 truth

group at 4:32 a.m.:

 

This I found posted at the Scholars for 9/11 Truth forum. I will have

to look up the " 3rd Jet " essay.

 

 

I assume something in the " 3rd Jet " essay is hot. I have received a

very specific threat against my family (knows my children's names) and

a strong suggestion that I pull the essay from the Journal site and my

membership in st911, which I am doing. It came via the email address I

use to converse with HE (not the one provided on the Journal

site).This

is not just some brownshirt debunker who doesn't know his compass

directions. In light of the recent black bag intrusions of my home

and " tokens " I reported on this forum, I know you all will understand.

 

No doubt we are getting close, and this is why the mainstream smear

campaign is ramping up.

 

Let the clearest, calmest, least threatening voices speak, if they are

willing.

 

Goodbye, good luck and God keep you all.

 

**********************************************************************

This posting appeared at the Vets for 9/11 Truth at

7:13 a.m. Friday, June 30. NOTE: This morning, having just checked?

This Veterans for 9/11 Truth website (V911T.org) is now suddenly no

longer functional.

 

Animated gif shows the 3rd Jet

What is that to the right of the WTC tower, like 2 little lights, you

begin to see it about 1/8 from the right, and at the very right in the

very last frame?Some say it was a Saab 105 SK60 military jet, based on

photos taken in New York. See the photos and eyewitness accounts. Also

if you freeze this browser as the alleged 767 is approaching the WTC

you can see something hanging from the belly of the plane.

 

http://www.v911t.org/3rdJet.php

 

****************************************

 

This post appears on the V911T at 22:51 PT.

 

Members,

This is the paper that Reynolds Dixon, a writer and professor of

English and Fellow at Standford University received an e-mail threat

over and was told to take it off the Scholars 911 Journal site. Please

spread it around as much as possible. Matt

 

Journal of 9/11 Studies 26 June 2006/Volume 1

The Flying Elephant: Evidence for Involvement of a Third Jet in

the WTC Attacks

Reynolds Dixon

Writer and professor of English, former lecturer and Fellow at

Stanford University.

Currently an editor for RR Donnelley.

Send correspondence to: reynoldsdixon

 

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:

Journal of 9/11 Studies 27 June 2006/Volume 1

According to the 9/11 Commission, two F-15s were scrambled from

Otis Air Force Base at 8:52am (39 minutes after flight controllers

lost contact with AA11), and were inbound to NYC at supersonic 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 is recklessly close:

Journal of 9/11 Studies 28 June 2006/Volume 1

 

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 Journal of 9/11 Studies 29 June 2006/Volume 1 the

hijacking scenario and as posing no impediment to defensive response,

despite the welldocumented 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.