#2087: Marine Links Serco Goose Bay Ad Hoc Waypoints to Clinton’s ITT Sheraton Pentagon Bomb
Plum City – (AbelDanger.net): United States Marine Field McConnell has linked Serco’s development of ad hoc waypoint systems for low-level attack training at Goose Bay Air Force Base to Bill Clinton’s alleged use of an ITT Sheraton Hotel Red Switch Network to download the waypoints needed for the bombing of the Pentagon’s U.S. Navy Command Center on 9/11.
McConnell notes that Serco equipped the ITT Sheraton hotel in Chicago with a Red Switch Network to support Bill Clinton during the Democratic Party Convention of 1996 – the year that then-UK Minister of Defense Nicholas Soames tasked Serco with ad hoc waypoint training at Goose Bay to prepare rogue NATO pilots for the low level attacks on the Pentagon of 9/11.
McConnell claims that after Serco had trained a Goose Green low-level bombing team, it ordered Clinton to place General Joseph W. Ralston, US AF, as Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) and the late John M. Shalikashvili, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as a Boeing director in Chicago where he allegedly oversaw modifications to passenger aircraft to fly al-Qaeda ad hoc waypoints on 9/11.
McConnell has looked at the ad hoc profile flown by AA 77 on 9/11 and concluded that the plane served as decoy for the low-level A-3 Skywarrior which took out the Pentagon’s U.S. Navy Command Center.
ATC Global 2013 – ITT Exelis Workshop
“Doctored Pentagon video proves 9/11 cover-up and inside job
JUNE 13, 2014 / CRAIG MCKEE
From the frames released in 2002: notice the wrong date and the helpful descriptions so you know what you’re seeing.
By Craig McKee
A single frame gives it away.
All but one frame of two sets of surveillance videos purporting to show the impact of Flight 77 into the western face of the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001 appear to show the same thing. But it’s that one frame that tells the tale. It shows that evidence was falsified and that a deliberate plan was carried out to fool the public into thinking that a plane hit the building when it did not.
This, combined with other key evidence (including the nature of the damage to the building, the lack of debris outside the building, and the on-camera accounts of credible witnesses who put the plane on a different flight path that the one required to produce the damage path), proves that the Pentagon was the scene of a faked plane crash and that 9/11 was an inside job.
The falsifying of the video evidence is explained in the impressively comprehensive 2013 documentary film September 11: The New Pearl Harbor, produced and directed by Italian filmmaker Massimo Mazzucco. The video analysis itself was originally carried out by researcher Pier Paolo Murru, who has worked with both Pilots for 9/11 Truth and Citizen Investigation Team.
In 2002, the Department of Defense released five frames of video that it claimed showed a 757 flying just above ground level across the Pentagon lawn followed by an explosion that appeared to have been caused by the plane hitting the building. The camera that recorded the image was located in a parking booth located to the north of the alleged impact zone, and it was pointed south offering a view across the Pentagon western f ace and lawn.
In the image, we see what appears to be the dark tail of a plane sticking up, but most of what would be the plane is blocked from view by a concrete barrier at the entrance to the parking area, just a few feet from the camera. The alleged shape of the plane is followed by a white trail, generally believed to be smoke from the plane. The following frame shows a large fireball and black smoke billowing from the facade of the building; we don’t actually see any impact at all.
In the response to a Freedom of Information Act request to the FBI and Department of Defense for all video footage that may have shown the impact of Flight 77, we learned that there were 85 videos that could “potentially” have met this criterion. But the response to the request also stated that only one of those videos actually showed the crash. This was, of course, the famous five frames we had already seen.
It would take until 2006 before we would find out that this wasn’t true. That’s when the Department of Defense released a second set of frames from almost the exact same angle along with an extended version of the first set of frames. It turned out there was another camera in the very concrete parking barrier that blocked us from seeing the whole plane in the 2002 footage. Without a barrier to block the view of the plane, the second video should have given us a clear and definitive view of it.
But it didn’t.
As explained in the Mazzucco film, the two sets of videos, which recorded images at roughly one-second intervals, were synchronized using a centralized system called multiplexer or TLR so that the frames could be matched to each other with precision. This was easy to determine by comparing the shape of the large, billowing smoke clouds in each. Although the 2006 video begins a few frames before the one released in 2002 (and ends a few frames sooner), it is possible to perfectly synchronize all the equivalent frames – about 100 in all.
The one that shows the plane. Or at least the one the government claims shows a plane.
Frame 23 in the film’s comparative analysis is clearly and irreconcilably different. In the second video sequence, with the concrete barrier no longer blocking the view of the alleged plane, we now see that the shape that appeared to be the plane’s tail is simply gone, and now the white “smoke” trail is what appears to be the plane just coming into frame.
In fact, the analysis shows that the white blur in the second video is actually present in the first one, but it appears a whole section has been added to it. I know this is not easy to picture, so I strongly recommend that you watch this section of Mazzucco’s film – the section on the Pentagon surveillance videos starts at the 17-minute mark of DVD 2.
So, 100 frames in each of two angles are perfectly synchronized – and just one frame doesn’t match. How could this possibly be explained by anything other than tampering with the video?
Of course, the issue could easily be cleared up if the 85 other videos were released, but the government has refused to do this. There’s also the issue of the confiscated tapes from area businesses. Attendant José Velasquez from the former Citgo gas station across the street from the Pentagon has stated that the FBI arrived within minutes of the alleged impact and confiscated footage from the station’s surveillance camera. Velasquez was quoted as saying that the footage would have shown the alleged impact. In 2006, footage taken at the station was released showing nothing conclusive.
Other video footage was confiscated from the nearby Sheraton National Hotel, the Doubletree Hotel in Arlington, Va., and the Virginia Department of Transportation. The Doubletree tape was later released. It showed the explosion but no airliner. And who knows what we might learn from cameras places inside the Pentagon.
If a plane had actually hit the Pentagon it would be impossible to believe that none of the video cameras in and around the building on 9/11 would have shown this. And if the videos did show the crash, then it would make no sense that the government would withhold them.
And if, as the evidence shows, the video frames that were released were falsified, then there can only be one conclusion: there was no plane impact, and this was just one more deception on a day filled with deceptions.”
“Goose Bay Support Services
The Goose Bay base is primarily used for flight training by European Allied Forces. A 10-year agreement between National Defence and the participating ministries of defence was established in 1986 and renewed in 1996. It provided for approximately $80 million in annual payments for the use of Goose Bay for flight training. In 1995, this represented approximately 68 percent of the base’s total expenditures of $118 million.
The Goose Bay base was not directly supporting a Canadian Forces operational role, so its services were prime candidates for ASD. In 1995, the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff approved a recommendation that a request for proposal be issued to the private sector for Alternative Service Delivery at Goose Bay. In April 1997 a request for proposal was issued for the management and delivery of non-core services in support of the Allied low-level flying training program, civil aviation and other third-party users.
In April 1998, a five-year contract was awarded to Serco to provide base support services. The $135 million contract covers the period from 1 April 1998 to 31 March 2003. Under this contract, the Department expects that the costs at CFB Goose Bay will be reduced from $44 million to about $22 million annually.”
5 Wing Goose Bay is presently operated as an Air Force Base by Canadian Forces Air Command within the Department of National Defence. The base was the home of permanent detachments of the Luftwaffe (Germany), the Aeronautica Militaire (Italy), as well as hosting temporary training deployments from the Royal Air Force (United Kingdom), the Royal Netherlands Air Force and deployments from several other NATO countries. Goose Bay was a very attractive training facility for these air forces in light of the high population concentration in their countries, as well as numerous laws preventing low-level flying. Many of the ranges surrounding 5 Wing Goose Bay are larger than some European countries.
In 1941 Canada and the United States built an airfield on the present site for anti-submarine patrol aircraft and staging aircraft to Britain. The site was selected because of the excellent flying weather, ease of construction, accessibility by sea during the summer months and strategic location. Three runways of 7,000 feet were built in record time in the triangular pattern typical of Commonwealth airfields. From October 1942 until the end of the war, 22,500 Canadian and American built fighters and bombers staged through Goose Bay on their way to Europe.
The Data Maintenance Control Centre (DMCC), as it was called, was originally the Melville Manual NORAD Control Centre (MNCC) and had its beginnings in the early fifties. With the start of the Cold War, a line of radar sites was built from Newfoundland along the Labrador coast to join the Distant Early Warning (DEW) line at Cape Dyer. The Melville MNCC was constructed by Fraser-Bruce Terminal Ltd., and was completed in the spring of 1953. The complex was built along with sister sites at Cartwright, Hopedale, Sagalek and Resolution Island, all of which were eventually de-activated by the United States Air Force (USAF) in the sixties.
The 641 Aircraft Control and Warning (AC&W) Squadron (USAF) at Melville was activated on 1 August 1953 under the command of Major Joseph A. Kuhborn. The site’s responsibilities were surveillance, identification and interceptor control for the Labrador area. This was accomplished by the outlying Radar Sites reporting to Melville where the overall command was exercised.
Along with these Pinetree radars, the USAF increased its strategic presence by deploying KC-97 tankers in support of B-47 bombers. Air Defense Command stationed a full squadron of F-106 interceptors here and by the early 60’s, KC-135’s were operating from Goose Bay in support of B-52 bombers.
Most of the construction on the American Side took place between 1951 and 1965 and the infrastructure was capable of supporting 12,000 servicemen and dependants.
From its origin under the North East Air Command, Melville was maintained and manned by the USAF through many organizational changes within NORAD, until finally being handed over to the Canadian Forces on 1 July 1971.
Melville was officially handed over from LCol W.S. Humphreys (USAF) to LCol J.E. Lind (CF) at a ceremony attended by local military and civilian officials. The Melville MNCC then became a part of the Canadian Forces Air Defence Command System which stretches from “Coast to Coast” across Canada. In July 1975 the MNCC then became a limited Long Range Radar (LRR) in that the radar inputs are now automatically passed to the Control Centre in North Bay. The DMCC was responsible for the quality of radar inputs to 22 NORADRegion as well as the usual control of interceptor Aircraft whenever assigned. In February 1988 the closure of the Melville DMCC was announced and on 1 July 1988 it ceased operations.
By 1976, all Strategic Air Command units had been withdrawn and the USAF operation was reduced to a Military Airlift Command detachment committed to transient servicing of C-5, C-141 and C-130 transport Aircraft.
The 1970’s saw the RCAF move from the Canadian end of the airfield to the southern portion – still referred to as the Canadian and American sides respectively. As well, the CF reduced its presence in Goose Bay and the Station’s principal reason for being was solely to support the Melville Radar Site.
The role of 5 Wing Goose Bay has changed remarkably in the past few years from that of a small Station supporting a Long Range Radar (LRR) site to a medium-sized base sustaining multinational flying operations and hosting a wide array of many international guests, both military and civilian.”
“General Joseph W. Ralston, US AF, became the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR) on 3 May 2000. He is also the Commander-in-Chief, United States European Command.
Before this assignment, General Ralston was the vice-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Pentagon, Washington D.C. In this capacity, he was the second highest-ranking military officer in the USA. The general entered the Air Force in 1965 through the Reserve Officer Training Corps program. His career includes operational command at squadron, wing, numbered air force and major command, as well as a variety of influential staff and management positions at every level of the Air Force. He has been closely involved with building the US Air Force of the 21st century, holding a variety of positions related to the requirements and acquisition process. He is a command pilot with more than 2,500 flying hours, including 147 combat missions over Laos and North Vietnam.”
“In 1997, at the retirement of John M. Shalikashvili, the then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Ralston was the top candidate to succeed him to the highest position in the military. A scandal erupted when it became public that he had an adulterous affair with a CIA employee during the 1980s. Ralston claimed this was while he and his wife Linda were separated.
Defense Secretary William Cohen backed Ralston despite the controversy, declaring that Ralston’s secret, adulterous relationship 13 years ago wouldn’t “automatically disqualify” him from becoming the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. There were allegations of double standards, as 1st Lt Kelly Flinn was forced out of the Air Force following after being charged with adultery a month prior.
Ralston withdrew his name from consideration and remained Vice Chairman until 2000, when he was appointed Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, in which function he served from 2000 to 2003, taking over from U.S. Army general Wesley Clark. In this capacity, he was the highest-ranking officer in NATO. He retired on March 1, 2003.”
“December 9, 2012 4:49 pm
Time called on Serco’s NPL contract”
By Gill Plimmer
Serco, the FTSE 100 outsourcing company, has lost its contract to run the National Physical Laboratory – which built the first atomic clock – after the government said it would seek academic partners to take over the centre instead.
The laboratory has been managed by Serco on a profit-share basis since 1994. But David Willetts, science minister, has decided that the government can “encourage greater interaction with businesses” by ending the contract in March 2014 [Now you know why MH Flight 370 was disappeared], when the company’s 17-year tenure comes to an end.”
Field McConnell, United States Naval Academy, 1971; Forensic Economist; 30 year airline and 22 year military pilot; 23,000 hours of safety; Tel: 715 307 8222
David Hawkins Tel: 604 542-0891 Forensic Economist; former leader of oil-well blow-out teams; now sponsors Grand Juries in CSI Crime and Safety Investigation