3. Analysis of ECU reply to supplementary


Ref: Your mail 28th March re Unprecedented / Mineta / Scoggins / Stand down

Dear Mr Tregear,

Thank you for your speedy reply to my supplementary response to the ECU verdict on my complaint. My apologies for the delay in responding caused by the complexity of the issues raised and a virus that has laid me low.

Your e mail has caused me to return to researching the issues of how the most powerful and sophisticated air defence system in the world failed absolutely on Sept. 11 2001. The question of the unprecedented number of military exercises  and their effect on military radar (plus deployments), as well as inexplicable confusion in getting NORAD/Pentagon et al to respond via the many channels of communication available in 2001, is a key issue. It is one of the many issues that, after ten years, have still not been substantively explained by the responsible authorities or investigated "forensically" by institutions with the authority of the BBC. For the record, I was not proffering the "stand down" theory.

I accept your comment that in an hour long programme it is impossible to adequately cover the events of 911, especially if the programme was planned as an entertaining look at horse's ass conspiracy theorists. However on such a momentous issue as 911 it is no excuse for the paucity of journalistic integrity in the investigation. Your comments, which seek to back the work of the Conspiracy File team, do themselves need qualifying as they reveal extremely serious flaws in the conception and execution of just an hour long programme "signposted" both as a serious documentary about 911 events - as well as a critical look at those that question authority i.e all slandered as "conspiracy theorists".

The important thing for me to reiterate is that I am trying to get you to address the disregard of the Royal Charter clause (v) (i) [Ref 1 below] as well as clauses on impartiality and accuracy, which you repeatedly refer to when dismissing my complaints. Your mail of the 28th March will hopefully help me in communicating how TYO spun disinformation rather than offer a "forensic" investigation, as mandated by the Royal Charter.

Colin Scoggins:
Scoggins does appear to have played an important role in the FAA responsibility to notify the military of unauthorised deviations from flight plans. I agree it was reasonable to interview him but to do so with "forensic" scrutiny rather than edit him in to TYO with sound bites that back the official version of events and the BBC's Conspiracy File  SNAFU message.

A key question not asked of Scoggins was which military unit he first tried to contact. The evidence suggests that FAA has a direct responsibility for contacting National Military Command Center (NMCC) at the Pentagon. Scoggins does not seem to have been the officer responsible for the FAA HQ military liaison but the Boston air traffic controller tasked with military liaison at Boston. Monte Belger was Deputy Director of the FAA and gave testimony about communications with the military [Ref 2 below]

Point 15:
I do question Scoggins statements, especially "I never saw any lack of response" [from the military], when as we know, the key questions being asked are specifically about the lack of response from the military. It's a fact that a lack of response allowed four airliners to fly around unchallenged in the most protected air space in the world between 08:20 and 10:00 on 911.

Scoggins is used to reinforce the contentious assertion that "the biggest part"  [of the confusion] …..  "was the lack of communication between the FAA and the military and the other part was the equipment the military had  …. the equipment was designed and the procedure were designed to lookout over the ocean - [the] equipment was not designed to look inside the United States" - quoting Scoggins.

In my comments, 15 & 16, to your summary I point out that all this is challenged by many professionals, pilots, ATC's, military officers etc. Plus as stated previously: 911 Commission’s Jamie Gorelick contradicts the BBC assertion stating that one of NORAD’s missions “is control of the airspace above the domestic United States”

Your response on this issue in the ECU verdict are couched in terms of your personal opinion rather than on factual information: "I am not in a position to know what air traffic controllers or the military could see on their screens at the time in question     ……….  there was a high degree of confusion and lack of specific information available at the time. …..  the military were searching for one plane among many" 

There are no reports, that I know of, where ATC radar was effected. When a transponder is turned off it automatically signals to ATC that fact. The last know location is recorded, i.e. "specific information",  and there are direct links to National Military Command Center (NMCC). In the past and now, this causes the air defence forces to launch interceptors within minutes. The military would have been informed of the last known location. See Hordon below.

Robin Hordon is a former member of the FAA and PATCO (Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organisation). Hordon’s years as an ATC are particularly relevant to 9/11 researchers. Hordon states:

“I was a certified ATC in Boston west-bound departures, the routing that AA11 and UA175 followed on 9/11. I know it like the back of my hand.” 

It’s routine. At Otis AFB we would have practice exercises two or three times a year. We’d scramble aircraft, get the fighters up. Just out of Otis there’d be twenty, thirty fighter jets. And on 9/11 there were plenty of fighters …. they were just diverted over the ocean, tied up in drills, etc.”
“This is exactly what’s written in our manuals. We alert our immediate supervisors, we get another set of eyes on the scope. We have, two feet away from us, a little button that says ADC, Air Defense Command [nowadays NEADS (Northeast Air Defense Sector)]. Bing, hit the button. ‘Hey, this is me at the Boston Center air space. I just lost a target or I have an erratic target. He is twenty-five miles west of Keene.’”
As to why the military were so completely "confused" and failed to respond,  could it, in part, possibly be because of the UNPRECEDENTED number of military training exercises and deployment that took place around Sept. 11 2001? This issue needs forensic investigation.

To suggest that informing the viewer that just "a routine" exercise was underway is to create a fiction about what was happening that day. At least four major air defence "live" training exercises were taking place at the same time as significant numbers of fighter jets were deployed for operational purposes in Saudi Arabia and Canada. However there were many interceptors both airborne and ready for action within a hundred miles of Washington on the morning of 911.

On top of the "live fly" operations (involving real planes flying) there were many paper/computer/radar exercises in various branches of the military as well as exercises at FEMA and other governmental institutions. From the ATC tapes it is clear that telephones  in key military establishments were failing to function at times. Was that another part of an exercise connected to the hijacking exercises? 

How could the viewer "have a reasonable understanding of the various arguments" [ECU verdict p3] when they were given no idea of the extent of the various exercises - involving real planes flying off course - i.e.  hijacking scenarios. Some exercises involved a hijacked plane flying into a building and an attack on the WTC. There was a lot going on around 911 that should be considered relevant in a "forensic" investigation.

However the assumption that unprecedented exercises had a bearing on events is challenged not just by dissident military and ATC professionals but by 

1. General Ralph E Eberhart was the man in charge of NORAD on 911. Asked by 911 Commissioner Roemer on, 17th June 2004, about confusion caused by the exercises   Eberhart replied "Sir, my belief is that it helped because of the manning, because of the focus, because the crews - they have to be airborne in 15 minutes and that morning, because of the exercise, they were airborne in six or eight minutes. And so I believe that focus helped."

2. Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Myers in a more recent answer to a question by Cynthia Mckinney.“… so it was an easy transition from an exercise into a real world situation. It actually enhanced the response.”

So your comment "Viewers would have been aware that military training exercise had a detrimental effect on response" is not backed by Scoggins "I never saw any lack of response" or by many pilots, military radar operators  etc. or by Eberhart and Myers who occupied very important roles on 911.

It is an issue that the BBC has a Charter duty to be "objective and even handed" as the agreement with Sec of State demands. The BBC stance in TYO is based on conflicting evidence - most of which is from witnesses.

Regarding "stand down orders", there is a very important point being overlooked that you do allude to in your mail of the 28th March.

" The programme also acknowledged (through the contribution of Mr Scoggins) that there was a lack of communication between the FAA and NORAD.  This reflected the 9/11 Commission conclusion that “the protocols in place on 9/11 for the FAA and NORAD to respond to a hijacking… [were] unsuited in every respect for what was about to happen”.

Lack of communication? I'm sure you are aware of the statement prepared by Laura Brown of the FAA and presented to the 911 Commission in May 2003 by Ben-Veniste. [Ref 2 below] This statement is backed up by much of what is heard on the ATC tapes and Scoggins statements about a great deal of communication with the military on 911. The problem was a lack of response from the military.

What protocols? A central issue is the AIR PIRACY protocols, as the Commission noted, and the question of a "stand down". I personally do not believe there was a "stand down" order as such, but there was effectively a "stand down" order in plane site. 

This was the June 1st 2001 order to radically change the intercept protocols that had worked so well for decades. This new instruction superseded CJCSI 3610.01 of 31 July 1997.

From 1st June 2001 DOD procedures for dealing with hijacked aircraft changed dramatically. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld was required to personally issue intercept orders before local commanders could provide any assistance at all. This covered any requests involving "potentially lethal support" (including "combat and tactical vehicles, vessels or aircraft; or ammunition")
Previously commanders in the field responded to ATC requests to investigate but needed permission to use lethal force when in a position to do so, i.e. in sight of the target. Commanders were from June 1st 2001 stripped of all authority to act prior to approval by the Sect. Of Defense. This order came from S.A. Fry (Vice Admiral, US Navy and Director, Joint Staff) [see and pdf's  attached]

Now we come to absolutely crucial events inseparable from Scoggins' evidence and your comments about Point 15, which were not mentioned on TYO, namely the whereabouts of Secretary of Defence Rumsfeld on Sept.11.

From around 08:30 at the latest, the air traffic controllers were telephoning various FAA/NORAD/NEADS offices to seek "some help" when normally they would press a button that would connect them via FAA HQ to National Military Command Center (NMCC) which coordinated air defence response.

Why this did not happen on 911 is still unclear but the June 1st orders required Rumsfeld's authority before local commanders could launch interceptors to investigate wayward planes. 

The BBC should have noted, in reporting confusion, that the NMCC suffered a unfortunate "coincidence" that morning as the senior command excused himself for a few hours just prior to hijack story breaking. Captain Charles Leidig, a deputy, with limited experience, was placed in temporarily in charge of the Pentagon’s National Military Command Center (NMCC), and handled the crisis.

Secretary Rumsfeld has stated that he was giving a lecture to members of Congress, in the Pentagon, on the morning of 9-11 and warned them to expect the unexpected with future terrorist attacks. (very prescient) During this meeting he was handed a note stating that the North Tower was struck. Shortly after that he was told the second tower was hit. Why he did not go immediately to the NMCC to take command is not known. This would appear to be dereliction of duty and worthy of investigation by programme investigating theories of "stand down" orders on 911.

He claims he continues with this lecture until the Pentagon was struck at 9:38. 

Why he was not consulted post 08:30 for authorisation to scramble intercepters,  when it was clear Flight 11 was in difficulty, is not known. He was reported missing for 30 minutes but at what time it is not absolutely clear.

"We still don't have a full accounting of Rumsfeld's whereabouts and knowledge on the morning of 9-11," Commissioner Gorelick acknowledged after the 911 Commission's final public hearing.
The National Military Command Center (NMCC) is inside the Pentagon. It was the nerve centre of the military's response to the attacks on 9-11. But the lead military officer that day, Brigadier General Montague Winfield, told the commission that the centre had been leaderless. "For 30 minutes we couldn't find [Secretary Rumsfeld]."
Rumsfeld is on film shortly after the explosion at the Pentagon. He is seen helping carry a stretcher. The Pentagon was hit around 9:38 and Rumsfeld is reported in the Washington Post as speaking with Cheney and Bush some time after 9:55  regarding the scramble and shoot down orders:

The time line is contradicted by the participants and very unclear. See the published information at

9:55 am. Bush spoke to Cheney, who said the combat air patrol needed rules of engagement. Cheney recommended that Bush authorise the military to shoot down any such civilian airliners.  "I said, 'You bet,'" Bush recalled. "We had a little discussion, but not much."

Bush  talked later to Rumsfeld to clarify the procedures military pilots should follow in trying to force an unresponsive plane to the ground before opening fire on it. With Bush's approval, Rumsfeld passed the order down the chain of command. But this was after the last airliner had disintegrated / vaporised?

Off course this is at least an hour after Mineta claims to have entered the POCC and witnessed Cheney conferring with "a young man" about a plane "50 miles out" which is generally assumed to be Flight 77 heading for the Pentagon.

Mineta's testimony, you suggest, is a solid base to consider which of two theories may be correct and say in support of your opinion that a shoot down order was being upheld,  "It seems to me that one reasonable interpretation of this exchange is that the Vice President was asked if the order to shoot down commercial aircraft stood up to the point that Flight 77 was ten miles from Washington DC and he confirmed that it did."

Your comment the "the first explanation appears more likely" i.e. that a "shoot down" order had been issued, is far removed from the obligation to apply scientific methods of investigation. 

This is yet another example of the shallowness of the information presented by the BBC on such an important issue. Again quite contrary to the Royal Charter obligations and public statements about "forensic investigation".

Firstly, as you place high regard on the 911 Commission findings, it relevant to note that the Commission records Cheney first entering the POCC around 10 am that morning. Cheney himself is on record as stating he entered the POCC after 9:38.

Secondly the shot down order, according to the Commission report was not issued till around 10 am, some reports are later. Again there is conflicting evidence.

The time frames are of great importance. No one at the Pentagon - which houses the National Military Command Center (NMCC) - tasked with coordination of nation air defence forces - claims not to have had any knowledge that an unidentified  plane, believed by some ATC's to be Flight 77, was heading toward Washington. 

The world was watching the Twin Towers in NY and it can be assumed that the Pentagon could be a potential target. There had been many military exercises at the Pentagon training for such an attack so it seems a reasonable assumption that evacuation and air defence mechanisms could have been set in motion.

Many lives would have been saved including the lives of 34 of the 45 employees of the armies Resource Services Washington. These were accountants, budget analysts and investigators trying to trace the $2.3 trillion dollars that Rumsfeld announced was "unaccounted for" on the 10th of September. These investigators, as I'm sure you know, were based in the very section of the Pentagon that was attacked.

Even though the Pentagon (NMCC) had no idea a plane was coming their way, the Presidential Emergency Operations Center PEOC with Cheney in Command (if he was there) had working radar feeds and was tracking the approaching object. They did not inform the Pentagon/NMCC or the numerous interceptor commanders available to intervene. Why?

How can it not be relevant to "enable the audience to have a reasonable understanding of the various arguments" if you don't fulfil the duty of the BBC to investigate forensically the material issues at the centre of the questions and theories about what happened that day?

Mineta's testimony is backed up by senior figures also in the POCC on 911. There is strong evidence that Minet was not lying but it has not been resolved as the issue opens a big hole in the official conspiracy theory and asks the question as to why the PEOC did not warn the Pentagon - so is ignored.

Mineta's statement is not in the final Commission report and the video was removed from the Commission archive. Fortunately many copies exist and have been reposted on line.

A final point on Scoggins related to Mineta, "shoot down" and lack of response. Two further factors influenced the course of events concerning Flight 77, one centred on Scoggins - there were many more but I'll keep to the agenda.

Firstly, the ATC who initially marked Flight 77 as off course and transponder turned off, did not report the fact to NMCC for over 20 minutes. Some reports say 30 minutes. Who has investigated this dereliction of duty? certainly not the BBC.

The second issue was that the  attention of the commanders of interceptors awaiting authority to scramble, or for the ones airborne to speed to their target, was on "phantom flight 11" of which Scoggins was the "on air" author. 

Scoggins is on record as saying he heard that Flight 11 was still airborne and heading south toward Washington from a telephone conference he was listening to (from  "Washington telcon") and passed the information onwards to the military units he was contacting. (This should have been enough, even though proven false later, to evacuate the Pentagon, the Capital building and the White House)

At this time  two fighters were holding station to the east of Washington, Panta 45 and 46. There was ATC attention and as Scoggins was informing the military units he was contacting about Phantom Flight 11 there was military attention to the north not the west where Cheney, according to Mineta, was focused. You can hear this on the ACT tapes released on the 10th anniversary.

Scoggins, like others of those the TYO team chose to interview to support the official theory, was pivotally involved in crucial elements of the debacle of 911. He was also a hour late for work and on hearing of the hijack of Flight 11 went to his bank rather than immediately to the radar screens. He wasn't involved till later than 08:35 when he remarked that it might hit a building. Convenient for the those orchestrating events and prescient thoughts indeed from this important military liaison officer. I'm not suggesting Scoggins was part of any conspiracy just acknowledging relevant coincidences.

I could say a lot more but the point must be to attempt to persuade you to consider deeply the points I have already made.  Yes my complaint is about accuracy but as you yourself noted in the introduction to your summary of my complaint on 27th Jan. "I have taken as a given your over-arching concern that the programme  "was a fiction peddled as documentary fact” because it 'deliberately ignored, obscured and confused the most pertinent issues and facts concerning the official account of what happened' ".

I hope you will consider the significance of the above comments to your e mail of the 28th March. They challenge your comments as subjective opinion being largely based on unresolved, unproven witness statements and conflicting evidence that has not been substantively investigated by authorities, including obviously the BBC.

The evidence points to the 911 Conspiracy Files series being conceived and presented as a very intelligent psyops operation with the objective of quelling dissent about the events of September 11th. But that is a conspiracy theory and I'm hoping to focus on "facts" that require forensic investigation.

Britain is involved in multiple wars where over a million have died and millions more dispossessed. Over 400 British soldiers have died and hundreds more critical wounded. The BBC has a patriotic duty to present a balanced honest account of what we know and what we don't know, of the events of 911, not conjecture or value judgements devoid of a firm foundation in public domain information. Of course we are both familiar with the Royal Charter clauses and the agreement with the Sect of State regarding "interpretation" of the Charter so I won't repeat myself. The BBC has one interpretation and dissidents another.

The issue here is my contention that the TYO was a fiction peddled as documentary fact and must be considered primarily under the clause (v) (i) below. I hope this letter will persuade you to address the substance of the overall thrust of my complain regarding this matter.

Again I am grateful for your attempts to deal with the detail of my complaint in a polite and business like manner. I await your response to my previous comments on the ECU verdict and would be grateful if you might confirm that I will have a month to appeal to the Trust when this correspondence over the verdict is concluded.

Yours sincerely  John Yates
PS: Please request any references that you consider are missing from the above or are not clear. I will respond as fully as I am able to any request for further evidence to back my remarks above.

[Ref 1] (v) (l) (refraining from use of techniques which exploit the possibility of conveying a message to viewers or listeners, or of otherwise influencing their minds, without their being aware, or fully aware, of what has occurred)

[Ref 2]

Mr Belger confirms to the Commission that pre-911 the standard channel for obtaining a fighter escort for a hijacking was a request submitted to the NMCC and that the "FAA would frequently ask the military, through the NMCC, for airborne surveillance of the hijacked aircraft to monitor its movements."

Why isn't Belger quoted on this in the final 9/11 Commission report?

No one disputes the fact that the events of 911 were extraordinary but Belger does not explain why no fighter escort requests for any of the stricken aircraft were put through to the NMCC by FAA headquarters during the course of the hijackings on 911. Why would the events of 911 justify breaching protocol and providing a lesser response than for previous 'normal' and less serious hijacking alerts?

[Ref 3] FAA's Laura Brown, explaining that 9:24 was only the time of the "formal notification" - that the FAA had set up phone bridges with the Pentagon and that "real-time information . . . about . . . Flight 77 . . . was conveyed continuously during the phone bridges before the formal notification" (Griffin, "The New Pearl Harbor Revisited" [NPHR] Chs. 1 & 2).

"Within minutes after the first aircraft hit the World Trade Center, the FAA immediately established several phone bridges that included FAA field facilities, the FAA command center, FAA headquarters, DOD, the Secret Service and other government agencies. The U.S. Air Force liaison to the FAA immediately joined the FAA headquarters phone bridge and established contact with NORAD on a separate line. The FAA shared real-time information on the phone bridges about the unfolding events, including information about loss of communication with aircraft, loss of transponder signals, unauthorized changes in course, and other actions being taken by all the flights of interest, including Flight 77. Other parties on the phone bridges in turn shared information about actions they were taken. NORAD logs indicate that the FAA made formal notification about American Flight 77 at 9:24 a.m. But information about the flight was conveyed continuously during the phone bridges before the formal notification."

Yet another attempt to get the ECU to address the unresolved issues Monday 9th April.

Ref: Editorial Guidelines
"We should not automatically assume that contributors from other organisations (such as academics, journalists, researchers and representatives of charities) are unbiased and we may need to make it clear to the audience when contributors are associated with a particular viewpoint, if it is not apparent from their contribution or from the context in which their contribution is made."

Dear Mr Treagear,

Prior to my appeal to the Trust over your dismissal of all of my complaints I wish to ask for clarification on clause 4.4.14 [above] of the Editorial Guidelines.

I will only detail the background to one of the 14 contributors supporting the "Official Conspiracy Theory".  There are others also  [of the 14] where the public domain information about these witnesses  indicates that the limited introduction given by the narrator in TYO breaches the guideline above.

You did inform me that you were not prepared to review the information at Monitoring Authority so maybe you are unaware of the information set out below.

From the ECU Verdict in response to my summarised complaint no.2

"The programme cherry-picked information and hypotheses which support the official version of events and included contributors “tied to the establishment by money, career and contract”."

You write: "The requirement is to ensure that such contributors are appropriately and accurately described so that the audience can judge their comments accordingly. I am satisfied that was the case." 

One example you gave was:

Allyn Kilsheimer was “a leading structural engineer who saw the damage and later was one of the first to see inside the Pentagon”;
Kilsheimer has a very very close relationship with the Pentagon especially under the then comptroller of finance Dom Zakheim - the man responsible for an unaccounted $1.3 trillion reported in 2000 and then the 2.3 trillion announced on 10.09.2001.

From Monitoring Authority:

Allyn Kilsheimer

Allyn Kilsheimer is so closely "connected" that the Pentagon Comptroller (Dom Zakheim) didn’t bother with contracts when millions of dollars were at stake. Kilsheimer is "on the firm" thus influenced by an immense conflict of interest.

Masonry Magazine report by Tom Inglesby

"We actually purchased the blocks out of the quarry and had drawings made of the stone and fabrication before we had a signature on a contract."

Immediately after the firefighters had the fire under control, the PenRen program manager, Lee Evey, started to plan the rebuilding of the Pentagon. With smoke still coming from the damaged section, someone suggested the new program be called The Phoenix Project, from the Greek myth about the bird rising from the ashes. The name stuck. With a handshake commitment from everyone, the plan was agreed upon: E-ring at the point of impact would be ready for business as usual by September 11, 2002.


Mr Tregear, I fine it hard to square the information the Pentagon's man with the limited description in TYO introduction and thus 4.4.14.

Kilsheimer has close connections with the Pentagon and Dept. of Defence going back decades. His company, KCE has been contracted by the government on at least two highly controversial "terrorist" events. These include  the Oklahoma Federal Building bombing and the first WTC bombing in 1993 where the explosives were provided by the FBI.

"….  KCE Structural Engineers PC in 1968 out of a closet he sublet from the Washington Building Congress on Connecticut Avenue and built it into a business that has been among the companies responding to tragedies that include the Sept. 11, 2001, attack on the Pentagon, the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 and the first terrorist attack on the World Trade Center in 1993"

Also the BBC is presenting a witness who has made claims about his involvement at the Pentagon which are challenged by other witnesses. So there is evidence that his word is challenged by other professionals. This relates to the Black boxes and the times line.

He claims to have found the black boxes to Flight 77. This conflicts with both the timeline and other claims, see below.

At around 3:40 a.m., investigators at the Pentagon recover the two “black boxes” from Flight 77. [WASHINGTON TIMES, 9/14/2001] These boxes are the plane’s flight data recorder and its cockpit voice recorder. [BBC, 9/15/2001] According to Arlington County spokesman Dick Bridges, members of the FBI’s evidence response team found them. [PBS, 9/14/2001; WASHINGTON POST, 9/14/2001] But some news reports claim they were found by two Fairfax County firefighters, Carlton Burkhammer and Brian Moravitz, as they combed through debris near the impact site. [WASHINGTON POST, 9/19/2001 pdfbw.png; NEWSWEEK, 9/28/2001] And Allyn Kilsheimer, a structural engineer who helps coordinate the emergency response at the Pentagon, later claims he’d “found the black box,” which, he says, he’d “stepped on… by accident.” [GW MAGAZINE, 3/2002; POPULAR MECHANICS, 3/2005] According to Dick Bridges, the two recorders are discovered “right where the plane came into the building.” [ASSOCIATED PRESS, 9/14/2001] But the American Society of Civil Engineers’ Pentagon Building Performance Report, released in 2003, will claim that the flight data recorder was found “nearly 300 ft into the structure.” [MLAKAR ET AL., 1/2003, PP. 40 pdfbw.png] Washington FBI agent Christopher Combs says, “Somebody almost threw [the black boxes] away because they didn’t know what they looked like.” [DISASTER NEWS NETWORK, 10/30/2002] 

The final point on accuracy relating to the above timeline of 3:40 pm.

 Kilsheimer is report as arriving at 5pm so could not have been "one of the first to see inside the Pentagon”. This is reported by the Bush loyalist Hearst Corporation through the Popular Mechanics mag that the BBC used in the first edition of the Con File in 2007.

Allyn Kilsheimer, a structural engineer who arrives at the Pentagon at about 5:00 p.m., will recall: “I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane.” [POPULAR MECHANICS, 3/2005;GOLDBERG ET AL., 2007, PP. 100] 

Sourced via:

I will end here and await your comments to this letter, my mail concerning Mineta et al and my initial response to the ECU verdict.

Thank you for you attention.

Yours sincerely   John Yates
PS: if link do not work or you require further information please let me know and I will respond ASAP.

No comments: