The myth that NORAD didn’t recognize the potential danger from airliners being hijacked and used as “guided missiles.”
The case of Aircraft as a Weapon is something the US knew since 1998
NY Times Bush was warned Bin Laden wanted to hijack planes
Bush was warned Bin Laden Determined To Strike in US, 36 days before 911
The British newspaper "The Guardian" Bush told officials to back off before 911
Hutch and BMA
We know bush and cheney knew about this...
How come no snitches…hummmmm….
Most of them are dead and are terrorists themselves. Let’s say 10 people came forward with info…who would believe them and who would they tell?
The best way to get away with it is to call them crazy. It’s dismissive. NYCCAN are trying to be heard and even they are labeled crazy. Bush labeled anyone who questions 911 crazy right from the get go.
“Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th, malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty. ~ President Bush November 10, 2001… one month after 911
Bush helped bin Ladens Escape US After 9/11 and told officials to back off. All Bush did was distract the FBI and CIA away from the truth and let al qaeda do all the work. Bush and Cheney just sat back and let it happen. You guys act like it was some grand complex plan.
The myth that NORAD didn’t recognize the potential danger from airliners being hijacked and used as “guided missiles.”
The case of Aircraft as a Weapon is something the US knew since 1998
NY Times Bush was warned Bin Laden wanted to hijack planes
Bush was warned Bin Laden Determined To Strike in US, 36 days before 911
The British newspaper "The Guardian" Bush told officials to back off before 911
Hutch and BMA
We know bush and cheney knew about this...
How come no snitches…hummmmm….
Most of them are dead and are terrorists themselves. Let’s say 10 people came forward with info…who would believe them and who would they tell?
The best way to get away with it is to call them crazy. It’s dismissive. NYCCAN are trying to be heard and even they are labeled crazy. Bush labeled anyone who questions 911 crazy right from the get go.
“Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th, malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty. ~ President Bush November 10, 2001… one month after 911
Bush helped bin Ladens Escape US After 9/11 and told officials to back off. All Bush did was distract the FBI and CIA away from the truth and let al qaeda do all the work. Bush and Cheney just sat back and let it happen. You guys act like it was some grand complex plan.
Most of them are dead and are terrorists themselves. Let’s say 10 people came forward with info…who would believe them and who would they tell?
The best way to get away with it is to call them crazy. It’s dismissive. NYCCAN are trying to be heard and even they are labeled crazy. Bush labeled anyone who questions 911 crazy right from the get go.
“Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th, malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty. ~ President Bush November 10, 2001… one month after 911
Bush helped bin Ladens Escape US After 9/11 and told officials to back off. All Bush did was distract the FBI and CIA away from the truth and let al qaeda do all the work. Bush and Cheney just sat back and let it happen. You guys act like it was some grand complex plan.
# 42
A non runner
People cant keep secrets
Organizations can't keep secrets.
Nobody has become disgruntled and wants to strike a bargain
with the authorities (most likely immunity from prosecution for his
testimony against the others) # no ex-wife or mistress has decided to get even by talking, # None
of the members of the conspiracy or the cover-up has wanted to clear his
conscience on his deathbed. # Watergate With the most powerful office
in the world at stake, a small band of hand-picked loyalists [of
President Richard Nixon] ... could not hold a conspiracy together for
more than two weeks. # Bush admin. couldn't even keep their lame revenge against Valarie Plame
and Joe Wilson secret, but they pulled 9/11 off without a hitch. #
In the JFK assassination case , we saw that although only a few
members of the FBI's Dallas office were involved, they were unable to
keep secret their effort to suppress Oswald's leaving a threatening note
at the Dallas office about ten days or so before the assassination. # as former Nixon aide G. Gordon Liddy once said (and he should
know!), the problem with government conspiracies is that bureaucrats are
incompetent and people can’t keep their mouths shut # Bradley Manning, the US soldier accused of spilling a massive trove of military secrets to WikiLeaks # Somehow or other the information gets out, and it does so rather
quickly, whether induced by one's conscience, as in a death-bed
confession, or through a former wife or mistress, or inadvertently, or
simply because people can't keep their mouths shut.
Three can keep a secret, if two of them are dead. Benjamin Franklin
The whole conspiracy theory is a non runner.
Such a waste talking about controlled demolitions, thermite, missiles .......ad infinitum.........ad nauseam
Most of them are dead and are terrorists themselves. Let’s say 10 people came forward with info…who would believe them and who would they tell?
The best way to get away with it is to call them crazy. It’s dismissive. NYCCAN are trying to be heard and even they are labeled crazy. Bush labeled anyone who questions 911 crazy right from the get go.
“Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th, malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty. ~ President Bush November 10, 2001… one month after 911
Bush helped bin Ladens Escape US After 9/11 and told officials to back off. All Bush did was distract the FBI and CIA away from the truth and let al qaeda do all the work. Bush and Cheney just sat back and let it happen. You guys act like it was some grand complex plan.
# 42
A non runner
People cant keep secrets
Organizations can't keep secrets.
Nobody has become disgruntled and wants to strike a bargain
with the authorities (most likely immunity from prosecution for his
testimony against the others) # no ex-wife or mistress has decided to get even by talking, # None
of the members of the conspiracy or the cover-up has wanted to clear his
conscience on his deathbed. # Watergate With the most powerful office
in the world at stake, a small band of hand-picked loyalists [of
President Richard Nixon] ... could not hold a conspiracy together for
more than two weeks. # Bush admin. couldn't even keep their lame revenge against Valarie Plame
and Joe Wilson secret, but they pulled 9/11 off without a hitch. #
In the JFK assassination case , we saw that although only a few
members of the FBI's Dallas office were involved, they were unable to
keep secret their effort to suppress Oswald's leaving a threatening note
at the Dallas office about ten days or so before the assassination. # as former Nixon aide G. Gordon Liddy once said (and he should
know!), the problem with government conspiracies is that bureaucrats are
incompetent and people can’t keep their mouths shut # Bradley Manning, the US soldier accused of spilling a massive trove of military secrets to WikiLeaks # Somehow or other the information gets out, and it does so rather
quickly, whether induced by one's conscience, as in a death-bed
confession, or through a former wife or mistress, or inadvertently, or
simply because people can't keep their mouths shut.
Three can keep a secret, if two of them are dead. Benjamin Franklin
The whole conspiracy theory is a non runner.
Such a waste talking about controlled demolitions, thermite, missiles .......ad infinitum.........ad nauseam
First of all, how can you continue to believe the bullshit when you can’t even explain all 41 things I posted….so your argument has been proven bullshit.
Second, until you explain all 40+ things… everything you say will remain bullshit.
Third… immunity from what…A trial? NYCCAN all ready tried to get a trial and was denied even though they had thousands of signatures. There is not a single politician alive that will listen to who ever has evidence…not a single one. As soon as you say… you believe 911 was an inside job…you will hear click on the phone or they will say you’re crazy and then they would have you detained. They will label you crazy and everyone would just laugh at them or spit on them with anger for even saying it. 911 was easy to pull off. Use terrorists to get the job done, hold meetings during the attack to make sure no one is at command, destroy the evidence by saying it needed to be removed so the families wouldn’t have to see it, bush and cheney’s testimony was kept secret, discredit American witnesses by labeling them crazy, rig the investigation, kill all those who have knowledge, show anger and disgust towards 911 truthers and label them crazy.
First of all, how can you continue to believe the bullshit when you can’t even explain all 41 things I posted….so your argument has been proven bullshit.
Second, until you explain all 40+ things… everything you say will remain bullshit.
Third… immunity from what…A trial? NYCCAN all ready tried to get a trial and was denied even though they had thousands of signatures. There is not a single politician alive that will listen to who ever has evidence…not a single one. As soon as you say… you believe 911 was an inside job…you will hear click on the phone or they will say you’re crazy and then they would have you detained. They will label you crazy and everyone would just laugh at them or spit on them with anger for even saying it. 911 was easy to pull off. Use terrorists to get the job done, hold meetings during the attack to make sure no one is at command, destroy the evidence by saying it needed to be removed so the families wouldn’t have to see it, bush and cheney’s testimony was kept secret, discredit American witnesses by labeling them crazy, rig the investigation, kill all those who have knowledge, show anger and disgust towards 911 truthers and label them crazy.
Another thing… the 911 commission report didn’t even acknowledge tower 7.
35. Investigators were not allowed access to Ground Zero. 36. Investigators were not provided with the blueprints of the buildings. 37. The 9/11 Commission Report failed to even mention the destruction of Building 7 38. The 9/11 Commission Report denied the existence of the Twin Towers' core structures. 39. When presented with evidence of explosives, NIST has done the opposite of investigating: It has denied, evaded, changed the subject, and produced straw-man arguments.
Another thing… the 911 commission report didn’t even acknowledge tower 7.
35. Investigators were not allowed access to Ground Zero. 36. Investigators were not provided with the blueprints of the buildings. 37. The 9/11 Commission Report failed to even mention the destruction of Building 7 38. The 9/11 Commission Report denied the existence of the Twin Towers' core structures. 39. When presented with evidence of explosives, NIST has done the opposite of investigating: It has denied, evaded, changed the subject, and produced straw-man arguments.
Scholars and Family Members Submit Request for Correction to 9/11 NIST Report Gaps and inconsistencies reveal fundamental flaws in NIST's building collapse analyses
BERKELEY, CA (PRWEB) April 14, 2007 -- A group of scientists, researchers and 9/11 family members challenging the official reports of the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11/01 has filed a Request for Correction (RFC) with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
The Request asserts that the NIST Final Report violates information quality standards, draws inferences that are inconsistent with its own computer simulations and physical tests, and exhibits a significant bias toward a preordained conclusion while ignoring available evidence contrary to it. The Request also says that if this bias is corrected, the NIST simulation clearly indicates that the Towers should not have collapsed due to plane damage and fire. The obvious alternative, which the group says should have been studied by NIST, is explosive demolition.
The group submitting the Request includes 9/11 family members Bob McIlvaine and Bill Doyle, physicist Steven E. Jones, former UL manager, Kevin Ryan, architect Richard Gage, AIA, and the group Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice.
A key theme of the Request is a call for NIST to reveal more of the data behind the Report's statements. Steven Jones, a physicist in Utah, says of the Report, "Among other things, we've found that the Report violates information quality standards by leaving out necessary information which would allow its conclusions to be verified."
But what's worse, Jones says, "when you read the Report, you find some data that don't support the conclusion are simply being ignored. That's a big red flag."
The assertion that the conclusion of the NIST report is incorrect is important, the Request says, because that "would mean that the assumption that foreign terrorists alone carried out the destruction would become a matter of dispute."
James Gourley, the attorney working with the Request group, says the public has a right to see the data and ensure their validity. "We think that the American people deserve the chance to be allowed to analyze the computer models and the calculations that they have paid for. We also think Bob McIlvaine and Bill Doyle, each of whom lost a son in the WTC Towers, deserve a scientifically sound answer from NIST about how their sons were killed."
The group says that a different conclusion better fits the evidence - they believe that pre-positioned explosives were responsible for the destruction of the WTC towers. "It sounds outlandish," Jones says, "But when you look at the evidence, it fits. In fact, many of the physical features of these events -- such as their rapidity, totality, and the observed iron-rich spheres in the WTC dust -- fit the demolition hypothesis and are difficult to reconcile with any of the existing collapse explanations."
A criticism in the Request examines the Report's description of the collapse mechanisms - that once the top portion of the buildings started to fall, the portion below was "not able to arrest this initial movement as evidenced by videos from several vantage points." But NIST, the Request says, must explain why the intact structure below the impact zone offered so little resistance to the collapse of the building."
California architect and member of the Requester group, Richard Gage, AIA, emphasizes that the buildings were designed to withstand 150mph lateral wind loads and even airplane impacts, and notes that vast majority of both towers were not damaged by fire or impact.
"There were 80 to 90 floors of completely intact steel structure below the impact zones, untouched by fire or damage, which had held up the mass above them for decades and, in the case of the perimeter columns, were over-designed by a factor of 20. Also, almost all of the mass of the building coming down from above was being ejected outside the footprint as it fell, so there is not even a "pile driver" to crush the building below, and thus no valid engineering explanation for the failure!" Gage says that the only way to achieve
Scholars and Family Members Submit Request for Correction to 9/11 NIST Report Gaps and inconsistencies reveal fundamental flaws in NIST's building collapse analyses
BERKELEY, CA (PRWEB) April 14, 2007 -- A group of scientists, researchers and 9/11 family members challenging the official reports of the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11/01 has filed a Request for Correction (RFC) with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
The Request asserts that the NIST Final Report violates information quality standards, draws inferences that are inconsistent with its own computer simulations and physical tests, and exhibits a significant bias toward a preordained conclusion while ignoring available evidence contrary to it. The Request also says that if this bias is corrected, the NIST simulation clearly indicates that the Towers should not have collapsed due to plane damage and fire. The obvious alternative, which the group says should have been studied by NIST, is explosive demolition.
The group submitting the Request includes 9/11 family members Bob McIlvaine and Bill Doyle, physicist Steven E. Jones, former UL manager, Kevin Ryan, architect Richard Gage, AIA, and the group Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice.
A key theme of the Request is a call for NIST to reveal more of the data behind the Report's statements. Steven Jones, a physicist in Utah, says of the Report, "Among other things, we've found that the Report violates information quality standards by leaving out necessary information which would allow its conclusions to be verified."
But what's worse, Jones says, "when you read the Report, you find some data that don't support the conclusion are simply being ignored. That's a big red flag."
The assertion that the conclusion of the NIST report is incorrect is important, the Request says, because that "would mean that the assumption that foreign terrorists alone carried out the destruction would become a matter of dispute."
James Gourley, the attorney working with the Request group, says the public has a right to see the data and ensure their validity. "We think that the American people deserve the chance to be allowed to analyze the computer models and the calculations that they have paid for. We also think Bob McIlvaine and Bill Doyle, each of whom lost a son in the WTC Towers, deserve a scientifically sound answer from NIST about how their sons were killed."
The group says that a different conclusion better fits the evidence - they believe that pre-positioned explosives were responsible for the destruction of the WTC towers. "It sounds outlandish," Jones says, "But when you look at the evidence, it fits. In fact, many of the physical features of these events -- such as their rapidity, totality, and the observed iron-rich spheres in the WTC dust -- fit the demolition hypothesis and are difficult to reconcile with any of the existing collapse explanations."
A criticism in the Request examines the Report's description of the collapse mechanisms - that once the top portion of the buildings started to fall, the portion below was "not able to arrest this initial movement as evidenced by videos from several vantage points." But NIST, the Request says, must explain why the intact structure below the impact zone offered so little resistance to the collapse of the building."
California architect and member of the Requester group, Richard Gage, AIA, emphasizes that the buildings were designed to withstand 150mph lateral wind loads and even airplane impacts, and notes that vast majority of both towers were not damaged by fire or impact.
"There were 80 to 90 floors of completely intact steel structure below the impact zones, untouched by fire or damage, which had held up the mass above them for decades and, in the case of the perimeter columns, were over-designed by a factor of 20. Also, almost all of the mass of the building coming down from above was being ejected outside the footprint as it fell, so there is not even a "pile driver" to crush the building below, and thus no valid engineering explanation for the failure!" Gage says that the only way to achieve
what NIST describes as "'such little resistance [from the structure below to the falling mass above,' was to destroy that solid intact structure with pre-planted explosives."
"It sounds extreme," he says, "even preposterous. But when you set aside your disbelief, you find explosives to be the only valid explanation for the 'collapse' and this explains many features -- such as the virtually free fall speed, symmetry, audible & visible explosions, pulverization to dust of all of the floors, file cabinets, etc. -- that are consistent with demolition style collapses, but not with historical structural failures by fire."
But this Request isn't the only one being made by groups critical of the Final Report conclusion.
Another group -- Fetzer, Wood, Reynolds and Hass -- also filed requests for correction with NIST in the past two months. Their claims include assertions that a directed energy weapon destroyed the World Trade Center Towers, and that real jetliners did not hit the buildings.
"It's a nonsense submission," says James Gourley. He says that such submissions are likely to undermine the legitimate work of others. "By submitting what amounts to nonsense, they basically inoculate people against any other legitimate challenges to the NIST Report." This, he says, gives officials an easy way to avoid serious consideration to all conclusions counter to that of the Final Report.
"It's called discrediting by association," a historic means to marginalize a viewpoint by associating it with transparently flawed or repugnant ideas. "You've got these people saying that real planes didn't hit the WTC towers at all in their submission." Gourley says. "That only discredits the rest of us, regardless of what the real motive behind it is."
Gourley also notes that the online journal, 'The Journal of 9/11 Studies,' has published refutations of many of the unscientific claims such as these.
"Scientists have responded to these outlandish claims in writing. Their refutations have undergone peer review and have been approved prior to publication.." The Fetzer/Wood/Reynolds claims are unable to withstand any serious scientific scrutiny.
His own group's submission, Gourley points out, is the first one which seriously addresses specific and significant aspects of the Report, rather than only minor details or making nonsense appeals.
Physicist Steven Jones says, "Our submission asks some very crucial questions which are necessary for any scientific Report, regardless of what our own positions are on what happened."
Architect Richard Gage, AIA agrees. "Here's one of the grossest examples," he says, "While the NIST-sponsored UL floor assembly fire tests demonstrated only 2 to 4 inches of sag with no failure at 2,000 degrees for 2 hours, NIST never-the-less used 42 inches of sag in their computer models and concluded failure! These are very basic inconsistencies and suggest some serious data integrity problems."
And one problem the group comes back to is that few have taken the time to comb through the massive Report. The likely reality, they say, is that most people assume that what's contained in the approximately 10,000 pages is correct because, "Frankly," Gage says, "people have been paid a lot of money - and these are the 'experts'. They weren't looking at the more reasonable hypothesis of controlled demolition. Instead, they just worked the numbers backwards until their desired conclusion - collapse by fire - was supported."
what NIST describes as "'such little resistance [from the structure below to the falling mass above,' was to destroy that solid intact structure with pre-planted explosives."
"It sounds extreme," he says, "even preposterous. But when you set aside your disbelief, you find explosives to be the only valid explanation for the 'collapse' and this explains many features -- such as the virtually free fall speed, symmetry, audible & visible explosions, pulverization to dust of all of the floors, file cabinets, etc. -- that are consistent with demolition style collapses, but not with historical structural failures by fire."
But this Request isn't the only one being made by groups critical of the Final Report conclusion.
Another group -- Fetzer, Wood, Reynolds and Hass -- also filed requests for correction with NIST in the past two months. Their claims include assertions that a directed energy weapon destroyed the World Trade Center Towers, and that real jetliners did not hit the buildings.
"It's a nonsense submission," says James Gourley. He says that such submissions are likely to undermine the legitimate work of others. "By submitting what amounts to nonsense, they basically inoculate people against any other legitimate challenges to the NIST Report." This, he says, gives officials an easy way to avoid serious consideration to all conclusions counter to that of the Final Report.
"It's called discrediting by association," a historic means to marginalize a viewpoint by associating it with transparently flawed or repugnant ideas. "You've got these people saying that real planes didn't hit the WTC towers at all in their submission." Gourley says. "That only discredits the rest of us, regardless of what the real motive behind it is."
Gourley also notes that the online journal, 'The Journal of 9/11 Studies,' has published refutations of many of the unscientific claims such as these.
"Scientists have responded to these outlandish claims in writing. Their refutations have undergone peer review and have been approved prior to publication.." The Fetzer/Wood/Reynolds claims are unable to withstand any serious scientific scrutiny.
His own group's submission, Gourley points out, is the first one which seriously addresses specific and significant aspects of the Report, rather than only minor details or making nonsense appeals.
Physicist Steven Jones says, "Our submission asks some very crucial questions which are necessary for any scientific Report, regardless of what our own positions are on what happened."
Architect Richard Gage, AIA agrees. "Here's one of the grossest examples," he says, "While the NIST-sponsored UL floor assembly fire tests demonstrated only 2 to 4 inches of sag with no failure at 2,000 degrees for 2 hours, NIST never-the-less used 42 inches of sag in their computer models and concluded failure! These are very basic inconsistencies and suggest some serious data integrity problems."
And one problem the group comes back to is that few have taken the time to comb through the massive Report. The likely reality, they say, is that most people assume that what's contained in the approximately 10,000 pages is correct because, "Frankly," Gage says, "people have been paid a lot of money - and these are the 'experts'. They weren't looking at the more reasonable hypothesis of controlled demolition. Instead, they just worked the numbers backwards until their desired conclusion - collapse by fire - was supported."
Come on man…You, Slovak, and Kapono don’t agree with me fine but lets keep it cool with each other. I have no beef with you guys. My problem is with BMA and Hutch.
What secret? I know it was an inside job and so do others. The best way to keep the truth silenced is own the media, which the government does, create a fake investigation that no one is allowed to question, label anyone who questions the government crazy, show fake anger and disgust to silence, and destroy all the evidence, which bush and cheney clearly did. The secret is out; it’s just labeled crazy… the perfect cover up.
All you have is to call me names but can’t explain the 40+ things I posted. Checkmate
Come on man…You, Slovak, and Kapono don’t agree with me fine but lets keep it cool with each other. I have no beef with you guys. My problem is with BMA and Hutch.
What secret? I know it was an inside job and so do others. The best way to keep the truth silenced is own the media, which the government does, create a fake investigation that no one is allowed to question, label anyone who questions the government crazy, show fake anger and disgust to silence, and destroy all the evidence, which bush and cheney clearly did. The secret is out; it’s just labeled crazy… the perfect cover up.
All you have is to call me names but can’t explain the 40+ things I posted. Checkmate
I have read almost everything there is on this topic. From official reports, independent studies, and even the conspiracy theories. Your list includes MULTIPLE falsehoods and misinformation. If you would like, pick one issue/topic and we can debate it. Some of the points are so vague, are speculation, or just false. Pick one, and we will start there. I will explain every question/issue you have. Go
I have read almost everything there is on this topic. From official reports, independent studies, and even the conspiracy theories. Your list includes MULTIPLE falsehoods and misinformation. If you would like, pick one issue/topic and we can debate it. Some of the points are so vague, are speculation, or just false. Pick one, and we will start there. I will explain every question/issue you have. Go
I have read almost everything there is on this topic. From official reports, independent studies, and even the conspiracy theories. Your list includes MULTIPLE falsehoods and misinformation. If you would like, pick one issue/topic and we can debate it. Some of the points are so vague, are speculation, or just false. Pick one, and we will start there. I will explain every question/issue you have. Go
You see my multiple posts on the whole conspiracy been impossible due to the fact secrets can't be kept and leaks can't be prevented.
On your evaluation of the subject, who many people do you believe would need to have been involved in the conspiracy, including, planners, demolition crews, military, NIST, FEMA and other agencies that would have had to produce fraudulent reports ad infinetum.
I have read almost everything there is on this topic. From official reports, independent studies, and even the conspiracy theories. Your list includes MULTIPLE falsehoods and misinformation. If you would like, pick one issue/topic and we can debate it. Some of the points are so vague, are speculation, or just false. Pick one, and we will start there. I will explain every question/issue you have. Go
You see my multiple posts on the whole conspiracy been impossible due to the fact secrets can't be kept and leaks can't be prevented.
On your evaluation of the subject, who many people do you believe would need to have been involved in the conspiracy, including, planners, demolition crews, military, NIST, FEMA and other agencies that would have had to produce fraudulent reports ad infinetum.
I have read almost everything there is on this topic. From official reports, independent studies, and even the conspiracy theories. Your list includes MULTIPLE falsehoods and misinformation. If you would like, pick one issue/topic and we can debate it. Some of the points are so vague, are speculation, or just false. Pick one, and we will start there. I will explain every question/issue you have. Go
Alright Post 533
1. No fighter jets were sent/911 believers say budget cuts (I’m referring to the 911 expert in BMA’s bullshit movie when I say budget cuts. That’s what the dumbass expert said in the movie) Just ignore that part. Stick to the fighter jets. Lets start with number 1 on the list which is connected to post 537.
I have read almost everything there is on this topic. From official reports, independent studies, and even the conspiracy theories. Your list includes MULTIPLE falsehoods and misinformation. If you would like, pick one issue/topic and we can debate it. Some of the points are so vague, are speculation, or just false. Pick one, and we will start there. I will explain every question/issue you have. Go
Alright Post 533
1. No fighter jets were sent/911 believers say budget cuts (I’m referring to the 911 expert in BMA’s bullshit movie when I say budget cuts. That’s what the dumbass expert said in the movie) Just ignore that part. Stick to the fighter jets. Lets start with number 1 on the list which is connected to post 537.
Well first it's important to understand in the decade prior to 9/11 there was ONE domestic aircraft that was intercepted. That was the plane of the late Payne Stewart. Intercepting aircraft was never a routine process or something that happened frequently. It is even MORE important to understand that intercepting an aircraft is something that happens "quickly." In the Payne Stewart example above it took 76 minutes. That's 76 minutes on a day when there was little to no chaos in the skies above the US. Compare that to the panic that was taking place up above on Sept 11th. Below are the minutes of the flights on 9/11 from the first sign of hijacking to crashing....
Flight 11 - 32 mins Flight 175 - 16 mins Flight 77 - 43 mins Flight 93 - 35 mins
As far as no fighters being sent, that's just not true. Fighters were launched six minutes after the north tower was hit. In fact, NEADS learned at 8:37 about Flight 11 being hijacked. Just ONE minute later two fighter pilots at Otis ANGB in Mass were ordered to ready and taxi their F-15s. The plane crashed less than 10 mins later. And when the fighters were launched at 8:52 they broke protocol flying at supersonic speeds. The trip to NYC still took approx 15 mins. By that time flight 175 has struck the other tower at 9:03.
I have more on the subject, but I will give you a chance to respond.
Well first it's important to understand in the decade prior to 9/11 there was ONE domestic aircraft that was intercepted. That was the plane of the late Payne Stewart. Intercepting aircraft was never a routine process or something that happened frequently. It is even MORE important to understand that intercepting an aircraft is something that happens "quickly." In the Payne Stewart example above it took 76 minutes. That's 76 minutes on a day when there was little to no chaos in the skies above the US. Compare that to the panic that was taking place up above on Sept 11th. Below are the minutes of the flights on 9/11 from the first sign of hijacking to crashing....
Flight 11 - 32 mins Flight 175 - 16 mins Flight 77 - 43 mins Flight 93 - 35 mins
As far as no fighters being sent, that's just not true. Fighters were launched six minutes after the north tower was hit. In fact, NEADS learned at 8:37 about Flight 11 being hijacked. Just ONE minute later two fighter pilots at Otis ANGB in Mass were ordered to ready and taxi their F-15s. The plane crashed less than 10 mins later. And when the fighters were launched at 8:52 they broke protocol flying at supersonic speeds. The trip to NYC still took approx 15 mins. By that time flight 175 has struck the other tower at 9:03.
I have more on the subject, but I will give you a chance to respond.
1. No fighter jets were sent/911 believers say budget cuts (I’m referring to the 911 expert in BMA’s bullshit movie when I say budget cuts. That’s what the dumbass expert said in the movie) Just ignore that part. Stick to the fighter jets. Lets start with number 1 on the list which is connected to post 537.
That was answered before post # 534 why did you ask the same question again
F-15 fighters were scrambled at 8:46 from Otis Air Force Base. But
NEADS did not know where to send the alert fighter aircraft, and the
officer directing the fighters pressed for more information: "I don't
know where I'm scrambling these guys to. I need a direction, a
destination." Because the hijackers had turned off the plane's
transponder, NEADS personnel spent the next minutes searching their
radar scopes for the primary radar return. American 11 struck the North
Tower at 8:46. Shortly after 8:50, while NEADS personnel were still
trying to locate the flight, word reached them that a plane had hit the
World Trade Center.
Radar data show the Otis fighters were airborne at 8:53. Lacking a
target, they were vectored toward military-controlled airspace off the
Long Island coast. To avoid New York area air traffic and uncertain
about what to do, the fighters were brought down to military airspace to
"hold as needed. "From 9:09 to 9:13, the Otis fighters stayed in this
holding pattern.
In summary, NEADS received notice of the hijacking nine minutes
before it struck the North Tower. That nine minutes' notice before
impact was the most the military would receive of any of the four
hijackings.
1. No fighter jets were sent/911 believers say budget cuts (I’m referring to the 911 expert in BMA’s bullshit movie when I say budget cuts. That’s what the dumbass expert said in the movie) Just ignore that part. Stick to the fighter jets. Lets start with number 1 on the list which is connected to post 537.
That was answered before post # 534 why did you ask the same question again
F-15 fighters were scrambled at 8:46 from Otis Air Force Base. But
NEADS did not know where to send the alert fighter aircraft, and the
officer directing the fighters pressed for more information: "I don't
know where I'm scrambling these guys to. I need a direction, a
destination." Because the hijackers had turned off the plane's
transponder, NEADS personnel spent the next minutes searching their
radar scopes for the primary radar return. American 11 struck the North
Tower at 8:46. Shortly after 8:50, while NEADS personnel were still
trying to locate the flight, word reached them that a plane had hit the
World Trade Center.
Radar data show the Otis fighters were airborne at 8:53. Lacking a
target, they were vectored toward military-controlled airspace off the
Long Island coast. To avoid New York area air traffic and uncertain
about what to do, the fighters were brought down to military airspace to
"hold as needed. "From 9:09 to 9:13, the Otis fighters stayed in this
holding pattern.
In summary, NEADS received notice of the hijacking nine minutes
before it struck the North Tower. That nine minutes' notice before
impact was the most the military would receive of any of the four
hijackings.
Well first it's important to understand in the decade prior to 9/11 there was ONE domestic aircraft that was intercepted. That was the plane of the late Payne Stewart. Intercepting aircraft was never a routine process or something that happened frequently. It is even MORE important to understand that intercepting an aircraft is something that happens "quickly." In the Payne Stewart example above it took 76 minutes. That's 76 minutes on a day when there was little to no chaos in the skies above the US. Compare that to the panic that was taking place up above on Sept 11th. Below are the minutes of the flights on 9/11 from the first sign of hijacking to crashing....
Flight 11 - 32 mins Flight 175 - 16 mins Flight 77 - 43 mins Flight 93 - 35 mins
As far as no fighters being sent, that's just not true. Fighters were launched six minutes after the north tower was hit. In fact, NEADS learned at 8:37 about Flight 11 being hijacked. Just ONE minute later two fighter pilots at Otis ANGB in Mass were ordered to ready and taxi their F-15s. The plane crashed less than 10 mins later. And when the fighters were launched at 8:52 they broke protocol flying at supersonic speeds. The trip to NYC still took approx 15 mins. By that time flight 175 has struck the other tower at 9:03.
I have more on the subject, but I will give you a chance to respond.
None of the planes were sent from the closest bases and were not traveling at their top speed. The numbers that were used to show how fast they were going was from the official timeline given by the government.
By flying from remote airports and going far out of their way, the attack planners exposed their plan to almost certain ruin, had the air defense system operated normally.
The originating airport for Flights 11 and 175 was Boston Logan instead of any of several airports near New York City. This created about 40 minutes of exposure to interception for each flight.
Flight 77 flew to the Midwest before turning around to return to Washington D.C. It was airborne an hour and 23 minutes before allegedly attacking the Pentagon. That would provide ample opportunity for interception even if the air defense system were mostly disabled.
Flight 93 flew to the Midwest before turning around to fly toward Washington D.C. had it reached the capital, it would have been airborne for more than an hour and a half. The odds of escaping interception with that plan would be infinitesimal under standard operating procedures.
According to NORAD's timeline the FAA reported errant airliners after inexplicable delays.
The FAA took 18 minutes to report Flight 11's loss of communication and deviation from its flight plan. The FAA took 39 minutes to report Flight 77's deviation from its flight plan.
Despite the fact that Flights 11 and 175 were headed for New York City, no interceptors were scrambled from nearby La Guardia, or from Langley, Virginia.
Despite NORAD's having received formal notification of the first hijacking at 8:38, no interceptors were scrambled from Andrews to protect the nearby Pentagon until after it was hit at 9:37.
Andrews Air Force Base had two squadrons of fighters on alert, and is only about 10 miles from the Pentagon.
The 9:37 strike was well over an hour after the first signs of a hijacking and 34 minutes after the South Tower strike confirmed that an attack was underway.
The Pentagon is within 11 miles of Andrews Air Force Base, which apparently had two combat-ready fighter wings on 9/11/01.
The attack plane was monitored on radar as it approached the capital.
The idea that the most powerful and intelligent military and the world's greatest super-power would be that slow and inept is beyond ridiculous.
Well first it's important to understand in the decade prior to 9/11 there was ONE domestic aircraft that was intercepted. That was the plane of the late Payne Stewart. Intercepting aircraft was never a routine process or something that happened frequently. It is even MORE important to understand that intercepting an aircraft is something that happens "quickly." In the Payne Stewart example above it took 76 minutes. That's 76 minutes on a day when there was little to no chaos in the skies above the US. Compare that to the panic that was taking place up above on Sept 11th. Below are the minutes of the flights on 9/11 from the first sign of hijacking to crashing....
Flight 11 - 32 mins Flight 175 - 16 mins Flight 77 - 43 mins Flight 93 - 35 mins
As far as no fighters being sent, that's just not true. Fighters were launched six minutes after the north tower was hit. In fact, NEADS learned at 8:37 about Flight 11 being hijacked. Just ONE minute later two fighter pilots at Otis ANGB in Mass were ordered to ready and taxi their F-15s. The plane crashed less than 10 mins later. And when the fighters were launched at 8:52 they broke protocol flying at supersonic speeds. The trip to NYC still took approx 15 mins. By that time flight 175 has struck the other tower at 9:03.
I have more on the subject, but I will give you a chance to respond.
None of the planes were sent from the closest bases and were not traveling at their top speed. The numbers that were used to show how fast they were going was from the official timeline given by the government.
By flying from remote airports and going far out of their way, the attack planners exposed their plan to almost certain ruin, had the air defense system operated normally.
The originating airport for Flights 11 and 175 was Boston Logan instead of any of several airports near New York City. This created about 40 minutes of exposure to interception for each flight.
Flight 77 flew to the Midwest before turning around to return to Washington D.C. It was airborne an hour and 23 minutes before allegedly attacking the Pentagon. That would provide ample opportunity for interception even if the air defense system were mostly disabled.
Flight 93 flew to the Midwest before turning around to fly toward Washington D.C. had it reached the capital, it would have been airborne for more than an hour and a half. The odds of escaping interception with that plan would be infinitesimal under standard operating procedures.
According to NORAD's timeline the FAA reported errant airliners after inexplicable delays.
The FAA took 18 minutes to report Flight 11's loss of communication and deviation from its flight plan. The FAA took 39 minutes to report Flight 77's deviation from its flight plan.
Despite the fact that Flights 11 and 175 were headed for New York City, no interceptors were scrambled from nearby La Guardia, or from Langley, Virginia.
Despite NORAD's having received formal notification of the first hijacking at 8:38, no interceptors were scrambled from Andrews to protect the nearby Pentagon until after it was hit at 9:37.
Andrews Air Force Base had two squadrons of fighters on alert, and is only about 10 miles from the Pentagon.
The 9:37 strike was well over an hour after the first signs of a hijacking and 34 minutes after the South Tower strike confirmed that an attack was underway.
The Pentagon is within 11 miles of Andrews Air Force Base, which apparently had two combat-ready fighter wings on 9/11/01.
The attack plane was monitored on radar as it approached the capital.
The idea that the most powerful and intelligent military and the world's greatest super-power would be that slow and inept is beyond ridiculous.
Most of your information above is incorrect. First of all there were military cuts that drastically reduced fighters "on alert." Look up the Peace Dividend. You are not understanding the difference between "on alert" and "combat ready." On alert refers to a plane that is armed, fueled, and has pilots awaiting orders. Otherwise, combat status, means a plane will be ready in 24 hours or more. The number of air bases along the path of the hijacked planes or closer to NYC is of little consequence...that does not mean they had planes/pilots ready to go at a moments notice. There were 14 jets on that day (not out of the ordinary whatsoever) that were ready to go at NORAD BASES...not places like Andrews. Your mistake comes in at thinking it takes minimal time for any pilot, at any base, to hope into a plane and be ready to intercept aircraft at a moments notice. Another mistake you make is assuming, prior to 9-11, that a flight deviating from it's path is an automatic alert sent to NORAD by the FAA. That was simply not true. I would like you to provide any proof you have of combat ready fighters at Andrews on 09/11. That is also not true.
Most of your information above is incorrect. First of all there were military cuts that drastically reduced fighters "on alert." Look up the Peace Dividend. You are not understanding the difference between "on alert" and "combat ready." On alert refers to a plane that is armed, fueled, and has pilots awaiting orders. Otherwise, combat status, means a plane will be ready in 24 hours or more. The number of air bases along the path of the hijacked planes or closer to NYC is of little consequence...that does not mean they had planes/pilots ready to go at a moments notice. There were 14 jets on that day (not out of the ordinary whatsoever) that were ready to go at NORAD BASES...not places like Andrews. Your mistake comes in at thinking it takes minimal time for any pilot, at any base, to hope into a plane and be ready to intercept aircraft at a moments notice. Another mistake you make is assuming, prior to 9-11, that a flight deviating from it's path is an automatic alert sent to NORAD by the FAA. That was simply not true. I would like you to provide any proof you have of combat ready fighters at Andrews on 09/11. That is also not true.
Most of your information above is incorrect. First of all there were military cuts that drastically reduced fighters "on alert." Look up the Peace Dividend. You are not understanding the difference between "on alert" and "combat ready." On alert refers to a plane that is armed, fueled, and has pilots awaiting orders. Otherwise, combat status, means a plane will be ready in 24 hours or more. The number of air bases along the path of the hijacked planes or closer to NYC is of little consequence...that does not mean they had planes/pilots ready to go at a moments notice. There were 14 jets on that day (not out of the ordinary whatsoever) that were ready to go at NORAD BASES...not places like Andrews. Your mistake comes in at thinking it takes minimal time for any pilot, at any base, to hope into a plane and be ready to intercept aircraft at a moments notice. Another mistake you make is assuming, prior to 9-11, that a flight deviating from it's path is an automatic alert sent to NORAD by the FAA. That was simply not true. I would like you to provide any proof you have of combat ready fighters at Andrews on 09/11. That is also not true.
They had plenty of time to intercept. I can’t believe we are arguing whether or not the most powerful military in the world was ready for combat. All I see is excuses for the reason why no fighter jets stopped the attacks for happening. I’m not buying any of the excuses for a military that spends almost 700 billion dollars.
National Military Command Center (NMCC) in the basement of the Pentagon, Air Force staff officers monitoring every inch of airspace
Sept 11, 2001, NORAD and the FAA ignored routine procedures and strict regulations. In response to a national emergency involving hijacked airliners as dangerous as cruise missiles, interceptors launched late from distant bases flew to defend their nation at a fraction of their top speeds. [NORAD news release Sept. 18/01]
WHAT NORAD KNEW A recently resurfaced NORAD news bulletin released seven days after Sept. 11 explains that America's aerial defenders were slow to counter rapidly developing air attacks because they didn't hear from the FAA that American Airlines Flight 11 had been hijacked until 8:40 that fateful morning. [NORAD news release Sept. 18/01]
But at the National Military Command Center (NMCC) in the basement of the Pentagon, Air Force staff officers monitoring every inch of airspace over the northeastern seaboard would have caught that first hijacking when Flight 11's identification transponder stopped transmitting at 8:20 - automatically triggering a radar alarm.
With their capability to monitor developing "situations" by tapping into military and civilian radars, U.S. military commanders would have also seen Flight 175 turn abruptly south 25 minutes later ö just as they had watched on radar in October 1999 when pro golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet abruptly departed its flight path while enroute o Dallas. [CNN Oct26/1999]
In that legendary intercept, a fighter jet out of Tyndall, Florida was diverted from a training flight to escort the Lear, whose pilot had become incapacitated, trapping Stewart in the stratosphere. An F-16 was reportedly sitting off the left wingtip of Payne's pilotless business jet within 19 minutes of the FAA alert. [ABC News Oct25/99]
If NORAD had been as quick to scramble or divert airborne fighters on Sept. 11, two "anti-terrorist" F-15's on armed alert could have been sent south from Otis Air Force Base on Cape Cod. Flying at full afterburners without edging over the Atlantic to disperse their sonic footprint, two of the fastest fighters on the planet would have broken a few windows. But all the glass in the Twin Towers might have stayed intact had the "fast-movers" intercepted Flight 11 over the Hudson Rive at least six minutes from Manhattan.
Most of your information above is incorrect. First of all there were military cuts that drastically reduced fighters "on alert." Look up the Peace Dividend. You are not understanding the difference between "on alert" and "combat ready." On alert refers to a plane that is armed, fueled, and has pilots awaiting orders. Otherwise, combat status, means a plane will be ready in 24 hours or more. The number of air bases along the path of the hijacked planes or closer to NYC is of little consequence...that does not mean they had planes/pilots ready to go at a moments notice. There were 14 jets on that day (not out of the ordinary whatsoever) that were ready to go at NORAD BASES...not places like Andrews. Your mistake comes in at thinking it takes minimal time for any pilot, at any base, to hope into a plane and be ready to intercept aircraft at a moments notice. Another mistake you make is assuming, prior to 9-11, that a flight deviating from it's path is an automatic alert sent to NORAD by the FAA. That was simply not true. I would like you to provide any proof you have of combat ready fighters at Andrews on 09/11. That is also not true.
They had plenty of time to intercept. I can’t believe we are arguing whether or not the most powerful military in the world was ready for combat. All I see is excuses for the reason why no fighter jets stopped the attacks for happening. I’m not buying any of the excuses for a military that spends almost 700 billion dollars.
National Military Command Center (NMCC) in the basement of the Pentagon, Air Force staff officers monitoring every inch of airspace
Sept 11, 2001, NORAD and the FAA ignored routine procedures and strict regulations. In response to a national emergency involving hijacked airliners as dangerous as cruise missiles, interceptors launched late from distant bases flew to defend their nation at a fraction of their top speeds. [NORAD news release Sept. 18/01]
WHAT NORAD KNEW A recently resurfaced NORAD news bulletin released seven days after Sept. 11 explains that America's aerial defenders were slow to counter rapidly developing air attacks because they didn't hear from the FAA that American Airlines Flight 11 had been hijacked until 8:40 that fateful morning. [NORAD news release Sept. 18/01]
But at the National Military Command Center (NMCC) in the basement of the Pentagon, Air Force staff officers monitoring every inch of airspace over the northeastern seaboard would have caught that first hijacking when Flight 11's identification transponder stopped transmitting at 8:20 - automatically triggering a radar alarm.
With their capability to monitor developing "situations" by tapping into military and civilian radars, U.S. military commanders would have also seen Flight 175 turn abruptly south 25 minutes later ö just as they had watched on radar in October 1999 when pro golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet abruptly departed its flight path while enroute o Dallas. [CNN Oct26/1999]
In that legendary intercept, a fighter jet out of Tyndall, Florida was diverted from a training flight to escort the Lear, whose pilot had become incapacitated, trapping Stewart in the stratosphere. An F-16 was reportedly sitting off the left wingtip of Payne's pilotless business jet within 19 minutes of the FAA alert. [ABC News Oct25/99]
If NORAD had been as quick to scramble or divert airborne fighters on Sept. 11, two "anti-terrorist" F-15's on armed alert could have been sent south from Otis Air Force Base on Cape Cod. Flying at full afterburners without edging over the Atlantic to disperse their sonic footprint, two of the fastest fighters on the planet would have broken a few windows. But all the glass in the Twin Towers might have stayed intact had the "fast-movers" intercepted Flight 11 over the Hudson Rive at least six minutes from Manhattan.
NO HURRY SAYS NORAD Instead, in a stunning admission that received little press scrutiny at the time, NORAD noted that for all interceptions flown against the hijackers on Sept. 11, "Flight times are calculated at 9 miles per minute or .9 Mach." In other words, every interception flown by the world's hottest air-combat aircraft was flown at less than a third of the planes' top speed.
A Defense Department manual insists, "In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA." To make this happen, the Federal Aviation Administration permanently posts a liaison officer in the Pentagon air defense room. [CJCSI 3610.01A, June1/01]
Yet, according to NORAD, after air traffic controllers realized that Flight 11 had been hijacked, 38 vital minutes passed before a pair of F-15's was scrambled from Otis. As they lifted off, American Airlines Flight 11 struck the North Tower of the World Trade Center, 153 air miles away as a Falcon flies. [NORAD Sept. 18/01]
United Airlines Flight 175 was still 20 minutes out.
"The F-15 pilots flew ''like a scalded ape, topping 500 mph but were unable to catch up to the airliner," Maj. Gen. Paul Weaver later told reporters. [St. Augustine Times Sept16/01]
Scalded apes? Airliners fly at 500 mph. An F-15 can fly almost four-times faster.
STEP ON IT One of the Otis intercept pilots dubbed "Duff", later lamented: "We've been over the flight a thousand times in our minds and I don't know what we could have done to get there any quicker."
For starters, he and his wingman could have tried pushing their twin throttles fully forward. Instead of flying two-and-a-half times faster than a bullet, "Nasty" and "Duff" drove their expensive air superiority fighters at a leisurely 447-mph ö supposedly to intercept a Boeing 767 flying 43 mph faster! Utilizing only 27% power, the F-15's were "eight minutes/71 miles" away, according to NORAD, when Flight 175 struck the South Tower with 56 souls and more than ten tons of fuel onboard. [Christian Science Monitor Mar8/02]
HONOR THE THREAT With both Trade Towers burning, and hijacked United Flight 93 shadowed by a circling F-16 over Pennsylvania, American Airlines Flight 77 was the only threat left in the sky. When that Boeing 757 silenced its transponder signal, made a U-turn over Kentucky and headed directly for the White House and the Pentagon, one billion viewers riveted to the big networks knew this was a kamikaze run. [Telegraph Sept13/01]
With no other bogeys on eastern seaboard scopes, air combat doctrine dictates that the two unemployed Otis F-15s already in the area be redirected to "honor the threat" of an incoming flying bomb, 330 miles out. Even loafing along, the fighters would have more than 20 minutes to confront Flight 77 before it neared the Pentagon.
Instead, Pentagon professionals defending their country's nerve centers waited more than an hour after watching Flight 11 go rogue - including 30 critical minutes after Flight 77 turned abruptly toward them and the nearby White House - before scrambling two F-16's out of Langley Air Force Base to protect the capitol.
Nearly half-an-hour after receiving the belated order to scramble, two Falcons coasted in over the burning Pentagon. Slowed down to just 410 mph, it had taken the 1,500 mph-capable fighters 19 minutes to cover the 130 miles from Virginia. It should have taken just over seven minutes to reach the Pentagon ö at about the time Flight 77 was making a predatory circle overhead. [NORAD Sept18/01; USAF]
NO HURRY SAYS NORAD Instead, in a stunning admission that received little press scrutiny at the time, NORAD noted that for all interceptions flown against the hijackers on Sept. 11, "Flight times are calculated at 9 miles per minute or .9 Mach." In other words, every interception flown by the world's hottest air-combat aircraft was flown at less than a third of the planes' top speed.
A Defense Department manual insists, "In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA." To make this happen, the Federal Aviation Administration permanently posts a liaison officer in the Pentagon air defense room. [CJCSI 3610.01A, June1/01]
Yet, according to NORAD, after air traffic controllers realized that Flight 11 had been hijacked, 38 vital minutes passed before a pair of F-15's was scrambled from Otis. As they lifted off, American Airlines Flight 11 struck the North Tower of the World Trade Center, 153 air miles away as a Falcon flies. [NORAD Sept. 18/01]
United Airlines Flight 175 was still 20 minutes out.
"The F-15 pilots flew ''like a scalded ape, topping 500 mph but were unable to catch up to the airliner," Maj. Gen. Paul Weaver later told reporters. [St. Augustine Times Sept16/01]
Scalded apes? Airliners fly at 500 mph. An F-15 can fly almost four-times faster.
STEP ON IT One of the Otis intercept pilots dubbed "Duff", later lamented: "We've been over the flight a thousand times in our minds and I don't know what we could have done to get there any quicker."
For starters, he and his wingman could have tried pushing their twin throttles fully forward. Instead of flying two-and-a-half times faster than a bullet, "Nasty" and "Duff" drove their expensive air superiority fighters at a leisurely 447-mph ö supposedly to intercept a Boeing 767 flying 43 mph faster! Utilizing only 27% power, the F-15's were "eight minutes/71 miles" away, according to NORAD, when Flight 175 struck the South Tower with 56 souls and more than ten tons of fuel onboard. [Christian Science Monitor Mar8/02]
HONOR THE THREAT With both Trade Towers burning, and hijacked United Flight 93 shadowed by a circling F-16 over Pennsylvania, American Airlines Flight 77 was the only threat left in the sky. When that Boeing 757 silenced its transponder signal, made a U-turn over Kentucky and headed directly for the White House and the Pentagon, one billion viewers riveted to the big networks knew this was a kamikaze run. [Telegraph Sept13/01]
With no other bogeys on eastern seaboard scopes, air combat doctrine dictates that the two unemployed Otis F-15s already in the area be redirected to "honor the threat" of an incoming flying bomb, 330 miles out. Even loafing along, the fighters would have more than 20 minutes to confront Flight 77 before it neared the Pentagon.
Instead, Pentagon professionals defending their country's nerve centers waited more than an hour after watching Flight 11 go rogue - including 30 critical minutes after Flight 77 turned abruptly toward them and the nearby White House - before scrambling two F-16's out of Langley Air Force Base to protect the capitol.
Nearly half-an-hour after receiving the belated order to scramble, two Falcons coasted in over the burning Pentagon. Slowed down to just 410 mph, it had taken the 1,500 mph-capable fighters 19 minutes to cover the 130 miles from Virginia. It should have taken just over seven minutes to reach the Pentagon ö at about the time Flight 77 was making a predatory circle overhead. [NORAD Sept18/01; USAF]
GROUNDED The supersonic jets were flown no faster than WWII prop-driven fighters. But it hardly mattered. Sitting on the Andrews ramp just 10 miles away, were two fully armed and fueled supersonic interceptors tasked with protecting the capitol from airborne terrorist threats on 15 minutes' notice!
Isn't it about time someone asked why those routinely launched Andrews interceptors were "stood down" as Flight 77 bored in toward the headquarters they were supposed to protect? [San Diego Union-Tribune Sept12/01
In the most heavily armed nation on Earth, at least two-dozen air force installations were within fast flying time of the World Trade Center and Pentagon. Does anyone else wonder why none of those aircraft were ordered launched - or why none of the armed fighters on training flights or patrolling Air Defense Intercept Zones just off the Atlantic Coast were diverted to intercept four commandeered airliners until after the Pentagon was struck ö one-hour and 18 minutes after Flight 11 was hijacked? [www.af.mil/sites/alphabetical.shtml#a]
According to NORAD, the F-16s from Langley were still "12 minutes/105 miles" away when the big Boeing they were "chasing" soared past the White House and the Andrews runways. Allegedly flown by an incompetent Egyptian flight student who couldn't solo a Cessna, the 757 peeled off and piled into the Pentagon after an abrupt dive and pull-up that left veteran pilots agape. [San Diego Union-Tribune Sept12/01; NBC Nightly News Sept11/01; All Fall Down]
Immediately after the Pentagon was hit, the Andrews alert jets were launched to guard empty skies. [Mirror Nov13/03]
ASLEEP AT THE SWITCH Responding to questions from a Senate confirmation committee two days after this suspicious fiasco, the Joint Chief's acting air defense chief on Sept. 11 said he was in a meeting while all hell was breaking loose in his sector.
Air Force Gen. Richard Myers had not let a TV report about a small plane hitting the World Trade Center interrupt his routine. As jumbo jetliners kept diving into buildings, apparently no one thought to inform the acting commander of U.S. air defenses that his country was under attack. Myers said he came out of his meeting just as the Pentagon was hit.
Asked repeatedly when the brass were first informed of the emergency, and when interceptors were scrambled, Myers repeated a muddled mantra six times, saying ""I'll have to get back to you on that." [www.defenselink.mil/news/Oct2001/n10232001_200110236.html]
Instead of being court-martialed like the luckless commanders defending Pearl Harbor, or even reprimanded, General Myers was awarded command of the entire U.S. military as new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Bush publicly commended the air force general for his "calm manner, sound judgment, and his clear strategic thinking." [White House press release Oct15/01]
As this bizarre and possibly treasonous story goes to press, the FAA has refused to disclose documents relating to when that agency notified U.S. air defenses about the four hijacked airliners. A second subpoena served on the Pentagon by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States has been similarly unsuccessful in attaining records concerning whether NORAD responded quickly enough in dispatching interceptors on Sept. 11. [Washington Post Nov8/03]
Instead of fingering air traffic controllers for not following procedures, these documents could show that the FAA did follow its own Standard Intercept Procedures and notify NORAD within a few minutes of each hijacking ö which would leave the Air Force with even more explaining to do.
GROUNDED The supersonic jets were flown no faster than WWII prop-driven fighters. But it hardly mattered. Sitting on the Andrews ramp just 10 miles away, were two fully armed and fueled supersonic interceptors tasked with protecting the capitol from airborne terrorist threats on 15 minutes' notice!
Isn't it about time someone asked why those routinely launched Andrews interceptors were "stood down" as Flight 77 bored in toward the headquarters they were supposed to protect? [San Diego Union-Tribune Sept12/01
In the most heavily armed nation on Earth, at least two-dozen air force installations were within fast flying time of the World Trade Center and Pentagon. Does anyone else wonder why none of those aircraft were ordered launched - or why none of the armed fighters on training flights or patrolling Air Defense Intercept Zones just off the Atlantic Coast were diverted to intercept four commandeered airliners until after the Pentagon was struck ö one-hour and 18 minutes after Flight 11 was hijacked? [www.af.mil/sites/alphabetical.shtml#a]
According to NORAD, the F-16s from Langley were still "12 minutes/105 miles" away when the big Boeing they were "chasing" soared past the White House and the Andrews runways. Allegedly flown by an incompetent Egyptian flight student who couldn't solo a Cessna, the 757 peeled off and piled into the Pentagon after an abrupt dive and pull-up that left veteran pilots agape. [San Diego Union-Tribune Sept12/01; NBC Nightly News Sept11/01; All Fall Down]
Immediately after the Pentagon was hit, the Andrews alert jets were launched to guard empty skies. [Mirror Nov13/03]
ASLEEP AT THE SWITCH Responding to questions from a Senate confirmation committee two days after this suspicious fiasco, the Joint Chief's acting air defense chief on Sept. 11 said he was in a meeting while all hell was breaking loose in his sector.
Air Force Gen. Richard Myers had not let a TV report about a small plane hitting the World Trade Center interrupt his routine. As jumbo jetliners kept diving into buildings, apparently no one thought to inform the acting commander of U.S. air defenses that his country was under attack. Myers said he came out of his meeting just as the Pentagon was hit.
Asked repeatedly when the brass were first informed of the emergency, and when interceptors were scrambled, Myers repeated a muddled mantra six times, saying ""I'll have to get back to you on that." [www.defenselink.mil/news/Oct2001/n10232001_200110236.html]
Instead of being court-martialed like the luckless commanders defending Pearl Harbor, or even reprimanded, General Myers was awarded command of the entire U.S. military as new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Bush publicly commended the air force general for his "calm manner, sound judgment, and his clear strategic thinking." [White House press release Oct15/01]
As this bizarre and possibly treasonous story goes to press, the FAA has refused to disclose documents relating to when that agency notified U.S. air defenses about the four hijacked airliners. A second subpoena served on the Pentagon by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States has been similarly unsuccessful in attaining records concerning whether NORAD responded quickly enough in dispatching interceptors on Sept. 11. [Washington Post Nov8/03]
Instead of fingering air traffic controllers for not following procedures, these documents could show that the FAA did follow its own Standard Intercept Procedures and notify NORAD within a few minutes of each hijacking ö which would leave the Air Force with even more explaining to do.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.