Eric5273 said:
Ok.......here is my last attempt at this:
NORAD says 2 fighters from Langley Air-Force Base were airborne at 9:30 and they were ordered to Washington DC to intercept Flight 77. Langley is 129 miles from the Pentagon. NORAD says the fighters were 105 miles away from the Pentagon when Flight 77 crashed. All major news sources including all the major television networks and a number of major newspapers all place the time of the crash after 9:40 and some even after 9:45. However, even if we take NORAD's timline of the crash which they say was 9:38 (several minutes earlier than any credible news source), that means the fighters travelled 24 miles in 8 minutes or they travelled at 180 mph. This is 12% of their maximum speed. If we take the more commonly reported time of the crash of 9:45, then the planes flew 24 miles in 15 minutes for an assounding speed of 96 mph.
Once again we see a convenient lack of knowledge and a twisting of numbers to suit your agenda. Do you think that you'd have to fly right toward Washington D.C. to get to New York? Your thinking is entirely single-dimensional. Add another dimension and realize that NYC is more to the east than D.C., and a straight line between the two is nowhere near the Pentagon! You'll see that a direct flight path between Langley and downtown Manhattan will get you to about 75 miles of Washington D.C. at it's closest point. So, if the pilots were told to scramble and head toward NYC, then this would explain why they were so far form Washington when the plane struck the WTC. Also, you haven't mentioned what the active runway was at Langley, where the alert barns were on the field comparitively speaking, and what the standard departure is when flying out of Langley. All of this can add some time to the equation as well. But, as I've already mentioned, you and your "9/11 commission" is way to short on simple facts such as this. Why do you need facts when they just get in the way of your pet theories?
If the fighters from Langley had travelled at even 1000 mph, they would have arrived in Washington by 9:37, 8 minutes before Flight 77 hits the Pentagon.
Once again.....they didn't fly directly towards D.C. So, 1000 miles per hour, even 3000......it all doesn't matter, and your witch hunt falls flat on it's face. Besides, the general uses 1100 miles per hour in a reference to mach airspeed at altitude. Their calibrated airspeed equivalent at low altitude would be much lower. I know for a fact that the F-15s would be tearing their wings off if they were travelling at 1100 miles per hour in the low altitude regime that they were probably in. They didn't climb to 50,000 feet from Otis. What this is, is the PA folks at Otis telling someone from the Pentagon how fast the jets were going in Mach and then the Pentagon folks taking that number and re-converting it back to miles per hour. I'll venture that the pentagon folks were using Mach at higher altitude that what the Otis jets were really at. Do you know the difference between Mach and miles per hour, and why altitude will affects these numbers drastically? To gain more insight into why your witch hunt is so off-base, I suggest you educate yourself before spewing regurgitated misleading information.
The FAA claimed they waited until 9:24 to notify NORAD about Flight 77 because they did not have the plane on radar due to its transponder being turned off. Never mind that at 8:55 when they lost it from radar it was already travelling back east (in the wrong direction from its flight plan) and that they had lost contact with the pilot at 8:50 -- according to FAA regulations, both of these occurances should have resulted in NORAD being notified immediately.
Again, can you tell me if this "immediate"notification applies to domestic commercial airline flights, or is this for flights that originate outside of our border? Once again, I'll submit that it does not. Have you even been reading my posts other than the parts you care to comment on?
The FAA claims they picked the plane back up on radar at around 9:20 and shortly after notified NORAD that the plane was headed towards Washington.
Given that 2 hijacked planes had already crashed into the WTC, and that NORAD had ordered these 2 fighters from Langley to fly to Washington to intercept this plane, why do you suppose they flied so slowly?
How do you explain this?
Okay, I'll explain it this way.........when an aircraft turns off it's transponder, it makes it EXTREMELY difficult to track using FAA ATC radar. Controllers rely upon "skin paint" to show where the plane is, and they lose the ability to get detailed information on what the aircraft is doing. In essence, they lose the altitude information, identifying information such as call sign/type/etc., and can also lose airspeed, direction of flight, etc. When you turn off the transponder, you go from an identifiable aircraft to a small blip on the radar. Amongst the thousands of the large blips on the radar scope by aircraft with their transponders on, and the equal amount of VFR aircraft with thier trasponders off, can you imagine how hard it would be to track this one tiny unidentifiable blip across the radar scope? Apparently not, since you buy into all of this bullshit.
And as to why the aircraft "flied so slowly", maybe they weren't headed for D.C. until the very end. I've already explained it. With thousands of undentified blips dropping off and popping up on the FAA's screens, and then having to figure out which one was the hijacked plane, I'm sure there were a few mistakes made. I"ll venture to say that they thought they had a plane on their scope headed toward NYC and that was what sent them off on the wild goose chase in that direction. When the FAA subsequently notified NORAD of the planes headed for Washington D.C., the Langley planes may have already been given their marching orders to find the "bogey" headed for NYC. After it was ruled out by NORAD that they Langley aircraft were not after the right aircraft, then they probably turned them back toward Washington D.C., too late.
If you want to believe that the USAF pilots took off and decided not to defend their own military headquarters building and their own capitol, then I'll submit that you are off your rocker. If you are going to say that someone in the chain deliberately sat on his or her ass and deliberatley slowed down the process to ensure the success of the hijackers, then I'll submit that you are no better in my eyes than the Weekly World News or the National Enquirer as a source of information. You can speculate all you want, but my speculation that they were after a needle in a haystack headed for NYC at first is much more credible and rooted in fact than yours.
My best guess is this:
(but if you have another theory, I'm open to listening)
The FAA is covering for NORAD by saying they screwed up and waited a half hour to notify them about Flight 77. NORAD then ignored the FAA's warning that Flight 77 was headed towards Washington and instead sent those fighters from Langley towards NY. The fighters were travelling at a normal speed, but in the elapsed time they covered much more distance than NORAD says they did as they first went towards New York and then turned back around and came back to Washington. The pilots were not to blame, NORAD was. And I suspect the NORAD operators were not to blame either as they were just following orders from up above.
I think I have clearly demonstrated that numorous screw-ups had to happen for those fighters to not intercept Flight 77.
No, just one error is all I can see, at the most. They told the Langley planes to go to New York. That's it, and that's all I get out of the miles of text you've provided. Now, in the confusion of all of this, is this something that someone should be crucified for? On a morning when confusion clearly reigned supreme, do you hold people in NORAD responsible for the murders of the people who died that morning? Or, do you do what NORAD and the other agencies have done, and that is to lick your wounds, get up on your feet again, and fix what was broken?
Why, after over two years, is there still this inquisition underway? Who specifically are you after to see hanging from the trees in front of the capitol building?
Do we try the security guards who let the vans in to park under the WTC for the first attack on the building?
Do we convict the security guards at the Centennial Olympic Park who let Eric Rudolph set off the pipe bomb during the Olympics? How about the police who let another bomb go off at an abortion clinic, only to themsleves be injured when a second bomb went off?
Do we convict the Admirals at Pearl harbor in 1941? Oops.....you probably believe in that tried-and-true conspiracy, too.....ol' FDR knew about it beforehand, right?
Forgive, me, but I'm looking to find your logic in this. There were mistakes made on the morning of 9/11, but nothing sinister as you would lead people to believe. If there were no conspiracy from the "man" and these were merely mistakes made in the confusion of what was going on,
what would you like to see happen?
These are non-issues since aircrafts were never even in range to shoot down anything. That is the next step once the fighters intercept an aircraft. This never happened, so it's a non-issue. NORAD's first job was to send up fighters to intercept the planes, and they failed to do this. The answers to your above questions have no relevence here.
If I was complaining that the fighters intercepted the planes but did not shoot them down properly, then we would have something to discuss.
No IT IS an issue, because you tried to bring up the Andrews F-16s when this debate first started, and I shot it down rather quickly. It is also an issue because you have to know these things when you figure out all of the intracies involved in intercepting aircraft. If the ROE that morning was VID (Visual Identification,) then an entirely different flight profile (airspeed, altitude, and geometrically) would have taken place than if the pilots were cleared to engage (shoot) from beyond visual range (BVR) on a hostile target. For all you know, the pilots may have had a firing solution on the plane before it even hit the Pentagon, but if they were under VID conditions, then they would not have been able to shoot. You see, all of this applies to your argument whether you choose to accept it or not. The simple fact is that none of it supports your theory, and that is why you choose to deny it.
I don't know, but NORAD commander Larry Arnold said that fighters flew 190 miles from Otis AFB to New York travelling at 1100 mph, so I'm sure fighters could travel at that speed 123 miles from Langley to Washington. Do you know of any reason why they could not?
Yep. (1) The can't travel at that airspeed in the low altitude regime. (2) They didn't fly directly to Washington. (3) They may not have been cleared to fly direct, anyway, due to one of a million ATC resons for that. (4) they could have been a part of the conspiracy, and their reptilian masters on Planet X told them not to go to Washington D.C.
Given the evidence from 9/11, why would you suspect Islamic Fundamentalists trained in Afghanistan? Please post any physical evidence which points in this direction.
I can't. I sit in an intelligence vault, and I've seen overwhelming evidence to indicate all of this. I'm (of course) not allowed to post it, so I'm going to have to live with the fact that I'll not convince you of this. No big deal to me, but
you don't know what you don't know and I'll leave it at that. My internet is a lot bigger than your is, hint hint.
Yes, but unfortunately for them, the airlines released the flight manifests almost immediately and CNN had them on their website within 24 hours. The FBI did not even come up with the names of the 19 hijackers for 48 hours, and by then it would have been too late to tamper with the lists as they had already been released.
Damn, that's some sloppy work for such a huge conspiracy just to get our hands on an oil pipeline in Afghansitan. Or could it be something else?
I don't think the remote control theory is so far fetched. The technology does exist. It's obvious that at least 2 of the planes were hijacked (maybe all 4) since there were cell phone calls from these planes saying so.
Well, this is all wild speculation. The technology exists for us to perform surgery with lasers....does that mean that we're responsible for cattle mutilations? I'll say first that this is pur hogwash, and if you knew ANYTHING about FAA certification and inspections proccesses, how thoroughly planes are inspected day in and day out and how redundant the control systems are on the plane, how many signatures and inspections are required to install new equipment, nevermind the FACT that I actually talk to 767 pilots and other airline pilots who insist that this is all 100% bullshit. and your reference that "it's possible" flies out the window. How are you going to get remote-controlled technology on board a commercial airliner without (1) it being noticed by the FAA and the airline, (2) it being noticed by the maintenance folks and the FAA inspectors who go over everything with a fine-toothed comb, or (3) the airline pilots themselves (some of them my close friends.) Also, be sure to show me where the FAA has granted any type of flight clearance for remote-controlled technology to be used on any commercial aircraft for the purpose of carrying passengers.
But none of the phone calls said anything about Arabs.
Did they say anything about them being robots? How's about the Harlem Globetrotters? Aliens? The cast of the hit series
Seinfeld?
Were any of the terrorists wearing turbans on the morning of the hijackings? It seems to me (from the surveillance video) like they were wearing business suits and looked like they didn't want to look out of place. I probably wouldn't have called them Arabs, either, or I would have been talking about more important things on the telephone like how much I loved the person on the other end of the line.
Every bit of evidence even says that these guys were lousy pilots and did not have the skill to fly these planes. The maneuver performed to turn Flight 77 around 180 degrees over Washington was said to be spectacular and not something a normal airline pilot could even pull off.
This is complete and utter bullshit. Do me a favor....go buy Flight Simulator 2000 and practice it yourself.....I could teach a monkey to do it. It takes no effort to fly a plane on a clear day, only to take it off and land it. Minimal training is all it takes, and that is all it took. For you to make a claim like this show me how little you really know about flying.
And their flight paths make no sense. If those who hijacked Flight 77 had intended to crash into the Pentagon, then why fly one hour west, and then back east when you originally took off from a Washington Airport? Likewise, why did Flight 93 fly all the way out west, and then back east. That just gives NORAD a chance to intercept the plane. It doesn't make sense.
Hmm....how's about they were lousy pilots, and they were flying the reciprocal of the direction they should have been flying on their instruments? I can easily see that happening to a novice who doesn't know what to look for in the cockpit.
Very likely none of the hijackers knew they were going to die. They may have thought they were hijacking the plane for some other reason, and then suddenly the plane is on auto pilot and there is nothing they can do because all communications to the ground are cut off.
Again, complete and utter bullshit, and conjecture at it's finest. What if the pilots and passengers had thwarted the hijacking? Would these "remote control" technologies have taken over then and finished the job so we could invade Afghanistan? I think not, because on the Boeing 767, you can pull a circuit breaker and fly the plane using manual rods, pulleys, cables, and hydraulic servos....no electrical connection to override the pilot's input then!
You do the people who died on that day a huge disservice to make these speculations and not do at least a minimum of research on the subjects.
Again, these are just speculations and I have no evidence to support them, but neither do you have any evidence of Arabs.
Oh yeah, wild speculation would be the better word for it, based on a complete lack of knowledge on several subjects to support these hairbrained theories of yours.
And yes, I have all the evidence I need, thank you. I have no need or desire to convince you of anything. I'm merely refuting your claims on a thread that you CONTINUE to hijack.
Bush should not have appointed the commission if he was going to make sure they could not do their job. If they cannot see any Justice Dept. or NORAD documents, then what exactly are they supposed to investigate?
Hell if I know. It's turned into a witch hunt, though.
Ok.......I just did. (re: addressing my points and refuting my claims)
Um, no, you didn't.
