debunking the "it wasen't a plane that crashed into the pentagon"

[lucky wilbury]

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

Hunt the Boeing!



Claim: The damage to the Pentagon on September 11 was caused by something other than a hijacked Boeing 757's being crashed into its side.
Status: False.

Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2002]


As everyone knows, on 11 September, less than an hour after the attack on the World Trade Centre, an airplane collided with the Pentagon. The Associated Press first reported that a booby-trapped truck had caused the explosion. The Pentagon quickly denied this. The official US government version of events still holds. Here's a little game for you: Take a look at these photographs and try to find evidence to corroborate the official version. It's up to you to Hunt the Boeing!



Origins:
The notion that the Pentagon was not damaged by terrorists who hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 (a Boeing 757) and crashed it into the military office complex, but that the whole affair was staged by the U.S. government, has been promulgated by French author Thierry Meyssan in his book, The Frightening Fraud. Meyssan offers no real explanation for what did cause the extensive damage to the Pentagon, asserting only that Flight 77 did not exist, no plane crashed into the Pengaton, and that "the American government is lying."

Unfortunately, the appeal of conspiracy theories has resulted in widespread dissemination of Meyssan's "theory" in France and the USA, particularly in web sites that mirror his work. As Le Nouvel Observateur noted: "This theory suits everyone - there are no Islamic extremists and everyone is happy. It eliminates reality."


picture 1 goes here:

The text cited in the example above comes from a Hunt the Boeing! And test your perceptions! web site, one of the English-language mirrors of Meyssan's claims, where readers are invited to ponder a series of questions about why photographs of the damaged Pentagon seemingly show no evidence of a crashed airplane. The answers to the questions are:


1) Can you explain how a Boeing 757-200, weighing nearly 100 tons and travelling at a minimum speed of 250 miles an hour only damaged the outside of the Pentagon?
Despite the appearances of exterior photographs, the Boeing 757-200 did not "only damage the outside of the Pentagon." It caused damage to all five rings (not just the outermost one) after penetrating a reinforced, 24-inch-thick outer wall. As 60 Minutes II reported in their "Miracle of the Pentagon" episode on 28 November 2001, the section of the Pentagon into which the hijacked airliner was flown had just been reinforced during a renovation project:


"We made several modifications to the building as part of that renovation that we think helped save people's lives," says Lee Evey, who runs a billion-dollar project to renovate the Pentagon. They’ve been working on it since 1993. The first section was five days from being finished when the terrorists hit it with the plane.
The renovation project built strength into the 60-year-old limestone exterior with a web of steel beams and columns.

"You have these steel tubes and, again, they go from the first floor and go all the way to the fifth floor," says Evey. "We have everything bolted together in a strong steel matrix. It supports and encases the windows and provides tremendous additional strength to the wall."

When the plane hit at 350 miles an hour, the limestone layer shattered. But inside, those shards of stone were caught by a shield of cloth that lines the entire section of the building.

It is a special cloth that helps prevent masonry from fragmenting and turning into shrapnel. The cloth is also used to make bullet-resistant vests.

All of this, especially the steel, held up the third, fourth and fifth floors. They stayed up for 35 minutes. You can see them through the smoke, suspended over the hole gouged by the jet. Only after the evacuation did the heat melt the new steel away. Evey says that without the reconstruction, the floors might have collapsed immediately.

Exterior photographs are misleading because they show only the intact roof structures of the outer rings and don't reveal that the plane penetrated all the way to the ground floor of the third ring. As a U.S. Army press release noted back on 26 September 2001, one engine of the aircraft punched a 12-foot hole through the wall of the second ring:


On the inside wall of the second ring of the Pentagon, a nearly circular hole, about 12-feet wide, allows light to pour into the building from an internal service alley. An aircraft engine punched the hole out on its last flight after being broken loose from its moorings on the plane. The result became a huge vent for the subsequent explosion and fire. Signs of fire and black smoke now ring the outside of the jagged-edged hole.
Recall that when the first airliner was flown into a World Trade Center tower on September 11 — before it was known that the "accident" was really part of a deliberate terrorist attack — newscasters were speculating that a small plane had accidentally flown into the side of the tower, because the visible exterior damage didn't seem as extensive as what people thought a large airliner would cause. Even though the two airplanes flown into the World Trade Center towers were travelling faster at the time of impact than the Pentagon plane was (400 MPH vs. 350 MPH), hit aluminum-and-glass buildings rather than reinforced concrete walls, and didn't dissipate much of their energy striking the ground first (as the Pentagon plane did), they still barely penetrated all the way through the WTC towers.

Below is a recent (11 March 2002) photograph of the the rebuilding effort underway at the Pentagon, demonstrating that far more than just the "outside" of the building was damaged and needed to be repaired:



pic 2 goes here

2) Can you explain how a Boeing 14.9 yards high, 51.7 yards long, with a wingspan of 41.6 yards and a cockpit 3.8 yards high, could crash into just the ground floor of this building?
As eyewitnesses described and photographs demonstrate, the hijacked airliner dived so low as it approached the Pentagon that it actually hit the ground first, thereby dissipating much of the energy that might otherwise have caused more extensive damage to the building; nonetheless, as described by The New York Times, the plane still hit not "just the ground floor" but between the first and second floors:


The Boeing 757 crashed into the outer edge of the building between the first and second floors, "at full power," Mr. Rumsfeld said. It penetrated three of the five concentric rings of the building.
Another account of the crash described:


The plane banked sharply and came in so low that it clipped light poles. It slammed into the side of the Pentagon at an estimated 350 miles per hour after first hitting the helipad. The plane penetrated the outer three rings of the building. The jet fuel exploded, which sent a fireball outward from the impact point. About 30 minutes after the crash, a cross-section of the building collapsed, but only after enough time had elapsed for rescue workers to evacuate all injured employees.
The fire was so hot that firefighters could not approach the impact point itself until approximately 1 P.M. The collapse and roof fires left the inner courtyard visible from outside through a gaping hole. The area hit by the plane was newly renovated and reinforced, while the areas surrounding the impact zone were closed in preparation for renovation, so the death toll could have been much higher if another area had been hit.

Next question:


3) You'll remember that the aircraft only hit the ground floor of the Pentagon's first ring. Can you find debris of a Boeing 757-200 in this photograph?
You'll recall from the discussions above that the hijacked airliner did not "only hit the ground floor of the Pentagon's first ring" — it struck the Pentagon between the first and second floors and blasted all the way through to the third ring. Because the plane disappeared into the building's interior after penetrating the outer ring, it was not visible in photographs taken from outside the Pentagon. Moreover, since the airliner was full of jet fuel and was flown into thick, reinforced concrete walls at high speed, exploding in a fireball, any pieces of wreckage large enough to be identifiable in after-the-fact photographs taken from a few hundred feet away burned up in the intense fire that followed the crash (just as the planes flown into the World Trade Center towers burned up, and the intensity of their jet-fuel fires caused both towers to collapse).

Small pieces of airplane debris were plainly visible on the Pentagon lawn in other photographs, however, such as the one below:



pic 3 goes here

4) Can you explain why the Defence Secretary deemed it necessary to sand over the lawn, which was otherwise undamaged after the attack?
The claim that the "Defence Secretary" ordered the lawn to be sanded over is false. A base of sand and gravel was laid on the Pentagon lawn because the trucks and other heavy equipment used to haul away the debris (as shown in the photograph below) would have been slipping and sliding on the grass and become mired in the Pentagon lawn otherwise.



pic 4 goes here:

5) Can you explain what happened to the wings of the aircraft and why they caused no damage?
As the front of the Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, the outer portions of the wings likely snapped during the initial impact, then were pushed inward towards the fuselage and carried into the building's interior; the inner portions of the wings probably penetrated the Pentagon walls with the rest of the plane. Any sizable portions of the wings were destroyed in the explosion or the subsequent fire. Nonetheless, damage to the building caused by the plane's wings is plainly visible in photographs, such as the one below (note the blackened sections on both sides of the impact site):



pic 5 goes here

6) Can you explain why the County Fire Chief could not tell reporters where the aircraft was?
The exact quote offered here was:


When asked by a journalist: "Is there anything left of the aircraft at all?"
"First of all, the question about the aircraft, there are some small pieces of aircraft visible from the interior during this fire-fighting operation I'm talking about, but not large sections. In other words, there's no fuselage sections and that sort of thing." "You know, I'd rather not comment on that. We have a lot of eyewitnesses that can give you better information about what actually happened with the aircraft as it approached. So we don't know. I don't know."

The fire chief wasn't asked "where the aircraft was"; he was asked "Is there anything left of the aircraft at all?" He did indeed provide an answer to the question he was asked: There were no large sections of the plane left by the time he was asked (the day after the attack) because they had been smashed into smaller pieces by the impact and then burned up; all that remained were smaller pieces visible only from the interior of the Pentagon.


7) Can you find the aircraft's point of impact?
Immediately after Flight 77 smashed into the Pentagon, the impact was obscured by a huge fireball, explosions, fire, smoke, and water from firefighting efforts. Within a half hour, the upper stories of the building collapsed, thereby permanently obscuring the impact site. It simply wasn't possible for photographs to capture a clear view of the impact site during that brief interval between the crash and the collapse.

In photographs like the one provided (below left), the impact site is obscured by water from firefighters' hoses and smoke. A two-story high impact hole does exist right behind the fireman in the photograph, but it's covered over by water issuing from the fire truck.

By the time the smoke and water cleared, additional portions of the building had collapsed (below right), further obscuring the impact point.

pic 6+7 go here

Last updated: 1 April 2002



The URL for this page is http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
Click here to e-mail this page to a friend
Urban Legends Reference Pages © 1995-2004
by Barbara and David P. Mikkelson
This material may not be reproduced without permission



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sources:
Harrison, Rebecca. "Sept. 11 Conspiracy Theory Book Lures French."
Reuters. 1 April 2002.

Henley, Jon. "US Invented Air Attack on Pentagon, Claims French Book."
The Guardian. 1 April 2002.

[lucky wilbury]

you'll have to click on the link to see the pic since they don't allow hot linking of pics

[Ally_Kat]

one

[Ally_Kat]

two

[Ally_Kat]

three

[Ally_Kat]

four

[Ally_Kat]

five

[Ally_Kat]

six

[Ally_Kat]

seven

[Seshmeister]

I never bought that conspiracy for more than 5 minutes.


It is good to know though that our government defence departments take so much time and spend so much money defending themselves.

It's like the nuclear bunker thing. All these guys have places in bunkers if there was ever a nuclear holocaust but what the hell they will govern or defend after one has never been explained to me.

Also not a great gene pool to restart the human race with IMHO...:)

Cheers!


:gulp:

[WACF]

You gotta admit though...when you are bored it is fun to read some of the theories.
I was always amazed at the speculation about what or what did not hit the pentagon.

[Seshmeister]

Some of the pictures were strange.

I think the plane must have almost vaporised...

[tobinentinc]

All I have to say is fuck the French. If it wasn't for the US there would be no France. And don't give me that bull shit there would have been no US if not for France. The US would have still won, except it would have taken longer. They try and beat us politically and socially, cause they know they can't beat us any other way. But yet, they fail at that.

[ELVIS]

What do the French have to do with this topic ??

[tobinentinc]

Check the one below.

[tobinentinc]

Originally posted by ELVIS
What do the French have to do with this topic ??

The guy who wrote the book saying it was false was french. Just wanted to spout off against them too. Any excuse I guess.

[ELVIS]

Oh, I see...:D

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
seven

Sorry babe, but your pics don't match up very well. In fact, it's almost as if you are trying to make the arguement against a plane hitting the pentagon.

Regardless, what I want you to consider is this. Two F-16 fighter jets were dispatched after the hijackings, arriving just too late to watch the second plane hit the WTC. Now here is the funny thing. F-16's don't leave base with half full tanks of gas, they leave with full tanks of gas. The fighter jet has a combat radius of over 1500 square miles. This means that those jets could have been upon the remaining two planes (Pennsylvania and the Pentagon plane) in SECONDS, yet they were called away. They let the other planes continue on to their fates.

Knowing these planes were hijacked and being used as missles, I have GOT to ask you WHY?????????????????? WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY ???????

[ELVIS]

You are incorrect sir...

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by ELVIS
You are incorrect sir...

Uh... ...NO, I'm not!

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by Keeyth
Sorry babe, but your pics don't match up very well. In fact, it's almost as if you are trying to make the arguement against a plane hitting the pentagon.

Regardless, what I want you to consider is this. Two F-16 fighter jets were dispatched after the hijackings, arriving just too late to watch the second plane hit the WTC. Now here is the funny thing. F-16's don't leave base with half full tanks of gas, they leave with full tanks of gas. The fighter jet has a combat radius of over 1500 square miles. This means that those jets could have been upon the remaining two planes (Pennsylvania and the Pentagon plane) in SECONDS, yet they were called away. They let the other planes continue on to their fates.

Knowing these planes were hijacked and being used as missles, I have GOT to ask you WHY?????????????????? WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY ???????

you relize you don't know what your talking about right? 1500 sq miles is a box of 10 miles by 150 miles or 150 mile wide box by 10 miles long. f 16 have an unlimated range since they can be refueled mid air but no air tankers were in the air on 9-11. but normally their range is about 2,100 nm or 2,425 miles and thats only if they stayed at cruising speeds the whole time but they didn't on 9-11 getting from nyc from otis. the faster they go the more fuel they burn. now lets not forget the planes from otis stayed in a cover pattern over nyc on 9-11 and they didn't leave. now take into account that there are almost 4,800 planes in the air at any given moment over the us with the ability to find 2 of those with out their transponders on is nill. no chance zero. without their transponders on all the become is light aircrat ala a cesna. they would have spent half the time chasing down piper cubs and false radar hits that were flocks of birds rather then finding any plane

[ELVIS]

Thank you Lucky...

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by Keeyth
Sorry babe, but your pics don't match up very well.

:rolleyes:

They're not my pictures. They are the pictures on the site that I was asked to save and attached because someone was having computer problems

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
you relize you don't know what your talking about right? 1500 sq miles is a box of 10 miles by 150 miles or 150 mile wide box by 10 miles long. f 16 have an unlimated range since they can be refueled mid air but no air tankers were in the air on 9-11. but normally their range is about 2,100 nm or 2,425 miles and thats only if they stayed at cruising speeds the whole time but they didn't on 9-11 getting from nyc from otis. the faster they go the more fuel they burn. now lets not forget the planes from otis stayed in a cover pattern over nyc on 9-11 and they didn't leave. now take into account that there are almost 4,800 planes in the air at any given moment over the us with the ability to find 2 of those with out their transponders on is nill. no chance zero. without their transponders on all the become is light aircrat ala a cesna. they would have spent half the time chasing down piper cubs and false radar hits that were flocks of birds rather then finding any plane

Thank you for making my point for me on the fuel. They could have easily of made it to the other two planes!

I don't give a rats ass about the transponders. Air traffic control could have picked them up on radar just from being a chunk of metal in the sky. What, do you work for the Bush propoganda campaign?

[ELVIS]

You will never outsmart Lucky!

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
:rolleyes:

They're not my pictures. They are the pictures on the site that I was asked to save and attached because someone was having computer problems

Well, to me those pictures show that no plane hit that building. Not at 250-600 miles per hour. It would have gone straight thru and beyond the middle of the building. Where are the wings? And what was that on the front lawn? A coke can? With no other debris anywhere around it?

Notice how the plane crashed into the Army side of the pentagon, not harming a hair on the head of the top brass? Very interesting...

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by ELVIS
You will never outsmart Lucky!

Been there. Done that.

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by Keeyth
Well, to me those pictures show that no plane hit that building. Not at 250-600 miles per hour. It would have gone straight thru and beyond the middle of the building. Where are the wings? And what was that on the front lawn? A coke can? With no other debris anywhere around it?

Notice how the plane crashed into the Army side of the pentagon, not harming a hair on the head of the top brass? Very interesting...

That's why you read the article. It's the pictures on the site to the article I was asked to put up here. Read the article and it explains it. I didn't say jack shit about anything.

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
That's why you read the article. It's the pictures on the site to the article I was asked to put up here. Read the article and it explains it. I didn't say jack shit about anything.

Hell if you remember correctly I POSTED that article in a previous thread a long time ago... ...I have read it, and I say the pictures go against what he is trying to debunk. the pics don't look like any plane hit the building is my point.

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by Keeyth
Thank you for making my point for me on the fuel. They could have easily of made it to the other two planes!

no they couldn't. they were down to under half amost a thrid of a tank since going to mach 1 and over burns fuel way fast. they would have fallen out of the sky because they were out of fuel.


Originally posted by Keeyth
I don't give a rats ass about the transponders. Air traffic control could have picked them up on radar just from being a chunk of metal in the sky. What, do you work for the Bush propoganda campaign?

do you even know what a transponder is? by your response i guess not. a transponder is a device on most aircrat that give the flt name,speed, altitude automatically. it's a tracking becon. most small planes don't have them they have to check in and identify themselves with air traffic control with they pass through radar coverage areas for airports. on 9-11 the planbes transponders were shut off so on radar all they would appear as is a small non commercial plane. you would have had every fighter in the us military casing down every person who was flying their pipers and cesnas etc etc. radar cand't tell the difference between planes

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by Keeyth
Thank you for making my point for me on the fuel. They could have easily of made it to the other two planes!

I don't give a rats ass about the transponders. Air traffic control could have picked them up on radar just from being a chunk of metal in the sky. What, do you work for the Bush propoganda campaign?

Hi you all...Hils' brother there. I have to jump in for a quick second.

*German Scientist voice* Vell, Vell, Veeeery Interesting....But Stooooopid!


F16s can refuel in mid-air. It helps if you have a refueling tanker to refuel dipshit. Since they were low on fuel in New York City there is no possible way to go to Pennsylvania, do standard maneuvers, and if nessecary, take hostile action with airial combat procedures. There would not be enough fuel if they even did find the planes. They themselves would run out on the way home or have to make an emergency landing and then possibly be stranded. And that would only make things worse because now you have an expensive aircraft on the ground and they would need to take action to retrieve it.

And what's this you are saying about air traffic? Uh, no. I do hope you never get a job as an air traffic controller. With the transponders off, to search for a plane, you have to go thru what you know. How fast it's going, noise level, height, all that crap. Why, so you can rule out if it's a bird or a bi-plane because old bi-planes do not have transponders. You don't get how big the plane is on the screens they have. With the transponders on, it tells you what type on plane, flight info (detination and all), time of takeoff and landing, and airline. With it off, you see jack shit on a radar, in which case, air traffic wouldn't know anything. It would first look where the plane stopped transponding. But since it did a uturn --

http://www.september11news.com/FlightPaths.gif

it would be harder to find. How would you know where to start looking?

Closing remarks--

I'm right and you're wrong because i have licenses to do this shit, beotch.

[ELVIS]

Awesome!

[John Ashcroft]

Originally posted by Keeyth
Now here is the funny thing. F-16's don't leave base with half full tanks of gas, they leave with full tanks of gas. The fighter jet has a combat radius of over 1500 square miles. This means that those jets could have been upon the remaining two planes (Pennsylvania and the Pentagon plane) in SECONDS, yet they were called away. They let the other planes continue on to their fates.


Absolutely 100% false. So many factors determine the fuel load any aircraft takes off with. Temperature, weather, wet or dry runway, weapons load, even availablility of tankers can alter the acceptable gross take-off weight (and therefore affecting range). Oh, and by the way, many of the same factors determing range including altitude, barometric pressure, afterburn duration, etc.

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by Keeyth
I don't give a rats ass about the transponders. Air traffic control could have picked them up on radar just from being a chunk of metal in the sky.



uh...air traffic controllers don't have radar that works over long distances. their actual radars are short distance, mostly take-off and landing radars.

when you hear about radar for the duration of the trip, they're talking about secondary radar, which is the transponder signal.




and JA, what the hell do you know about F-16s? where you in the air force or something?! ;)

[John Ashcroft]

Heh heh heh... I've actually got some F-16 sim time (didn't really know what the hell I was doing though...) Anyway, it was fun. But I've got no time in a 16 (The Air Force only gives buddy rides to movie stars and politician's sons...) What I do have is 3200 flight hours in AWACS. I'm not a pilot, as most of you know, but we would all mission plan together for the accomplishment of any mission. To certify as "combat ready" you literally have to know a bit about every crew member's job, not just your own.

Anyway, I've personally assisted in the refuelling of our aircraft many times, adjusting fuel load because of the issues I've mentioned above. Oh, and about ATC, you're dead on KB. ATC uses their IFF system exclusively for long range (I.E. tracking via transponder replies). They only use their radar, which is short range, for final approach (for altitude information on each track, as well as range and azimuth resolution (which is much better with a tracking radar than an interrogator system)).

Anyway, all of which means one thing... Keef is utterly clueless (and full of shit). :D

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
no they couldn't. they were down to under half amost a thrid of a tank since going to mach 1 and over burns fuel way fast. they would have fallen out of the sky because they were out of fuel.



do you even know what a transponder is? by your response i guess not. a transponder is a device on most aircrat that give the flt name,speed, altitude automatically. it's a tracking becon. most small planes don't have them they have to check in and identify themselves with air traffic control with they pass through radar coverage areas for airports. on 9-11 the planbes transponders were shut off so on radar all they would appear as is a small non commercial plane. you would have had every fighter in the us military casing down every person who was flying their pipers and cesnas etc etc. radar cand't tell the difference between planes


So you're telling me that a simple flight from Otis air force base to the WTC is going to use all of the jets fuel, huh? Some fighter jet! Hope it never has to see combat if it can't stay in the air for more that a few minutes. I don't buy your lame fuel excuse, sorry.

And if, just for the sake of argument, we did buy your far fetched excuse, why were these the only two planes deployed??? We heard rumors the other hijacked planes might be headed to the White House, so why weren't tere other planes in the air?? Why wasn't there PLENTY of firepower in the air, the MINUTE the first plane hit????

You either work for the Bush administration, or you have earned the title of King Busheep!!

[Ally_Kat]

JA, I know you ain't a pilot, but I just got the cutest image of you in a flight suit...

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
Hi you all...Hils' brother there. I have to jump in for a quick second.

*German Scientist voice* Vell, Vell, Veeeery Interesting....But Stooooopid!


I'm right and you're wrong because i have licenses to do this shit, beotch.

Lame. you're just another Bush Sheep dude. The time difference between when the last plane hit was like an hour after the WTC planes. I think we have not only the technology, but also the extra planes to go out looking, especially after the kind of terror inflicted by the first two planes.

You have a license to do what? Be a MORON, BEEYYOTCH???:cool:

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by John Ashcroft


Anyway, all of which means one thing... Keef is utterly clueless (and full of shit). :D

Coming from you that's almost a compliment, for you know naught being the sheep you are. By the way, you read lately about what a psycho you real life namesake has become? Might wanna get a new username, unless you wanna stay on the sinking ship that is the Bush Administration.,..:p :D

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by Keeyth
Lame. you're just another Bush Sheep dude.


LMMFAO! Ah, that's classic in only a way I'd know.

So are you calling everybody you argue with a Bush Sheep, pumpkin pie?

[Big Train]

Keeyth says...

And if, just for the sake of argument, we did buy your far fetched excuse, why were these the only two planes deployed??? We heard rumors the other hijacked planes might be headed to the White House, so why weren't tere other planes in the air?? Why wasn't there PLENTY of firepower in the air, the MINUTE the first plane hit????

I say 6 sidewinders a piece , x 2 planes...equals a LOT of firepower. 12 planes could be shot down just over Washington alone, by two planes....see pic is it isn't getting through...

Lame Bushsheep out.

[Snow Ho]

never mind my question was just answered. but another one :
"12 planes could be shot down just over Washington alone, by two planes"
wouldn't more planes though cover more ground??? i don't know anything about the air force.

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by Snow Ho
how many air force planes were sent out after the attack?

Only two... ...and late at that. Rumor has it that Andrews air force base went on alert as soon as the first plane lost transponder contact, but were later given a 'Stand Down' order, which can only come from the National Command (ie; the President)

Their website even stated on 9-11-01 that they had "Readily available fighter jets at the highest state of alert" but the website was altered two days after the attacks to go along with VP Cheneys bullshit statement that there were no fighter jets available.

What utter bullshit from a country with the biggest military in the world. :mad:

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
LMMFAO! Ah, that's classic in only a way I'd know.

So are you calling everybody you argue with a Bush Sheep, pumpkin pie?


If you buy and believe the bullshit that the Bush Administration sells you, then yes, you are a Bush sheep in my opinion. Let's not forget who started calling names either, pumpkin!

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by Snow Ho
never mind my question was just answered. but another one :
"12 planes could be shot down just over Washington alone, by two planes"
wouldn't more planes though cover more ground??? i don't know anything about the air force.

Thank you. Common sense, though rare here, is always welcome...

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by Keeyth
If you buy and believe the bullshit that the Bush Administration sells you, then yes, you are a Bush sheep in my opinion. Let's not forget who started calling names either, pumpkin!

between who? Me and you or you and my brother?

[John Ashcroft]

Originally posted by Keef
And if, just for the sake of argument, we did buy your far fetched excuse, why were these the only two planes deployed??? We heard rumors the other hijacked planes might be headed to the White House, so why weren't tere other planes in the air?? Why wasn't there PLENTY of firepower in the air, the MINUTE the first plane hit????


That's an easy one! It's because you weren't in charge of national defense...

If you want the real answer, you can ask politely.

[Seshmeister]

The problem with all these cosnpiracy theory guys is that they never take account of the huge number of fuck ups and general incompetance that happens on a day to day basis out in the real world.

Especially in the government and military - the backroom boys there are the people the post office rejected.


Cheers!

:gulp:

[John Ashcroft]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
JA, I know you ain't a pilot, but I just got the cutest image of you in a flight suit...

Wore one for almost 10 years darlin'. And I'm not one of those fat-asses that squeeze it all in... Maybe we could do a picture trade via PM...;)

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by Keeyth
So you're telling me that a simple flight from Otis air force base to the WTC is going to use all of the jets fuel, huh? Some fighter jet! Hope it never has to see combat if it can't stay in the air for more that a few minutes. I don't buy your lame fuel excuse, sorry.

appearently you've missed and ignored the other posts that said the same thing you know the posts from JA who is ex air force and ally brother who does this stuff as well. stick you head in the sand and ignore what your being told but a fighter going top speed is going to burn a hell of a lot of fuel and by doing so is going to severly limit its range. but don't let facts get in the way of you crap


Originally posted by Keeyth
And if, just for the sake of argument, we did buy your far fetched excuse, why were these the only two planes deployed??? We heard rumors the other hijacked planes might be headed to the White House, so why weren't tere other planes in the air?? Why wasn't there PLENTY of firepower in the air, the MINUTE the first plane hit????

there weren't any rumours and you can't send up planes at will because we don't keep planes on strip alert. it takes time to fuel and arm planes. the planes form otis were two ang planes who were just putting in their hours at the same time as 9-11. you can't send up planes and chase all 4,800 planes that are in the air at any given moment in us air space.


Originally posted by Keeyth
You either work for the Bush administration, or you have earned the title of King Busheep!!

yep thats it :rolleyes: it's quite clear to everyone that you know nothing and all you do is talk out of your ass hoping you won't get called on your bullshit you know NOTHING about what you post. all you seem to do is google something then post the results no matter how retarded the site is you post you do it anyway to try to make youself look smart when in fact you come off looking like and idiot the you cll everyone a bush sheep and ignore facts.

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
between who? Me and you or you and my brother?

Your brother. Although the spelling is questionable, I believe 'beotch' was the beginning of the name calling...

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by Keeyth
Your brother. Although the spelling is questionable, I believe 'beotch' was the beginning of the name calling...

Okay, but you also called me a Bush Sheep and all I call you is pumpkin pie, and that's after the fact. You call EVERYONE who won't sit and believe your claims a Bush Sheep.

Beotch is a common term with the youth today and they add it on everything over here.

And me calling your sentence classic has nothing to do with name calling. I found it funny because I know my brother, that's all. No one else here will understand why I found it funny, but whatever :rolleyes:

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
appearently you've missed and ignored the other posts that said the same thing you know the posts from JA who is ex air force and ally brother who does this stuff as well. stick you head in the sand and ignore what your being told but a fighter going top speed is going to burn a hell of a lot of fuel and by doing so is going to severly limit its range. but don't let facts get in the way of you crap



Whatever dude. Fighter jets take off from aircraft carriers far offshore and go on to have dogfights for long periods of time over the desert and are still able to return to their aircraft carriers... ...or am I wrong about that too?? Just making that up??? Get a clue dude.

And I don't believe I have ever 'googled' anything and then posted it here. If you have some proof, please post it.

I question the so-called 'experience' of these people like JA and ally's brother they same way a good investigative reporter questions any source... ...ESPECIALLY when their answers fly in the face of common sense and logic.

Of the two of us, regarding the events of 9-11, I would have to say it is YOU who has his head in the sand brother!

[Big Train]

Keeyth,

Since everything must be spelled out (for "Common Sense" to take place) read the following facts about the F-16, and learn something:

The primary target detection sensor of the F-16A/B is the Westinghouse AN/APG-66 pulsed-Doppler radar. Pulse-Dopper radars operate by measuring the frequency shift that is created by target velocity in order to discriminate between a genuine aircraft and ground clutter. The APG-66 has a medium pulse repetition frequency or PRF for short (typically 10 to 15 kHz). It operates in the I/J band and has a flat-plate planar array antenna. Sixteen operating frequencies are available within the I/J band, and the pilot can select between any four of them.



The APG-66 reduces the radar data to digital form and presents the pilot with a synthetically-generated image made up of a set of predefined symbols. The display is free from clutter and is much easier to read than previous displays, but the ability to discriminate between real and false targets depends entirely on the quality of the software used to control the signal processing equipment.



Radar operating modes may be selected by the pilot by using either the throttle, the sidestick controller, or knobs on the radar control panel. The primary air-to-air search mode is Downlook, which provides clutter-free indication of low- flying targets. Fighter-sized aircraft can be detected at ranges of up to 35 miles. In the Uplook mode, there is no need for the filtering out of spurious responses from the ground, and the pilot can detect targets at ranges of up to 50 miles.



Four modes are available for air-to-air combat. In the Dogfight mode, the radar automatically scans a 20-degree by 20-degree field in the forward direction. If the pilot can see the the target in his HUD, and the range is less than ten miles, the radar will automatically lock on. If high-g maneuvers are to be carried out, the area to be searched can be altered to a 40-degree by 10-degree pattern. If multiple targets are present, the pilot can press the Designate button on his sidestick controller. The radar will then operate in a slim narrow-beam mode, and by maneuvering his aircraft, the pilot can place the beam onto the required target. When he releases the designate button, the radar will acquire and track the chosen target. A Slewable air-combat mode can be used to allow the scan pattern to be moved in anticipation of target maneuvers.

Plenty o firepower and technology to control the situation and shoot down multiple aircraft, as they would be targeted on the way.

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by John Ashcroft
Wore one for almost 10 years darlin'. And I'm not one of those fat-asses that squeeze it all in... Maybe we could do a picture trade via PM...;)

Ah, your lucky lady.

If I were her, I'd insist the Top Gun treatment randomly. :D :o

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by Keeyth
Whatever dude. Fighter jets take off from aircraft carriers far offshore and go on to have dogfights for long periods of time over the desert and are still able to return to their aircraft carriers... ...or am I wrong about that too?? Just making that up??? Get a clue dude.

a us fighter jet hasen't seen air to air action since gulf war 1 over iraq, even then the ones that did were refuled in mid air after seeing action over northern iraq because they were out of fuel. you are making it up. even in places like afghanistan our planes get refueled mid way and reurn home and thats just going on a routine patrol. armaments and a high rate of speed burn fuel and limimt the amount of time a plane can spend in the air. plain and simple. that shouldn't be to hard to understand now is it?


Originally posted by Keeyth
And I don't believe I have ever 'googled' anything and then posted it here. If you have some proof, please post it.

every link you've posted is the first hit in a google search.


Originally posted by Keeyth
I question the so-called 'experience' of these people like JA and ally's brother they same way a good investigative reporter questions any source... ...ESPECIALLY when their answers fly in the face of common sense and logic.

so your calling ja and ally bro liars? hate to break the news to you but a: their answers add up b: they have a hell of a lot more creditablity then you.


Originally posted by Keeyth
Of the two of us, regarding the events of 9-11, I would have to say it is YOU who has his head in the sand brother!

right thats why it seems nothing you say can actually be backed up by anything.your shits been debunked for years but just ignore it. everyone else is a liar and a bush sheep and no one here is or was in the military. thats it no one but you knows what their talking about. :rolleyes:

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by Keeyth
I question the so-called 'experience' of these people like JA and ally's brother they same way a good investigative reporter questions any source... ...ESPECIALLY when their answers fly in the face of common sense and logic.


As a reporter, I shall tell you these sources are reliable. A friendly association to a man who was enlisted in the air force -- hell, any military section-- and dealt with these issues hands on and another who is a top mechanic and knows planes in and out and why they do what they do are exactly the kind of sources an investigate reporter has wet dreams about when having to deal with reporting on plane incidents.

And where do you get your plane knowledge from? What base did you work at and/or for what airline do you work for? How often do you deal with planes? What licenses do you have? For what airports do you have clearance for?

[John Ashcroft]

Originally posted by Keeyth
Whatever dude. Fighter jets take off from aircraft carriers far offshore and go on to have dogfights for long periods of time over the desert and are still able to return to their aircraft carriers... ...or am I wrong about that too?? Just making that up??? Get a clue dude.

And I don't believe I have ever 'googled' anything and then posted it here. If you have some proof, please post it.

I question the so-called 'experience' of these people like JA and ally's brother they same way a good investigative reporter questions any source... ...ESPECIALLY when their answers fly in the face of common sense and logic.

Of the two of us, regarding the events of 9-11, I would have to say it is YOU who has his head in the sand brother!

Man, you're just digging yourself in deeper and deeper. You truly don't know what the fuck you're talking about, and yet it doesn't stop you. It's kinda weird dude...

Naval aircraft refuel almost immediately after takeoff. This is absolutely irrefutable. They don't only if responding to a threat to the fleet. And in these cases their range is severly limited. I don't know if you completely understand what the people here are telling you. But I can tell you from personal experience that this is the way fighter airplanes work. I've spent plenty of time monitoring refueling operations over a good chunk of the globe. AWACS is responsible for controlling refueling rendezvous’ between tankers and all types of military aircraft. I'm telling you, operations from a naval carrier goes like this: 1. Take off 2. Check in with either AWACS or the Hawkeyes (and even possibly the air controllers on the carrier, as they can coordinate air refuelling as well). 3. rendezvous with a tanker and refuel. 4. Blow shit up. 5. Possibly refuel again. 6. Land.

Although short range strikes can be accomplished without refueling, it's undesireable in the event things don't go as planned (which the pilots naturally plan for), and they need to fight their way out of hostile territory.

I know though, none of this makes "common sense"...:rolleyes:

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by Big Train
Keeyth,



Plenty o firepower and technology to control the situation and shoot down multiple aircraft, as they would be targeted on the way.

So... ...are you agreeing that there was plenty of firepower and time for those fighters to get to the other planes?

[Keeyth]

Jeeeesssssssussssssss H. Chhhhrriiiiissssttttt !!

JA, Ally and Wilbury,

Why do you Republican clones, or right wingers, all sound the same, and resort to the same tactics??? Go ahead and kill the fuel theory all you want. It's like such a non-issue, but like the G.W Bush would do, you ignore the greater point to take a stand on an insignifigant detail. Look, what I want you to tell me is, F-- the fuel in the two planes, tell me WHY IN THE HELL WERE THERE ONLY TWO PLANES IN ALL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AVAILABLE FOR THAT TASK??????? What, we only have two fucking fighter jets in our multi-BILLION, possibly TRILLION dollar Air Force defending the Home base??????

Keep trying to throw 'Common Sense' back at me by showing you have NONE!!!!! Bring it!!

[Big Train]

Firepower yes, on the basis of what I know about the planes. Time I am not so sure about.

[BigBadBrian]

Originally posted by Keeyth
Jeeeesssssssussssssss H. Chhhhrriiiiissssttttt !!

JA, Ally and Wilbury,

Why do you Republican clones, or right wingers, all sound the same, and resort to the same tactics??? Go ahead and kill the fuel theory all you want. It's like such a non-issue, but like the G.W Bush would do, you ignore the greater point to take a stand on an insignifigant detail. Look, what I want you to tell me is, F-- the fuel in the two planes, tell me WHY IN THE HELL WERE THERE ONLY TWO PLANES IN ALL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AVAILABLE FOR THAT TASK??????? What, we only have two fucking fighter jets in our multi-BILLION, possibly TRILLION dollar Air Force defending the Home base??????

Keep trying to throw 'Common Sense' back at me by showing you have NONE!!!!! Bring it!!


I simply can't decide whether or not you're an idiot, a moron, or an imbecile. Fellas, wanna help me out on this? :gulp:

[Big Train]

This whole thing is a battle of shifting arguments. First, it was the afterburners/fuel load. Then it was whether or not 2 F16's could take on multiple unarmed passenger jets. Now it is about the time.

Every time he loses, we shift focus (liberal tactic du jour).

I guess I would vote idiot....all those in favor say I.....

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by Big Train
This whole thing is a battle of shifting arguments. First, it was the afterburners/fuel load. Then it was whether or not 2 F16's could take on multiple unarmed passenger jets. Now it is about the time.

Every time he loses, we shift focus (liberal tactic du jour).

I guess I would vote idiot....all those in favor say I.....


You would use French the way you seem to flop around on your own position... ...making yourself the bigger idiot in the process.:rolleyes:

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by BigBadBrian
I simply can't decide whether or not you're an idiot, a moron, or an imbecile. Fellas, wanna help me out on this? :gulp:

Well, that IS a pretty big decision for you... ...why don't you have another drink and think about it... ...just before you pass out drooling...?:D

[Big Train]

Do tell me exactly where I have flopped around on my position, I'd love to know.

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by Big Train
Do tell me exactly where I have flopped around on my position, I'd love to know.

Tell me where I have flopped around. My main point is: Where was our military after 4, count em, 4 simultaneous hijackings occur, an event which has never happened in the history of man, where was our military????

Remember Payne Stewart, the golfer? His plane lost oxygen, and went down killing eveyone on board. You know what else? Fighter jets were upon him in minutes, trying to help if they could. They couldn't do anything, yet they were there instantly, WITHOUT Presidential authorization.

On 9-11, it's like our military didn't exist. Pretty convenient I'd say, for the terrorists. The terrorists in the White House today, that is....

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by Keeyth
Jeeeesssssssussssssss H. Chhhhrriiiiissssttttt !!

JA, Ally and Wilbury,

Why do you Republican clones, or right wingers, all sound the same, and resort to the same tactics??? Go ahead and kill the fuel theory all you want. It's like such a non-issue, but like the G.W Bush would do, you ignore the greater point to take a stand on an insignifigant detail. Look, what I want you to tell me is, F-- the fuel in the two planes, tell me WHY IN THE HELL WERE THERE ONLY TWO PLANES IN ALL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AVAILABLE FOR THAT TASK??????? What, we only have two fucking fighter jets in our multi-BILLION, possibly TRILLION dollar Air Force defending the Home base??????

Keep trying to throw 'Common Sense' back at me by showing you have NONE!!!!! Bring it!!

like its been explained to you a million times already: WE DON'T KEEP PLANES ON STRIP ALERT ANYMORE. WE HAVEN'T SINCE 1992. IN ORDER TO GET A PLANE IN THE AIR IT HAS TO BE FUELED AND ARM NOT TO MENTION GETTING THE PILOTS SUITED UP. THOSE ARE THE FACTS DEAL WITH IT!

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by Keeyth
Tell me where I have flopped around. My main point is: Where was our military after 4, count em, 4 simultaneous hijackings occur, an event which has never happened in the history of man, where was our military????

Remember Payne Stewart, the golfer? His plane lost oxygen, and went down killing eveyone on board. You know what else? Fighter jets were upon him in minutes, trying to help if they could. They couldn't do anything, yet they were there instantly, WITHOUT Presidential authorization.

On 9-11, it's like our military didn't exist. Pretty convenient I'd say, for the terrorists. The terrorists in the White House today, that is....

the answer again is simple: the payne stweart plane had a transponder that was workign making it easier to find and track even that plane flew for an HOUR without any escort or it being followed. the planes on 9-11 had hteir trans sponders turned off making it damn near impposable to tell where they were.

[Big Train]

Keeyth,

So let me ask you this. Is this more blind anger at the government? I ask you because you don't seem to accept any of the equaly plausible theories and assumptions, which are much easier to explain, than the one you have offered. Are you angry at percieved failures or is it that your truly believe Bush had a hand in it?

The reason I can't believe the Bush theories is that it doesn't come out in the wash, any of it. In order for Bush, a single man, to have controlled all of this, this would require evil on the parts of THOUSANDS of people, to stand aside and let it happen. That would require greater numbers of purely evil citizens than anything I can possibly imagine.

As far as flopping around on my position, I haven't. You have changed the focus of the conversation several times here. I'm trying to get to the root of why you feel the way you do.

[John Ashcroft]

Originally posted by Keeyth
Jeeeesssssssussssssss H. Chhhhrriiiiissssttttt !!

JA, Ally and Wilbury,

Why do you Republican clones, or right wingers, all sound the same, and resort to the same tactics??? Go ahead and kill the fuel theory all you want. It's like such a non-issue, but like the G.W Bush would do, you ignore the greater point to take a stand on an insignifigant detail. Look, what I want you to tell me is, F-- the fuel in the two planes, tell me WHY IN THE HELL WERE THERE ONLY TWO PLANES IN ALL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AVAILABLE FOR THAT TASK??????? What, we only have two fucking fighter jets in our multi-BILLION, possibly TRILLION dollar Air Force defending the Home base??????

Keep trying to throw 'Common Sense' back at me by showing you have NONE!!!!! Bring it!!

And I told you, if you asked politely I'd be more than happy to give you an answer (although Lucky's done it already). But I'd also ellaborate so's your simple little liberal mind can comprehend. I promise to use small words too!

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by Keeyth
Jeeeesssssssussssssss H. Chhhhrriiiiissssttttt !!

JA, Ally and Wilbury,

Why do you Republican clones, or right wingers, all sound the same, and resort to the same tactics??? Go ahead and kill the fuel theory all you want. It's like such a non-issue, but like the G.W Bush would do, you ignore the greater point to take a stand on an insignifigant detail. Look, what I want you to tell me is, F-- the fuel in the two planes, tell me WHY IN THE HELL WERE THERE ONLY TWO PLANES IN ALL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AVAILABLE FOR THAT TASK??????? What, we only have two fucking fighter jets in our multi-BILLION, possibly TRILLION dollar Air Force defending the Home base??????

Keep trying to throw 'Common Sense' back at me by showing you have NONE!!!!! Bring it!!


Awh! He included me, even though I know nothing about fighter jets.

I would ask my brother to respond to you, seeing how I know very little about planes, but he's in bed cuz he needs to be up early to go to JFK and make sure no jets drop out of the sky.

I do recommend asking JA very politely. He's a doll and will answer any questions you have

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
the answer again is simple: the payne stweart plane had a transponder that was workign making it easier to find and track even that plane flew for an HOUR without any escort or it being followed. the planes on 9-11 had hteir trans sponders turned off making it damn near impposable to tell where they were.

Wait a minute! You just said we don't have planes on strip alert since 1992, yet they were for a golfer going down in a plane, but not a hijacked airliner!??!?!?!??

Ha! Caught in one of your lies I see...

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by Big Train
Keeyth,

So let me ask you this. Is this more blind anger at the government? I ask you because you don't seem to accept any of the equaly plausible theories and assumptions, which are much easier to explain, than the one you have offered. Are you angry at percieved failures or is it that your truly believe Bush had a hand in it?

The reason I can't believe the Bush theories is that it doesn't come out in the wash, any of it. In order for Bush, a single man, to have controlled all of this, this would require evil on the parts of THOUSANDS of people, to stand aside and let it happen. That would require greater numbers of purely evil citizens than anything I can possibly imagine.

As far as flopping around on my position, I haven't. You have changed the focus of the conversation several times here. I'm trying to get to the root of why you feel the way you do.

If you don't believe that the BCE (As Ford likes to call it) doesn't have control of thousands of people, you're in denial... ...read a book called "The Grand Chessboard" written in 1997, which outlines exactly what Bush did in this war, and even states that it will require "an attack on the level of Pearl Harbor to get the American people to support such a war" and what do we get?
9-11-01. Hmmm....

Ever hear of the PNAC? The Proposal for a New American Century, written in 1998 by the Bush and Cheney gang even before they entered office? Read it.

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by Keeyth
Wait a minute! You just said we don't have planes on strip alert since 1992, yet they were for a golfer going down in a plane, but not a hijacked airliner!??!?!?!??

Ha! Caught in one of your lies I see...

no you didn't moron. the first plane to check in on payne stewart plane was a TEST plane even that was after awhile. then two planes weren't airbourne for over an hour. it took them an hour to get in the air and by that time the plane had flown from fla to okl:

http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2000/AAB0001.htm

At 0933:38 EDT (6 minutes and 20 seconds after N47BA acknowledged the previous clearance), the controller instructed N47BA to change radio frequencies and contact another Jacksonville ARTCC controller. The controller received no response from N47BA. The controller called the flight five more times over the next 4 1/2 minutes but received no response.

About 0952 CDT,7 a USAF F-16 test pilot from the 40th Flight Test Squadron at Eglin Air Force Base (AFB), Florida, was vectored to within 8 nm of N47BA.8 About 0954 CDT, at a range of 2,000 feet from the accident airplane and an altitude of about 46,400 feet,9 the test pilot made two radio calls to N47BA but did not receive a response. About 1000 CDT, the test pilot began a visual inspection of N47BA. There was no visible damage to the airplane, and he did not see ice accumulation on the exterior of the airplane. Both engines were running, and the rotating beacon was on. He stated that he could not see inside the passenger section of the airplane because the windows seemed to be dark. Further, he stated that the entire right cockpit windshield was opaque, as if condensation or ice covered the inside. He also indicated that the left cockpit windshield was opaque, although several sections of the center of the windshield seemed to be only thinly covered by condensation or ice; a small rectangular section of the windshield was clear, with only a small section of the glare shield visible through this area. He did not see any flight control movement. About 1012 CDT, he concluded his inspection of N47BA and proceeded to Scott AFB, Illinois.

About 1113 CDT, two Oklahoma ANG F-16s with the identification "TULSA 13 flight" were vectored to intercept the accident airplane by the Minneapolis ARTCC. The TULSA 13 lead pilot reported to the Minneapolis ARTCC controller that he could not see any movement in the cockpit. About 1125 CDT, the TULSA 13 lead pilot reported that the windshield was dark and that he could not tell if the windshield was iced.

----------------------

the plane flew for over an hour with out any escort

[FORD]

Originally posted by Big Train


Every time he loses, we shift focus (liberal tactic du jour).



Liberal tactic? And how many different reasons did the BCE make up for invading Iraq??

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by John Ashcroft
And I told you, if you asked politely I'd be more than happy to give you an answer (although Lucky's done it already). But I'd also ellaborate so's your simple little liberal mind can comprehend. I promise to use small words too!

Oh Pretty Please JA!

Pretty please... ...won't you EAT ME!!

There's some small words for ya, AND I asked politely! :D

I already know where you and wilbury stand, and if you'll notice, I caught him in one of his little 'Bushist' lies about what happened...

...so explain that.

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by John Ashcroft
And I told you, if you asked politely I'd be more than happy to give you an answer (although Lucky's done it already). But I'd also ellaborate so's your simple little liberal mind can comprehend. I promise to use small words too!

Johnie, sweetie... *bats eyes* Can you please explain it to me? :)



[i figured it was worth a shot :D ]

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
no you didn't moron. the first plane to check in on payne stewart plane was a TEST plane even that was after awhile. then two planes weren't airbourne for over an hour. it took them an hour to get in the air and by that time the plane had flown from fla to okl:

http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2000/AAB0001.htm

At 0933:38 EDT (6 minutes and 20 seconds after N47BA acknowledged the previous clearance), the controller instructed N47BA to change radio frequencies and contact another Jacksonville ARTCC controller. The controller received no response from N47BA. The controller called the flight five more times over the next 4 1/2 minutes but received no response.

About 0952 CDT,7 a USAF F-16 test pilot from the 40th Flight Test Squadron at Eglin Air Force Base (AFB), Florida, was vectored to within 8 nm of N47BA.8 About 0954 CDT, at a range of 2,000 feet from the accident airplane and an altitude of about 46,400 feet,9 the test pilot made two radio calls to N47BA but did not receive a response. About 1000 CDT, the test pilot began a visual inspection of N47BA. There was no visible damage to the airplane, and he did not see ice accumulation on the exterior of the airplane. Both engines were running, and the rotating beacon was on. He stated that he could not see inside the passenger section of the airplane because the windows seemed to be dark. Further, he stated that the entire right cockpit windshield was opaque, as if condensation or ice covered the inside. He also indicated that the left cockpit windshield was opaque, although several sections of the center of the windshield seemed to be only thinly covered by condensation or ice; a small rectangular section of the windshield was clear, with only a small section of the glare shield visible through this area. He did not see any flight control movement. About 1012 CDT, he concluded his inspection of N47BA and proceeded to Scott AFB, Illinois.

About 1113 CDT, two Oklahoma ANG F-16s with the identification "TULSA 13 flight" were vectored to intercept the accident airplane by the Minneapolis ARTCC. The TULSA 13 lead pilot reported to the Minneapolis ARTCC controller that he could not see any movement in the cockpit. About 1125 CDT, the TULSA 13 lead pilot reported that the windshield was dark and that he could not tell if the windshield was iced.

----------------------

the plane flew for over an hour with out any escort

The hijacked planes were in the air well over an hour as well... ...and obviously, since we were able to get planes to the WTC from the time the first one hit, until just after the second one hit, we had plenty of time to ready many more planes... ...why are you guys ok with the govt snowing you over with this crap?

[Big Train]

I'm not living in denial because I don't agree what some guy wrote in a book. And I don't believe that many people would choose to be that evil. There is where it fails to come out in the wash. So what you are saying is that the thousands of people in the US Military, Flight Controllers, Airline Personnel and members of the government all thought it was peachy keen to do this? Smoke that in your pipe for awhile and tell me your SERIOUS when you say that.

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by Keeyth
The hijacked planes were in the air well over an hour as well... ...and obviously, since we were able to get planes to the WTC from the time the first one hit, until just after the second one hit, we had plenty of time to ready many more planes... ...why are you guys ok with the govt snowing you over with this crap?


do you just make shit up?

American Airlines Flight 11 leave's logan at 7:59 a.m. 8:14 to 8:20 a.m.: American Airlines Flight 11 goes off course and is hijacked 8:46:26 a.m.: American Airlines Flight 11 impacts the north side of the North Tower

total flight time: 47 mins time from highjack to crash: 26 mins

8:14 a.m.: United Airlines Flight 175 lifts off from Logan International Airport in Boston, Massachusetts 8:41:32 a.m.: United Airlines Flight 175 last communication with the New York air traffic control 9:02:54 a.m.: United Airlines Flight 175 impacts the south side of the South Tower of the WTC between the 78th and 84th

total flight time: 48 mins time from highjack to crash:21 mins


8:20 a.m.: American Airlines Flight 77 lifts off from Dulles International Airport 8:50:51 a.m.: American Airlines Flight 77 last radio communication, 9:37 a.m.: American Airlines Flight 77 is lost from radar screens and impacts the western side of the Pentagon

time from highjack to crash:47 mins




8:42 a.m.: United Airlines Flight 93 a Boeing 757-222 with a maximum capacity of 200 passengers and lifts off from Newark International Airport in Newark 9:28 a.m. United Airlines Flight 93 9:28 a.m. United Airlines Flight 93 -- An open microphone aboard reveals someone in the cockpit saying, "Get out of here!" 10:06:05 a.m.: According to seismic data, United Airlines Flight 93 crashes near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, in Somerset

time from highjack to crash: 38 mins

--------------------

no plane was in the air highjacked for an hour and again the planes are impossable to track with out their transponders on

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
do you just make shit up?




No I don't... ...and thanks for the timeline.

8:14 to 8:20 a.m.: American Airlines Flight 11 goes off course and is hijacked


10:06:05 a.m.: According to seismic data, United Airlines Flight 93 crashes near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, in Somerset


Thats almost two hours of hijacked planes flying around an no jets are sent to intercept?? Hello??? :rolleyes:

[Snow Ho]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
do you just make shit up?

American Airlines Flight 11 leave's logan at 7:59 a.m. 8:14 to 8:20 a.m.: American Airlines Flight 11 goes off course and is hijacked 8:46:26 a.m.: American Airlines Flight 11 impacts the north side of the North Tower

total flight time: 47 mins time from highjack to crash: 26 mins

8:14 a.m.: United Airlines Flight 175 lifts off from Logan International Airport in Boston, Massachusetts 8:41:32 a.m.: United Airlines Flight 175 last communication with the New York air traffic control 9:02:54 a.m.: United Airlines Flight 175 impacts the south side of the South Tower of the WTC between the 78th and 84th

total flight time: 48 mins time from highjack to crash:21 mins


8:20 a.m.: American Airlines Flight 77 lifts off from Dulles International Airport 8:50:51 a.m.: American Airlines Flight 77 last radio communication, 9:37 a.m.: American Airlines Flight 77 is lost from radar screens and impacts the western side of the Pentagon

time from highjack to crash:47 mins




8:42 a.m.: United Airlines Flight 93 a Boeing 757-222 with a maximum capacity of 200 passengers and lifts off from Newark International Airport in Newark 9:28 a.m. United Airlines Flight 93 9:28 a.m. United Airlines Flight 93 -- An open microphone aboard reveals someone in the cockpit saying, "Get out of here!" 10:06:05 a.m.: According to seismic data, United Airlines Flight 93 crashes near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, in Somerset

time from highjack to crash: 38 mins

--------------------

no plane was in the air highjacked for an hour and again the planes are impossable to track with out their transponders on


wow! this makes me wonder why no one has done this before it seems pretty easy to take a plane and fly it into a building. my question now is how easy is it to do today??? do they keep jets ready now?

[Big Train]

Keeyth,

You are a fucking retard. The man just gave you a timeline, explicitly saying how much time was involved. 26 minutes flying in the dark (transponders off). Add it up: No jets ready, 26 minutes to respond, no transponder to find the plane.

How do you propose on that day in that time they respond differently or better?

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by Big Train
I'm not living in denial because I don't agree what some guy wrote in a book. And I don't believe that many people would choose to be that evil. There is where it fails to come out in the wash. So what you are saying is that the thousands of people in the US Military, Flight Controllers, Airline Personnel and members of the government all thought it was peachy keen to do this? Smoke that in your pipe for awhile and tell me your SERIOUS when you say that.

You know, I don't believe many people are that evil either. But you obviously know little of the Bush Family. Why don't you do a little research on them and get back to me?

http://www.rense.com/general40/bushfamilyfundedhitler.htm


They are also connected to the bin Ladens (conveniently) and many other shady individuals...

Evil is as evil does...
...oh, but life is a box of chocolates, right Forest?

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by Big Train
Keeyth,

You are a fucking retard. The man just gave you a timeline, explicitly saying how much time was involved. 26 minutes flying in the dark (transponders off). Add it up: No jets ready, 26 minutes to respond, no transponder to find the plane.

How do you propose on that day in that time they respond differently or better?

First off, there were jets ready. Don't believe everything wilbury feeds you. This crap about not having jets ready since 1992? Does that really make sense to you? Why have our defenses up, all the while increasing the size of our military, and then suddenly it's ok not to have any of it at the ready? all this after it has been proven we were warned that 9-11 was going to happen within a few days of when it did happen? Fucking grow up. You're the retard if you believe what any Bush supporter or representative feeds you. They have ways to change things to go along with whatever their position or statement is goin to be. Case in point: The Andrews Air Force Base website. It was changed 2 days after 9-11 to state that they did not have ready response fighters at the highest state of alert, only after Dick Cheney made that statement. Prior to that, it said they did have fighter jets ready.

You can find the original website the way it loked before 9-11 at the following sites:

www.copvcia.com
or

www.tenc.net

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by Big Train
Keeyth,

You are a fucking retard. The man just gave you a timeline, explicitly saying how much time was involved. 26 minutes flying in the dark (transponders off). Add it up: No jets ready, 26 minutes to respond, no transponder to find the plane.

How do you propose on that day in that time they respond differently or better?

Listen up retard(s)

POWERFUL EVIDENCE THAT AIR FORCE WAS MADE TO STAND DOWN ON 9-11
[Posted 1 July 2002]

To go right to instructions for accessing the DCANG Website, as it was April 19, 2001, click here

=======================================
In response to the letter below, we have provided a clearer explanation of the proof that the Air Force was ordered to stand down on 9-11.

Dear Emperor's Clothes,

I want to start with congratulating you on a great website, all kudos to you. I'm pointing out a key error you're making because I'm trying to help.

In several places on your 911 pages you refer to "combat ready" jets, seemingly implying that these jets are ready to take off on a few minutes notice. But the terminology is wrong.

All that the term "combat ready" means is that they are capable of Combat. It doesn't necessarily mean "scramble ready".

A much clearer phrase is "combat units in the highest possible state of readiness," which you quoted from the Washington, DC Air National Guard [DCANG] website but it looks like that's been erased from the archives since the middle of June. Any suggestions?

Best regards,
Kalun D.
Seattle, Washington USA

***

Dear Kalun,

Thanks for the kind words and helpful criticism. Fortunately, the DC Air National Guard (DCANG) Website archives have not been erased, at least not yet. We'll show how to locate them below. These archives provide a key part of the evidence that the Air Force was not permitted to respond on 9-11.

You're right about 'combat-ready.' It is too broad a term. And as you say, the phrase "combat units in the highest possible state of readiness" is much clearer. We'll go through our 9-11 texts and make some changes, using this clearer wording.

The Website of the D.C. Air National Guard (DCANG) is at http://www.dcandr.ang.af.mil

But please don't go there yet.

As of April 19, 2001, that Website included the following statement:

"DCANG MISSION

To provide combat units in the highest

possible state of readiness."

This is powerful stuff. Consider. The military never makes public all its air defense procedures. If it did, a potential enemy could entirely circumvent defenses. So key air procedures are kept secret.

Therefore one can be sure that air defense information posted on the DCANG Website on April 19, 2001 and available to the general public excluded some key defense procedures. They would *understate*, not overstate.

When DCANG stated that its Mission was "To provide combat units in the highest possible state of readiness," they were indicating a general approach but leaving out the nitty gritty details. They were saying: 'Don't worry; we're ready. But we're not going to tell you our emergency plans.'

Given this understandable reticence, the phrase, "To provide combat units in the highest possible state of readiness," means that the DC Air National Guard at Andrews Air Force Base had fighter jets ready for an emergency.

And when you think about it, this would have to be the case. Not only is Andrews Air Force Base a few miles from the White House, the Pentagon, the Capital building and the CIA, but it is also the official airport of the US government.

The President flies out of Andrews. Other top US officials fly out of Andrews. Foreign diplomats and national leaders may arrive and depart from Andrews at any time. For instance:

"[There is] Tony Blair, Prime Minister of Britain. He has just landed here at Andrews Air Force Base." (CNN November 7, 2001)

Let us say that as it took off from Andrews Air Force Base, Tony Blair's plane was attacked by a hostile jet. Would his pilot have to radio the attackers and ask them to kindly postpone their attack until US fighter jets arrived from Langley Air Force Base, 129 miles away?

Andrew's unique role as the Federal government's official airport is another reason DCANG would withhold key details of its emergency response procedures. So again, when DC ANG stated on its Website that its Mission at Andrews included providing combat units "in the highest possible state of readiness," one can be sure this meant Andrews was equipped to scramble aircraft in an emergency.

We'll show you how to find the April 19th backup of the DCANG Mission Statement in just a moment. Let us consider the significance of that statement, as it relates to 911.

The FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) reported that it 'suspected' Flight 11 out of Boston had been hijacked by 8:20 Eastern Time. (1) So when Flight 11 hit the World Trade Center, of course the FAA knew this was a terrorist act. Vice President Cheney said on MEET THE PRESS September 16th that the FAA had open lines to the Secret Service as soon as Flight 11 hit the World Trade Center. So the Secret Service was in the know no later than 8:45 Eastern time. (2)

Flight 77 reached Ohio and turned around, heading back to Washington, DC around 8:55, we are told. At 9:06 the FAA reports that it ordered the air corridor from Cleveland, Ohio, to Washington, D.C. closed to all air traffic. (3)

We are told that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon around 9:45 Eastern time.

So here's the burning question: why weren't those combat jets which DCANG provided, "in the highest possible state of readiness" - why weren't those planes scrambled from Andrews Air Force Base *before* the Pentagon was hit?

Some respond that it was due to human error. The people at DCANG were asleep at the wheel. Well, military organizations don't accept explanations like that. A catastrophic failure leads to court martial. If the people at DCANG merely are guilty of criminal negligence in failing to respond, why haven't they been pilloried and put on trial?

Some respond that the whole military was lax before 9-11. Nobody was worried about security. Really? In a dispatch discussing security after 9-11, Associated Press noted that US military bases were already on security alert *before* 9-11:

"Earlier this summer, all three Army bases in Hampton Roads, including Fort Eustis and Fort Story, already had begun restricting public access to their grounds for security reasons. The bases did so under an order affecting major Army installations around the country.

"The Army required its bases to perform mandatory vehicle registrations. Military members and civilian employees were to receive vehicle decals serving as proof they have permission to be on base." ("Military Tightens Security in Wake of Apparent Terrorist Attacks," AP, 12 September 2001)

We'll put out an FAQ with more evidence concerning the myth of a security lapse prior to 9-11.

[Big Train]

NICE website Keeyth. If your basing your opinions on that load of horseshit, PLEASE. This same shit talking about aliens and "skintoning" cream.

The lengthy disclaimer says it all.


The materials comprising the Rense.com news service (the "Website") are provided by Rense.com as a service to its readers on an "as-is, as-available" basis for informational purposes only. Rense.com assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions in these materials. Rense.com makes no commitment to update the information contained herein. Further, Rense.com cannot edit, control, review for truth or accuracy, or screen for defamation or obscenity any content provided to the Website by a third party through postings, uploaded files, or any other form of communication, nor can the Rense.com ensure prompt removal of defamatory, obscene, inappropriate or unlawful content after transmission. Any such third party postings, files or other communications do not necessarily represent the opinions, beliefs, or positions of the Rense.com, its owner, employees or sponsors.

Even if I give you some slack and agree (which I dont't) that Bush is as evil as you say, you still have to take into account the THOUSANDS of people who would have to knowingly fail to do their job INTENTIONALLY. Doesn't come out in the wash, no matter what article you cite.

[ELVIS]

Keeyth, you're an idiot...

You look at this as if these planes were the only planes in the air at the time, and that they could be seen by the traffic controllers...

You don't know what you're talking about...

[FORD]

Originally posted by Big Train
Even if I give you some slack and agree (which I dont't) that Bush is as evil as you say, you still have to take into account the THOUSANDS of people who would have to knowingly fail to do their job INTENTIONALLY. Doesn't come out in the wash, no matter what article you cite.

Only a few at the top (i.e. the BCE ) had to act intentionally. The rest could have been decieved into allowing the attacks to proceed.

How is that possible?

Simple. It just so happens there was a simulation of a terrorist attack scheduled as a training exercize for that very day, 9-11-01.

http://cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/essayairdefense.html

Remarkably, on the morning of 9/11 itself, "[John] Fulton and his team at the CIA were running a pre-planned simulation to explore the emergency response issues that would be created if a plane were to strike a building. Little did they know that the scenario would come true in a dramatic way that day." [National Law Enforcement Security Institute, 8/02] Fulton's team was part of the National Reconnaissance Office, which "operates many of the nation's spy satellites. It draws its personnel from the military and the CIA." The simulation was to start at 9:00 a.m., four miles from where one of the real hijacked planes had just taken off. Apparently it was cancelled when real events took over. [AP, 8/21/02] Also on 9/11, NORAD was in the middle of another periodic war game, this one called Vigilant Guardian. Details are vague, except that the scenario tested "an imaginary crisis to North American Air Defense outposts nationwide" [Newhouse News, 1/25/02], and according to one NORAD employee, "everybody" at NORAD initially thought the real hijackings were part of the exercise. [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 6/3/02, Newhouse News, 1/25/02, ABC News, 9/11/02]

This being the case, there could have very well been major confusion as to whether the situation was real or not, at least in initial reports.

And the attack could have easily been planned that way, just for that reason. It would be one HELL of a coincidence, you must admit.

[Big Train]

One hell of a coincidence, perhaps. Due to that though, you can't just make the leap and proclaim it to be Bush. How can you eliminate the possibility of hacks into the many systems of those orginizations, which would provide the terrorists with their information just as easily, not to mention a mole. It still requires a leap of faith to say the Bush was the one who did it, a large one.

This website is certainly sketchy too. The website is set up in great detail, operations set up for your "Donations" but if you go to the section called "About Us" it says , "Still to be Done". Who are these people making these accusations? Are they too scared to identify themselves or are they just full of shit?

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by Keeyth
No I don't... ...and thanks for the timeline.

8:14 to 8:20 a.m.: American Airlines Flight 11 goes off course and is hijacked


10:06:05 a.m.: According to seismic data, United Airlines Flight 93 crashes near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, in Somerset


Thats almost two hours of hijacked planes flying around an no jets are sent to intercept?? Hello??? :rolleyes:

thats not two hours of planes flying around highjacked hello. those are differnt planes at different times. each tiem the plane was only highjacked for a few minutes before crashing. in response to your other post about planes being ready now is yes there are planes that are ready now. some are always either a: on the ground or b: in the air on patrol 24/7 over some cities

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by Keeyth
First off, there were jets ready. Don't believe everything wilbury feeds you. This crap about not having jets ready since 1992? Does that really make sense to you? Why have our defenses up, all the while increasing the size of our military, and then suddenly it's ok not to have any of it at the ready?

you really are the dumbest person ever. through out the cold war we keep planes on the ready to go intercept planes. the routinly went on patrols from SAC bases all over the nothern half of the usa mostly from alaska maine and north dakota. those patrols were under the command of places like norad who's sole responablity was up until 9-11 to look for and protect from incoming threats. those are the facts. deny them all you want but they are not going to change.



Originally posted by Keeyth
all this after it has been proven we were warned that 9-11 was going to happen within a few days of when it did happen? Fucking grow up. You're the retard if you believe what any Bush supporter or representative feeds you. They have ways to change things to go along with whatever their position or statement is goin to be. Case in point: The Andrews Air Force Base website. It was changed 2 days after 9-11 to state that they did not have ready response fighters at the highest state of alert, only after Dick Cheney made that statement. Prior to that, it said they did have fighter jets ready.

You can find the original website the way it loked before 9-11 at the following sites:

www.copvcia.com
or

www.tenc.net

yep and it's not like something can be posted on some nut website to suitetheir views right? :rolleyes:

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by Big Train
One hell of a coincidence, perhaps. Due to that though, you can't just make the leap and proclaim it to be Bush. How can you eliminate the possibility of hacks into the many systems of those orginizations, which would provide the terrorists with their information just as easily, not to mention a mole. It still requires a leap of faith to say the Bush was the one who did it, a large one.



Well, just look at who benefited most from it. The Bush and Cheney Oil families. Cheney's Halliburton is making tons and tons of cash on this war, as is the Carlyle group, of which the Bush family has been card carrying members forever. Just use a little common sense and intuition and maybe you'll start to see the truth...

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
thats not two hours of planes flying around highjacked hello. those are differnt planes at different times. each tiem the plane was only highjacked for a few minutes before crashing. in response to your other post about planes being ready now is yes there are planes that are ready now. some are always either a: on the ground or b: in the air on patrol 24/7 over some cities

Now who is flip flopping on their points??? Now you are saying Yes we HAVE planes ready??!?!? Then go back to my first point about where the hell were they when the hijackings occurred???

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
you really are the dumbest person ever.

That's O.K. with me coming from someone who has lost their credibility based upon their conflicting posts...


:matrix:

[Big Train]

Keeyth,

His article is saying that SINCE 9/11. He hasn't moved an inch from his position.

Cheney does not OWN Haillburton. The money argument is mildly valid. He is making money on the stock he owns but not the MOUNTAINS of money he would if he were the exclusive owner of Halliburton. Certainly not enough to go through all that hassle. Explain to me, in great detail, the exact connection you are making of the financial benefit to the Bushes and Cheneys. Let's leave my intuition out of it. Let's stick to facts.

It is an easier sell to me to say the terrorists paid for some good information and got it. Like all skeptics, the simplest explanation is the usually correct. It is a simple a to b transaction. The Bush/Cheney thing lacks a proper paper trail that would demonstrate their profiting from it. Which would be plainly obvious is they were due to large transactions happening somewhere in the world. Someone would certainly drop a dime on it, for a quick, anynonmous payday.

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by Keeyth
Now who is flip flopping on their points??? Now you are saying Yes we HAVE planes ready??!?!? Then go back to my first point about where the hell were they when the hijackings occurred???

I don't think you're reading it right.

We used to have planes flying around mainly because of the Cold War. In 1992, we stopped that.

Now, because of what happened on 9/11, we resumed it because of the threat. So NOW they are BACK on standby or whatever the term is.

Lucky's not conflicting anything

[lucky wilbury]

thats is exactly what i said ally. to quote myself:

in response to your other post about planes being ready now is yes there are planes that are ready now. some are always either a: on the ground or b: in the air on patrol 24/7 over some cities

i even posted a whole other thread on this. my postion has NOT changed from the begining

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
I don't think you're reading it right.

We used to have planes flying around mainly because of the Cold War. In 1992, we stopped that.



Does that REALLY make sense to you? Do you REALLY believe that? What, we were all just so cozy after the 1993 WTC bombing and the 1995 Oklahoma bombing the USS Cole incident and all the other crap happening in the world that we just decided "Let's take our air force military out of the loop, just in case the world is really safe." Is that what it was??
Is that the la-la land that you live in that you would believe that kind of dribble????????

That is a bullshit statement. Our Air Force has NEVER been 'off the clock' people. For 25 years, it has been standard operating procedure that, any time a plane loses transponder contact, or goes off it's course for more than a few minutes without authority, fighter jets are scrambled. Period. Look it up. Standard Operating Procedure folks.

Our skys are far too busy to be lackadaisical about that kind of stuff...

[Ally_Kat]

so are you saying you would want a group of F16's patrolling any area because it had a bomb incident?

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by Big Train
Keeyth,

His article is saying that SINCE 9/11. He hasn't moved an inch from his position.

Cheney does not OWN Haillburton. The money argument is mildly valid. He is making money on the stock he owns but not the MOUNTAINS of money he would if he were the exclusive owner of Halliburton. Certainly not enough to go through all that hassle. Explain to me, in great detail, the exact connection you are making of the financial benefit to the Bushes and Cheneys. Let's leave my intuition out of it. Let's stick to facts.

It is an easier sell to me to say the terrorists paid for some good information and got it. Like all skeptics, the simplest explanation is the usually correct. It is a simple a to b transaction. The Bush/Cheney thing lacks a proper paper trail that would demonstrate their profiting from it. Which would be plainly obvious is they were due to large transactions happening somewhere in the world. Someone would certainly drop a dime on it, for a quick, anynonmous payday.

I'm sorry, but have you looked into any of this? Becasue it almost seems as if you're basing you're entire knowledge of the situation on the content of this thread... ...specifically wilburys posts.

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by Ally_Kat
so are you saying you would want a group of F16's patrolling any area because it had a bomb incident?

Yeah, that sounds like what I said, doesn't it?? :rolleyes: Get real, will ya? I said your claim that we took the air force off ready standby alert status in 1992 is absolutely ludicrous... ...pay attention.:cato:

[Ally_Kat]

Originally posted by Keeyth
Does that REALLY make sense to you? Do you REALLY believe that? What, we were all just so cozy after the 1993 WTC bombing and the 1995 Oklahoma bombing the USS Cole incident and all the other crap happening in the world that we just decided "Let's take our air force military out of the loop, just in case the world is really safe." Is that what it was??
Is that the la-la land that you live in that you would believe that kind of dribble????????

That is a bullshit statement. Our Air Force has NEVER been 'off the clock' people. For 25 years, it has been standard operating procedure that, any time a plane loses transponder contact, or goes off it's course for more than a few minutes without authority, fighter jets are scrambled. Period. Look it up. Standard Operating Procedure folks.

Our skys are far too busy to be lackadaisical about that kind of stuff...

It makes perfect sense to me seeing how Clinton cut back money to the military. Keeping planes on standby costs money. When your budget is made significantly smaller, you find areas to cut back and pinch.

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by Keeyth
Does that REALLY make sense to you? Do you REALLY believe that? What, we were all just so cozy after the 1993 WTC bombing and the 1995 Oklahoma bombing the USS Cole incident and all the other crap happening in the world that we just decided "Let's take our air force military out of the loop, just in case the world is really safe." Is that what it was??
Is that the la-la land that you live in that you would believe that kind of dribble????????

That is a bullshit statement. Our Air Force has NEVER been 'off the clock' people. For 25 years, it has been standard operating procedure that, any time a plane loses transponder contact, or goes off it's course for more than a few minutes without authority, fighter jets are scrambled. Period. Look it up. Standard Operating Procedure folks.

Our skys are far too busy to be lackadaisical about that kind of stuff...

read the other thread on this. explains the whole thing. i don't need to look it up i can just go on base and ask about it. hell i could just go next door as well oh thats right i forgot to say there's a air force base here in town. and how may fighters planes do they keep on strip alert? zero. how many pilots do they keep suited up? zero. and to be the bringer of bad news but a lot planes in the air don't have transponders on them because they are small planes. also since each airprot and it's corrospondering radar coverage area isn't link to one another there is no way to tell eachairport along a planes route who it is and what their flight plan is. thats why you have to file and follow a flight plan you submit to the faa. and no it's not the procedure to send up fighters right away. the first step is to raise the aircraft on the radio. the second is get another plane in the air to give a visual on it. if they get a visual on it and there is say oh a radio problem they might tip their wings to signal the other plane. in which case the plane will tip them back and in most cases relize the might be on the wrong radio frequency and switch over. happens all the time. that whole procedure might take 20- 30 ins to play out. i can tell you how many times a small plane has landed on base with radio problems.

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
and to be the bringer of bad news but a lot planes in the air don't have transponders on them because they are small planes.

Oh NOW not all planes have transponders?? Are you listening to yourself? Earlier it was the ONLY way for them to be picked up on radar, yet now not all planes have them?

Thanks for making my point for me. Those planes could have been located on radar alone, and should have been. But someone high up didn't want them to be found. That wasn't part of the plan...

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by Keeyth
Oh NOW not all planes have transponders?? Are you listening to yourself? Earlier it was the ONLY way for them to be picked up on radar, yet now not all planes have them?

Thanks for making my point for me. Those planes could have been located on radar alone, and should have been. But someone high up didn't want them to be found. That wasn't part of the plan...

you really are an idiot aren't you? to quote myself in this very thread:

http://www.rotharmy.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7595

now take into account that there are almost 4,800 planes in the air at any given moment over the us with the ability to find 2 of those with out their transponders on is nill. no chance zero. without their transponders on all the become is light aircrat ala a cesna. they would have spent half the time chasing down piper cubs and false radar hits that were flocks of birds rather then finding any plane

and from a later post:

do you even know what a transponder is? by your response i guess not. a transponder is a device on most aircraft that give the flt name,speed, altitude automatically. it's a tracking becon. most small planes don't have them they have to check in and identify themselves with air traffic control with they pass through radar coverage areas for airports. on 9-11 the planes transponders were shut off so on radar all they would appear as is a small non commercial plane. you would have had every fighter in the us military casing down every person who was flying their pipers and cesnas etc etc. radar cand't tell the difference between planes

[BrownSound1]

Originally posted by lucky wilbury
radar cand't tell the difference between planes

Well...not civilian airport radar. There are radars that can identify different types of aircraft by their return without the use of a transponder. Of course you won't know what flight number it is or anything like that, but you can tell a 747 from a Cessna fairly easily. But like I said, it is not for civilian use.

As for the "missing" plane at the Pentagon and no wings, etc., I do believe that type of plane stores its fuel in the wings, and if the fuel exploded so did the wings. How much of the planes were left that crashed into the WTC? I don't remember seeing too much left.

[John Ashcroft]

OK, here it goes. Sorry I'm just now getting here, was away from my computer for a while.

Anyway, let's see... Keep it simple...

Due to Ronald Reagan's brilliance and courage, the cold war was won 8 months after he left office. The Soviet Union was gone. As well as the cold-war alert posture. Yeah, it held on for a while. Well through the Bush administration, but in about 1993 or 1994 (I forget which year, but it's one of the two) the United States Air Force, under General McPeak (Air Force Chief of Staff), a major re-alignment was undertaken. The Strategic Air Command (the command responsible for the overwhelming majority of our 24 hour alert posture) was disintigrated. The Tactical Air Command was disintigrated as well (another major command, also heavily involved in a rapid alert posture). They were essentially both reformed into what was named "Air Combat Command". The mission of ACC was redefined to incorporate elements from both SAC and TAC. But the alert posture was relaxed significantly (typically from a 10-30 minute response posture, to a 1-2 hour response).

Response time depended on the priority assigned to air assets. A plane like AWACS was given a "priority B asset" classification, giving us an alert posture of 2 hours response time. Planes like the RJ and even the new Naval E-6 were given a priority A classification, with a response time from 30 minutes to 1 hour (depending on current threatcon level). The reason these planes were given a higher priority is because they double as command platforms should the shit really hit the fan, and ground command is knocked out. However, it was still a much more relaxed posture than the previous SAC and TAC alerts postures (again, as quick as 10 minutes response).

Also, after the realignment, 24 hour alerts became a thing of the past. Alert duty was done at random (to save money of course), on an almost arbitrary schedule. Flying hour programs, fuel conservation programs, and quarterly requirements now drove pretty much every asset's alert posture. I've spent significant time in an alert facility, both under TAC and the newer ACC. I watched the changes unfold firsthand. The fighter community was affected in exactly the same way.

So there's the answer to your alert posture questions.

So lets pretend for a minute that there happened to be F-16s on a 10 minute alert posture on 9/11 (of course it didn't happen, but lets enter the fun, dream world of liberalism). Let's say they took off in 10 minute of the first attack. Guess what? There were ABSOLUTELY NO AWACS OR HAWKEYES IN THE AREA AT THE TIME OF THE ATTACK!!!! I know this as a fact. There were 2 AWACS operating in the center of the country on training missions that day, and they were immediatly diverted. However, transit time at full fucking throttle from Texas to NY is about 3 1/2 hours, with one hell of a tail wind! (I have two good friends that were airborne during the event). There were no Hawkeyes at all, as they perform a majority of their operations practicing carrier defense. So, with no long range radar to find the hijacked airliners, there is about a snowball's chance in hell that a fighter will find a single radar-only track using it's aquisition radar. There's a whole lotta air volume to look through, let alone the confusion factor of that particular day.

All of the information I'm sharing is knowledge I have from either myself and my experience, or from 1st hand accounts of military people who were airborne during the attacks of 9/11. Obviously, there's alot more that happened that day, but I'm naturally not a liberty to share. I know that sounds a bit hokey, but it's a fact. There were good men and women in the air that day (like every other). If they could've prevented even one of the attacks they would've. You're bullshit conspiracy theories don't only defame the President, they slander the people who have dedicated their lives protecting your right to be a jackass. I promise you that if you ever spouted this bullshit to their faces, you'd walk away missing some teeth (and that's just from the chicks). You don't have the slightest clue about national defense, that much is clear. What is amazing is that you're unwilling to listen.

[Big Train]

Keeyth ,

It's YOUR theory, not mine. I am merely asking you to answer the question. Where is the paper trail which will prove the profiteering? If not, it's a baseless accusation. You will say that is naive, but it isn't like it is a hard thing to do. If other countries hate us so much, which is more than likely where said lot is stashed (I'd start somewhere in Sweden), they would surely want to drop a dime and catch George with his pants down. No?

[Keeyth]

Have a good weekend folks, I'll be back to debate on Monday!

[ELVIS]

Take some truth with you...


:elvis:

[lucky wilbury]

Originally posted by John Ashcroft
OK, here it goes. Sorry I'm just now getting here, was away from my computer for a while.

Anyway, let's see... Keep it simple...

Due to Ronald Reagan's brilliance and courage, the cold war was won 8 months after he left office. The Soviet Union was gone. As well as the cold-war alert posture. Yeah, it held on for a while. Well through the Bush administration, but in about 1993 or 1994 (I forget which year, but it's one of the two) the United States Air Force, under General McPeak (Air Force Chief of Staff), a major re-alignment was undertaken. The Strategic Air Command (the command responsible for the overwhelming majority of our 24 hour alert posture) was disintigrated. The Tactical Air Command was disintigrated as well (another major command, also heavily involved in a rapid alert posture). They were essentially both reformed into what was named "Air Combat Command". The mission of ACC was redefined to incorporate elements from both SAC and TAC. But the alert posture was relaxed significantly (typically from a 10-30 minute response posture, to a 1-2 hour response).

Response time depended on the priority assigned to air assets. A plane like AWACS was given a "priority B asset" classification, giving us an alert posture of 2 hours response time. Planes like the RJ and even the new Naval E-6 were given a priority A classification, with a response time from 30 minutes to 1 hour (depending on current threatcon level). The reason these planes were given a higher priority is because they double as command platforms should the shit really hit the fan, and ground command is knocked out. However, it was still a much more relaxed posture than the previous SAC and TAC alerts postures (again, as quick as 10 minutes response).

Also, after the realignment, 24 hour alerts became a thing of the past. Alert duty was done at random (to save money of course), on an almost arbitrary schedule. Flying hour programs, fuel conservation programs, and quarterly requirements now drove pretty much every asset's alert posture. I've spent significant time in an alert facility, both under TAC and the newer ACC. I watched the changes unfold firsthand. The fighter community was affected in exactly the same way.

So there's the answer to your alert posture questions.

So lets pretend for a minute that there happened to be F-16s on a 10 minute alert posture on 9/11 (of course it didn't happen, but lets enter the fun, dream world of liberalism). Let's say they took off in 10 minute of the first attack. Guess what? There were ABSOLUTELY NO AWACS OR HAWKEYES IN THE AREA AT THE TIME OF THE ATTACK!!!! I know this as a fact. There were 2 AWACS operating in the center of the country on training missions that day, and they were immediatly diverted. However, transit time at full fucking throttle from Texas to NY is about 3 1/2 hours, with one hell of a tail wind! (I have two good friends that were airborne during the event). There were no Hawkeyes at all, as they perform a majority of their operations practicing carrier defense. So, with no long range radar to find the hijacked airliners, there is about a snowball's chance in hell that a fighter will find a single radar-only track using it's aquisition radar. There's a whole lotta air volume to look through, let alone the confusion factor of that particular day.

All of the information I'm sharing is knowledge I have from either myself and my experience, or from 1st hand accounts of military people who were airborne during the attacks of 9/11. Obviously, there's alot more that happened that day, but I'm naturally not a liberty to share. I know that sounds a bit hokey, but it's a fact. There were good men and women in the air that day (like every other). If they could've prevented even one of the attacks they would've. You're bullshit conspiracy theories don't only defame the President, they slander the people who have dedicated their lives protecting your right to be a jackass. I promise you that if you ever spouted this bullshit to their faces, you'd walk away missing some teeth (and that's just from the chicks). You don't have the slightest clue about national defense, that much is clear. What is amazing is that you're unwilling to listen.

right on! :gulp:

[John Ashcroft]

It's Thursday. Safe to say he's been beaten?

I'll bet he still believes Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks, and still spouts that bullshit to all of his liberal friends.

[freak]

Originally posted by Keeyth
Thank you for making my point for me on the fuel. They could have easily of made it to the other two planes!

I don't give a rats ass about the transponders. Air traffic control could have picked them up on radar just from being a chunk of metal in the sky. What, do you work for the Bush propoganda campaign?



Yep, you got it son.

The plane that hit the Pentagon was actually forced to land by the air force. The passengers were executed and buried in a mass grave. The plane was cut up into itty-bitty pieces. These itty-bitty pieces were transported, along with several thousand gallons of aviation fuel to the Pentagon and were strewn about after the cruise missile hit - In broad daylight, yet.

The two planes that hit the twin towers were just a coincidence and a lucky one at that.

That people like you actually exist defies belief.

It's almost as if there's a variant of Downs Syndrome that effects common sense.

[FORD]

Originally posted by freak


It's almost as if there's a variant of Downs Syndrome that effects common sense.[/i]

There is. And it's an airborne virus that the BCE spread over the "red" states, where people believe FAUX News.

[freak]

Originally posted by FORD
There is. And it's an airborne virus that the BCE spread over the "red" states, where people believe FAUX News.

Come clean with me Ford.

You guys are in some sort of cult aren't you?

If so, I'm worried for you, man. Get outta there before Barbera Streisand and Tim Robbins start dolling out the KoolAid.

[ELVIS]

Why didn't they spread it everywhere ??

You sure could use some...

BTW.. I live in a blue state...

[ELVIS]

Originally posted by freak
Come clean with me Ford.

You guys are in some sort of cult aren't you?



Cult ??

Give FORD some credit!

he's a one man team...

Allbeit with split personalities...:D

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by John Ashcroft
It's Thursday. Safe to say he's been beaten?

I'll bet he still believes Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks, and still spouts that bullshit to all of his liberal friends.

Beaten? Never. You'll see what beaten means when you look at GW Bush after this November... ...that is if there is any sanity left in America...

and yes, I do believe Bush had a great deal to do with the 9-11 attacks, and the proof and truth will come out soon enough. I also think someone got to the 9-11 commision and someone got paid, because after all that work, now they're not going to 'blame' any one person. what a load of obvious tampered-with bullshit. They know who was behind it, but money talks. It WILL all still come out though, and we are closer than you think to the time when even you JA, will have to admit you've been following a fraud as a president.

[John Ashcroft]

Okie dokey...

Hey, happy birthday dude, hope it's a good'n.

[JCOOK]

It wasnt' planes that attacked us that day GODDAMNIT. It was alien spaceships that came here to make friends with us and the BCE.attacked them first causing them to accidentally crash into those buildings.Then to keep us from finding the wreckage and bodies the BCE.had the NYCFD and VAFD. actually put flames onto the buildings and wreckage-- then they took the firefighters and have them locked up at area 51 and no one will ever get to the truth --BUT ME AND FORD

BWAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAHAAAAAAA

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by John Ashcroft
Okie dokey...

Hey, happy birthday dude, hope it's a good'n.

Well, thank you. I appreciate that.

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by JCOOK
It wasnt' planes that attacked us that day GODDAMNIT. It was alien spaceships that came here to make friends with us and the BCE.attacked them first causing them to accidentally crash into those buildings.Then to keep us from finding the wreckage and bodies the BCE.had the NYCFD and VAFD. actually put flames onto the buildings and wreckage-- then they took the firefighters and have them locked up at area 51 and no one will ever get to the truth --BUT ME AND FORD

BWAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAHAAAAAAA

You sound nuttier than a can of Planters...:rolleyes:

[JCOOK]

FORD finally convinced me, I used to not wanna talk about the way i was abducted by aliens who are controlled by the BCE

[Keeyth]

Originally posted by JCOOK
FORD finally convinced me, I used to not wanna talk about the way i was abducted by aliens who are controlled by the BCE

C'mon, be honest! The anal probing was your FAVORITE part!!:D

[JCOOK]

No my favorite was when the aliens started downloading these cheesy love songs into my brain. "Yesterday I saw my lovelight shine straight ahead---

[Ally_Kat]

bump cuz it might be some interesting reading for some invovled in the other thread. Enjoy.

[McCarrens]

I miss Keeyth and his rants. I haven't seen him lately.