Did FAA New York really stopped Otis-fighters?

[bio]

According the official conspiracy theory (OVT), FAA New York stopped the fighters from Otis in protecting New York after 09:03.

After the first crash (WTC 1), NEADS still wanted to head the fighters over New York:

Commander Wants Fighters Sent to New York - In Rome, New York, NEADS has just received news of the plane hitting the WTC (see 8:51 a.m. September 11, 2001). Major Kevin Nasypany, the facility’s mission crew commander, is asked what to do with the Otis fighters. He responds: “Send ‘em to New York City still. Continue! Go! This is what I got. Possible news that a 737 just hit the World Trade Center. This is a real-world.… Continue taking the fighters down to the New York City area, JFK [International Airport] area, if you can. Make sure that the FAA clears it—your route all the way through.… Let’s press with this.”
Vanity Fair, 8/1/2006

but ....

... but, according to Vanity Fair, shortly after the second tower is hit, the NEADS weapons technicians get “pushback” from civilian FAA controllers, who are “afraid of fast-moving fighters colliding with a passenger plane,” so the two fighters are directed to a “holding area” just off the coast, near Long Island (see 9:09 a.m.-9:13 a.m. September 11, 2001).
Vanity Fair, 8/1/2006

This makes no sense to me, because FAA New York called NEADS around 09:03 in regard of Flight 175! How can they do that on the one hand sight, on the other forbid NEADS heading their fighters over New York?

Around 09:03
The 9/11 Commission will later conclude that the FAA’s New York Center tells NORAD’s Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) that Flight 175 has been hijacked at this time.
9/11 Commission, 6/17/2004

see graphic of the crazy fighter-route here:
http://www.historycommons.org/events-images/281_map_otisflight2050081722-9162.jpg

Major General Larry Arnold, the commanding general of NORAD’s Continental Region, will say the fighters are “coming to New York.”
MSNBC, 9/23/2001; Slate, 1/16/2002

Lt. Col. Timothy Duffy, the lead Otis pilot, tells the BBC, “When we took off we started climbing a 280-heading, basically towards New York City.”
BBC, 9/1/2002

[Dave Rogers]

Your post answers all its own questions. NEADS sent fighters to New York with very little idea of what they could do when they got there, and asked the FAA for authorisation when they were on the way. The FAA, also with no idea what the fighters could do when they got there, decided it was dangerous to have them flying around when other airliners were still in the air, so they told them to stay clear until they'd got some idea what they should do.

Aside from that, what you're demanding is that, within twelve minutes of a completely unexpected and unprecedented attack, NEADS and the FAA should already have discussed and agreed upon a concerted plan on how to defend the city against a further attack. In real life, as opposed to the movies, that's effectively impossible.

So, our apologies that NEADS and the FAA didn't have your 20:20 hindsight to rely on.

Dave

[Oystein]

There were no rules of engagement at that time, neither standing nor improvised by the NCA, to allow anybody to shoot down civilian airliners over densily populated metropolitan areas.

FAA realized that immediately. Trutherworld has failed to understand this for nearly 9 years.

Suppose Duffy had shot down another airliner hurrying for a landing at any of the surrounding airports? Without clear identification of targets and their intentions, there is no point of having a CAP.

bio, you are German. You certainly followed our former interior minister Wolfgang Schaeuble's attempt at legalizing shoot-down authority for civilian targets, and how this proposed law was summarily sacked by our Federal Constitutional Court (BVG) some years ago? Do you recall and can you summarize the reasons why this law was sacked? Do you agree with the BVG on that matter?

[jammonius]

The posts in this thread are of extremely limited usefulness imho because they lack the proper critical framework of assessing the extent to which the military exercises then and there taking place confused the situation so hopelessly as to prevent both NEADS personnel and FAA personnel from being able to distinguish "real" from "exercise."

As I have elsewhere said, the military exercises created a mechanism by which the events of 9/11 could have been carried out by people who did not know what they were actually doing.

Sooner or later, the significance of the fact that a process was underway that could enlist a lot of unknowing, but nonetheless key participants in causing the 9/11 psyop hoax to occur, will emerge into public awareness.

So far, this thread is stuck on stupid, as it were, by ignoring the impact of the exercises.

Good luck in coming to your senses.

[BigAl]

Of duplicate posts by Jam.

[grandmastershek]

i can't imagine what would go wrong with having fighter jets flying around an area with 3 major airports. then again at least its not reagan international with airliners trying to land while out maneuvering missiles from the pentagon.

[Dog Town]

Good luck in coming to your senses.



http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1092346be7f1c63099.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7632)

[Loss Leader]

As I have elsewhere said, the military exercises created a mechanism by which the events of 9/11 could have been carried out by people who did not know what they were actually doing.

Sooner or later, the significance of the fact that a process was underway that could enlist a lot of unknowing, but nonetheless key participants in causing the 9/11 psyop hoax to occur, will emerge into public awareness.



This assumes that all of the people who "did no know what they were actually doing" at the time have never been able to piece together that their actions may have had something to do with 9/11. Not one single low-ranking soldier (probably now a civilian) ever thought, "My God, what have I done?" Not one single person ever developed a guilty conscience, either deservedly or undeservedly. And not one single person ever spoke to anybody - friends, truthers, the press - about the nagging worry that maybe they were somehow involved.

Your understanding of human behavior, emotion, motivation, socialization and interaction appears grossly underdeveloped.

[Edx]

The posts in this thread are of extremely limited usefulness imho because they lack the proper critical framework of assessing the extent to which the military exercises then and there taking place confused the situation so hopelessly as to prevent both NEADS personnel and FAA personnel from being able to distinguish "real" from "exercise."

As I have elsewhere said, the military exercises created a mechanism by which the events of 9/11 could have been carried out by people who did not know what they were actually doing.

Sooner or later, the significance of the fact that a process was underway that could enlist a lot of unknowing, but nonetheless key participants in causing the 9/11 psyop hoax to occur, will emerge into public awareness.

So far, this thread is stuck on stupid, as it were, by ignoring the impact of the exercises.

Good luck in coming to your senses.

Even if that were true, and we've been over war games claims here enough to say its not, this is irrelevant to the fact that they wouldnt have been able to help anyway.

[Oystein]

The posts in this thread are of extremely limited usefulness imho because they lack the proper critical framework of assessing the extent to which the military exercises then and there taking place confused the situation so hopelessly as to prevent both NEADS personnel and FAA personnel from being able to distinguish "real" from "exercise."
...

This does not apply to my post, as I did not even talk at all about what NEADS and FAA did or did not do.

However, you are simply wrong, as always.
FAA was not doing any excercises at all. They are not military. No air traffic controller in a real world shift handling real world planes would ever be involved in any sort of excercise, since that would always be prone to lead to confusion and thus be unsafe.

Only the military, in utter peace time, would involve live duty personel in excercises.
However, the confusion whcih you allude to did not break out at NEADS. Because it is utterly clear to any military controller which input is real and which is excercise. Furthermore, the live duty alert fighters at Otis and Langley would never ever be involved in an excercise. Anybody at NEADS knows this. It is only in Trutherworld where such basics are not known.

[Dave Rogers]

see graphic of the crazy fighter-route here:
http://www.historycommons.org/events-images/281_map_otisflight2050081722-9162.jpg

Incidentally, if this is accurate, it makes it quite clear that it would have made no difference at all if the fighters had taken a straight-line course to New York. At best, they might have arrived five minutes earlier, still far too late to do anything.

Dave

[bio]

Thank you for the responses.

Indeed the behaviour of faa, new york would be highly suspicious, if OVT was true. First faa new york should have failed to call neads 11 minutes after it was clear, was was going on...

FAA New York McCormick:
Probably on of the most difficult moments of my life was the 11 Minutes from the point I watched this aircraft, when we first lost communications until the point the aircraft hit the WTC. For those 11 Minutes, I knew, we knew, what was going to happen, and that was difficult.
CNN, 8/12/2002

... then faa new york, should have prevented the fighters from protecting new york!

Could it be, that there was an "exercise" in place, which "hijacked" or manipulated the responses of faa, new york?

We know for example of tripod II, which was scheduled for 12. September, but i found no hints, that faa, new york was included in that.

[Oystein]

Thank you for the responses.

Why did you not read the repsonses then? Or did you not understand them?

Indeed the behaviour of faa, new york would be highly suspicious, if OVT was true. First faa new york should have failed to call neads 11 minutes after it was clear, was was going on...

FAA New York McCormick:
Probably on of the most difficult moments of my life was the 11 Minutes from the point I watched this aircraft, when we first lost communications until the point the aircraft hit the WTC. For those 11 Minutes, I knew, we knew, what was going to happen, and that was difficult.
CNN, 8/12/2002

... then faa new york, should have prevented the fighters from protecting new york!

How so? How do you imagine the fighters could have protected New York at that time? As Dave Rogers has rightly pointed out, the second crash happened long before the fighters could have POSSIBLY reached New York, long before they entered a holding pattern. After that, there was nothing left to protect New York City from.
Why did you not read or understand Dave's post on that?

As I have pointed out, sending fighter planes with lose guns over a megacity like New York with lots of civilian airtraffic going to and from 3 major and a number of minor airports in the vicinity is ridiculously unsafe.
Why did you not read or understand my post on that?

Could it be, that there was an "exercise" in place, which "hijacked" or manipulated the responses of faa, new york?

No, it could not, as I have explained. Why did you not read or understand my post on that particular topic?

We know for example of tripod II, which was scheduled for 12. September, but i found no hints, that faa, new york was included in that.

Compare 12 september with 11 september and report on your findings. How do they relate to one another?
Why doesn't your failure to find any evidence to support your fantasy get you on the right track?

[Pinch]

I'm sorry, but this stuff gets real old real fast. The expectation that some people have that *everyone* *everywhere* knew *everything* with 100% clarity that day is, frankly, absurd and more people should realize that if they applied any critical thinking skills to the question, some of these questions could become moot in seconds.

"The fog of war" is not just some quaint, trite little throw-away phrase that someone made up with as filler copy. Clausewitz said "Everything in war is simple, but the simplest thing is difficult.". Simply making sense of the information flow coming into the FAA centers or the Northeast Air Defense Sector HQ or Otis or Langley AFB proved to be most difficult, and getting interceptors in the air and getting them the information that, at the time, nobody had faith in was very, very difficult.

Much of the standard operating procedures for these alert launches were left over from the old NORAD defense posture days - the threat was external, from long range Bears or Badgers from the USSR or Cuba. Staging alert-launched aircraft offshore was the PRACTICAL thing to do - it kept the threat sector nearby, it deconflicted with civilian air traffic, and provided a ready marshal area for the aircraft to join, refuel off a tanker, whatever. The fact that both sets of alert interceptor aircraft were sent to these staging areas (W-386 for the Langley fighters and W-105/106 for the Otis fighters) is nothing but standard operating procedures.

Yeah...if the information flow was perfect and everyone knew exactly and precisely what was going on, kick the ties and light the fires on those fighters and give them a direct intercept vector to whatever aircraft was in extremis and issue a red and free on whatever it was you knew *exactly* about and blow that SOB out of the sky befor eit hit a building. Too bad life isn't like that.

[Oystein]

bio, what do you think FAA and NORAD should have done to protect NYC?

Let's assume you were the highest operating commander of NEADS that day.
Let's assume you were given every relevant bit of information on the unfolding situation only seconds after it first entered the system.
Let's assume you interpreted every bit of information immediately and correctly with 100% accuracy
Let's assume you knew precisely about every resource you had at hand at that moment.
Let's assume you could issue an order to each resource within seconds and be sure that it was executed without any delay whatsoever.

Please describe, given the information that you have, how you would have handled the situation! Where would you have sent the fighters? With what orders? What would they have done? When? What would have been the result?

[Dumb All Over]

According the official conspiracy theory...
I was unaware there was an "official" conspiracy theory. Is there one?

[bio]

I'm sorry, but this stuff gets real old real fast. The expectation that some people have that *everyone* *everywhere* knew *everything* with 100% clarity that day is, frankly, absurd and more people should realize that if they applied any critical thinking skills to the question, some of these questions could become moot in seconds.

"The fog of war" is not just some quaint, trite little throw-away phrase that someone made up with as filler copy. Clausewitz said "Everything in war is simple, but the simplest thing is difficult.". Simply making sense of the information flow coming into the FAA centers or the Northeast Air Defense Sector HQ or Otis or Langley AFB proved to be most difficult, and getting interceptors in the air and getting them the information that, at the time, nobody had faith in was very, very difficult.

Much of the standard operating procedures for these alert launches were left over from the old NORAD defense posture days - the threat was external, from long range Bears or Badgers from the USSR or Cuba. Staging alert-launched aircraft offshore was the PRACTICAL thing to do - it kept the threat sector nearby, it deconflicted with civilian air traffic, and provided a ready marshal area for the aircraft to join, refuel off a tanker, whatever. The fact that both sets of alert interceptor aircraft were sent to these staging areas (W-386 for the Langley fighters and W-105/106 for the Otis fighters) is nothing but standard operating procedures.

Yeah...if the information flow was perfect and everyone knew exactly and precisely what was going on, kick the ties and light the fires on those fighters and give them a direct intercept vector to whatever aircraft was in extremis and issue a red and free on whatever it was you knew *exactly* about and blow that SOB out of the sky befor eit hit a building. Too bad life isn't like that.

the behavior of faa, new york is just so unbelievable:
For example as faa/new york was informed by faa/boston about Flight 11, new york asked boston concerned, if the military was informed about that flight. This concern, new york (should have) given up obviously 15 minutes later.
or .. as NEADS phoned new york about Flight 11, in a time as new york already knew about the second hijack and (should have) said nothing NEADS about the second hijack? :jaw-dropp

[bio]

Incidentally, if this is accurate, it makes it quite clear that it would have made no difference at all if the fighters had taken a straight-line course to New York. At best, they might have arrived five minutes earlier, still far too late to do anything.

Dave

According to Otis, its fighters can reach New York in ten minutes if they fly with an average speed of 1,125 mph. So it was possible to intercept Flight 175.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/14274495/DH-B4-Andrews-AFB-LogsTimelines-Fdr-Cooperative-Research-Printout-62603-What-Was-the-Government-Doing-on-911

[DGM]

According to Otis, its fighters can reach New York in ten minutes if they fly with an average speed of 1,125 mph. So it was possible to intercept Flight 175.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/14274495/DH-B4-Andrews-AFB-LogsTimelines-Fdr-Cooperative-Research-Printout-62603-What-Was-the-Government-Doing-on-911
Then what? Where would all the debris land? The plane (it won't disappear) would still take-out something, maybe an elementary school with 1000 kids?

[Pinch]

According to Otis, its fighters can reach New York in ten minutes if they fly with an average speed of 1,125 mph. So it was possible to intercept Flight 175.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/14274495/DH-B4-Andrews-AFB-LogsTimelines-Fdr-Cooperative-Research-Printout-62603-What-Was-the-Government-Doing-on-911

Anyone know what a Fourth Generation fighter aircraft burns fuel-wise in full afterburner? The F-14A Tomcat with the P/W TF-30 engines, being flown now only by the Ayatollah's Air Force, drank up 2,000 lbs of fuel every minute in afterburner.

Why would you need to be in afterburner? To reach that Mach 1.6 speed of 1,125 mph at 25,000 feet.

Fuel load for a Tomcat with tanks? 20,000 lbs. The Otis-launched F-15C Eagle fuel load with tanks? A tad more at 22,000 lbs. You'd be bone dry and sucking fumes and vapor after less than 10 minutes - you'd get an extra minute's reprieve or so with an Eagle.

A Tomcat TF-30 engine burned that 2,000 lbs of gas in full afterburner giving only about 17,000 lbs of thrust. The F-15 engines P/W F100s pump out about 25,000 lbs of thrust in full blower, meaning that max fuel flow could even be higher.

I've heard this question a bunch of times, usually from brain-dead truthers, occasionally from those who simply are totally un-knowledgeable about jet aircraft and what it takes to make them go fast. They do not think of fuel flow and what it takes to move 50,000 lbs through the air at speeds faster than the speed of sound - and keep it there.

Where the airliner wreckage will fall would be only one of your worries. Where to put down your gliding out-of-fuel flying brick would be another. Ejection is usually the best answer, meaning there would be yet *another* aircraft impacting some unsuspecting homeowner in Yonkers or some place.

[Dave Rogers]

Indeed the behaviour of faa, new york would be highly suspicious, if OVT was true.

Bio, what is the earthly point of posting here when you're not going to take a blind bit of notice of anyone's replies?

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

Anyone know what a Fourth Generation fighter aircraft burns fuel-wise in full afterburner? The F-14A Tomcat with the P/W TF-30 engines, being flown now only by the Ayatollah's Air Force, drank up 2,000 lbs of fuel every minute in afterburner.

Why would you need to be in afterburner? To reach that Mach 1.6 speed of 1,125 mph at 25,000 feet.

And that's an average speed of 1125mph. Apparently the acceleration is instantaneous.

Dave

[Oystein]

the behavior of faa, new york is just so unbelievable:
For example as faa/new york was informed by faa/boston about Flight 11, new york asked boston concerned, if the military was informed about that flight. This concern, new york (should have) given up obviously 15 minutes later.
or .. as NEADS phoned new york about Flight 11, in a time as new york already knew about the second hijack and (should have) said nothing NEADS about the second hijack? :jaw-dropp

Why are they unbelievable? Because you don't believe them?

You have shown clearly in this very thread that you are unwilling or unable to read and comprehend what people write.

You don't believe something that you know nothing about? You are dealing in religion!

According to Otis, its fighters can reach New York in ten minutes if they fly with an average speed of 1,125 mph. So it was possible to intercept Flight 175.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/14274495/DH-B4-Andrews-AFB-LogsTimelines-Fdr-Cooperative-Research-Printout-62603-What-Was-the-Government-Doing-on-911

I am slowling getting angry at your total contempt for the replies you are given! Read them, try to understand them, learn, and only THEN post again, you are making a fool of yourself!

[Loss Leader]

According to Otis, its fighters can reach New York in ten minutes if they fly with an average speed of 1,125 mph. So it was possible to intercept Flight 175.


And then, of course, you have to budget at least 3.2 seconds to convince the pilots to fire on a large, unarmed passenger aircraft traveling above some of the most heavily populated areas in the country - because that's something that the US Air Force does every day.

[ElMondoHummus]

And then, of course, you have to budget at least 3.2 seconds to convince the pilots to fire on a large, unarmed passenger aircraft traveling above some of the most heavily populated areas in the country - because that's something that the US Air Force does every day.

Waitaminute... were the Otis fighters armed? I need to go look at Gumboot's collection of info again... I recall some fighters going up without armament, and the pilots seriously discussing the possibility of having to ram the jets if worse came to worse. I just don't remember which group.

[Oystein]

Waitaminute... were the Otis fighters armed? I need to go look at Gumboot's collection of info again... I recall some fighters going up without armament, and the pilots seriously discussing the possibility of having to ram the jets if worse came to worse. I just don't remember which group.

The two alert birds at each alert site are always armed.
Langley sent up an additional 3rd plane that happened to be fueled but unarmed (except for, I think, the machine gun, which couldn't do much against Boeing 7x7s).

[fitzgibbon]

I was unaware there was an "official" conspiracy theory. Is there one?

It's better known by the non-addled community as reality.

HTH

Fitz

[Dog Town]

Waitaminute... were the Otis fighters armed? I need to go look at Gumboot's collection of info again... I recall some fighters going up without armament, and the pilots seriously discussing the possibility of having to ram the jets if worse came to worse. I just don't remember which group.

I remember the same thing, however my search foo, or patience, suck today.

Here's all I could find, from Gumboot:
Andrews AFB was not an alert site, and had two squadrons based there on 9/11 with fighter aircraft - VMFA-321 of the USMC Air Reserve (F/A-18) and the 121st FS of the DCANG (F-16C/D). It should be pointed out that both of these squadrons are part time squadrons, and that both were focusing on the close support role during this time (i.e. ground attack, not air interception). In addition VMFA-321 was not on duty on 9/11, and had no staff at the base or aircraft in flight-ready preparation. Two aircraft from the 121st FS were airborne conducting strike training flights armed with bombs, with an additional two preparing to take off.

Upon report of the incidents at the WTC the commanding officers of the 121st FS, on their own initiate decided to recall their aircraft and begin arming them with air to air weapons.

Additionally, off-duty personnel from both squadrons, on their own initiate left their regular civilian employment and made their way to the base.

Shortly after 0937 the USSS contacted Andrews AFB and demanded that the 121st FS get aircraft in the air immediately. Two unarmed fighters were airborne over Washington DC about 20 minutes later, with two armed fighters following about 10 minutes after that. Over the course of the day additional aircraft from the 121st FS took to the air with armament.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3831374&postcount=205

[progge]

The pilot who wanted to ram one of the hijacked planes was Billy Hutchison from Andrews AFB.

And this thread was lost from the start.

[Dog Town]

The pilot who wanted to ram one of the hijacked planes was Billy Hutchison from Andrews AFB.

And this thread was lost from the start.

Thanks, and you are correct. What threads like this end up doing, sometimes, is bringing to light old info. These have been long, info filled, years here.:D

[KDLarsen]

The pilot who wanted to ram one of the hijacked planes was Billy Hutchison from Andrews AFB.
But didn't that turn out to be a bit of bragging it on behalf of Billy Hutchinson?

I thought I read somewhere that the particular flight was never activated or told to intercept UA93, and the only action they saw that day was taking a flight up the Potomac past the Pentagon?

[Reheat]

Waitaminute... were the Otis fighters armed? I need to go look at Gumboot's collection of info again... I recall some fighters going up without armament, and the pilots seriously discussing the possibility of having to ram the jets if worse came to worse. I just don't remember which group.

Alert aircraft are always armed with both missiles and guns. That would include the Otis F-15s and two of the Langley F-16s. The third Langley fighter and the Andrew's F-16s only had a loaded Cannon. I believe it was the first two Andrew's f-16s (not Hutchinson) that discussed Fox 4 (RAM) as an option. They were capping low and the Langley fighters were high.

The OP is one of the most obtuse truthers who post here. I don't believe the problem is a language deficiency; it appears to be a malady which begins with the letter "S" and is common to most truthers.

To add to Pinch's comments regarding fuel.... The Langley F-16's had to refuel shortly after arriving in the DC area even tho' they did not actually go supersonic on their trek to DC. Sustaining full afterburner guzzles an enormous amount of fuel!

[gumboot]

According to Otis, its fighters can reach New York in ten minutes if they fly with an average speed of 1,125 mph. So it was possible to intercept Flight 175.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/14274495/DH-B4-Andrews-AFB-LogsTimelines-Fdr-Cooperative-Research-Printout-62603-What-Was-the-Government-Doing-on-911


At that speed an F-15 would have exhausted its fuel supply before it reached NYC. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Also, the reason they got pushed back by NY controllers is because NY ARTCC management had declared ATC Zero, which closes their airspace. At that point no one was allowed to enter their airspace.

[Reheat]

But didn't that turn out to be a bit of bragging it on behalf of Billy Hutchinson?

I thought I read somewhere that the particular flight was never activated or told to intercept UA93, and the only action they saw that day was taking a flight up the Potomac past the Pentagon?

Well, "someone" got the account wrong as he was only airborne for about 10 minutes. He flew directly from Andrews over the Pentagon and a short way up the Potomac then landed. He had very little fuel.

[gumboot]

Waitaminute... were the Otis fighters armed? I need to go look at Gumboot's collection of info again... I recall some fighters going up without armament, and the pilots seriously discussing the possibility of having to ram the jets if worse came to worse. I just don't remember which group.

Yup. From memory the Otis birds were carrying 2 AIM-9s, 2 AIM-120s, Guns (500 rounds?), and 3 external fuel tanks.

[sheeplesnshills]

according to Vanity Fair, shortly after the second tower is hit,


So what would fighters have done in NY AFTER the second planes had hit?
Why would NWO (or the Wombles, Haliburton, whatever) stop the fighters after they already have both towers hit?

The other planes were headed to Washington...........

[gumboot]

But didn't that turn out to be a bit of bragging it on behalf of Billy Hutchinson?


I don't think you can call it bragging. They might never have got into a situation of facing a hijacked airliner (the reality is no one did that day) but they certainly took off with the intention of preventing an airliner from hitting any more targets, and so they had to determine a way of doing that. They had 500 rounds of ammunition in their guns, which they hoped they could use to "saw" off a wing, otherwise they figured the only remaining option was to ram the wing-root of the airliner and hope they could time their ejection right.

I don't think the fact that they never came close to doing it really changes the bravery and self-sacrifice of determining they would do it, if they had to.

[progge]

But didn't that turn out to be a bit of bragging it on behalf of Billy Hutchinson?

I thought I read somewhere that the particular flight was never activated or told to intercept UA93, and the only action they saw that day was taking a flight up the Potomac past the Pentagon?

But didn't that turn out to be a bit of bragging it on behalf of Billy Hutchinson?

I thought I read somewhere that the particular flight was never activated or told to intercept UA93, and the only action they saw that day was taking a flight up the Potomac past the Pentagon?

Yes, the Hutchison training flight landed at ~10:36, long after United 93 was flown in a field near Shanksville, and got airborne again at 10:38. Hutchison, however, was indeed unarmed, and the fact that there was no hijacked plane in the air when he got airborne does not exclude his willingness to ram any further possible incoming hijacked flight. He could not know when the attackes ended. According to Lynn Spencer, he received positional info from the TSD track of UA 93 (which continued to move until 10:35), btw. So he might have believed that UA 93 was still in the air around 10:30. At least this is what he has told for years (combined with a heavily compressed timeline, however).
His story wasn´t correct overall, that´s for sure, but not every detail has to be wrong.

[gumboot]

Anyone know what a Fourth Generation fighter aircraft burns fuel-wise in full afterburner? The F-14A Tomcat with the P/W TF-30 engines, being flown now only by the Ayatollah's Air Force, drank up 2,000 lbs of fuel every minute in afterburner.


Well, we can look into this.

With three 610gal external fuel tanks (as the Otis fighters were carrying), an F-15C can maintain afterburner for 12 minutes before exhausting its fuel supply. Problem is, at afterburner, in slick configuration, its maximum speed is only 1500MPH. In slick config (i.e. if they ditched their external tanks), they'd exhaust their fuel supply in only 6 minutes.

There's no way whatsoever an F-15C carrying three external fuel tanks and a load of four missiles could reach 1,125MPH, even on Afterburner, which means they'd take longer than the 12 minutes of fuel they have on board, and wouldn't reach NYC before going dry.

If we pull back from afterburner we get a considerable extension in flight endurance for dry thrust only, but we get a corresponding loss of speed.

Cruising speed for a slick F-15C is only 570MPH. At Maximum Dry Thrust you'd be pushing 920MPH (again, slick configuration).

Which ever way you look at it, there's simply no way the Otis fighters could have reached NYC in time.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Well, we can look into this.

With three 610gal external fuel tanks (as the Otis fighters were carrying), an F-15C can maintain afterburner for 12 minutes before exhausting its fuel supply. Problem is, at afterburner, in slick configuration, its maximum speed is only 1500MPH. In slick config (i.e. if they ditched their external tanks), they'd exhaust their fuel supply in only 6 minutes.

There's no way whatsoever an F-15C carrying three external fuel tanks and a load of four missiles could reach 1,125MPH, even on Afterburner, which means they'd take longer than the 12 minutes of fuel they have on board, and wouldn't reach NYC before going dry.

If we pull back from afterburner we get a considerable extension in flight endurance for dry thrust only, but we get a corresponding loss of speed.

Cruising speed for a slick F-15C is only 570MPH. At Maximum Dry Thrust you'd be pushing 920MPH (again, slick configuration).

Which ever way you look at it, there's simply no way the Otis fighters could have reached NYC in time.

I heard similar stats. I read that an F-15 in clean configuration (no external weapons/stores) would go 1500 MPH but would burn out after 15 minutes (one of us has bad info, and I suspect it's me).

Either way, you aren't going to be shooting down anything after you've turned your plane into a 30-million dollar brick.

[Dog Town]

I don't think you can call it bragging. They might never have got into a situation of facing a hijacked airliner (the reality is no one did that day) but they certainly took off with the intention of preventing an airliner from hitting any more targets, and so they had to determine a way of doing that. They had 500 rounds of ammunition in their guns, which they hoped they could use to "saw" off a wing, otherwise they figured the only remaining option was to ram the wing-root of the airliner and hope they could time their ejection right.

I don't think the fact that they never came close to doing it really changes the bravery and self-sacrifice of determining they would do it, if they had to.

Well said, thank you with others, for excellent work, above and beyond...

[tsig]

the behavior of faa, new york is just so unbelievable:
For example as faa/new york was informed by faa/boston about Flight 11, new york asked boston concerned, if the military was informed about that flight. This concern, new york (should have) given up obviously 15 minutes later.
or .. as NEADS phoned new york about Flight 11, in a time as new york already knew about the second hijack and (should have) said nothing NEADS about the second hijack? :jaw-dropp

That's incomprehensible!

[fess]

The two alert birds at each alert site are always armed.
Langley sent up an additional 3rd plane that happened to be fueled but unarmed (except for, I think, the machine gun, which couldn't do much against Boeing 7x7s).

Please forgive me Sir, I am certainly not trying to be a smart ass, but a757/767 would not stand a chance against an M-61 Vulcan 20mm machine gun (cannon).

[Sam.I.Am]

To be fair and even handed we have to admit that a lot of what people are saying here about the NYC phase of the attacks being over @ 0903 so it didn't matter is 100% hindsight on our part. At the time there were several other possible high visibility targets (off of the top of my head the Statue of Liberty, UN, Chrysler Building and Empire State Building comes to mind) that day. I think that the truthers are trying to spin that hindsight into something along the lines of the NWO knew that the attacks were over.

The opposite is true, they didn't know anything at all for sure other than they didn't want even more people dead from midair collisions. To make sure that that didn't happen they stopped letting aircraft take off, didn't let anymore aircraft in and landed what was in their airspace. Once they had a handle on all of that they allowed the fighters into their airspace to CAP without a serious fear of midair collision.

[Loss Leader]

Please forgive me Sir, I am certainly not trying to be a smart ass, but a757/767 would not stand a chance against an M-61 Vulcan 20mm machine gun (cannon).


I don't think there's a question as to whether the gun could have seriously messed a 757 up. The question is whether the gun could have been used reliably in a manner that was certain to bring down the plane in a place of the USAF's choosing.

[BigAl]

Please forgive me Sir, I am certainly not trying to be a smart ass, but a757/767 would not stand a chance against an M-61 Vulcan 20mm machine gun (cannon).

Of course, but can you name the type of aircraft that mount a canon? It's a very short list.

Can you list which of those types were assigned to NORAD on 9/11? It's an even shorter list and may be zero.

There are many other reasons why the idea of a shoot-down is stupid and can be shown to have never happened.

[gumboot]

Of course, but can you name the type of aircraft that mount a canon? It's a very short list.

Can you list which of those types were assigned to NORAD on 9/11? It's an even shorter list and may be zero.

There are many other reasons why the idea of a shoot-down is stupid and can be shown to have never happened.


Actually every single US military fighter has carried an M-61 Vulcan 20mm rotary cannon since it was introduced. Even though they're basically obsolete, they still put them in, because there's something psychologically comforting about having guns for the pilot - the F-22 has an M-61, for example.

With regards to 9/11, all variants of both the F-15 and F-16 have an M-61.

Loss Leader is right, however, while an M-61 would certainly shred up an airliner, there's no guarantee it would bring it down, let alone bring it down quickly.

The problem is an airliner is a considerably larger target than the M-61 is really designed to engage (other fighters), and it's a far more redundant airframe. Airliners of various models have previously managed to survive some pretty catastrophic airframe damage.

As previously mentioned, the pilots of the 121st FS reflected on this issue (because they initially had no missiles) and decided aiming for the root of the wing was the best option, as an airliner with one wing missing was going to come down pretty fast.

[Reactor drone]

Loss Leader is right, however, while an M-61 would certainly shred up an airliner, there's no guarantee it would bring it down, let alone bring it down quickly.

The problem is an airliner is a considerably larger target than the M-61 is really designed to engage (other fighters), and it's a far more redundant airframe. Airliners of various models have previously managed to survive some pretty catastrophic airframe damage.



As an example here's (http://englishrussia.com/index.php/2008/06/03/the-korean-boeing/) a boeing 707 that was shot up with 23mm cannon fire.

ETA Correction-actually that was a missile hit, for some reason I remembered it as being a cannon attack...oops.

[gumboot]

I heard similar stats. I read that an F-15 in clean configuration (no external weapons/stores) would go 1500 MPH but would burn out after 15 minutes (one of us has bad info, and I suspect it's me).

Either way, you aren't going to be shooting down anything after you've turned your plane into a 30-million dollar brick.


Pretty similar figures in any event. Here's my calculations for the F-15 in slick configuration:

Powerplant: Pratt and Whitney F100-PW-220 engine x2
Thrust specific fuel consumption rates:
Dry: 0.72lbs/hr per lb thrust
Wet: 2.5lb/hr per lb thrust
Maximum Thrust:
Dry: 14,670lb
Wet: 23,830lb
Internal fuel supply: 1,790gal (12,000lb)

Consumption rate at maximum afterburner:
2.5lb/hr x (23,830 x 2)
2.5lb/hr x (47,660)
119,150lb/hr
12,000lb / 119,150lb
=0.1007 hrs
= 6 minutes

[Reheat]

Of course, but can you name the type of aircraft that mount a canon? It's a very short list.

This is wrong as Gumboot has pointed out. Since the 50's only 2 fighter/attack aircraft have not had the Vulcan Cannon. The F-4 (B/C/D) did not, but one was mounted on the later E Model. The A-10 has a 30 MM Cannon, not the 20MM. Those are the only exceptions that occur to me at the moment.

There are many other reasons why the idea of a shoot-down is stupid and can be shown to have never happened.

Prior to the 2nd aircraft in NY (which the OP is addressing) I agree. After the 2nd Aircraft it was a very viable option and under other circumstances could have occurred.

Actually every single US military fighter has carried an M-61 Vulcan 20mm rotary cannon since it was introduced. Even though they're basically obsolete, they still put them in, because there's something psychologically comforting about having guns for the pilot - the F-22 has an M-61, for example.

The first fighter with the M-61 was the F-104. As I mentioned above the F-4 B/C/D did not have it, but after lessons learned in South East Asia it was added to the F-4E.

It is old technology, but I strongly disagree that it's obsolete.

Loss Leader is right, however, while an M-61 would certainly shred up an airliner, there's no guarantee it would bring it down, let alone bring it down quickly.

Correct, an Airliner is difficult to shoot down because of the many redundant systems and the location of the engines on the wing.

Their best option would have been to raze the cockpit, but that's not a fast solution. The wing target might have worked, but it's not a proven method.

[Loss Leader]

The wing target might have worked, but it's not a proven method.


Outside of the Die Hard movies, I don't think there are many proven methods for destroying a jetliner with a machine gun.

[BigAl]

Actually every single US military fighter has carried an M-61 Vulcan 20mm rotary cannon since it was introduced. Even though they're basically obsolete, they still put them in, because there's something psychologically comforting about having guns for the pilot - the F-22 has an M-61, for example.

With regards to 9/11,l variants of both the F-15 and F-16 have an M-61.



I checked with the usually reliable Federation of American Scientists web site about aircraft. They say F-14 and F-18.

I defer to people with first-hand knowledge and hate being wrong. In my defense, I did say there are many other reasons why we know that a shoot-down never happened.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/m61.htm

[sheeplesnshills]

"Correct, an Airliner is difficult to shoot down because of the many redundant systems and the location of the engines on the wing.

Their best option would have been to raze the cockpit, but that's not a fast solution. The wing target might have worked, but it's not a proven method."


I have no doubt a good pilot could bring down an airliner with cannon alone and even if he didn't odds are the terrorists would have lost control trying to avoid the fire......I doubt that the flight simulator covered be shot at!

Point is though they never got the chance.....things happened too fast and we were lamentably ill prepared.

[Pinch]

I checked with the usually reliable Federation of American Scientists web site about aircraft. They say F-14 and F-18.

I defer to people with first-hand knowledge and hate being wrong. In my defense, I did say there are many other reasons why we know that a shoot-down never happened.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/m61.htm

All fighter aircraft these days have the M-61 Gatling gun installed. We went through that no-gun phase in Vietnam with the F-4 - "We don't NEED a gun any more! We have missiles". Pilots said they could have gotten dozens more MiGs if they had a gun.

In the Tomcat we'd carry about 250 rounds of standard training rounds all the time. When we would have an event where we would be firing the thing, tracer rounds would be loaded for an air-to-air event and HEI (high-explosive incendiary) rounds would be loaded for an air-to-ground event. We used to say the HEI rounds turned the gun into a canon since the HEI would pierce armor, fragment, and ignite readily combustible materials - specifically aircraft fuel or hydraulic fluid and the like.

Gun rounds are loved by the aircrew - there's no countermeasure to a gun round - you can't use chaff or a flare. A "Guns, guns, guns" call during an air combat engagement is music to one set of ears and a flaming death to another. The ultimate kill in the air is a guns kill.

Airliners are pretty tough aircraft, though, despite the news from PfT that a Boeing 767 will break up at 450 knots. The best example of the robustness of these aircraft is the DHL Airbus A300 that was hit by a SA-7 Grail shortly after take off out of Baghdad in 2003. Heavy and full of fuel, the Airbus took the missile in its port wing, losing hydraulics and the 1A fuel tank. The aircrew did a simply superb job getting the aircraft back on the ground in one piece. Granted, the Grail warhead is only 2.5 lbs, but hitting a fuel tank, setting part of the wing on fire and not downing the aircraft tells me these aircraft are not Caspar Milquetoasts.

There are other stories, some anecdotal, of aircraft taking missile or gun hits and not being destroyed. Military tactical aircraft are much more compact with fuel and hydraulic lines and all sorts of other vital/critical components closely bunched together simply because of need. A single gun round could very likely hit a critical part of the aircraft and bring it down. Not so much for an airliner.

[fitzgibbon]

To be fair and even handed we have to admit that a lot of what people are saying here about the NYC phase of the attacks being over @ 0903 so it didn't matter is 100% hindsight on our part.

I came out of a cinema @ about 10:25 during the Toronto International Film Festival ("Monsoon Wedding" if you must know) and on the street, there was talk that somebody'd heard that the CN Tower'd just been evacuated because there was an airliner reported tracking in on it.

The cool logic of hindsight 9 years after the fact is 20-20 when panic is the order of the hour on the day.

Fitz

[MaGZ]

Response from Otis Air National Guard Base

American Airlines Flight 11 was hijacked at 8:13 when Mohamad Atta took control of the plane about 50 miles west of Boston, Massachusetts. Shortly thereafter the flight's transponder was turned off. Around 8:20 the flight stopped transmitting its Identify Friend or Foe (IFF) beacon signal and started to deviate from its scheduled path. At that time authorities thought the plane may have been hijacked. At 8:24 the plane made a 100-degree turn to the south heading toward New York City. At 8:34 –some reports say "around 8:30" –Boston flight controllers attempted to contact Otis Air National Guard Base at Cape Cod and inform them of the hijacked plane.

Snipped for compliance with Rule 4. Do not post copyrighted material or long segments of material available elsewhere. Instead post a short quote and a link to the pre-existing source.

[Dog Town]

A near interception of the second plane at 9:03 as it was crashing into the South Tower is the best explanation for what happened that day. The fighters fired their missiles –seconds too late –hitting the southern face of World Trade Center 7.

Oh' c'mon! The bird crap, flap, BS again! REALLY?!

Show some real evidence. PLEASE!

ETA: I'd love to see your definition, to the word in bold!

[fess]

Originally Posted by MaGZ
A near interception of the second plane at 9:03 as it was crashing into the South Tower is the best explanation for what happened that day. The fighters fired their missiles –seconds too late –hitting the southern face of World Trade Center 7.

I would not degrade the word “lie” by using it to describe the above statement.

[Loss Leader]

A near interception of the second plane at 9:03 as it was crashing into the South Tower is the best explanation for what happened that day.


Except for the fact that none of the several million eyewitnesses to the second crash saw anything like that. But, of course, some of those witnesses were Jews, so their opinions would have to be discounted.

[ElMondoHummus]

But, of course, some of those witnesses were Jews, so their opinions would have to be discounted.

Jewish people in Manhattan :eye-poppi?? Surely you jest. ;)

[PhantomWolf]

I have no doubt a good pilot could bring down an airliner with cannon alone and even if he didn't odds are the terrorists would have lost control trying to avoid the fire......I doubt that the flight simulator covered be shot at!

Point is though they never got the chance.....things happened too fast and we were lamentably ill prepared.

The best example is probably this one where two planes used cannon fire on a passanger jet is likely this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Arab_Airlines_Flight_114) and even then the pilots attempted to make an emergency landing rather then being shot from the skies.

[bio]

According to Otis, its fighters can reach New York in ten minutes if they fly with an average speed of 1,125 mph. So it was possible to intercept Flight 175.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/14274495/DH-B4-Andrews-AFB-LogsTimelines-Fdr-Cooperative-Research-Printout-62603-What-Was-the-Government-Doing-on-911

According the my source, the otis birds would had need 10 minutes with 1,125 mph. So it is not true, that they ran out of fuel, before intercepting Flight 175. In the source, you can also find the information, that the birds were stocked with extra fuel.

It seems, that most of you did not understand my question regarding FAA New York (due to my bad english?), so not addressing my question at all, instead calling me "brain-dead" indirectly.

[funk de fino]

According the my source, the otis birds would had need 10 minutes with 1,125 mph. So it is not true, that they ran out of fuel, before intercepting Flight 175. In the source, you can also find the information, that the birds were stocked with extra fuel.

It seems, that most of you did not understand my question regarding FAA New York (due to my bad english?), so not addressing my question at all, instead calling me "brain-dead" indirectly.


More fuel equals extra external fuel tanks. This leads to a less clean configuration. More fuel used. They would have fallen out of the sky when they arrived even if they made it. I am ex fast jet technician. You are clueless on this.

[BigAl]

According the my source, the otis birds would had need 10 minutes with 1,125 mph. So it is not true, that they ran out of fuel, before intercepting Flight 175. In the source, you can also find the information, that the birds were stocked with extra fuel.

It seems, that most of you did not understand my question regarding FAA. New York (due to my bad english?), so not addressing my question at all, instead calling me "brain-dead" indirectly.

And 100 million people would heard the sonic boom. Some windows would have broken and there would be thousands of calls to local 911 that are all recorded.

None of that happened on 9/11.

In other words, your fantasy is a fantasy.

[bio]

And 100 million people would heard the sonic boom. Some windows would have broken and there would be thousands of calls to local 911 that are all recorded.

None of that happened on 9/11.

In other words, your fantasy is a fantasy.

read the source, was the pilot fantasying, as he said "I was in full blower all the way".

why did FAA New York stop him?

[Dave Rogers]

why did FAA New York stop him?

I seem to remember someone posting a quote that explained that the FAA controllers were “afraid of fast-moving fighters colliding with a passenger plane,” but I can't remember who or where it was. Do you remember reading anything like that, ever?

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6059782#post6059782

Dave

[Oystein]

Please forgive me Sir, I am certainly not trying to be a smart ass, but a757/767 would not stand a chance against an M-61 Vulcan 20mm machine gun (cannon).

You are forgiven, and I admit I spoke from imagination, not from expert knowledge ;)
However, the idea of being prepared to ram the airliner in case the cannon doesn't do its job seems to indicate that gunning is not the surest of bets. From interviews and what else I read about that Langley-posse, the third pilot with gun but no missiles seemed concernd that he couldn't really do much with just his gun.

[Oystein]

According the my source, the otis birds would had need 10 minutes with 1,125 mph. So it is not true, that they ran out of fuel, before intercepting Flight 175. In the source, you can also find the information, that the birds were stocked with extra fuel.

It seems, that most of you did not understand my question regarding FAA New York (due to my bad english?), so not addressing my question at all, instead calling me "brain-dead" indirectly.

It seems that you do not read the many replies you are given.

gumboot provided exact numbers about capacity and consumption of fighter planes so you can compute yourself.
Why do you ignore him? Why do you cling to vague hearsay and inexact prose, when you have exact numbers to go by?

Why do you not adress the many posters who answered your question of why the fighters were not allowed over New York - because they would have posed more of a danger than a help?

Why dou you not discuss the obvious question of what, in your mind, the fighters SHOULD have done in New York, had they gotten there earlier?

Why do you stubbornly ignore pretty much everything anybody writes in this thread?

Why do you quote yourself, and not those who were so kind to reply to your OP and your questions?

[fess]

According the my source, the otis birds would had need 10 minutes with 1,125 mph. So it is not true, that they ran out of fuel, before intercepting Flight 175. In the source, you can also find the information, that the birds were stocked with extra fuel.

I know a lot of people think that “torch jockeys” have testicles the size of beach balls, but plowing through one of the busiest approach corridors in the US at M1.8 would have been terrifying! Especially considering that you are flying 4.5 times faster than anything in the area, looking for a target whose location is not exactly known, trying to slow down to line up for a gun run, and trying to find the perfect area to strike the target to minimize damage to additional property would be next to impossible.
Also consider that alert aircraft are not configured to intercept targets over US airspace, and a myriad of other problems that were present on that day.
And, I might ask, where did they carry this extra fuel?

[beachnut]

read the source, was the pilot fantasying, as he said "I was in full blower all the way".

why did FAA New York stop him?
Who knows what Flight 175 is going to do? You are funny, no one has clue Flight 175 is going to impact the WTC.

"All the way" where? Are you making up lies in your head that have no scenario attached? Do you have a delusion you found something important on 911?

Going fast the F-15 would be over 27,500 feet high; where was Flight 175? How long does it take to identify and lock up the correct Airliner to shoot down? What would he do anyway? How does he know Flight 175 is going to aim at the WTC?

Not a single hijacked aircraft before 911 over the USA was intercepted with an armed fighter!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! On purpose, or with the intention to stop the hijacking by shooting down the aircraft.

“I was in full blower all the way,” ? All the way to where? lol
He was talking about 911 after 911; after he knew what was going on.

Full blower is full afterburner, it does not mean he was going MACH 2.5, it means his F-15's afterburner is in full. The throttle has a min and full afterburner, we used the burner for takeoff (pilot training - T-38) only in pilot training save the few students who decided to do the very short high loading afterburner solo ride just to say you left it in after burner for the whole flight. I think we had 4,000 pounds of fuel and the afterburners burned 20,000 pounds of fuel an hour; I may be off on the amounts but in the plane I have a fuel gage, and I have a fuel flow to the engines.

When in "full blower" you can climb faster! When he was in full blower all the way where was he? How long was in he in "full blower" since he was not allowed to go and try to hit airliners?

You can't just go anywhere you want you might hit other planes; when you are going 900 mph you are a hazard to other traffic. The low altitude top speed of an F-15 was 900 mph, not 1,200 mph! Where was Flight 175?

I bet he was in full burner past the normal takeoff use; but he was in an area he was allowed to go fast and boom, he would have scared millions of people if he arrived over the coast going MACH 1.7 busting windows.

The F-15 would RUN OUT OF FUEL IN 11 Minutes at FULL BURNER if he had enough fuel. With internal fuel the F-15 runs out of fuel in 6.5 minutes and never gets to NYC! No full blower stories to NYC will stand! But I understand he was in "full blower", but you don't understand what he was talking about because you are taking it out of context!.

A pilot who expects to complete a mission and land any where he can on a clear day like 911 could use full blower with judgment to get to NYC fast; BUT on 911 there were no procedures for arriving in NYC at high speed or any quick way to de-conflict traffic so we don't kill extra non-hijacked aircraft, or launch air to air missiles and hit a day care center with missile at MACH 4 by accident.

FACT, with extra fuel tanks he can't go as FAST.

IF an F-15 is in full blower to NYC he runs out fuel after he see Flight 175 flash by or sooner.

You can't base your 911 ideas on the premise of anyone knowing what Flight 175 was going to do. No one knows what Flight 175 is going to do on 911 until it happens.

"I was in full blower all the way". to the staging area? To the holding pattern? To altitude? To the warning area? Funny stuff a quote out of context in a web site where the dolt who publishes it thinks there is something about 911 which is funny. Yes, he is right, he is a moron who collects news stories and adds idiotic comments of his own; Paul Thomson an enabler, the kibitzer for delusions from conspiracy theorist like you.

[Dog Town]

instead calling me "brain-dead" indirectly.

Well...if the shoe fits.

[gumboot]

According the my source, the otis birds would had need 10 minutes with 1,125 mph. So it is not true, that they ran out of fuel, before intercepting Flight 175. In the source, you can also find the information, that the birds were stocked with extra fuel.

Either

A) Your source is wrong
B) You're interpreting your source wrongly

There's a couple of major issues with your theory.

1) We have radar data for the fighters from Otis, and they never reached anywhere near 1125MPH. Most of their flight, from memory, was below 600MPH.

2) The extra fuel was carried in three large external fuel tanks. These fuel tanks impair an aircraft's aerodynamic profile and reduce their performance. An F-15 carrying three large external fuel tanks cannot reach 1,125MPH. Not even in afterburner.

3) Even in "line of sight", with no need to gain altitude, an F-15 travelling at 1,125MPH cannot fly from Otis ANGB to the WTC in 10 minutes. It would be about three miles short. In any event, the Otis flight had to take off, gain altitude, and did not fly a direct route from Otis to the WTC, but instead first headed over the ocean and flew SW from there. When NY ARTCC denied them entry into their airspace, nine minutes into their flight, they were less than 2/3 of the way to the WTC.


It seems, that most of you did not understand my question regarding FAA New York (due to my bad english?), so not addressing my question at all, instead calling me "brain-dead" indirectly.

As I've illustrated above, you don't have even the most basic grasp of the pertinent factors that are needed to make any sort of statement about Otis' performance in reaching NYC. While I don't think you are in fact "brain-dead", your posts thus far are a remarkable impersonation of someone who is.

[bio]

Either

A) Your source is wrong
B) You're interpreting your source wrongly

There's a couple of major issues with your theory.

1) We have radar data for the fighters from Otis, and they never reached anywhere near 1125MPH. Most of their flight, from memory, was below 600MPH.

2) The extra fuel was carried in three large external fuel tanks. These fuel tanks impair an aircraft's aerodynamic profile and reduce their performance. An F-15 carrying three large external fuel tanks cannot reach 1,125MPH. Not even in afterburner.

3) Even in "line of sight", with no need to gain altitude, an F-15 travelling at 1,125MPH cannot fly from Otis ANGB to the WTC in 10 minutes. It would be about three miles short. In any event, the Otis flight had to take off, gain altitude, and did not fly a direct route from Otis to the WTC, but instead first headed over the ocean and flew SW from there. When NY ARTCC denied them entry into their airspace, nine minutes into their flight, they were less than 2/3 of the way to the WTC.




As I've illustrated above, you don't have even the most basic grasp of the pertinent factors that are needed to make any sort of statement about Otis' performance in reaching NYC. While I don't think you are in fact "brain-dead", your posts thus far are a remarkable impersonation of someone who is.

thank you for quoting the evidences for the OVT (official conspiracy theory), but "my" source comes from the otis-pilot and Major General Arnold!

But this is not the topic, why I started the thread here.

How can FAA New York first call NEADS to intercept Flight 175 at 09:03, but deny them flying into the airspace of New York? Yes, FAA New York grounded all planes, but this is for me no reason why stopping the two birds from Otis! That is crazy.

In contrast, the FAA in the capital did need just two minutes to clear a corridor for the Langley fighters at 09:22!

[BigAl]

thank you for quoting the evidences for the OVT (official conspiracy theory), but "my" source comes from the otis-pilot and Major General Arnold!

But this is not the topic, why I started the thread here.

How can FAA New York first call NEADS to intercept Flight 175 at 09:03, but deny them flying into the airspace of New York? Yes, FAA New York grounded all planes, but this is for me no reason why stopping the two birds from Otis! That is crazy.

In contrast, the FAA in the capital did need just two minutes to clear a corridor for the Langley fighters at 09:22!

There are three major airports and three secondary airports literally within sight of the WTC towers and several other major airports in the area. There were hundreds of jets in the air converging on these landing strips.

Washington has only one that I know of (Reagan) and it's small. I bet it's comparable to the smallest of NYC's six and was very easy to clear the D.C. sky. D.C. also has Dulles, 30+ miles away.

[defaultdotxbe]

How can FAA New York first call NEADS to intercept Flight 175 at 09:03, but deny them flying into the airspace of New York? Yes, FAA New York grounded all planes, but this is for me no reason why stopping the two birds from Otis! That is crazy.
didnt flight 175 crash at 9:03? which would mean by the time the fighters got to NYC there were no confirmed nor suspected hijacked aircraft in the area, so no reason to have the fighters in the traffic lanes

the fighters were put in a holding pattern off the long island coast, which should put them about 20-40 miles outside of manhattan, or 5 minutes even at a relatively low speed

so if another hijacked plane was on approach to NYC the fighters could be called into the cities airspace rather quickly, of course no more hijacked (or suspected hijacked) came into NY that day

[Loss Leader]

How can FAA New York first call NEADS to intercept Flight 175 at 09:03, but deny them flying into the airspace of New York? Yes, FAA New York grounded all planes, but this is for me no reason why stopping the two birds from Otis! That is crazy.

In contrast, the FAA in the capital did need just two minutes to clear a corridor for the Langley fighters at 09:22!


Let's see - Did anything happen between 9:03 and 9:22 that might account for the change in FAA policy? Anything at all take place in those eighteen minutes?

IIRC, the second plane hit Tower Two, confirming for the first time that the US was being subject to a coordinated attack. Chief Flight Control Officer at Newark/Liberty closed the airport to all traffic (he was the first one to do so). All the other New York airports followed suit. The FAA struggled with whether it had the authority to ground every plane in the air. For eighteen minutes, various US military and civilian authorities came to realize that we were at war and none of them knew who with.

Demanding that actions taken at 9:22 be compared to those taken at 9:03 (even if your timeline is in any way correct) ... it's like demanding that my wife's OB/GN perform the same duties before the birth of my son as after he'd been delivered.

[Oystein]

...
How can FAA New York first call NEADS to intercept Flight 175 at 09:03, but deny them flying into the airspace of New York? Yes, FAA New York grounded all planes, but this is for me no reason why stopping the two birds from Otis! That is crazy.

In contrast, the FAA in the capital did need just two minutes to clear a corridor for the Langley fighters at 09:22!

100% argument from incredulity, fed 100% by incompetence. You have not shown the least bit of knowledge about air traffic controlling, fighter jet performance, and you have shown very clearly that you do not read or not understand the many replies and explanations given to you in this thread.

Please address the arguments offered to you! Don't just repeat your ignorance and incredulity over and over again!

And please explain how you would have expected FAA, NORAD and the fighters to act in a best case scenario? What would they have done over New York City? Please be specific?



As for coming back to the quotes by Duff and Arnold:
Major General Larry Arnold, the commanding general of NORAD’s Continental Region, will say the fighters are “coming to New York.”
-> The fighters DID come to New York, did they not??

Lt. Col. Timothy Duffy, the lead Otis pilot, tells the BBC, “When we took off we started climbing a 280-heading, basically towards New York City.”
-> Duffy DID fly towards NYC, did he not??

Please explain why you see a discrepancy between their prose, and the flight path and "official" timeline? I see none.

[bio]

Come on guys!

The FAA New York talked around 09:02 with the FAA Command Center and said, that there is something bigger underway, that they need to involve the military!

In a conference call, Peter Mulligan, a manager at the FAA’ s New York Center, tells the FAA Command Center in Herndon, Virginia: “We have several situations going here. It’ s escalating big, big time. We need to get the military involved with us.”

Then the same FAA New York prevented the military to enter the airspace over New York, because they had to ground planes first? That sounds crazy.

Imagine, America had been under attack by Russian fighters, and the FAA would had done the same?

[beachnut]

...Imagine, America had been under attack by Russian fighters, and the FAA would had done the same?
Russian fighters don't have the legs to get here; your analogy suffers from the same fantasy based faulty logic as your OP. You have no understanding of flying. You just posted proof that the whole incident does not have a conspiracy theory attached.

You post your own debunking. You just don't understand. Your questions don't make sense since you are answering them as you go.

If there was a surprise attack from Russian Fighters they would be unopposed just like 911 until the event was figured out; been car jacked yet? Are you ready?

The FAA figured out terrorists were taking plane and killing; they did this when Flight 175 impacted; we all figured out 911 when Flight 175 impacted. Why are you not understanding 911?

Where is the target? Which plane has the terrorists? Where are they? NORAD was not tasked to stop aircraft from impacting buildings when it is a surprise. NORAD does not patrol over the USA before 911 with armed aircraft!

[DGM]

Come on guys!

The FAA New York talked around 09:02 with the FAA Command Center and said, that there is something bigger underway, that they need to involve the military!

In a conference call, Peter Mulligan, a manager at the FAA’ s New York Center, tells the FAA Command Center in Herndon, Virginia: “We have several situations going here. It’ s escalating big, big time. We need to get the military involved with us.”

Then the same FAA New York prevented the military to enter the airspace over New York, because they had to ground planes first? That sounds crazy.

Imagine, America had been under attack by Russian fighters, and the FAA would had done the same?

You never answered my question. What do you think these super-sonic fighters were going to do when they got to NYC? You do realize when you shoot something down it doesn't disappear, it takes out things on the ground.

So in your best "arm chair quarterback". What would you have done, and why?

[bio]

What was going on at the FAA in New York?

Around 09:13 am:
NEADS Takes Control of Airspace
At NEADS, battle commander Colonel Robert Marr had lost patience waiting for approval from the FAA to send the Otis jets to New York, and so has just declared “AFIO” (Authorization for Interceptor Operations) for New York airspace, which gives the military authority to enter that airspace without permission (see (9:12 a.m.) September 11, 2001).
Spencer, 2008, pp. 113

[DGM]

What was going on at the FAA in New York?

Around 09:13 am:
NEADS Takes Control of Airspace
At NEADS, battle commander Colonel Robert Marr had lost patience waiting for approval from the FAA to send the Otis jets to New York, and so has just declared “AFIO” (Authorization for Interceptor Operations) for New York airspace, which gives the military authority to enter that airspace without permission (see (9:12 a.m.) September 11, 2001).
Spencer, 2008, pp. 113
Let's see, in one of the busiest air corridors in the country 2 planes have just impacted the trade towers (totally unexpectedly). How do you think things should have gone?

[bio]

Let's see, in one of the busiest air corridors in the country 2 planes have just impacted the trade towers (totally unexpectedly). How do you think things should have gone?

In Washington D.C it was possible to clear a corridor in just 2 minutes! Unfortunately the langley fighters were rushing into the wrong direction.

[DGM]

In Washington D.C it was possible to clear a corridor in just 2 minutes! Unfortunately the langley fighters were rushing into the wrong direction.
Wasn't that after they already knew that planes were being used as weapons?

[bio]

Wasn't that after they already knew that planes were being used as weapons?

For the FAA, New York this was clear already 11 minutes before the second attack around 08:52!

Mike McCormick, the head of the FAA’ s New York Center, sees the coverage of the first World Trade Center attack on CNN. He assumes that Flight 175,
which he is tracking on his radar screen, is also headed into the WTC. He will recall: “ Probably one of the most difficult moments of my life was the 11 minutes from the point I watched that aircraft, when we first lost communications until the point that aircraft hit the World Trade Center. For those 11 minutes, I knew, we knew, what was going to happen, and that was
difficult.”

[DGM]

For the FAA, New York this was clear already 11 minutes before the second attack around 08:52!

Mike McCormick, the head of the FAA’ s New York Center, sees the coverage of the first World Trade Center attack on CNN. He assumes that Flight 175,
which he is tracking on his radar screen, is also headed into the WTC. He will recall: “ Probably one of the most difficult moments of my life was the 11 minutes from the point I watched that aircraft, when we first lost communications until the point that aircraft hit the World Trade Center. For those 11 minutes, I knew, we knew, what was going to happen, and that was
difficult.”
You love hindsight, don't you? What did they actually know for SURE at that point?

BTW: How far out were the fighters at this point?

[progge]

In contrast, the FAA in the capital did need just two minutes to clear a corridor for the Langley fighters at 09:22!

Um ... what are you talking about?

[Loss Leader]

In Washington D.C it was possible to clear a corridor in just 2 minutes! Unfortunately the langley fighters were rushing into the wrong direction.


You understand why, right? Nobody knew what was happening. Your post contains the answer to your question. The reason that the response wasn't better was that nobody had a clear picture of what they were supposed to be responding to.

[bio]

Um ... what are you talking about?

According to the 1st Air Force’s book about 9/11, the three fighters are “given highest priority over all other air traffic at Langley Air Force Base” as they are launching.
Filson, 2003, pp. 63
But, according to author Lynn Spencer, in spite of this, the jets are delayed. As Eckmann is approaching the runway, he calls the control tower for clearance to take off, but the tower controller tells him, “Hold for an air traffic delay.” Air traffic controllers at the FAA’s Washington Center “have not had time to clear airliners out of the way for the northerly heading. Dozens of aircraft at various altitudes fill the jets’ route.” After having to wait two minutes, Eckmann complains: “We’re an active air scramble. We need to go now!” Finally, the tower controller tells him, “Roger, Quit flight is cleared for takeoff, 090 for 60,” meaning the fighters are to fly due east for 60 miles (see (9:30 a.m.) September 11, 2001).
Spencer, 2008, pp. 143-144

[DGM]

Never mind.

[MaGZ]

Exercise Jump-Starts Response to Attacks

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/defense/aviationnow_jumpstart.htm

"Duffy had a bad feeling about the suspected hijacking; something didn't feel right. Consequently, he jammed the F-15's throttles into afterburner and the two-ship formation devoured the 153 mi. to New York City at supersonic speeds. "It just seemed wrong. I just wanted to get there. I was in full-blower all the way," he said."

[fitzgibbon]

You love hindsight, don't you? What did they actually know for SURE at that point?

C'mon, DGM; Hindsight's always 20-20! Bio'd have made an excellent Japanese Monday-morning samurai insisting that he'd have sent a squadron of Zeros to take down the Enola Gay.

[DGM]

Exercise Jump-Starts Response to Attacks

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/defense/aviationnow_jumpstart.htm

"Duffy had a bad feeling about the suspected hijacking; something didn't feel right. Consequently, he jammed the F-15's throttles into afterburner and the two-ship formation devoured the 153 mi. to New York City at supersonic speeds. "It just seemed wrong. I just wanted to get there. I was in full-blower all the way," he said."
So? What was the plan when he got there? Was he just going to do what "felt right".

Question. Would you fly today if every pilot (fighter or otherwise) could do to whoever based on "what felt right"? You do know there are rules concerning this sort of thing?

[bio]

Exercise Jump-Starts Response to Attacks

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/defense/aviationnow_jumpstart.htm

"Duffy had a bad feeling about the suspected hijacking; something didn't feel right. Consequently, he jammed the F-15's throttles into afterburner and the two-ship formation devoured the 153 mi. to New York City at supersonic speeds. "It just seemed wrong. I just wanted to get there. I was in full-blower all the way," he said."

My suspicion is, that NEADS lost their fighters from otis (like the fighters from langley) to another command authority, existing this day. Unfortunately I found no direct evidence for that. What speaks for that suspicion:
First I saw no hart evidence, that in fact FAA, New York stopped the otis-fighters from entering New York airspace. The Norad-Tapes just prove, that NEADS wanted permission from the FAA, that their fighters could fly directly over Manhatten.
Secondly the otis-fighters were rushing with supersonic speed towards New York around 08:53, and then flew into the wrong direction (like the fighters from Langley) minutes later.

[DGM]

My suspicion is, that NEADS lost their fighters from otis (like the fighters from langley) to another command authority, existing this day. Unfortunately I found no direct evidence for that. What speaks for that suspicion:
First I saw no hart evidence, that in fact FAA, New York stopped the otis-fighters from entering New York airspace. The Norad-Tapes just prove, that NEADS wanted permission from the FAA, that their fighters could fly directly over Manhatten.
Secondly the otis-fighters were rushing with supersonic speed towards New York around 08:53, and then flew into the wrong direction (like the fighters from Langley) minutes later.
And your suspicion would be based on the need to find something suspicious about that happened. Nothing you said is based in fact (like you admitted).


Why don't you just base your opinions on what is known to be factually correct?

[bio]

And your suspicion would be based on the need to find something suspicious about that happened. Nothing you said is based in fact (like you admitted).


Why don't you just base your opinions on what is known to be factually correct?

this whole official story does not match up:

1. According to the pilot and Major General Arnold, the birds were flying supersonic towards New York around 08:53, although flight 11 crashed into the wtc 1 at 08:46.
2. Then NEADS-commander Marr decided, to send the birds into the other direction, because he did not know, what to do with them.
3. FAA, New York called NEADS around 09:03 due to flight 175 .
4. Then Marr changed his mind, and wanted to redirect the birds again towards New York, but FAA, New York gave no permission for it.
4. NEADS sent the birds around 09:13 over New York without the permission of the FAA.

[Reheat]

Secondly the otis-fighters were rushing with supersonic speed towards New York around 08:53, and then flew into the wrong direction (like the fighters from Langley) minutes later.

You are full of a crock of crap!

Regardless of what Duffy said the radar record for the Otis F-15s shows that they were barely supersonic very briefly at one point. Otherwise they were around 600 KIAS or so.

As had been said, you are clueless. It has been repeatedly pointed out to you that no one knew for sure there was an attack until after UA 175 impacted the second tower, but you continue with your hindsight nonsense as if you're smarter than everyone else. The FACTS are that your posts reveal that you are very dumb and unable to assimilate facts as they are pointed out to you. You then proceed to come to pure crap preconceived conclusions based on ignorance. You have behaved in the exact same way on all of the threads you've introduced.

It is well past time you found another hobby.

[DGM]

this whole official story does not match up:

1. According to the pilot and Major General Arnold, the birds were flying supersonic towards New York around 08:53, although flight 11 crashed into the wtc 1 at 08:46.
2. Then NEADS-commander Marr decided, to send the birds into the other direction, because he did not know, what to do with them.
3. FAA, New York called NEADS around 09:03 due to flight 175 .
4. Then Marr changed his mind, and wanted to redirect the birds again towards New York, but FAA, New York gave no permission for it.
4. NEADS sent the birds around 09:13 over New York without the permission of the FAA.
The only "confusion" I see is yours. Your taking isolated comments and trying to fit them into what you see as "confusion". Viewed as a whole and NOT using hindsight as a guide I have yet to see any inappropriate actions.

Are you ready to show us that radar data and transcripts of actual conversations were wrong? That is what you need to do, you know.

[bio]

You are full of a crock of crap!

Regardless of what Duffy said the radar record for the Otis F-15s shows that they were barely supersonic very briefly at one point. Otherwise they were around 600 KIAS or so.

As had been said, you are clueless. It has been repeatedly pointed out to you that no one knew for sure there was an attack until after UA 175 impacted the second tower, but you continue with your hindsight nonsense as if you're smarter than everyone else. The FACTS are that your posts reveal that you are very dumb and unable to assimilate facts as they are pointed out to you. You then proceed to come to pure crap preconceived conclusions based on ignorance. You have behaved in the exact same way on all of the threads you've introduced.

It is well past time you found another hobby.

... so Lynn Spencer is "full of a crock of crap", too!

According to author Lynn Spencer, after taking off, Duffy and Nash fly “supersonic toward New York for approximately 15 minutes.” But just after the second WTC tower is hit, Duffy suggests to the weapons controller at NEADS that the two fighters head to the Whiskey 105 training airspace off Long Island, and that is where they then go.
Spencer, 2008, pp. 83-85

[DGM]

... so Lynn Spencer is "full of a crock of crap", too!

According to author Lynn Spencer, after taking off, Duffy and Nash fly “supersonic toward New York for approximately 15 minutes.” But just after the second WTC tower is hit, Duffy suggests to the weapons controller at NEADS that the two fighters head to the Whiskey 105 training airspace off Long Island, and that is where they then go.
Spencer, 2008, pp. 83-85
You don't see the contradiction in this post as to your other posts? (hint in bold)

This actually negates the premise of the OP, I believe.

[Seymour Butz]

This whole thread puts on display exactly why truthers need to come up with some kind of narrative about what they believed happened.

For if you are of the opinion that it was a LIHOP, then every discussion about explosives get thrown out the window.

And if it's an incompetence argument, then there is zero conspiracy angle and the thread needs to be moved to politics.

[bio]

You don't see the contradiction in this post as to your other posts? (hint in bold)

This actually negates the premise of the OP, I believe.

I see the contradiction in the story of Miss Spencer:

First the pilot wanted, that the birds fly out of New York around 9:03. "Duffy suggests to the weapons controller at NEADS that the two fighters head to the Whiskey 105 training airspace off Long Island, and that is where they then go."
Spencer, 2008, pp. 83-85

Then around 09:13 am NEADS, battle commander Colonel Robert Marr, had lost patience waiting for approval from the FAA to send the Otis jets to New York, and so has just declared “AFIO” (Authorization for Interceptor Operations) for New York airspace, which gives the military authority to enter that airspace without permission (see (9:12 a.m.) September 11, 2001).
Spencer, 2008, pp. 113

:D

[Reheat]

... so Lynn Spencer is "full of a crock of crap", too!

According to author Lynn Spencer, after taking off, Duffy and Nash fly “supersonic toward New York for approximately 15 minutes.” But just after the second WTC tower is hit, Duffy suggests to the weapons controller at NEADS that the two fighters head to the Whiskey 105 training airspace off Long Island, and that is where they then go.
Spencer, 2008, pp. 83-85

You've illustrated my point precisely. I have told you what the radar record shows, yet you come back with what someone wrote in a book that is second or perhaps third hand information! Brilliant!

According to you several different agencies made the decision to send the fighters to W-105. You've stated that it was the FAA; then it was Marr, and now you say it was Duffy. You don't have a clue either here or anywhere else what you even read.

You either need to crawl back in a hole or else go to some twoofer site to spread your garbage, you've not doing very well here.

[DGM]

I see the contradiction in the story of Miss Spencer:

First the pilot wanted, that the birds fly out of New York around 9:03. "Duffy suggests to the weapons controller at NEADS that the two fighters head to the Whiskey 105 training airspace off Long Island, and that is where they then go."
Spencer, 2008, pp. 83-85

Then around 09:13 am NEADS, battle commander Colonel Robert Marr, had lost patience waiting for approval from the FAA to send the Otis jets to New York, and so has just declared “AFIO” (Authorization for Interceptor Operations) for New York airspace, which gives the military authority to enter that airspace without permission (see (9:12 a.m.) September 11, 2001).
Spencer, 2008, pp. 113

:D
So after the jets didn't arrive in time (becauuse they didn't have enough notice) they were cleared to do what the may have been able to do if in fact they could have got there in time. (that hurt to type).

Is that your position?

How again did the FAA stop them from doing all this?

[defaultdotxbe]

My suspicion is, that NEADS lost their fighters from otis (like the fighters from langley) to another command authority, existing this day. Unfortunately I found no direct evidence for that.
somehow, im not surprised

im also not surprised you dont let this get in the way of proclaiming it as fact

[Reheat]

How again did the FAA stop them from doing all this?

I think it might be termed a tangled of ignorance weaved by Mr. bio!

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1840746c1f10359a41.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7720)

[DGM]

I think it might be termed a tangled of ignorance weaved by Mr. bio!

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1840746c1f10359a41.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=7720)
I had to go back and reread it because I couldn't believe someone could contradict themselves so many times. Un-freaking believable. :confused:

[Reheat]

I had to go back and reread it because I couldn't believe someone could contradict themselves so many times. Un-freaking believable. :confused:

Thread Closed!

[beachnut]

I see the contradiction in the story of Miss Spencer:

First the pilot wanted, that the birds fly out of New York around 9:03. "Duffy suggests to the weapons controller at NEADS that the two fighters head to the Whiskey 105 training airspace off Long Island, and that is where they then go."
Spencer, 2008, pp. 83-85

Then around 09:13 am NEADS, battle commander Colonel Robert Marr, had lost patience waiting for approval from the FAA to send the Otis jets to New York, and so has just declared “AFIO” (Authorization for Interceptor Operations) for New York airspace, which gives the military authority to enter that airspace without permission (see (9:12 a.m.) September 11, 2001).
Spencer, 2008, pp. 113

:D
These are not contradictions, it is what happened based on information in a book. Do you have questions?

Can the USAF send planes against the wishes of the FAA into airspace the FAA say is closed? Yes. Can a pilot fly where he wants? Yes, as proved by the terrorist pilots, a pilot can disobey rules and go anywhere until someone stops him physically or he runs out of gas; the flight path will be recorded on RADAR unless it is Reheat flying beside the lampposts and trees. Do people run red lights?

[Loss Leader]

I see the contradiction in the story of Miss Spencer:

First the pilot wanted, that the birds fly out of New York around 9:03.


Even according to the source that you most respect, the fighters got to New York too late to do anything. So, what would be the point of any conspiracy to keep them out of NYC airspace for ten minutes longer? Even if we agree with you, 9/11 wouldn't have turned out any differently. Your argument, to the extent that it is coherent, is irrelevant.

[progge]

According to the 1st Air Force’s book about 9/11, the three fighters are “given highest priority over all other air traffic at Langley Air Force Base” as they are launching.
Filson, 2003, pp. 63
But, according to author Lynn Spencer, in spite of this, the jets are delayed. As Eckmann is approaching the runway, he calls the control tower for clearance to take off, but the tower controller tells him, “Hold for an air traffic delay.” Air traffic controllers at the FAA’s Washington Center “have not had time to clear airliners out of the way for the northerly heading. Dozens of aircraft at various altitudes fill the jets’ route.” After having to wait two minutes, Eckmann complains: “We’re an active air scramble. We need to go now!” Finally, the tower controller tells him, “Roger, Quit flight is cleared for takeoff, 090 for 60,” meaning the fighters are to fly due east for 60 miles (see (9:30 a.m.) September 11, 2001).
Spencer, 2008, pp. 143-144

The Otis fighters got airborne few minutes after the scramble order was given - 6 minutes after, like the Langley birds -, and initially they got their air corridor, too. There is, I would assume, always an air corridor for the initial scramble around an AFB, and usually it would be directed offshore due to the NORAD mission and due to the fact that there is not that much air traffic offshore, compared to CONUS. As you might have noticed, both fighter squadrons, Langley and Otis, were initially sent offshore, and there is reason for that.
But this doesn´t prove your point that the behaviour of FAA controllers was somehow different, by comparison of the Langley and Otis scramble. Controllers at the AFB TRACONs reacted quite similarly. Controllers at ZNY reacted somewhat different, but again, you can´t compare this so easily. ZNY controllers were and are not located on an AFB, and not in a TRACON. Unlike AFB TRACON controllers, they were and are responsible for a much greater area which is heavily trafficed. And unlike AFB TRACON controllers, they couldn´t and can´t rely on pre-determined air corridors for fighter jets.
You were told so countless times, and it´s time to acknowledge that. I mean, you are searching for the truth, eh?

[triforcharity]

And that's an average speed of 1125mph. Apparently the acceleration is instantaneous.

Dave

Well, der. Haven't you seen Top Gun? :D:D

[bio]

The Otis fighters got airborne few minutes after the scramble order was given - 6 minutes after, like the Langley birds -, and initially they got their air corridor, too. There is, I would assume, always an air corridor for the initial scramble around an AFB, and usually it would be directed offshore due to the NORAD mission and due to the fact that there is not that much air traffic offshore, compared to CONUS. As you might have noticed, both fighter squadrons, Langley and Otis, were initially sent offshore, and there is reason for that.
But this doesn´t prove your point that the behaviour of FAA controllers was somehow different, by comparison of the Langley and Otis scramble. Controllers at the AFB TRACONs reacted quite similarly. Controllers at ZNY reacted somewhat different, but again, you can´t compare this so easily. ZNY controllers were and are not located on an AFB, and not in a TRACON. Unlike AFB TRACON controllers, they were and are responsible for a much greater area which is heavily trafficed. And unlike AFB TRACON controllers, they couldn´t and can´t rely on pre-determined air corridors for fighter jets.
You were told so countless times, and it´s time to acknowledge that. I mean, you are searching for the truth, eh?

thank you for your valuable hint!

... so the FAA, New York should have given the otis-fighters a corridor into New York at 08:53, but retracted this permission after the second attack at 09:03 - especially after they called NEADS directly, asking for assistance?

progge:
show me a source, which confirms, that the FAA, New York really did not permit the fighters entering the airspace over New York, retracted the corridor-route

[gumboot]

How can FAA New York first call NEADS to intercept Flight 175 at 09:03, but deny them flying into the airspace of New York?

New York never asked for an intercept. That was Boston, with regards to AA11. NYC merely told NEADS they were handling a hijacking, that's all.



Yes, FAA New York grounded all planes, but this is for me no reason why stopping the two birds from Otis! That is crazy.

They didn't order a ground stop, they declared ATC Zero. Do you even know what that means?


In contrast, the FAA in the capital did need just two minutes to clear a corridor for the Langley fighters at 09:22!

That's because NEADS declared AFIO for the fighters out of Langley. The FAA is obliged to facilitate AFIO flights and give them priority over all other air traffic.

[bio]

New York never asked for an intercept. That was Boston, with regards to AA11. NYC merely told NEADS they were handling a hijacking, that's all.

well - "we need to get the military involved" means not asking for an intercept? Instead ....
In a conference call, Peter Mulligan, a manager at the FAA’ s New York Center, tells the FAA Command Center in Herndon, Virginia: “We have several situations going here. It’ s escalating big, big time. We need to get the military involved with us.”

That's because NEADS declared AFIO for the fighters out of Langley. The FAA is obliged to facilitate AFIO flights and give them priority over all other air traffic.
well "AFIO" was declared minutes after the langley fighters were already scrambled, around 9:36 (so long after New York) but the Navy did not comply fully with NEADS.

Now it does the same for Washington airspace. Fox tells the members of his weapons team: “We’re going direct [to] DC with my guys. Tell Giant Killer that we’re going AFIO!”
[Spencer, 2008, pp. 150]
(“Giant Killer” is the call sign for the Fleet Area Control and Surveillance Facility in Virginia Beach, Virginia—the Navy air traffic control agency that handles all over-water military operations.
New York Times, 2/10/1997; Spencer, 2008, pp. 143

NEADS Unable to Contact Langley Jets - Master Sergeant Steve Citino, the NEADS weapons director, tries calling Langley pilot Major Dean Eckmann to inform him of the AFIO declaration, but receives no response. According to author Lynn Spencer, the Langley jets are not yet in NEADS’s radio range. Meanwhile, NEADS Staff Sergeant William Huckabone calls Giant Killer and notifies it: “Ma’am, we are going AFIO right now with Quit 2-5 [the Langley fighters]. They are going direct [to] Washington.” But the controller only offers modest reassurance that the Langley jets will be given the appropriate clearance to enter Washington airspace, responding, “We’re handing ‘em off to [the FAA’s Washington] Center right now.” Huckabone retorts: “Ma’am, we need that expedited right now! We need to contact them on 234.6.… Do you understand?”

I am wondering, if NEADS had similar problems with the Navy in regard to the otis birds ...

[MaGZ]

My suspicion is, that NEADS lost their fighters from otis (like the fighters from langley) to another command authority, existing this day. Unfortunately I found no direct evidence for that. What speaks for that suspicion:
First I saw no hart evidence, that in fact FAA, New York stopped the otis-fighters from entering New York airspace. The Norad-Tapes just prove, that NEADS wanted permission from the FAA, that their fighters could fly directly over Manhatten.
Secondly the otis-fighters were rushing with supersonic speed towards New York around 08:53, and then flew into the wrong direction (like the fighters from Langley) minutes later.

As you can see the fighters did reach Ground Zero at 9:03. Here is a video showing either a fighter or missile flyover the WTC.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49NZWGWNGz8&feature=related

[MaGZ]

You've illustrated my point precisely. I have told you what the radar record shows, yet you come back with what someone wrote in a book that is second or perhaps third hand information! Brilliant!

According to you several different agencies made the decision to send the fighters to W-105. You've stated that it was the FAA; then it was Marr, and now you say it was Duffy. You don't have a clue either here or anywhere else what you even read.

You either need to crawl back in a hole or else go to some twoofer site to spread your garbage, you've not doing very well here.

Sending the fighters to W-105 would make a great cover story.

[MaGZ]

This whole thread puts on display exactly why truthers need to come up with some kind of narrative about what they believed happened.

For if you are of the opinion that it was a LIHOP, then every discussion about explosives get thrown out the window.

And if it's an incompetence argument, then there is zero conspiracy angle and the thread needs to be moved to politics.

And the third possibility is the fighters arrived at 9:03 under orders to shoot down the second plane. They fired their missiles missing the plane but hitting WTC 7 near the 12th floor south side. The conspiracy is the cover-up. The government has to argue they just didn't have time to shoot-down the hijacked planes.

[MaGZ]

More video of fighters and missiles arriving at GZ 9:03.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15VUbP16XpI&feature=related

[Giggywig]

As you can see the fighters did reach Ground Zero at 9:03. Here is a video showing either a fighter or missile flyover the WTC.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49NZWGWNGz8&feature=related

Or a bird. Or Superman. Yes I think it's Superman.

[MaGZ]

Or a bird. Or Superman. Yes I think it's Superman.

Your in denial. You see it, but you just can not face reality.

[Giggywig]

Your in denial. You see it, but you just can not face reality.

You mean... it's not Superman?

[progge]

thank you for your valuable hint!

... so the FAA, New York should have given the otis-fighters a corridor into New York at 08:53, but retracted this permission after the second attack at 09:03 - especially after they called NEADS directly, asking for assistance?

progge:
show me a source, which confirms, that the FAA, New York really did not permit the fighters entering the airspace over New York, retracted the corridor-route

ZNY did not have to “retract the corridor-route”, because there was no “corridor-route” to retract; an air corridor from Whiskey 105 to Manhattan had yet to be established. The air corridor provided to the Otis and Langley fighters by Cape & Langley TRACON was a free airspace around the AFB, since this is exactly the airspace handled by an AFB TRACON.
Here’s some info from Steve Walsh, FAA controller at Cape TRACON (my bold):

Walsh believes Cape TRACON understood that it was critical for the fighters to "clear" (be free of air traffic) at a 5 mile radius as quickly as possible. Walsh commented that he was familiar with the steps necessary to quickly clear airspace since Otis AFB has procedure in place to serve as the back-up landing facility for the NASA space shuttle, and Cape TRACON has responsibility to partake in this function.

The free airspace established by Cape TRACON controllers for the Otis birds did not include ZNY airspace, since TRACON controllers simply did and still do not have the means to clear any ARTCC airspace around; TRACONs lack radar capacities, lack people and lack contact to the relevant flights.

As to FAA not permitting NORAD to send their fighters over Manhattan immediately after 09:03 EDT, listen to the NORAD Tapes, MCC Op.

[bio]

More video of fighters and missiles arriving at GZ 9:03.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15VUbP16XpI&feature=related

here I cannot see videos of fighters or missiles

[fess]

As you can see the fighters did reach Ground Zero at 9:03. Here is a video showing either a fighter or missile flyover the WTC.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49NZWGWNGz8&feature=related

If indeed that was a missile fired by a fighter aircraft, I would suggest the pilot return to Nellis AFB for additional training. That shot looks like it will take out the Empire State building, not WTC7.

[Oystein]

I see the contradiction in the story of Miss Spencer:
...

Great! So throw out Miss Spencer book, and we're all fine. :)

Thread closed?

[Oystein]

Come on guys!

The FAA New York talked around 09:02 with the FAA Command Center and said, that there is something bigger underway, that they need to involve the military!

In a conference call, Peter Mulligan, a manager at the FAA’ s New York Center, tells the FAA Command Center in Herndon, Virginia: “We have several situations going here. It’ s escalating big, big time. We need to get the military involved with us.”

Then the same FAA New York prevented the military to enter the airspace over New York, because they had to ground planes first? That sounds crazy.

Imagine, America had been under attack by Russian fighters, and the FAA would had done the same?

Come on bio!

Yesterday I asked you to...

...
Please address the arguments offered to you! Don't just repeat your ignorance and incredulity over and over again!
...

...and a mere hour later, there you go again, repeating your ignorance and incredulity over and over again, withouit adressing anybody's arguments!

Cut it, will you!

[bio]

Great! So throw out Miss Spencer book, and we're all fine. :)

Thread closed?

It is noticed, that many of you do not appreciate the good research of Lynn Spencer. You like to ask me questions, so one question to you based on the 9/11 commission report and Lynn Spencer. The otis fighters were sent out into the wrong direction because...

Tell me - what "reason" for is valid:

1. According to the 9/11 Commission, the two fighters had been sent to the military-controlled airspace over the Atlantic Ocean because they lacked a target, and so have been flying in this area for the last few minutes (see 9:09 a.m.-9:13 a.m. September 11, 2001). They are currently about 115 miles from the city.
9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 20 and 24

2. At NEADS, battle commander Colonel Robert Marr had lost patience waiting for approval from the FAA to send the Otis jets to New York, and so has just declared “AFIO” (Authorization for Interceptor Operations) for New York airspace, which gives the military authority to enter that airspace without permission (see (9:12 a.m.) September 11, 2001).
Spencer, 2008, pp. 113

[gumboot]

It is noticed, that many of you do not appreciate the good research of Lynn Spencer. You like to ask me questions, so one question to you based on the 9/11 commission report and Lynn Spencer. The otis fighters were sent out into the wrong direction because...

Tell me - what "reason" for is valid:

1. According to the 9/11 Commission, the two fighters had been sent to the military-controlled airspace over the Atlantic Ocean because they lacked a target, and so have been flying in this area for the last few minutes (see 9:09 a.m.-9:13 a.m. September 11, 2001). They are currently about 115 miles from the city.
9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 20 and 24

2. At NEADS, battle commander Colonel Robert Marr had lost patience waiting for approval from the FAA to send the Otis jets to New York, and so has just declared “AFIO” (Authorization for Interceptor Operations) for New York airspace, which gives the military authority to enter that airspace without permission (see (9:12 a.m.) September 11, 2001).
Spencer, 2008, pp. 113


These two points are not contradictory. 1. refers to the initial scramble and divert of Otis after they decided there was no target. 2. refers to NEADS later deciding that despite there being no target, it was probably best to get a CAP over NYC. Two entirely separate issues. If you actually bothered to do some basic research, such as listening to the NEADS recordings, this would be abundantly clear to you.

[bio]

These two points are not contradictory. 1. refers to the initial scramble and divert of Otis after they decided there was no target. 2. refers to NEADS later deciding that despite there being no target, it was probably best to get a CAP over NYC. Two entirely separate issues. If you actually bothered to do some basic research, such as listening to the NEADS recordings, this would be abundantly clear to you.

:eek: how can you say that?

That is not the case as the norad-tapes prove. Around 08:51 NEADS had no target anymore, nevertheless NEADS wanted to have the fighters over New York.

Major Kevin Nasypany, the facility's mission crew commander, was asked what to do with the Otis fighters around 08:51. He responded: "Send ‘em to New York City still. Continue! Go! This is what I got. Possible news that a 737 just hit the World Trade Center. This is a real-world.... Continue taking the fighters down to the New York City area, JFK [International Airport] area, if you can. Make sure that the FAA clears it-your route all the way through.... Let's press with this."
Vanity Fair, 8/1/2006

Why NEADS changed its mind, and send them in the other direction? This makes no sense, because there was even greater urgency after the second hit at 09:03 than around 08:51!

[funk de fino]

They did not have a target. It's quite simple really.

[funk de fino]

And the third possibility is the fighters arrived at 9:03 under orders to shoot down the second plane. They fired their missiles missing the plane but hitting WTC 7 near the 12th floor south side. The conspiracy is the cover-up. The government has to argue they just didn't have time to shoot-down the hijacked planes.

Mike Catalano debunks your silly theory. The fact you still repeat it while knowing this, proves you are lying.

He was in WTC7, he does not report a missile strike. Missiles do not work the way you think they do.

[bio]

They did not have a target. It's quite simple really.


So Major Kevin Nasypany was wrong?

[funk de fino]

So Major Kevin Nasypany was wrong?

Did they have a target? No.

Did the FAA clear the route at that time? Your own quote shows you that. Strange you did not bold that eh?

Your English comprehension is severely lacking. Thats why you have so many problems with this simple stuff. Even if the jets got there in time (which they couldn't) they would have had no fuel left.

What one man wants and what one man gets is sometimes two different things.

[BigAl]

So Major Kevin Nasypany was wrong?

As of 9:03 there were no known targets left to intercept.

[Oystein]

It is noticed, that many of you do not appreciate the good research of Lynn Spencer. You like to ask me questions, so one question to you based on the 9/11 commission report and Lynn Spencer.

You found contradictions in her book. Does that not get you thinking about the quality of her research?

The otis fighters were sent out into the wrong direction because...

Tell me - what "reason" for is valid:

1. According to the 9/11 Commission, the two fighters had been sent to the military-controlled airspace over the Atlantic Ocean because they lacked a target, and so have been flying in this area for the last few minutes (see 9:09 a.m.-9:13 a.m. September 11, 2001). They are currently about 115 miles from the city.
9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 20 and 24


This is obviously a true and valid statement: There was no target at that time (9:09 a.m.-9:13 a.m.) - or was there? If you think, there was a specific target, please name it! If you do not think there was a specific target, please admit that you agree with that statement! Please do NOT DODGE this question! I want you nailed on this!


2. At NEADS, battle commander Colonel Robert Marr had lost patience waiting for approval from the FAA to send the Otis jets to New York, and so has just declared “AFIO” (Authorization for Interceptor Operations) for New York airspace, which gives the military authority to enter that airspace without permission (see (9:12 a.m.) September 11, 2001).
Spencer, 2008, pp. 113

What was, in your mind, Marr's objective, and what was, in your mind, FAA's objective?

In my mind, Marr wanted to establish a CAP early, and FAA wanted to clear the airspace first.
So you have one man disagreeing with some other organization.
What theory of yours would this support, and how would this be contradictory to the official account?
Please be specific!

[Oystein]

:eek: how can you say that?

He can say that because he understands aviation, air traffic control, flight physics, military think and all that's so very helpful to understand 9/11.
You understand nothing at all. That's why you can't say these things yourself.

...
Why NEADS changed its mind, and send them in the other direction? This makes no sense, because there was even greater urgency after the second hit at 09:03 than around 08:51!

Urgency to do WHAT? We have asked you many times now to explain what YOU think the fighters should or could have done over New York, with civilian airspace still filled and no more targets to be intercepted? Please do so now! Explain why it would have been better or made any difference at all had the fighters been send to NYC at that time instead!

[Cheap Shot]

1st Otis fighters were late getting off. Why? Colonel Marr did not want to launch them without "Z Point", (No Target). Why? F-15's do not have a limited supply of gas. The idea of getting a Tanker in the sky to follow a couple of F-15's who don't know where they are going doesn't make sense logistically. Personally I wanted them up earlier, and called Otis numerous times wondering where they were at, (a minute seems like a lifetime for controllers). When they did launch the first tower had been hit. Relayed to me by third person, when the F-15's first talked to Boston Center the controllers advised them they were to late and cleared them into W-105. Around this time New York had gone ATC Zero for the hijacked aircraft. Boston Center assumed they were talking about AAL11, not UAL175, who Boston Center had no idea it had been hijacked. If we knew we would have pursuaded New York to take the fighters. The fighters went into a hold in W-105 becasue New York was not taking aircraft, ATC Zero is a function where you attempt to sterilize your airspace. All approach controls are shut off and all adjacent Centers as well. They will not take traffic. If we knew UAL175 was hijacked I beleive New York would have worked them. After the second tower had been hit, New York was not going to take any aircraft what so ever. Col. Marr and NEADS personell watched the second tower get hit live. I can understand why he declared AFIO at that time, I beleive his best play was to get the planes over the city, not knowing what else was out there.

Shortly after the second tower was hit we began developing a list of other potential hiajcked aircraft. We were all shooting from the hip that day. Most of our actions that day were not preventive but reactionary. We had no other choice.

Some people are so far off on the subject, the recent post about ACARS and the posts about flight explorer. There are so many cold hard facts, like raw radar hits and tapes of conversations. Believe me ACARS and flight explorer are nothing in the scheme of things.

But to hopefully put an answer to this thread, Yes, New York denied the Otis fighters.

If you have a question you could ask me, I have never not answered a question that I knew the answer to. I don't rip people unless they just won't accept the truth after numerous conversations, or you ask someone that was not there, that did not experience the event first hand, but watched "loose change" several times and is now an expert.

I was interviewed by Lynn Spencer many times, by the way I don't remember her saying that the Otis fighters departed or were cleared the wrong way (I may be wrong). Are you referring to the fighters out of Langley? W-105 is not the wrong way by the way, it is perfect place for fighter aircraft to hold.

[Spektator]

1st Otis fighters were late getting off. Why? Colonel Marr did not want to launch them without "Z Point", (No Target). Why? F-15's do not have a limited supply of gas. (SNIP).

Do you mean "do not have an unlimited supply"?

[Cheap Shot]

My bad unlimited supply of fuel

[Redtail]

You mean... it's not Superman?
Not bird, not Supes, nor even frog....

[bio]

1st Otis fighters were late getting off. Why? Colonel Marr did not want to launch them without "Z Point", (No Target). Why? F-15's do not have a limited supply of gas. The idea of getting a Tanker in the sky to follow a couple of F-15's who don't know where they are going doesn't make sense logistically. Personally I wanted them up earlier, and called Otis numerous times wondering where they were at, (a minute seems like a lifetime for controllers). When they did launch the first tower had been hit. Relayed to me by third person, when the F-15's first talked to Boston Center the controllers advised them they were to late and cleared them into W-105. Around this time New York had gone ATC Zero for the hijacked aircraft. Boston Center assumed they were talking about AAL11, not UAL175, who Boston Center had no idea it had been hijacked. If we knew we would have pursuaded New York to take the fighters. The fighters went into a hold in W-105 becasue New York was not taking aircraft, ATC Zero is a function where you attempt to sterilize your airspace. All approach controls are shut off and all adjacent Centers as well. They will not take traffic. If we knew UAL175 was hijacked I beleive New York would have worked them. After the second tower had been hit, New York was not going to take any aircraft what so ever. Col. Marr and NEADS personell watched the second tower get hit live. I can understand why he declared AFIO at that time, I beleive his best play was to get the planes over the city, not knowing what else was out there.

(...)

But to hopefully put an answer to this thread, Yes, New York denied the Otis fighters.

(...)
I was interviewed by Lynn Spencer many times, by the way I don't remember her saying that the Otis fighters departed or were cleared the wrong way (I may be wrong). Are you referring to the fighters out of Langley? W-105 is not the wrong way by the way, it is perfect place for fighter aircraft to hold.

thanks.

Do you have a "theory" what went wrong in the FAA, New York?

[bio]

quit interestling, I cannot find prove about that claim
"Yes, New York denied the Otis fighters."
there stands nothing about that here:
http://data.911workinggroup.org/foia/911%20COMMISSION%20REPORT%20DATA%20%28redact%29/4%20AWA%20941%20Memorandum%20New%20York%20ARTCC%20 GG,%20GG.pdf

Around 09:11 the FAA, New York was asked after military involvement concerning Flight 175:
Answer from ZNY, OMIC: "Affirm, there were yes were military the aircraft up i don´t know how many an where they are but they were up."
Following question: "Do you know where that military these military flights emanated?
Faa, New York: "no, i dont know."

"

[Cheap Shot]

from 3rd party Fighters requested to go to New York City, Boston Center checked with New York who had or was about to declare ATC Zero, they said no not at this time to much traffic. Boston center continued to hold the aircraft in W-105. At some time I beleive New York to control of the aircraft I don't know if it was while they were in W-105 or not, eventually they were cleared New York City, whether AFIO was declared and they went to New York Center. AFIO was not declared through Boston Center that I am aware of. W-105 airspace is shared between Boston and New York Center's however to get to Manhatten the aircraft would have to pass through our Airspace.

There was no mess up for my understanding New York didn't want fighter aircraft crossing one of the busiest corridors in the world, don't blame them, unless they removed some of thier traffic.

In addition to the emotions flowing knowing that one tower had already been hit, they were probably assuming at first that some controller had messed up real bad and put a plane in the tower. In addition Botgalia (sp) had a close as mid air any controller would want to got through with the Delta and UAL175. It's one thing to have control of a situation and aircraft get real close, but to have a situation where you are only talking to one aircraft and the other is doing what ever it wants is rather scary. controllers control, and most of us are control freaks, being out of control is something we are never used to. If I was a supervisor in his area, I wouldn't let any aircraft into that sector with what he was going through, especially some fighters who didn't know where they were going.

[Cheap Shot]

Read the link seems like that was from the OMIC desk, Fighters were probably denied form either a hotline fron controller to controller or a dial up line form controller to controller. The other option it could have been by a regular phone call from Supervisor to Supervisor, all hotlines and dial-ups are recored, and the tapes are probably somewhere, the regualr phone calls are supposed to be recorded, but I have never seen that many recordings from them. Most of the OMIC logs were on regular phone lines, command center calls may have been hotline.

[bio]

from 3rd party Fighters requested to go to New York City, Boston Center checked with New York who had or was about to declare ATC Zero, they said no not at this time to much traffic. Boston center continued to hold the aircraft in W-105. At some time I beleive New York to control of the aircraft I don't know if it was while they were in W-105 or not, eventually they were cleared New York City, whether AFIO was declared and they went to New York Center. AFIO was not declared through Boston Center that I am aware of. W-105 airspace is shared between Boston and New York Center's however to get to Manhatten the aircraft would have to pass through our Airspace.
(...)

I believe you, you are an evidence in your own ... thank you for your assistance ...

... but I researched (as much as my limited English skills allow me) and found no direct evidence for your statements. It would be very interesting to see documents / interviews in the web. We have here experts like progge, who did a lot of research and can help us out...

On the contrary, perhaps I found following statement concerning the handling of Flight 11, which could contradict a bit your statement:

"ZNY ATM asks Area B OSIC (OS Paul Thumser) & CIC (Evana Dowis) to coordinate for fighter intercept on hijack aircraft. ZNY MLS contacts Huntress. Several discussions over a period of 12 minutes occurred, including much information about type aircraft, aircraft call sign, beacon code and location."

http://www.scribd.com/doc/14353942/T8-B17-FAA-Trips-2-of-3-Fdr-Air-Traffic-Division-Event-Summary

my working theory at the moment:

The Otis-birds were flying supersonic to New York Manhatten, but were stopped unfortunately by the FAA, New York. The reason was, that FAA, New York feared collisions of the fighters with other aircrafts. This fear arose, as FAA, New York had to see, that Flight 175 almost crashed with other planes like Delta ...

[funk de fino]

The question is: Who stopped the Otis fighters!

It is of no relevance.

[bio]

It is of no relevance.

no - if the fighters were really flying supersonic to New York ... then they would have been very close to an intercept.

[Sam.I.Am]

no - if the fighters were really flying supersonic to New York ... then they would have been very close to an intercept.

As already pointed out to you more than once in this thread, even if they were flying a supersonic beeline straight to NYC from Otis they would have been out of fuel just short of downtown Manhattan. This means that no intercept could've been possible without tankers either on site over NYC or along their flight path. There were no tankers in the air when they left Otis and even if there were tankers available, midair fueling isn't done at supersonic speeds for safety reasons and the simple fact that tankers can't fly supersonic. These two things rule out your theory that the fighters could've been able to intercept flight 175 because it's physically and logistically impossible.

You remind me of a story from the cold war where one of the first Soviet nuclear subs in the Black Sea Fleet was sent to be on site when Egypt attacked Israel with orders to be there in something like 5 days when they were easily 12 days away. The person who tasked them had no idea of their actual capabilities so he made some very bad assumptions based upon whatever magical powers he assumed a nuclear powered boat had and he gave them impossible orders to follow.

You're doing the same thing by ascribing capabilities to a machine that it physically can't do simply because you think it works by PFM (pure ******* magic) and that wishing that something had nonexistent capabilities makes it so.

[funk de fino]

no - if the fighters were really flying supersonic to New York ... then they would have been very close to an intercept.

No, they would not. They would have run out of fuel and would have fallen out of the sky. I used to work on fast jets. You have no idea what you are talking about. Even if they did they had no shoot down order.

[Oystein]

I believe you, you are an evidence in your own ... thank you for your assistance ...

... but I researched (as much as my limited English skills allow me) and found no direct evidence for your statements. It would be very interesting to see documents / interviews in the web. We have here experts like progge, who did a lot of research and can help us out...

On the contrary, perhaps I found following statement concerning the handling of Flight 11, which could contradict a bit your statement:

"ZNY ATM asks Area B OSIC (OS Paul Thumser) & CIC (Evana Dowis) to coordinate for fighter intercept on hijack aircraft. ZNY MLS contacts Huntress. Several discussions over a period of 12 minutes occurred, including much information about type aircraft, aircraft call sign, beacon code and location."

http://www.scribd.com/doc/14353942/T8-B17-FAA-Trips-2-of-3-Fdr-Air-Traffic-Division-Event-Summary

my working theory at the moment:

The Otis-birds were flying supersonic to New York Manhatten, but were stopped unfortunately by the FAA, New York. The reason was, that FAA, New York feared collisions of the fighters with other aircrafts. This fear arose, as FAA, New York had to see, that Flight 175 almost crashed with other planes like Delta ...

And maybe perhaps that was a very good reason that you ascribe to FAA in your theory?
Why then do you assume that FAA did anything wrong, knowing with hindsight, as you do now, that
- the fighters could not possibly have reached NYC before the second impact
- the fighters had no target to engage
- the fighters were placed in a perfect holding pattern from which they could have sent to a new target if one had been found
- there was indeed nothing left to do for the fighters except to fly idle patrol

If you think FAA did something wrong, what do YOU think they should have done right? What purpose would fighters over NYC have served, and how so?

How would a different (in you mind: better) decision by FAA made any difference in outcome of 9/11 at all?

And what does it mean, in your mind, that FAA did something wrong - does ist change in any way, sort or form the culpability for the crime - inside job maybe?

[Oystein]

no - if the fighters were really flying supersonic to New York ... then they would have been very close to an intercept.

Do you want me to count how many times in this thread you have been told that NO, definitely it would have been physically impossible for the fighters to arrive in NYC before the second crash?

Do you want me to count how many times you have been asked to please explain how you'd imagine what the fighters would have done upon intercept - shoot down an airliner over NYC? Do you want me to count how many times you have answered this?

Do you want me to count how many times you have been asked what a fighter should be doing in crowded traffic when he has no target? Do you want me to count how many times you have answered that question?

[ElMondoHummus]

You mean... it's not Superman?

MaGZ's kind usually pronounces that word "Übermensch".

[ElMondoHummus]

They would have run out of fuel and would have fallen out of the sky.

That's presuming they wouldn't have accidentally rammed another jetliner along the way. Anyone ever taken a peek at those Air Traffic maps of the US East Coast? Yeech.

[fess]

Do you want me to count how many times in this thread you have been told that NO, definitely it would have been physically impossible for the fighters to arrive in NYC before the second crash?

Do you want me to count how many times you have been asked to please explain how you'd imagine what the fighters would have done upon intercept - shoot down an airliner over NYC? Do you want me to count how many times you have answered this?

Do you want me to count how many times you have been asked what a fighter should be doing in crowded traffic when he has no target? Do you want me to count how many times you have answered that question?

If I had to fly a mission through one of the most heavily populated air traffic corridors in the nation, at three times the speed of the other aircraft in that corridor, having no idea where the target may be, or where it may be going… I would have pissed myself. Especially when I had to punch out over some of the most heavily populated areas in the nation when I ran out of fuel.

[bio]

from 3rd party Fighters requested to go to New York City, Boston Center checked with New York who had or was about to declare ATC Zero, they said no not at this time to much traffic. Boston center continued to hold the aircraft in W-105. At some time I beleive New York to control of the aircraft I don't know if it was while they were in W-105 or not, eventually they were cleared New York City, whether AFIO was declared and they went to New York Center. AFIO was not declared through Boston Center that I am aware of. W-105 airspace is shared between Boston and New York Center's however to get to Manhatten the aircraft would have to pass through our Airspace.

[/B]
(...)

Please provide a name, a document or a tape, just something ... Who stopped the fighters?

When I read the statements of the personal at FAA, New York, it is clear, that they wanted fighters behind Flight 175 from the very beginning of this hijacking. It sounds strange, that FAA, New York should not called NEADS, as the official conspiracy theory claims in its third version, which evolved with time.

FAA, New York, Miss Dowis:
"As UAL 175 turned eastbound towards New York City, Dowis recalled the OMIC said that fighters had been scrambled. At that time, Dowis believed the fighters mentioned by the OMIC had been scrambled for UAL 175."
http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-01172.pdf

or Mister Paul Thumser:

"His awareness of the UAL !75 hijack began at the beginning of the tum to the Southeast and told Dave LeCates to scramble McGuire*. [His recall] He didn't recall saying "I think this is a hijack." McGuire doesn't have fighters, but was thinking something was going to happen, and he was reaching for any possibility to get military assistance. After Thumser'r original statement was consulted Thumser says he told LaCates to scramble McGuire after the northeast bound tum ofUALI75. While handling the descent of UALI75, he said "tell them [tower] he's coming." He wanted to help stop the plane,
somehow."
http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-01169.pdf

*McGuire Air Force Base in New Jersey

What happened after the crash of Flight 175, 09:03? Can it be, that they changed their minds after that?

[DGM]

Please provide a name, a document or a tape, just something ... Who stopped the fighters?

When I read the statements of the personal at FAA, New York, it is clear, that they wanted fighters behind Flight 175 from the very beginning of this hijacking.

Where would the fighters have come from? You know you can't stop them if they have not gotten there in the first place?

It's time for you to post up a time line that shows that the fighters were in a position to stop UA 175 but they were stopped from doing so. You also have to tell us what they had to do when the got there (I'm leaving this vague for a reason).

[bio]

Where would the fighters have come from? You know you can't stop them if they have not gotten there in the first place?

It's time for you to post up a time line that shows that the fighters were in a position to stop UA 175 but they were stopped from doing so. You also have to tell us what they had to do when the got there (I'm leaving this vague for a reason).

I trust the statements of the pilots and Major General Arnold about supersonic flights to New York more than the radar-dates, which say different.

If the fighters really had been on supersonic, then they would have been on time to protect WTC 2. Do not ask me how, they had done it.

[DGM]

I trust the statements of the pilots and Major General Arnold about supersonic flights to New York more than the radar-dates, which say different.

If the fighters really had been on supersonic, then they would have been on time to protect WTC 2. Do not ask me how, they had done it.
So the radar tracking, ATC tapes and reality of fuel consumption as to distance makes no difference?

What were they going to do when they got there (in your scenario)?

[bio]

So the radar tracking, ATC tapes and reality of fuel consumption as to distance makes no difference?

What were they going to do when they got there (in your scenario)?

please provide source for "ATC-tapes"

[Reheat]

please provide source for "ATC-tapes"

I dare say no one here is going to help you fulfill your delusion further. Why should they? You wouldn't understand them anyway. You have not absorbed anything numerous people have told you, so why should anyone bother?

[bio]

I dare say no one here is going to help you fulfill your delusion further. Why should they? You wouldn't understand them anyway. You have not absorbed anything numerous people have told you, so why should anyone bother?

... so why are you posting here at all?
Just ignore this thread, would make more sense.

[DGM]

please provide source for "ATC-tapes"
Tell you what. You answer my second question and I'll direct you to the posts where the tapes are posted (although they've been available for a long time and I have no idea why you would be asking for them).

ETA: I should have said "NORAD" tapes. sorry.

[Reheat]

... so why are you posting here at all?
Just ignore this thread, would make more sense.

You're right. However, the stupidity is sometimes overwhelming and I can't resist.. Does it bother you that I do that? OK, I'll continue.

[bio]

Tell you what. You answer my second question and I'll direct you to the posts where the tapes are posted (although they've been available for a long time and I have no idea why you would be asking for them).

ETA: I should have said "NORAD" tapes. sorry.

show me, where it is said anything about not supersonic before 09:03

[bio]

Tell you what. You answer my second question and I'll direct you to the posts where the tapes are posted (although they've been available for a long time and I have no idea why you would be asking for them).

ETA: I should have said "NORAD" tapes. sorry.

my answer stands here:

What Should Have Happened in the 9/11 Skies...
Submitted by Robin Hordon on Sat, 07/12/2008 - 6:13pm

http://911blogger.com/node/16623

[DGM]

my answer stands here:

What Should Have Happened in the 9/11 Skies...
Submitted by Robin Hordon on Sat, 07/12/2008 - 6:13pm

http://911blogger.com/node/16623
That does not answer my question. What should have happened if they GOT there in time?

Maybe you having trouble with the English to German translation. To make it simpler. What should have happened if they got there in time (in YOUR opinion)? You seem to be implying that this would have made a difference in the events of the day. Please support your statements.

If it's all the same to you I would like it in your words, not a "cut and paste" of someone else's.

[phunk]

my answer stands here:

What Should Have Happened in the 9/11 Skies...
Submitted by Robin Hordon on Sat, 07/12/2008 - 6:13pm

http://911blogger.com/node/16623

It's amazing how much she thinks should have happened in such short intervals.

[Seymour Butz]

my answer stands here:

What Should Have Happened in the 9/11 Skies...
Submitted by Robin Hordon on Sat, 07/12/2008 - 6:13pm

http://911blogger.com/node/16623


How bizarre.

None of that reflects what you have (supposedly) learned in this thread regarding fuel capacity/speed/range, etc.

Why stick to something this old when it clearly needs to be updated?

[Oystein]

I trust the statements of the pilots and Major General Arnold about supersonic flights to New York more than the radar-dates, which say different.

Why?

If you drive your car and you get your photograph taken by a radar trap, and the radar data says you went 21km/h above speed limit, would you expect me to trust your word that you did not exceed speed limit?

If the fighters really had been on supersonic, then they would have been on time to protect WTC 2. Do not ask me how, they had done it.

Once again, you completely ignore the reality of supersonic flight versus fuel consumption.
I slowly come to the opinion that you are simply a liar. You must have heard by now that the fighters could NOT possibly have reached NYC on time by supersonic flight, you have been told so MANY times, with assumptions, sources and work shown, you have every single time IGNORED these arguments, and instead keep stubbornly repeating your FALSE claims.

STOP IT! NOW! ADDRESS THE ARGUMENTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


grrr I hate to scream, but your level of ignorance, stubbornness and blindness drives my mad!

[Oystein]

my answer stands here:

What Should Have Happened in the 9/11 Skies...
Submitted by Robin Hordon on Sat, 07/12/2008 - 6:13pm

http://911blogger.com/node/16623

Are YOU Robin Hordon?

Can't YOU outline your theory in YOUR own words in THIS forum, where YOU have raised the issue, and where WE have asked you to form a coherent narrative?

[Reheat]

http://911blogger.com/node/16623

These comments are not for bio. They are simply a response to Robin Hordon's latest novel of fiction and are written for rational members of the Forum.

At least this article is more sensible than the pure garbage he's written in the past. It reads very similar to an "Old West" Novel or movie where the good guys wear white hats and never run out of bullets (gas) and the bad guys wear black hats and their gun jams or they run out of bullets.

I believe I am qualified to comment as I spent most of my adult years as an AF pilot of Fighter Bombers, have considerable combat experience in which I used weapons in anger and, in turn, had weapons fired at me in anger. I have carried both guns and missiles and fired both. I have also performed an infinite number of intercepts of other aircraft.

Hordon's piece is a fantasy enabled largely by hindsight. I will reserve comment on the changes in JCS directives which occurred in June 2001 for Gumboots comments as he is more familiar than I on the specifics od that.

Sure, in hindsight AA11 should have been handled as an IN FLIGHT EMERGENCY (IFE) in order to enable Hordon's fantasy. But it wasn't, it was a hijacking and it was handled as such by both the FAA and NEADs. To emphasize that it should have been handled as an IFE is simply a convenient hindsight fantasy.

An F-15 C going 1800 MPH loaded with wall to wall missiles and three 650 GAL tanks is another fantasy. It won't even come close to that speed. As has already been pointed out Hordon's fantasy F-15's would have run out of fuel, likely prior to the intercept.

Intimating that a pilot in an aircraft on the wing of a B-767 could determine if the pilots were wearing an AA Uniform is very silly. Sure, they can see people, but not in enough detail to determine anything useful.

Regarding his comments on the pilots exercising an independent "shoot down" decision; it is ludicrous to espouse that kind of theory with the emotion he uses. It is easily the most stupid part of his article. I do not believe there is more than a very few pilots who would have done that either in the past or the present. Sure, they are steely eyed "killers", but of enemy fighters or bombers, not American Flag Carriers with citizens on board. His thought on that issue are the epitome of ignorance. If they knew on 9/11/2001 what they knew on 8/12/2001 it is possible, but they didn't have the benefit of Hordon's hindsight, nor are they as stupid as he obviously is.

That's all of the issues I can recall now. If additional issues surface I'll comment further, but I really don't care to read the article again.

[progge]

Please provide a name, a document or a tape, just something ... Who stopped the fighters?

bio, you were repeadetly told to listen to the NORAD Tapes, channel MCC Op in particular. This is just one channel, and you know the time frame you are interested in (08:52-09:03 and 09:03-09:13 EDT), no big deal then. Why didn´t you do so until now?
Take the time, listen to the primary source material, and report what you found. Do not expect other people to do your homework.

I trust the statements of the pilots and Major General Arnold about supersonic flights to New York more than the radar-dates, which say different.

:rolleyes: No comment needed.

[Dog Town]

bio, you were repeadetly told to listen to the NORAD Tapes, channel MCC Op in particular. This is just one channel, and you know the time frame you are interested in (08:52-09:03 and 09:03-09:13 EDT), no big deal then. Why didn´t you do so until now?
Take the time, listen to the primary source material, and report what you found. Do not expect other people to do your homework.


If only...

[bio]

bio, you were repeadetly told to listen to the NORAD Tapes, channel MCC Op in particular. This is just one channel, and you know the time frame you are interested in (08:52-09:03 and 09:03-09:13 EDT), no big deal then. Why didn´t you do so until now?
Take the time, listen to the primary source material, and report what you found. Do not expect other people to do your homework.



:rolleyes: No comment needed.

what a childish reason.

How often has you asked me after a source for an argument... and I always tried to bring one!

[bio]

That does not answer my question. What should have happened if they GOT there in time?

Maybe you having trouble with the English to German translation. To make it simpler. What should have happened if they got there in time (in YOUR opinion)? You seem to be implying that this would have made a difference in the events of the day. Please support your statements.

If it's all the same to you I would like it in your words, not a "cut and paste" of someone else's.

you can find my opinion in this article.

Where is your source? When you cannot source an argument, it is not valid.

[bio]

09:07:20
NASYPANY: Okay, Foxy. Plug in. I want to make sure this is on tape.… This is what—this is what I foresee that we probably need to do. We need to talk to F.A.A. We need to tell ‘em if this stuff’s gonna keep on going, we need to take those fighters on and then put ‘em over Manhattan, O.K.? That’s the best thing. That’s the best play right now. So, coordinate with the F.A.A. Tell ‘em if there’s more out there, which we don’t know, let’s get ‘em over Manhattan. At least we got some kinda play.
Norad-Tapes

So you know, why NEADS wanted fighters directly over Manhatten although, according to your opinion they could not do anything to stop the hijacked airliner.

[funk de fino]

09:07:20
NASYPANY: Okay, Foxy. Plug in. I want to make sure this is on tape.… This is what—this is what I foresee that we probably need to do. We need to talk to F.A.A. We need to tell ‘em if this stuff’s gonna keep on going, we need to take those fighters on and then put ‘em over Manhattan, O.K.? That’s the best thing. That’s the best play right now. So, coordinate with the F.A.A. Tell ‘em if there’s more out there, which we don’t know, let’s get ‘em over Manhattan. At least we got some kinda play.
Norad-Tapes

So you know, why NEADS wanted fighters directly over Manhatten although, according to your opinion they could not do anything to stop the hijacked airliner.

In case there were more hijacked aircraft later on. They wanted to establsih a cap and by that time they may have had shootdown auth. At that time they did not. Later they may have had a refueler to stop them falling out of the sky. At that time they did not.

The article you linked is complete and utter hogwash. You keep bolding the wrong parts. Deliberately it seems.

[bio]

In case there were more hijacked aircraft later on. They wanted to establsih a cap and by that time they may have had shootdown auth. At that time they did not. Later they may have had a refueler to stop them falling out of the sky. At that time they did not.

The article you linked is complete and utter hogwash. You keep bolding the wrong parts. Deliberately it seems.

Wow - after Lynn Spencer, you guys even attack Michael Bronner!
;)
you should regroup and find a new line.

[funk de fino]

Wow - after Lynn Spencer, you guys even attack Michael Bronner!
;)
you should regroup and find a new line.

Nice avoidance of the subject matter. You are clueless and just repeating nonsense from liars. I did not attack Lynn Spencer. The fact that you misunderstand what people write is your problem.

When I say article mean the R. Hordon one. It is hogwash OK?

[Oystein]

what a childish reason.

How often has you asked me after a source for an argument... and I always tried to bring one!

I would expect that people ask you for sources that support YOUR claim. Did progge ever ask you to find sources for him that support his claims?

[Oystein]

you can find my opinion in this article.

Where is your source? When you cannot source an argument, it is not valid.

We (=you + I + others) are arguing here. It's nice to link to something, but it is polite and customary that we all write our own opinions in this forum and in our own words.

It it silly in the extreme to debate when your opinion is not your opinion but only a copy of someone else's opinion.

It is also silly in the extreme to just link to someone else's opinion when YOU are debating us. We are posting questions and arguments to YOU, not to some non-participating third persons.

YOU need to address the arguments we present to you, and YOU need to answer the questions we pose top you.

[Oystein]

09:07:20
NASYPANY: ...Tell ‘em if there’s more out there, which we don’t know, let’s get ‘em over Manhattan. At least we got some kinda play.
Norad-Tapes

So you know, why NEADS wanted fighters directly over Manhatten although, according to your opinion they could not do anything to stop the hijacked airliner.

Yes. Out of "we don't know enough" someone at NEADS wanted some kind of play (no idea what kind of play) at some point in time after the last of the Ney-York-bound airliners had already crashed.

What is you point really? How would a different decision by FAA made any difference at all, and what does FAA's refusal mean as to the who, what, how and why of 9/11?

Stop dodging questions, do not link to others' opinions! Be a MAN and address the issues raised against your fabtasies!

[progge]

what a childish reason.

How often has you asked me after a source for an argument... and I always tried to bring one!

Immediately after the Otis fighters were airborne, NEADS staff, lacking a target to send them to, discussed what to do with them. Nasypany first decides to send them to NYC still. But NEADS staff eventually decides to send them to an area without that much traffic, referred to as “down”, “down into this area” or “down at this area”, which all means to NOT send them directly to NYC; this was at ~08:53 first (immediately after Nasypany orders to send them to NYC), and before FAA intervened; we learn that AA 11 would be 20 miles south of JFK anyway, if it wouldn’t have been the plane which flew into WTC 1. At 08:54 Whiskey 105 is mentioned first, and a second time at 08:55, and a third time at 08:58.
During this time, the mission of the Otis fighters is to hold south of Long Island (this is where Whiskey 105 is), not to fly to NYC. There is no direct confirmation that any FAA interdiction was the initial reason for the decision to send the Otis jets to the Whiskey 105 area, but FAA is mentioned one time at 08:55: “They're not going to let them hold over New York.” In general, it sounds as if the decision is made by NEADS alone. (As a footnote, minus hindsight this sounds like a perfectly reasonable decision to me.) It might be that they anticipated FAA not allowing them to put the fighters over NYC, but - as I said - there is no direct evidence for this.
After the second crash NEADS staff wants to put the fighters over NYC, but between 09:03 and 09:13 we learn that the fighters finally arrived in the Whiskey 105 area, and FAA wants to hold them there and not let them fly over NYC. There are also discussions about how to provide fuel to the Otis fighters.
All these claims are based on the NEADS Tapes, and on the NEADS Tapes alone, MCC Op channel in particular. No books, no testimonies, no news reports. If you have any problems with this narrative, articulate them. But be sure that I won’t transcribe any of the audios for you.

Hordon's piece is a fantasy enabled largely by hindsight. I will reserve comment on the changes in JCS directives which occurred in June 2001 for Gumboots comments as he is more familiar than I on the specifics od that.

You nailed it down, thanks.
As to the JCS directive, Hordon claims that "there were NO scrambles reported" after June 01, i.e. after the (insignificant (http://www.911myths.com/html/hijack_assistance_approval.html)) JSC directive change.
This, however, is not the claim he needs to justify his suspicion that the JSC directive changed any SOPs; the claim he needs is that there were no scrambles after June 01. He didn´t support this claim, so I don´t see how the JSC directive could be called a "smoking gun". Perhaps bio, apparently agreeing with Hordon, can shed any light on this ...

[MikeW]

As to the JCS directive, Hordon claims that "there were NO scrambles reported" after June 01, i.e. after the (insignificant (http://www.911myths.com/html/hijack_assistance_approval.html)) JSC directive change.
This, however, is not the claim he needs to justify his suspicion that the JSC directive changed any SOPs; the claim he needs is that there were no scrambles after June 01. He didn´t support this claim, so I don´t see how the JSC directive could be called a "smoking gun".
If I remember correctly, it's based on this quote:

From Sept. 11 to June, NORAD scrambled jets or diverted combat air patrols 462 times, almost seven times as often as the 67 scrambles from September 2000 to June 2001, Martin said.
http://www.wanttoknow.info/020812ap

Truthers then make the assumption that Martin would only present a year of figures, so if he spoke of "67 scrambles from September 2000 to June 2001" that that must mean there were no scrambles between June and September 2001.

And I really don't think there's anything more to it than that.

[Reheat]

Truthers then make the assumption that Martin would only present a year of figures, so if he spoke of "67 scrambles from September 2000 to June 2001" that that must mean there were no scrambles between June and September 2001.

And I really don't think there's anything more to it than that.

IIRC, I believe you're correct. NORAD doesn't normally release scramble data at alll. I know we discussed this previously and looked for data during that period without success. However, to presume there were no scrambles is perfectly logical to a twoofer. :rolleyes:

Even though the stupid gets stupider I'm not surprised anymore......

BTW: (for those who don't know) Hordon has an axe to grind with the Government over his firing during the early 80's Controller's strike. He is a very vocal malcontent.

[bio]

Immediately after the Otis fighters were airborne, NEADS staff, lacking a target to send them to, discussed what to do with them. Nasypany first decides to send them to NYC still. But NEADS staff eventually decides to send them to an area without that much traffic, referred to as “down”, “down into this area” or “down at this area”, which all means to NOT send them directly to NYC; this was at ~08:53 first (immediately after Nasypany orders to send them to NYC), and before FAA intervened; we learn that AA 11 would be 20 miles south of JFK anyway, if it wouldn’t have been the plane which flew into WTC 1. At 08:54 Whiskey 105 is mentioned first, and a second time at 08:55, and a third time at 08:58.
During this time, the mission of the Otis fighters is to hold south of Long Island (this is where Whiskey 105 is), not to fly to NYC. There is no direct confirmation that any FAA interdiction was the initial reason for the decision to send the Otis jets to the Whiskey 105 area, but FAA is mentioned one time at 08:55: “They're not going to let them hold over New York.” In general, it sounds as if the decision is made by NEADS alone. (As a footnote, minus hindsight this sounds like a perfectly reasonable decision to me.) It might be that they anticipated FAA not allowing them to put the fighters over NYC, but - as I said - there is no direct evidence for this.
After the second crash NEADS staff wants to put the fighters over NYC, but between 09:03 and 09:13 we learn that the fighters finally arrived in the Whiskey 105 area, and FAA wants to hold them there and not let them fly over NYC. There are also discussions about how to provide fuel to the Otis fighters.
All these claims are based on the NEADS Tapes, and on the NEADS Tapes alone, MCC Op channel in particular. No books, no testimonies, no news reports. If you have any problems with this narrative, articulate them. But be sure that I won’t transcribe any of the audios for you.


thanks - I think it is reasonable to assume, that indeed FAA, New York stopped the birds flying over New York. Can I say that?
FAA, New York "was reaching for any possibility to get military assistance", but did not allow the fighters to fly over New York.

The other question is, why the birds did not stay close to New York (they were already around 60 miles close and could see the burning towers), but were flying far away from the city.


You nailed it down, thanks.
As to the JCS directive, Hordon claims that "there were NO scrambles reported" after June 01, i.e. after the (insignificant (http://www.911myths.com/html/hijack_assistance_approval.html)) JSC directive change.
This, however, is not the claim he needs to justify his suspicion that the JSC directive changed any SOPs; the claim he needs is that there were no scrambles after June 01. He didn´t support this claim, so I don´t see how the JSC directive could be called a "smoking gun". Perhaps bio, apparently agreeing with Hordon, can shed any light on this ...

...but Horden makes a right point, too:

Finally, here is my smoking gun regarding the "effects" of the CJCSI change made in June, 2001.

"During the summertime, usually the busiest aviation time of the year, there were NO REPORTED SCRAMBLES from June 2001, [after the CJCSI change was put in place], until the morning of 9/11/2001.

If the CJCSI change made in June had NOT made any difference in operational protocol use "priorities", then there should have been approximately 45 scrambles during this time period. It is fair to say that this frequency had been the summertime monthly average for the preceeding ten years where approximately 1500 scrambles had occurred. [ Note: estimated scrambles...3 months @ 15 scrambles per month = 45...]

In conclusion, that there are reports of 67 scrambles happening for the year up until June, 2001, and then there were NO scrambles reported after June, serves as my personal smoking gun!"

this is my position, what should have happened:

"The Otis bird continues in its turn behind his wingmate and once westbound, the interceptor blasts into full blower climbing to "greet" UA175. It takes vectors from the FAA controllers toward yet another intercept point and simultaneously inserts the positional and target information about the wayward UA175 into its navigational and missle guidance systems...this time its a transponder code because UA175 did not have its transponder turned off.

The fully armed Otis bird locks on to UA175 which is still west of NYC and still southwestbound...but again, out of FAA control...and the fighter speeds to the intercept. This time, there are no doubts....but the procedure is the same. Pull alongside...attempt to take command of UA175...try to establish contact with the pilot...get ready for another shoot down...the usual drill.

Everyone, and especially the Otis pilots NOW KNOW the dimension of the attack. And the Otis pilots also KNOW that it is THEY who are the ONLY two frontline players in our national defense at that very moment in time...they fully understand the NORAD system...and they KNOW what to do...because they had just done it...just as they had always practiced it...less the trigger.

The Otis interceptor that shot down AA11 remains behind and circles overhead Manhattan checking out the KILL, awaiting any word from anyone about another "prey" for its deathly power, and preparing for anything to happen at a moment's notice. He is ready...they are ALWAYS READY."

[MikeW]

However, to presume there were no scrambles is perfectly logical to a twoofer. :rolleyes:
Actually, if you look at it again, Hordon writes about no reported scrambles (my bold), which of course is correct. He just doesn't spell out the logic that leads him to believe no reported = none at all, because that would weaken his case. Rather, he goes on to convey a false impression of "no scrambles" , while protecting himself (sort-of) with the use of "reported", which suggests to me this isn't a mistake. He's knowingly choosing to create a false impression. Hordon is lying.

[Dog Town]

Finally, here is my smoking gun regarding the "effects" of the CJCSI change made in June, 2001.




http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1092348add6aa7e786.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13494)

[Oystein]

thanks - I think it is reasonable to assume, that indeed FAA, New York stopped the birds flying over New York. Can I say that?

You can assume anything you want. You can assume, if you want, that alien spaceships from mars were stopped by FAA to enter NYC airspace. However, be prepared to back up any such assumptions with sourced evidence, not with other people's fantasies. And be prepared that we have low regard for your assumptions, given the fact that you know nothing about aviation, flight physics, air traffic control etc. and given the fact that you have in the past stubbornly refused to learn or even listen when given good evidence and arguments.

FAA, New York "was reaching for any possibility to get military assistance", but did not allow the fighters to fly over New York.

The other question is, why the birds did not stay close to New York (they were already around 60 miles close and could see the burning towers), but were flying far away from the city.

Urr what now? Close or far away? Can you please make up your mind?
TowerS? Talking about a time after the second crash? So what difference would a different location than W105 have made anyway?
W105 is the military airspace closest to NYC, so indeed they were close.

...but Horden makes a right point, too:

Finally, here is my smoking gun regarding the "effects" of the CJCSI change made in June, 2001.

"During the summertime, usually the busiest aviation time of the year, there were NO REPORTED SCRAMBLES from June 2001, [after the CJCSI change was put in place], until the morning of 9/11/2001.

If the CJCSI change made in June had NOT made any difference in operational protocol use "priorities", then there should have been approximately 45 scrambles during this time period. It is fair to say that this frequency had been the summertime monthly average for the preceeding ten years where approximately 1500 scrambles had occurred. [ Note: estimated scrambles...3 months @ 15 scrambles per month = 45...]

In conclusion, that there are reports of 67 scrambles happening for the year up until June, 2001, and then there were NO scrambles reported after June, serves as my personal smoking gun!"

Again, you did not read or respond to the arguments presented in this thread. This time I am talking about the posts by MikeW nd Reheat immediately preceding your post.

Scrambles are never reported as such. It is a logical fallacy: Lack of report does not mean lack of something that could be reported. Someone giving a figure for a time interval until June 30th does NOT mean that the figure for a time intervall after June 30th is 0. That is simply not something you can conclude! So Horden does NOT make a "right point", rather, he is committing as logical fallacy!


this is my position, what should have happened:

"The Otis bird continues in its turn behind his wingmate and once westbound, the interceptor blasts into full blower climbing to "greet" UA175. It takes vectors from the FAA controllers toward yet another intercept point and simultaneously inserts the positional and target information about the wayward UA175 into its navigational and missle guidance systems...this time its a transponder code because UA175 did not have its transponder turned off.

The fully armed Otis bird locks on to UA175 which is still west of NYC and still southwestbound...but again, out of FAA control...and the fighter speeds to the intercept. This time, there are no doubts....but the procedure is the same. Pull alongside...attempt to take command of UA175...try to establish contact with the pilot...get ready for another shoot down...the usual drill.

Everyone, and especially the Otis pilots NOW KNOW the dimension of the attack. And the Otis pilots also KNOW that it is THEY who are the ONLY two frontline players in our national defense at that very moment in time...they fully understand the NORAD system...and they KNOW what to do...because they had just done it...just as they had always practiced it...less the trigger.

The Otis interceptor that shot down AA11 remains behind and circles overhead Manhattan checking out the KILL, awaiting any word from anyone about another "prey" for its deathly power, and preparing for anything to happen at a moment's notice. He is ready...they are ALWAYS READY."

This fantasy assumes that the Otis birds were scrambled so early that they could even have intercepted AA11. You knoiw this was totally impossible don't you?
FAA Boston decided at 8:20 that AA11 was possibly hijacked (at 8:14 there was the first slight hint that something was amiss, so 6 minutes later is not that bad a call). Suppose Otis had been scrambled then immediately (which, of course, is impossible), then birds could have been airborne at 8:30, giving them 16 minutes to shoot down AA11. Remember: AA11 had transponder off, NORAD had no target.

But of course youi KNOW that the birds were scrambled later and only took off the minute AA11 crashed - so since you KNOW that this fantasy is not rooted reality, hiw can you say this fantasy is YOUR opinion? Do you always base your opinions on fantasies?

This fantasy further assumes that NORAD or the pilots would correctly guess that AA11 would get intentionally crashed. Can you please explain how they should have guessed that?

This fantasy further assumes that shooting down civilian airliners with US flag and many US citizens aboard is (I quote the fantasy) "the usual drill". Well son, it isn't. No one in the world has authority to shoot down civilians in civilian air space.

Remember Schäuble and the German Bundesverfassungsgericht? According to the supreme law of YOUR land, a military order to kill civilians in order to save other civilians' lives can never be given as that would violate Article 1 of our constitution. Why have you not addressed this legal problem? Do YOU seriously think any military officer should have the legal right to shoot down civilian airliners on their own accord, or at all? Please do NOT dodge this argument - address it!!

This fantasy further IGNORES the fact that the fighters had a fuel issue - they can either go supersonic on afterburner - and then have no fuel left to do anything useful over Manhattan, or they can go at cruising speed and arrive too late. You KNOW that by now, don't you? Please answer sepcifically YES or NO! If you disagree with the fact that fuel consuption would prohibit this fantasy from becoming reality, you MUST show your own assumptions and work to support your disagreement!

[Oystein]

Actually, if you look at it again, Hordon ... [is] knowingly choosing to create a false impression. Hordon is lying.

I second that.

[MikeW]

And also, Hordon assumes that Flight 175 was known to be hijacked at 8:43.

There was an initial report of this, but that was incorrect - the plane may not even have been hijacked until as late as 8:46. ATC didn't notice a problem and begin trying to contact the plane until 8:51/ 8:52. The first reported call, from Peter Hanson, didn't happen until 8:52, and NORAD weren't aware of the flight at all until just before it crashed.

More at http://911myths.com/index.php/NORAD_and_Flight_175

[bio]

And also, Hordon assumes that Flight 175 was known to be hijacked at 8:43.

There was an initial report of this, but that was incorrect - the plane may not even have been hijacked until as late as 8:46. ATC didn't notice a problem and begin trying to contact the plane until 8:51/ 8:52. The first reported call, from Peter Hanson, didn't happen until 8:52, and NORAD weren't aware of the flight at all until just before it crashed.

More at http://911myths.com/index.php/NORAD_and_Flight_175

well, Horden displays the "best case scenario".

[MikeW]

well, Horden displays the "best case scenario".
Here's what he actually says:

Its now 08:45AM...

AA11 has been destroyed...and two minutes earlier at 08:43, the entire system learned that UA175 has been announced that UA175 had also been hijacked
http://911blogger.com/node/16623

No talk of scenarios here, he's presenting the 8:43 time as fact. Which it really isn't.

If you want to discard that, though, we're back to the points people have been raising all along. Even if the fighters were over New York, they wouldn't have had a target. They wouldn't have known the first impact was anything more than an accident. And they wouldn't have had the authorisation to shoot anything down. Their location would make no difference at all.

[Oystein]

well, Horden displays the "best case scenario".

Which, with perfect hindsight, is dishonest and cynical.

"Best case scenario" would have been to drop a bombs on the planes while they were still at the gate at Boston airport :rolleyes:


But you are again ignoring questions addressed directly at you, and you are again not addressing arguments raised against this fiction.

[funk de fino]

well, Horden displays the "best case scenario".

Horden is a liar.

[progge]

thanks - I think it is reasonable to assume, that indeed FAA, New York stopped the birds flying over New York. Can I say that?

Listen to the recording and decide for yourself.

Just found some good work from the 9/11 Commission. Synchronization of NORAD Tapes and radar data of the Otis fighters, see here (http://www.scribd.com/doc/13723849/T8-B16-Otis-Langley-and-AF1-Fdr-2-of-2-Radar-Maps-Otis-Scrambles-129).

[Reheat]

well, Horden displays the "best case scenario".

Best case, my ass! Hordon is a liar and a charlatan. He is similar to other liars and charlatans in the TM and you gullible have swallowed his garbage like a large mouth bass swallows worms.

The TM apparently holds him in high regard as no one has spoken out against his blatant distortions and lies. The TM does have some people who know better, yet they don't correct these lies and distortions even after several years.

Since you have no original thoughts of your own and refer to this liar's crap you are merely a parasite and are to be dismissed as such (as if that was not obvious from previous threads).

[bio]

I just went through the 9/11 interviews at 9/11 commission archive - nara.

It is exciting to see, how deep, how big the 911 cover-up is.

As I understand it, the crucial man was the "Operation Manager in Charge", OMIC Bruce Barrett. According to the chief of FAA, New York McComrick, ZNY Deputy Operations Manager Mister LaCates, and CIC Miss Dowis, Barrett should have contacted the military for assistance regarding Flight 175.

LaCates:
"He believes that the OMIC (Operations Manager in Charge) has the responsibility and operational knowledge to contact the military."
http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-01164.pdf

"McCormick stated that Bruce Barrett was communicating the situation along the appropriate air traffic channels."
http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-01159.pdf

FAA, New York, Miss Dowis:
"As UAL 175 turned eastbound towards New York City, Dowis recalled the OMIC said that fighters had been scrambled. At that time, Dowis believed the fighters mentioned by the OMIC had been scrambled for UAL 175."
http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-01172.pdf

Robert Felser, Military Operations specialist
"Felser would provide the OMIC with the appropriate numbers, but the OMIC is in charge of actually making the decision to ask for a fighter scramble."
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17053289/T8-B2-FAA-NY-Center-Robert-Felser-Fdr-121503-MFR-734

Mister Felser contacted NEADS due to flight 11, and said, that it was easy to get NEADS. OMIC Barrett asked him to do this scramble order. But in regards to flight 175 around 09:02, he was not asked by Barrett but by Pete Mulligan. Mulligan said around 09:01 to the faa command center in despair, before asking Felser to make the scramble order:


The military liaison at the FAA’s New York Center is reportedly told that Flight 175 has been hijacked. The information is passed on to the liaison by New York Center manager Peter Mulligan. In an apparent reference to the hijacking on a phone bridge with other air traffic control facilities, Mulligan first says the situation is escalating (see (9:01 a.m.) September 11, 2001) and adds, “Just get me somebody who has the authority to get military in the air now.” Mulligan then drops out of the teleconference for a short while, but returns and says: “It’s OK. I’ve got it taken care of over here. I got… my military guy. We got some interceptors in the air.”
Federal Aviation Authority, 10/14/2003, pp. 15-17

Unfortunately Barrett interview cannot be found at Nara. Furthermore on more important interview is not public:
- Mister Mulligan, who was going to organize the contact with Huntress / Neads around 09:01!

What is strange additionally:
Mister Thumser was working directly under Bruce Barrett, and wanted fighters after Flight 175. In his interview, he says, that he tried to convince LaCates to do a scramble-order. But LaCates resisted - perhaps because he thought the OMIC was in charge for that? Why Mister Thumser did not ask Mister Barrett? Did he ask? Was the answer NO? Why Mister Barrett is not mentioned in this regard in the interview with Mister Thumser?

"His awareness of the UAL !75 hijack began at the beginning of the tum to the Southeast and told Dave LeCates to scramble McGuire*. [His recall] He didn't recall saying "I think this is a hijack." McGuire doesn't have fighters, but was thinking something was going to happen, and he was reaching for any possibility to get military assistance. After Thumser'r original statement was consulted Thumser says he told LaCates to scramble McGuire after the northeast bound tum ofUALI75. While handling the descent of UALI75, he said "tell them [tower] he's coming." He wanted to help stop the plane,somehow. He even had a thought of running another airplane into it at that time. It was a bizarre enough situation to tell someone to scramble.
LeCates never acknowledged or responded. He recalled conversing quietly to LeCates, he didn't say loudly as he didn't want to disturb area. Thumser also told staff, "If I had authority ... knowing what I know ... with the background I have .. J would have shot that plane down."
http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-01169.pdf
*McGuire Air Force Base in New Jersey

As cheapshot said, FAA, New York declared ATZ as flight 175 was still in the air and prevented in this time the Otis-fighters to go over New York. About that, I found nothing in the interviews with the Controllers!
Therefore I assume, it was Mister Bruce Barrett decision, but I cannot prove that claim ... but there is a second cover-up obviously, in regard who bears the responsibility for that decision to stop the fighters. If the man was Barret, too, he did not only fail to give NEADS information about Flight 175, he even stopped the fighters going over New York.

Mister Bruce Barrett from me attributed behavior would be close to high treason. Unfortunately he may not defend himself.

[fess]

As cheapshot said, FAA, New York declared ATZ as flight 175 was still in the air and prevented in this time the Otis-fighters to go over New York. About that, I found nothing in the interviews with the Controllers!
Therefore I assume, it was Mister Bruce Barrett decision, but I cannot prove that claim ... but there is a second cover-up obviously, in regard who bears the responsibility for that decision to stop the fighters. If the man was Barret, too, he did not only fail to give NEADS information about Flight 175, he even stopped the fighters going over New York.

Mister Bruce Barrett from me attributed behavior would be close to high treason. Unfortunately he may not defend himself.

You state that you have no proof of your claim, but yet make the assumption that a man may be guilty of "high treason"?

[dafydd]

You state that you have no proof of your claim, but yet make the assumption that a man may be guilty of "high treason"?

That's a truther for you.

[tsig]

You state that you have no proof of your claim, but yet make the assumption that a man may be guilty of "high treason"?

In the troof movement suspicions become reality.

[Reheat]

At this point my suggestion is to just ignore bio's posts. They are mostly incomprehensible and he's repeatedly shown that he is simply a gullible fool incapable of learning anything or even appropriately responding to sensible posts.

He's doing no harm and will influence no one with his garbage. Just ignore him and allow him to post into oblivion. Eventually, without attention, he'll drift into obscurity which is exactly where he belongs.

[beachnut]

At this point my suggestion is to just ignore bio's posts. They are mostly incomprehensible and he's repeatedly shown that he is simply a gullible fool incapable of learning anything or even appropriately responding to sensible posts.

He's doing no harm and will influence no one with his garbage. Just ignore him and allow him to post into oblivion. Eventually, without attention, he'll drift into obscurity which is exactly where he belongs.
How fast does your dump fuel go, gallons per min, or pounds per minute; interested when you do a torch, how much fuel can you get lit-up.

You are right bio reads and jumbles all the time together into one incomprehensible jumble of junk ideas failing to realize what is going on or why the different statements don't support his failed delusions.

[Reheat]

How fast does your dump fuel go, gallons per min, or pounds per minute; interested when you do a torch, how much fuel can you get lit-up.

The fuel dump rate was 2300 # per minute minimum.

During a torch, the fuel behind the aircraft was ignited extending to about 100' or so. There was an optimum speed to have it ignite for the most distance, but I don't remember what it was.

JieWuez-_t8

[Dog Town]

In the troof movement suspicions become reality.

It never ceases to amaze me how the Twoof movement, whines about the NWO, and secret cabals willing to ruin lives for kicks. In the next breath condemn people for "high treason", or want to hang them, on a HUNCH!
Freaken crazy!

[beachnut]

The fuel dump rate was 2300 # per minute minimum.

During a torch, the fuel behind the aircraft was ignited extending to about 100' or so. There was an optimum speed to have it ignite for the most distance, but I don't remember what it was.

JieWuez-_t8
Now that is a thermal event. thanks, never got the live torch from a receiver. I got a barrel roll, by an F-4; it is interesting, an inverted F-4 through the overhead window.

If USAF/NORAD pilots had the big picture on 911; they would ignore all and intercept, and harass the terrorists. 911 truth is filled with mindless "follow the dolt" mentality. 911 truth takes the event and acts as if "it" was solved when Flight 11 impacted the WTC.

911 events did not offer an opportunity, until after the terrorists were finished, to intercept. No amount of fantasy by 911 truth changes the facts. An F-15 could pop up to 50,000 in the WARNING area, cross all traffic quickly; where was a target to intercept; then negotiate a safe way down to his target. With my luck I would hit a U-2 climbing through 50,000 feet or a set of cowboys from another base who figured it out first...

The times I broke ATC rules I thought I was safe to do it and not ask permission; I was never surprised or a hazard to other traffic. While following normal rules during Desert Shield/Storm, I was surprised when an airliner crossed through our formation of tankers in the Block FL250/290 at FL270; someone had no idea what a Block Altitude clearance meant.

sometimes, Breaking rules requires everyone has the big picture, and only the guy breaking the rules is breaking the rules. Imagine every other car driving on the wrong side of the road. Sorry for the BS, I was remembering times when I cheated death, or was the only one with a clue (who said never? how did you know I was the golden chock winner; once). Where is the solo? Why did the lead F-15 drag his number two in loose formation through the air refueling tanker formation at tanker altitudes? I only have one question, who is two flying off of, and who is two looking at?

... why did they pay us to fly? I wonder what day bio would washout? bio is not converging on the answer, he is open loop, negative stability, diverging faster than freefall... Never seen someone exposed to knowledge, evidence, and reality, plunge so fast into deeper ignorance and stronger delusions; until 911 truth showed up, making stupid a profession.

[femr2]

The times I broke ATC rules I thought I was safe to do it and not ask permission; I was never surprised or a hazard to other traffic. While following normal rules during Desert Shield/Storm, I was surprised when an airliner crossed through our formation of tankers in the Block FL250/290 at FL270; someone had no idea what a Block Altitude clearance meant.
Just curious, what flight role, and for how long ?

[beachnut]

Just curious, what flight role, and for how long ?
I hold an ATP from the FAA with type ratings in the 707/720; look it up, it will do you good to figure something out for yourself.


http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/37org.jpg
Private pilot as a Student Pilot 1974.


I was a pilot in the USAF, a copilot before General Chain eradicated the name due to insanity (but an okay idea for changing the name on OPRs), an aircraft commander, a crew commander, a flight commander, an instructor pilot, chief instructor pilot for 200 crew members, operations officer for a flying squadron, chief of safety for the only wing in the world with the SR-71s, U-2s and KC-135s, during desert storm I was acting as squadron commander, operations officer for flight operations in Saudi Arabia with a car from the Prince, death notification officer, token engineer for the behavior branch of the Flight Dynamic lab at AFWAL working future cockpit design, flown further south than 60 south, flown further north than 60 north, refueled the SR-71, flew in typhoons on JCS directed missions, sat nuke alert in SAC, operations chief for airlift into the Balkans during that war working for NATO, watched patriot/SCUD engagements and have the debris, seen Saint Elmo's fire torching off my nose at night like a flame bent back by the 500 mph air stream, learned to fly in 1973, flew supersonic trainers in 1975, flew heavy jets in 1976 for over 4,000 hours over my career, served in the USAF for 28 years, the USAF sent me to grad school for my masters in engineering, and my role advising others and myself when letting contracts for the USAF was broad based on flight experience and real engineering concepts; plus being an engineer gives me something to think about on long flights when there is nothing happening.

Aircraft commander or co-pilot doing other hobby...
http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/f4onwingAR.jpg
Taking photos... two F-4s on my wing.

Flying as a pilot, the pilot, since 1973. I would be the pilot who had everything, and an engineering degree. The USAF likes engineers.

The only time you would break the rules would be if you thought you had complete knowledge. Thus lots of knowledge, experience, evidence, facts and good situational awareness would be required so you don't kill others and mess up a good day. This leaves out 911 truth who have zero knowledge, zero experience, no facts, no evidence and will never have good or any situational awareness until they leave 911 truth.

Therefore, the level of success breaking rules depends on some very important prerequisites 911 truth will never master.

[ElMondoHummus]

911 truth is filled with mindless "follow the dolt" mentality. 911 truth takes the event and acts as if "it" was solved when Flight 11 impacted the WTC.

That's actually a good point: Many people were still confused about the situation well after FL93 hit the ground, so many so that it's basically fantasy to presume that enough people had it figured out enough after FL11 that they could've mounted an effective response. And while some folks were with it and got fighters in the air - I feel that Cheap Shot here in this forum simply hasn't gotten the kudos he deserves for what he did - there was still so much confusion about what to do that no one can logically conclude that 9/11 could have been stopped in time.

[bio]

That's actually a good point: Many people were still confused about the situation well after FL93 hit the ground, so many so that it's basically fantasy to presume that enough people had it figured out enough after FL11 that they could've mounted an effective response. And while some folks were with it and got fighters in the air - I feel that Cheap Shot here in this forum simply hasn't gotten the kudos he deserves for what he did - there was still so much confusion about what to do that no one can logically conclude that 9/11 could have been stopped in time.

Scoggins was not the only one, who had the idea to scramble fighters! I showed you interviews with controllers of New York, who thought OMIC, Bruce Barrett called fighters to intercept Flight 175! He was informed of Flight 175, and CIC Dowis asked OMIC, if fighters were scramble, OMIC said "Yes".
In contrary to that, as Scoggins confirmed here, FAA New York "cleared the fighters into W 105". In my judgement the fighters were stopped to fly over New York - (NEADS wanted them over New York) in a time as Flight 175 was still in the air heading towards WTC 2!

Colin Scoggins:

"The fighters had got off from FMH, but by the time they broke ground the WTC had already been hit. (I did not hear this directly but was repeated to me that when thy got off on initial contact with the center they were advised thy were too late. They were cleared into W - 105 to delay until they received other orders.) ( We did not know that UAL 175 had been hijacked yet. On several calls to New York Center we were advised, that they were working a hijack, and we assumed it was AAL 11 not UAL 175.)"
http://www.scribd.com/doc/13950342/T8-B3-Boston-Center-Colin-Scoggins-Fdr-Chronology-of-Events-and-FAA-Personnel-Statement-Wasnt-in-a-Rush-Went-to-the-Credit-Union-First

The cover-up by the 9/11 Commission can be seen here:"Memorandum for the Record (MFR) of the Interview of Collin Scoggins of the Federal Aviation Administration Conducted by Team 8, 09/22/2003". There stands nothing about that "clearance into W-105".
http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-01147.pdf

[bio]

Very interesting statement of the military liaison in FAA, New York.

"Bruce Barrett (OMIC) told Felser to ask NEADS for a scramble, and he called them to do so. NEADS informed Felser that Boston Center had already made that request, and Felser passed that information back to Barrett. Felser was aware that there were two southbound aircraft off course.

Felser received the information that the north tower of the WTC was on fire.

Felser stated that at roughly 1249 Z he was asked to contact NEADS, but was not aware that NEADS had already contacted ZNY. He doesnot know if the OMIC desk had this information.

Commissions staff presented Felser with a transcript that displays some of his calls on 9/11.

Regarding Felser's second call to NEADS, roughly 9:03 or 9:04, and his third communication with NEADS, it was his second call in which he definitively tells NEADS that UAL 175 was the second plane to hit the WTC. Felser doesnt directly recall this call.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/17053289/T8-B2-FAA-NY-Center-Robert-Felser-Fdr-121503-MFR-734

I interpret the statement of Felser:

The first communication with NEADS was the scrambling-order regarding Flight 11 before its crash into WTC 1.
The second communication with NEADS was around 08:49 regarding ...
The third communication with them was around 09:03, regarding the scrambling order for Flight 175.

consequences:
Felser communicated a second time with NEADS,
in a time as he was told to do so by OMIC,
in a time as Flight 175 was hijacked and changed its transponder-code and begann heading towards New York.

Guys:
No way, that Felser did not tell NEADS about Flight 175!

The question is, who phoned Faa, New York a 08:49, with whom spoke Felser?

[Oystein]

Scoggins was not the only one, who had the idea to scramble fighters! I showed you interviews with controllers of New York, who thought OMIC, Bruce Barrett called fighters to intercept Flight 175! He was informed of Flight 175, and CIC Dowis asked OMIC, if fighters were scramble, OMIC said "Yes".
In contrary to that, as Scoggins confirmed here, FAA New York "cleared the fighters into W 105". In my judgement the fighters were stopped to fly over New York - (NEADS wanted them over New York) in a time as Flight 175 was still in the air heading towards WTC 2!

Colin Scoggins:

"The fighters had got off from FMH, but by the time they broke ground the WTC had already been hit. (I did not hear this directly but was repeated to me that when thy got off on initial contact with the center they were advised thy were too late. They were cleared into W - 105 to delay until they received other orders.) ( We did not know that UAL 175 had been hijacked yet. On several calls to New York Center we were advised, that they were working a hijack, and we assumed it was AAL 11 not UAL 175.)"
http://www.scribd.com/doc/13950342/T8-B3-Boston-Center-Colin-Scoggins-Fdr-Chronology-of-Events-and-FAA-Personnel-Statement-Wasnt-in-a-Rush-Went-to-the-Credit-Union-First

I changed the bolding to point you attention to what youi obviouly missed:
When AA11 had crashed, the Otis fighters lost their original target and reason to fly. Since they did not know then about UAL 175 (or not enough at any rate), they were cleared to a holding pattern nearby.
What else should they have done?

The cover-up by the 9/11 Commission can be seen here:"Memorandum for the Record (MFR) of the Interview of Collin Scoggins of the Federal Aviation Administration Conducted by Team 8, 09/22/2003". There stands nothing about that "clearance into W-105".
http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-01147.pdf

So what? Who cares?
Why did you not quote the really interesting parts?
- That Scoggins thinks the fighters could not have reached UAL 175 in time
- That they assumed there were several hijacks going on - which means before you send your fighters anywhere, you better get some sdituational awareness.



bio, please stop posting these fails untill you have addressed the many other objections we, your fellow participants in this debate, have raised against your previous fails! Your evading all debate is disrespectful! How old are you? 16? That may explain (but not excuse) it.

[Oystein]

Very interesting statement of the military liaison in FAA, New York.

"Bruce Barrett (OMIC) told Felser to ask NEADS for a scramble, and he called them to do so. NEADS informed Felser that Boston Center had already made that request, and Felser passed that information back to Barrett. Felser was aware that there were two southbound aircraft off course.

Felser received the information that the north tower of the WTC was on fire.

Felser stated that at roughly 1249 Z he was asked to contact NEADS, but was not aware that NEADS had already contacted ZNY. He doesnot know if the OMIC desk had this information.

Commissions staff presented Felser with a transcript that displays some of his calls on 9/11.

Regarding Felser's second call to NEADS, roughly 9:03 or 9:04, and his third communication with NEADS, it was his second call in which he definitively tells NEADS that UAL 175 was the second plane to hit the WTC. Felser doesnt directly recall this call.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/17053289/T8-B2-FAA-NY-Center-Robert-Felser-Fdr-121503-MFR-734

I interpret the statement of Felser:

The first communication with NEADS was the scrambling-order regarding Flight 11 before its crash into WTC 1.
The second communication with NEADS was around 08:49 regarding ...
The third communication with them was around 09:03, regarding the scrambling order for Flight 175.

consequences:
Felser communicated a second time with NEADS,
in a time as he was told to do so by OMIC,
in a time as Flight 175 was hijacked and changed its transponder-code and begann heading towards New York.

Guys:
No way, that Felser did not tell NEADS about Flight 175!

The question is, who phoned Faa, New York a 08:49, with whom spoke Felser?

Nothing in the document suggests that at 8:49 Felser said or knew anything about UAL 175. Much more likely that communication was about AA11.
Felser was obviously not directly involved in very much, certainly not ATC. He was the military liaison (MOS). Any informnation he relayed was second hand.
The only thing we can tell about Felser and flight 175 is that he picked up the assumption that 175 crashed into WTC2 after the fact.
Nothing in this suggests any wrongdoing on anybody's part. It was merely a picture emerging over time.

Everything beyond that is your malevolent imagination.

[progge]

In my judgement the fighters were stopped to fly over New York - (NEADS wanted them over New York) in a time as Flight 175 was still in the air heading towards WTC 2!

Your laziness is astonishing. Here is a relevant part of the NEADS Tapes, 08:53 EDT:

„Possible news that a 737 just hit the world Trade Center. This is a real world. And we're trying to confirm this. And we're trying to confirm this. okay. Continue taking the fighters down to the New York City area, JFK area as best as you can. Make sure that the FAA clears you a route all the way through. This is what we got to do. Okay. Just press with us. it looks like somebody -- it looks like this guy could have hit the world Trade Center.“
„until it's confirmed, it's going to be a lot easier for me to get down to this area, bring him out like this rather than through all this traffic, until that's confirmed do you want me to bring him down this way at least.”
“Yeah, work with FAA. Just tell them to clear you a route. Clear you a route.“

And later on, 08:54 EDT:

“Okay, good. All right. Our last actual reported position if he didn't crash into the world Trade Center was 20 miles South of JFK.“
“okay. Our last z-point.“
„So I want you to, take him down into this area.”
“Puts him in (inaudible).“
„Hold as needed, whatever altitude they need to go for Center to make that work is fine with me. But -- well, that's the area I want him to go in hold.“
“We have my pri – I (inaudible).”
“Right in that little gap there.”
“That last z-point, making sure”
“FAA clears out a route.”
“All right. This is what we're doing, we're taking him down into this area.“
“Whiskey 105.”
“He'll hold for now.”
“Right.”
“whatever altitude Center needs for them to do that is fine.”

I finally transcribed these bits (damned, I said I wouldn´t) because I couldn´t bear your insistence to know what NEADS wanted immediately after scramble, while you never ever listened to the relevant Tape. The initial decision to send the PANTA flights to Whiskey 105, or south of Long Island at least, seems to have been made by NEADS staff alone, see the bolded parts.
Even if not, it doesn´t matter (for the fighters were to slow to reach NYC in time anyway, had no shoot down order anyway), but I see that it´s pointless to tell you, you´ll continue to ignore it.

The first communication with NEADS was the scrambling-order regarding Flight 11 before its crash into WTC 1.
The second communication with NEADS was around 08:49 regarding ...
The third communication with them was around 09:03, regarding the scrambling order for Flight 175.

Wrong. The "first" and the "second" call are actually one and the same.

Felser communicated a second time with NEADS,
in a time as he was told to do so by OMIC,
in a time as Flight 175 was hijacked and changed its transponder-code and begann heading towards New York.

Guys:
No way, that Felser did not tell NEADS about Flight 175!

The question is, who phoned Faa, New York a 08:49, with whom spoke Felser?

Your postings become a virtual rampage more and more. For the sake of truth, stop assuming things, and research them instead.
UA 175 was not recognized as a potential danger before 08:51 EDT. We know this from ZNY Tapes and the FAA ZNY Report of Aircraft Accident. Bottiglia told CIC Dowis, and Dowis told the OMIC after 08:51 EDT; this we know from the ZNY MFRs. Finally, we (well, you excluded) know that Felser indeed spoke to NEADS, Stacia Rountree in particular, at 08:49, but that UA 175 was not mentioned in this call. It´s on the NEADS Tapes, ID TK.

Peter Mulligan (http://www.scribd.com/doc/17053285/T8-B2-FAA-NY-Center-Peter-Mulligan-Fdr-10103-MFR-Military-Assistance-Requested-From-Felserr-732) MFR, btw.
USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2002/2002-08-12-clear-skies.htm) interview with Bruce Barrett. Your comments on Barrett are embarassing.

[bio]

(...)

UA 175 was not recognized as a potential danger before 08:51 EDT. We know this from ZNY Tapes and the FAA ZNY Report of Aircraft Accident. Bottiglia told CIC Dowis, and Dowis told the OMIC after 08:51 EDT; this we know from the ZNY MFRs. Finally, we (well, you excluded) know that Felser indeed spoke to NEADS, Stacia Rountree in particular, at 08:49, but that UA 175 was not mentioned in this call. It´s on the NEADS Tapes, ID TK.
(...)

"The first “operational evidence” that something is wrong is at 8:47, when Flight 175’s transponder code changes twice within a minute (see 8:46 a.m.-8:47 a.m. September 11, 2001).
9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 7

I estimate, that McCormack said that, around 08:50 am.

"Bottiglia became frightened when the code changed to 3321 and he saw the target climbing. (...) "Bottiglia told McCormack the uncertain status ofUAL 175. McCormack immediately said into his phone "we might have multiple hijacks". Bottiglia does not know who McConnack was speaking with."
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17053285/T8-B2-FAA-NY-Center-Peter-Mulligan-Fdr-10103-MFR-Military-Assistance-Requested-From-Felserr-732

[carlitos]

Pointless thread is pointless.

[Oystein]

...
I estimate, that McCormack said that, around 08:50 am.
...

Estimate based on what?
Imagination? Close fit with someone else's fantasy novel about a fictional 9/11?

[bio]

(...)
USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2002/2002-08-12-clear-skies.htm) interview with Bruce Barrett. Your comments on Barrett are embarassing.

"In Herndon, a shout: "There was another one!" and the giant TV monitor glows orange from the fireball. Scores of workers gasp, as if sucking the air from the room.

"It can't be a second one". At the New York control center, McCormick's deputy, Bruce Barrett, sits incredulous at the watch desk, the facility's nerve center."

Was he surprised? :rolleyes:

[bio]

Estimate based on what?
Imagination? Close fit with someone else's fantasy novel about a fictional 9/11?

The change of transponder of flight 175 happened around 08:47.

[funk de fino]

"In Herndon, a shout: "There was another one!" and the giant TV monitor glows orange from the fireball. Scores of workers gasp, as if sucking the air from the room.

"It can't be a second one". At the New York control center, McCormick's deputy, Bruce Barrett, sits incredulous at the watch desk, the facility's nerve center."

Was he surprised? :rolleyes:

You are a right nasty piece of work eh?

[carlitos]

You are a right nasty piece of work eh?

Slander and baseless accusations of complicity of mass murder are no big deal to these guys. I often wonder what kind of mindset would allow you to walk around in the world, thinking that thousands of your fellow citizens are "in on it," or out to get you. I certainly wouldn't be posting my theories online, if I believed in this stuff. "They" could find out and get me.

[Oystein]

The change of transponder of flight 175 happened around 08:47.

Oh oh big surprise! I thought you had me and pretty much everybody else on ignore! Didn't think you would ever answer a question!


Could you now please go back and address the many many many questions and arguments contained in the many replies to your babblings, please?

In particular, please address the following topics:

- According to sources and work by jet pilots and jet technicians, it was physically impossible for the Otis fighters to arrive in New York by supersonic flight before the second crash. What is your reply to that?

- What should the fighters have done in New York in the (hypothetical, purely fictional) case that they could have arrived before the second crash, in your opinion?

- Do you believe that the military had the right to shoot down US-flagged civilian airliners in US airspace before 9/11/2001 9:03 a.m.? If so, why - on what legal basis?

- Do you believe that any middle-ranking military officers in the world (American, German...) should have the right to decide to shoot down domestiv civilian airliners on their own discretion?

- What do you make of the German Bundesverfassungsgericht ruling that no law and no high-raking commander could ever order the shoot-down of airliners with innocent civilians aboard to save the lives of other civilians?

[progge]

"The first “operational evidence” that something is wrong is at 8:47, when Flight 175’s transponder code changes twice within a minute (see 8:46 a.m.-8:47 a.m. September 11, 2001).
9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 7

I estimate, that McCormack said that, around 08:50 am.

"Bottiglia became frightened when the code changed to 3321 and he saw the target climbing. (...) "Bottiglia told McCormack the uncertain status ofUAL 175. McCormack immediately said into his phone "we might have multiple hijacks". Bottiglia does not know who McConnack was speaking with."
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17053285/T8-B2-FAA-NY-Center-Peter-Mulligan-Fdr-10103-MFR-Military-Assistance-Requested-From-Felserr-732

OK, now this is really annoying. Your assumptions were trumped by facts and all you can do is offer new assumptions. Stop it! Stop pushing any ad hoc conspiracy idea which comes to your mind, just because it’s a conspiracy idea. You’re making a fool of yourself, inter alia because you are wrong again. McCormick spoke to Bob Birch from NY TRACON (N90), and he told Birch about another possible hijack situation at ~08:53:50 EDT. The conversation is entailed in the N90 recordings, position 30 TMU DD.

[Cheap Shot]

Therefore I assume, it was Mister Bruce Barrett decision, but I cannot prove that claim ... but there is a second cover-up obviously, in regard who bears the responsibility for that decision to stop the fighters. If the man was Barret, too, he did not only fail to give NEADS information about Flight 175, he even stopped the fighters going over New York.

Mister Bruce Barrett from me attributed behavior would be close to high treason. Unfortunately he may not defend himself.

Who is the first cover-up... You make some pretty outlandish claims, Bruce Barrett High Treason, give me a break. He was trying to do his job, which number one was "Safety of Flight" to all of the aircraft under ZNY control. He didn't want fighters flying across the busiest corridor probably in the world, until he felt it safe for them to be there. Doesn't do you any good to have a collision over Manhatten and have aircraft parts sprinkle the ground. You have no clue what was going through his mind, I have a better idoea than you would. High Treason would indicate he wanted this to happen or was paid by Al Qeada. He was doing his job under circumstances that had never occurred before.

When yo go to NARA and you read about my interview that is a two hour meeting compressed to 3 pages. There is an enormous amount of information that they didn't have the time to put in there, so if you don't see something that I said and it isn't in there you are reading a brief. And when you read the file I can guarantee it wasn't transcribed by Miles Kara or other people who interviewed me but some clerk who wan't even at my interview.

It falls under the same people who thought Genreal Arnold lied to the commitee becasue they assume he himself personally covered up the tapes from NEADS. He wouldn't know what a tape machine looked like. If people didn't perform properly maybe they just didn't do thier job well that day, doesn't make guilty of High Treason.

I made mistakes that day myself, I'm sure just about everybody involved did.

As far as the CSJI instruction you bring up, being out in June 2001, at my interview they brought that up and asked if I knew about it. I had never heard of the old one much less the new one. That is used for guidance, parts of it were used in updating the FAA Order 7610.4 which I am familiar with, and some controllers are as well, but not all of them. Most of them know where to find it, but if they don't work military in thier sectors they are not familiar with it.

Why did I call NEADS that day, there were three SOCCs at the time NEADS, SEADS, and WADS. NEADS is in our airspace, we work with them on a daily basis, other centers do not work with them at all, some alittle bit. There was no requirement to call them, I did not follow protocol, I went directly to them becasue I knew I could, not to many knew they could, I am talking about a dozen to maybe two dozen people in the whole FAA.

Perfect circumstances never occurr in ATC or miltary operations. I have been involved with numerous exercises with the military. Under most exercises where certain players are involved and know the entire exercise, they never happen as planned, this is when we know who the target is, we know where the target is going, and it still never happens as planned. I would say nine times out of ten things never happen the way they are supposed to.

To beleive that we had the ability to take out even one of those planes is ludicrous, beleive me I know I have gone over more times than you will ever know, "What could I have done differently" and then to read that you accuse someone who tried to do there job "Bruce Barrett" on 9-11 and call it high treason.

I sure hope the hell you are good at what ever it is you do, because maybe one day you'll screw up and have 3,000 people die, in what you may consider you did the right thing, but will be accused of treason.

I speak for myself here but I think the most offensive word that I could ever be called is a treasonist, I don't take that lightly, I served my country in the military, and I serve in the civil service today. If I didn't think I did my job on 9-11 I would have resigned. I love my country, I think it's the best damn country in the world. When you call one of my FAA co-workers a treasonist well you crossed the line. I don't know Bruce Barrett from a whole in the ground, but if I ever do meet him I will look him in the eye, and shake his hand and share a beer with the man, he know's what I've been through, I know what he has been through, and he's fine in my book

[bio]

Who is the first cover-up... You make some pretty outlandish claims, Bruce Barrett High Treason, give me a break. He was trying to do his job, which number one was "Safety of Flight" to all of the aircraft under ZNY control. He didn't want fighters flying across the busiest corridor probably in the world, until he felt it safe for them to be there. Doesn't do you any good to have a collision over Manhatten and have aircraft parts sprinkle the ground. You have no clue what was going through his mind, I have a better idoea than you would. High Treason would indicate he wanted this to happen or was paid by Al Qeada. He was doing his job under circumstances that had never occurred before.

When yo go to NARA and you read about my interview that is a two hour meeting compressed to 3 pages. There is an enormous amount of information that they didn't have the time to put in there, so if you don't see something that I said and it isn't in there you are reading a brief. And when you read the file I can guarantee it wasn't transcribed by Miles Kara or other people who interviewed me but some clerk who wan't even at my interview.

It falls under the same people who thought Genreal Arnold lied to the commitee becasue they assume he himself personally covered up the tapes from NEADS. He wouldn't know what a tape machine looked like. If people didn't perform properly maybe they just didn't do thier job well that day, doesn't make guilty of High Treason.

I made mistakes that day myself, I'm sure just about everybody involved did.

As far as the CSJI instruction you bring up, being out in June 2001, at my interview they brought that up and asked if I knew about it. I had never heard of the old one much less the new one. That is used for guidance, parts of it were used in updating the FAA Order 7610.4 which I am familiar with, and some controllers are as well, but not all of them. Most of them know where to find it, but if they don't work military in thier sectors they are not familiar with it.

Why did I call NEADS that day, there were three SOCCs at the time NEADS, SEADS, and WADS. NEADS is in our airspace, we work with them on a daily basis, other centers do not work with them at all, some alittle bit. There was no requirement to call them, I did not follow protocol, I went directly to them becasue I knew I could, not to many knew they could, I am talking about a dozen to maybe two dozen people in the whole FAA.

Perfect circumstances never occurr in ATC or miltary operations. I have been involved with numerous exercises with the military. Under most exercises where certain players are involved and know the entire exercise, they never happen as planned, this is when we know who the target is, we know where the target is going, and it still never happens as planned. I would say nine times out of ten things never happen the way they are supposed to.

To beleive that we had the ability to take out even one of those planes is ludicrous, beleive me I know I have gone over more times than you will ever know, "What could I have done differently" and then to read that you accuse someone who tried to do there job "Bruce Barrett" on 9-11 and call it high treason.

I sure hope the hell you are good at what ever it is you do, because maybe one day you'll screw up and have 3,000 people die, in what you may consider you did the right thing, but will be accused of treason.

I speak for myself here but I think the most offensive word that I could ever be called is a treasonist, I don't take that lightly, I served my country in the military, and I serve in the civil service today. If I didn't think I did my job on 9-11 I would have resigned. I love my country, I think it's the best damn country in the world. When you call one of my FAA co-workers a treasonist well you crossed the line. I don't know Bruce Barrett from a whole in the ground, but if I ever do meet him I will look him in the eye, and shake his hand and share a beer with the man, he know's what I've been through, I know what he has been through, and he's fine in my book

it would be very interesting to see his "defense". It is not fair, that his statement is covered-up.

After my studies of the commission-interviews with his New Yorker colleagues, I can say:
There was one controller inside FAA, New York, who was pushing Barrett personally to send fighter after Flight 175. Miss Dowis. Controller Thumser was in despair, he wanted fighters to shoot down Flight 175, he was working directly for Barrett.

Finally, Mister Mulligan did the job of Barrett, after finding out, that things were escalating in New York!

question:
Is my impression right, that the response of Barrett would had been stopping the fighters (if they have been trying to intercept Flight 175) by his decision to stop all traffic into NYARTCC? This decision happened before the second crash.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/14353942/T8-B17-FAA-Trips-2-of-3-Fdr-Air-Traffic-Division-Event-Summary

After the second crash he declared ATZ.

[bio]

OK, now this is really annoying. Your assumptions were trumped by facts and all you can do is offer new assumptions. Stop it! Stop pushing any ad hoc conspiracy idea which comes to your mind, just because it’s a conspiracy idea. You’re making a fool of yourself, inter alia because you are wrong again. McCormick spoke to Bob Birch from NY TRACON (N90), and he told Birch about another possible hijack situation at ~08:53:50 EDT. The conversation is entailed in the N90 recordings, position 30 TMU DD.

did he tell the commission-interviewers something different?

"Birch noted that he believes there was a call from ZNY, possibly by Mike McCormack, informing him that there might have been more ongoing events. Birch noted that he does not believe this call came until after they had started halting their air traffic."
http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00249.pdf

[Oystein]

it would be very interesting to see his "defense". It is not fair, that his statement is covered-up.

The only thing here that is not fair that you call people traitors on a whim fed by nothing but imagination.

After my studies of the commission-interviews with his New Yorker colleagues, I can say:
There was one controller inside FAA, New York, who was pushing Barrett personally to send fighter after Flight 175. Miss Dowis. Controller Thumser was in despair, he wanted fighters to shoot down Flight 175, he was working directly for Barrett.

Barrett had done the right thing: He had Ois scrambled and sent towards NYC.

Finally, Mister Mulligan did the job of Barrett, after finding out, that things were escalating in New York!

No.

question:
Is my impression right, that the response of Barrett was, to stop the fighters by stopping all traffic into NYARTCC before the second crash?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/14353942/T8-B17-FAA-Trips-2-of-3-Fdr-Air-Traffic-Division-Event-Summary

After the second crash he declared ATZ.

As has been explained to you many many many times there is nothing wrong with trying one's best to make sure that no planes crash and collide. It's the job of the FAA.

You have failed to respond to the many many many questions about what in your mind the fighters SHOULD have done over NYC in the (physically impossible) event they could have made it before the second crash! Please do so now!!! Be specific about the number of innocent civilians you expect the military to kill!!!

[bio]

The only thing here that is not fair that you call people traitors on a whim fed by nothing but imagination.

Barrett had done the right thing: He had Ois scrambled and sent towards NYC.



source?

[Oystein]

...
Mister Bruce Barrett from me attributed behavior would be close to high treason. Unfortunately he may not defend himself.

I want to point out two things here:

1. The problem lies not in Mr. Barrett's conduct, but in your close-to-libellous attribution
2. Libel is crime both in Germany where you are and in the USA where this site is hosted. In Germany, the punishment for libel commited in public writing is up to 2 years in prison, or a monetary fine (§186 StGB)

So please be careful lest you commit a serious crime.

[Oystein]

source?

Read your own sources.


AND ANSWER THE *********** QUESTIONS!

[bio]

Read your own sources.


AND ANSWER THE *********** QUESTIONS!

where should i read?

[Oystein]

where should i read?

Start on page 1 of this thread. Read the many many many questions asked of you and arguments presented to you.

Then address them.

Continue wit the same on all following pages.

When you have addressed all the issues raised against your fantasies, I will point you to the things you have missed in your own sources.


So plesase let's do first things first.

[bio]

Start on page 1 of this thread. Read the many many many questions asked of you and arguments presented to you.

Then address them.

Continue wit the same on all following pages.

When you have addressed all the issues raised against your fantasies, I will point you to the things you have missed in your own sources.


So plesase let's do first things first.

Show me, where Mister Barrett alerted NEADS due to Flight 175, and I will close the thread and excuse me at this man.

[tsig]

it would be very interesting to see his "defense". It is not fair, that his statement is covered-up.

After my studies of the commission-interviews with his New Yorker colleagues, I can say:
There was one controller inside FAA, New York, who was pushing Barrett personally to send fighter after Flight 175. Miss Dowis. Controller Thumser was in despair, he wanted fighters to shoot down Flight 175, he was working directly for Barrett.

Finally, Mister Mulligan did the job of Barrett, after finding out, that things were escalating in New York!

question:
Is my impression right, that the response of Barrett would had been stopping the fighters (if they have been trying to intercept Flight 175) by his decision to stop all traffic into NYARTCC? This decision happened before the second crash.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/14353942/T8-B17-FAA-Trips-2-of-3-Fdr-Air-Traffic-Division-Event-Summary

After the second crash he declared ATZ.

It wasn't physically possible for the fighters to get there.

[progge]

did he tell the commission-interviewers something different?

"Birch noted that he believes there was a call from ZNY, possibly by Mike McCormack, informing him that there might have been more ongoing events. Birch noted that he does not believe this call came until after they had started halting their air traffic."
http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00249.pdf

It doesn´t matter, and the only point of this question is to distract from your continuous misrepresentation of the events of 9/11. Human memories are inconclusive on exact minutiae, ATC records aren´t. Nothing you assumed about Felser or McCormick was correct, and no smartass question will change this fact.

I sure hope the hell you are good at what ever it is you do, because maybe one day you'll screw up and have 3,000 people die, in what you may consider you did the right thing, but will be accused of treason.

Sorry, I had a lump in my throat, reading those sentences.
Libelous claims like high treason are the most reckless thing I can imagine internet "researchers" to do. But I do not think that bio really accuses Bruce Barrett of high treason because he considers this to be the truth, but because he considers this to be "exiting" in some fashion:

It is exciting to see, how deep, how big the 911 cover-up is.

[Oystein]

Show me, where Mister Barrett alerted NEADS due to Flight 175, and I will close the thread and excuse me at this man.

He had Otis scrambled because of AA11, Otis was already scrambled (airborne) when the situation about UA175 emerged, the fighters were headed to NYC, and hence there was no need for anyone to do anything about it! No need to scramble fighters that already ARE scrambled!

You have not shown what FAA has done wrong, and why. In particular, you have not even started to explain what FAA should have done right in your opinion. That's why you must go back and answer several questions that have been asked of you MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY times!

And you must apologize to Mr. Barrett anyway since you wrongfully accused him of a high crime and thereby commited criminal libel yourself.

[bio]

He had Otis scrambled because of AA11, Otis was already scrambled (airborne) when the situation about UA175 emerged, the fighters were headed to NYC, and hence there was no need for anyone to do anything about it! No need to scramble fighters that already ARE scrambled!

You have not shown what FAA has done wrong, and why. In particular, you have not even started to explain what FAA should have done right in your opinion. That's why you must go back and answer several questions that have been asked of you MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY times!

And you must apologize to Mr. Barrett anyway since you wrongfully accused him of a high crime and thereby commited criminal libel yourself.

Thank you for the joke :D

Yes - they were scrambled for Flight 11, but unfortunately it seems, that nobody said them until 09:03, that there was a second hijack, flight 175.

[bio]

thank you for the hint progge!

Can it be, that Barrett halted the air traffic around 08:53 by coincidence with the scrambling of the Otis-fighters?

According to progge "McCormick spoke to Bob Birch from NY TRACON (N90), and he told Birch about another possible hijack situation at ~08:53:50 EDT."

... and according to the interview with Birch, this conversation took place after they began to halt their air traffic. Is this interpretation right? Perhaps my English is too bad.

"Birch noted that he believes there was a call from ZNY, possibly by Mike McCormack, informing him that there might have been more ongoing events. Birch noted that he does not believe this call came until after they had started halting their air traffic."
http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00249.pdf

The question is, when Barrett halted the air traffic over New York, and who gave N 90 the order to do the same.

[carlitos]

It's not your English; it's your paranoid fantasy-addled brain.

Thank you for the joke Yes, ha ha. Accusing people of mass murder is hilarious.

[progge]

thank you for the hint progge!

Can it be, that Barrett halted the air traffic around 08:53 by coincidence with the scrambling of the Otis-fighters?

According to progge "McCormick spoke to Bob Birch from NY TRACON (N90), and he told Birch about another possible hijack situation at ~08:53:50 EDT."

... and according to the interview with Birch, this conversation took place after they began to halt their air traffic. Is this interpretation right? Perhaps my English is too bad.

"Birch noted that he believes there was a call from ZNY, possibly by Mike McCormack, informing him that there might have been more ongoing events. Birch noted that he does not believe this call came until after they had started halting their air traffic."
http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-00249.pdf

The question is, when Barrett halted the air traffic over New York, and who gave N 90 the order to do the same.

At ~08:56:10 EDT there is an explicit denial from Bob Birch that the WTC crash resulted in any aircraft holding or similar activities; this is recorded on position 31 TMU DD of the N90 Tapes, if anyone wants to check. So N90 started halting aircraft at ~08:56:30 EDT at the earliest. I don’t know when exactly the order from Barrett arrived at N90, but based on the ATC Tapes N90 didn’t start to communicate any aircraft halting before 08:59, possibly 08:58 EDT. I base this judgement on the N90 TMU and AMIC channels alone, however, i.e. I didn’t check the radar data or other channels. In any case, aircraft halting on part of N90 didn’t start before 08:56:30 EDT.
Thus we can conclude that Birch misremembers when he thinks that McCormick told him about a possible second hijack after the aircraft halting activities at N90 started. McCormick told him at least 2-3 minutes before. So much for this detail.
As to the halting order from Barrett, given that N90 didn’t start to communicate the order before 08:56:30 EDT, and given that N90 was in constant contact with ZNY, my estimate is that Barrett’s order wasn’t given before 08:55 EDT, and probably a few minutes later. However, I’ll check the ZNY Tapes to find out the exact time, and I’d encourage you to do the same. Listen to the ZNY Tapes (http://62.204.241.30/911_files/faa/faa_atc/zny/).

[Oystein]

Thank you for the joke :D

Yes - they were scrambled for Flight 11, but unfortunately it seems, that nobody said them until 09:03, that there was a second hijack, flight 175.

Not a joke.

Your grin is ugly.


You STILL have not answered what FAA or the fighters SHOULD have done about UAL175.

You have not addressed all the posters who have informed you, complete with sources, assumptions and work, that the fighters could NOT POSSIBLY have arrived in NYC on time.


Are you not embarressed and ashamed that you expose your stupidity AND your vile character with every new post?


I despise you. You are a disgrace to this forum and to my country.


To ignore you go. I don't want to stomach the vomit of such an ugly brain in my spare time any longer.

[bio]

(...) When they did launch the first tower had been hit. Relayed to me by third person, when the F-15's first talked to Boston Center the controllers advised them they were to late and cleared them into W-105. Around this time New York had gone ATC Zero for the hijacked aircraft. (...)

my sources say, that ATC Zero was declared after the second crash at 09:03.
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a905atczero#a905atczero

So is my assumption, that you are writing about the order of Barrett, to stop all incoming aircraft into New York?

"Bruce Barrett directs Pete Mulligan and Marty Rosenburg to stop all traffic into NY ARTCC."
http://www.scribd.com/doc/14353942/T8-B17-FAA-Trips-2-of-3-Fdr-Air-Traffic-Division-Event-Summary

This order happened before the second crash, before ATC Zero and would fit so into your above witness-account. When did this order happen? I would reckon one oder two minutes after the birds were scrambled and heading toward New York also based on your above account.

[bio]

(...)


You STILL have not answered what FAA or the fighters SHOULD have done about UAL175.

(...)

NORAD Commander Larry Arnold later states that on 9/11, “I have the authority in case of an emergency to declare a target hostile and shoot it down under an emergency condition.”
Filson, 2003, pp. 75

It was such a emergency condition, and according to Robin Hordon and JREF-debunker "Reheat", even the pilots, by themselves, could shoot down the airplanes by declaring "IFE".

"Sure, in hindsight AA11 should have been handled as an IN FLIGHT EMERGENCY (IFE) in order to enable Hordon's fantasy. But it wasn't, it was a hijacking and it was handled as such by both the FAA and NEADs. To emphasize that it should have been handled as an IFE is simply a convenient hindsight fantasy." Source (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6089837&postcount=172)

[funk de fino]

Ok, OK, we get it. You do not understand basic Englsih.

Your accusations and nonsense are despicable.

[excaza]

NORAD Commander Larry Arnold later states that on 9/11, “I have the authority in case of an emergency to declare a target hostile and shoot it down under an emergency condition.”
Filson, 2003, pp. 75

It was such a emergency condition, and according to Robin Hordon and JREF-debunker "Reheat", even the pilots, by themselves, could shoot down the airplanes by declaring "IFE".

"Sure, in hindsight AA11 should have been handled as an IN FLIGHT EMERGENCY (IFE) in order to enable Hordon's fantasy. But it wasn't, it was a hijacking and it was handled as such by both the FAA and NEADs. To emphasize that it should have been handled as an IFE is simply a convenient hindsight fantasy." Source (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6089837&postcount=172)

It has already been well established that it was impossible for the fighters to arrive in NYC before UAL 175 hit the tower. Hindsight musings do nothing to change this. Declaring an IFE wouldn't have teleported the fighters into the city.

[Oystein]

NORAD Commander Larry Arnold later states that on 9/11, “I have the authority in case of an emergency to declare a target hostile and shoot it down under an emergency condition.”
Filson, 2003, pp. 75

It was such a emergency condition, and according to Robin Hordon and JREF-debunker "Reheat", even the pilots, by themselves, could shoot down the airplanes by declaring "IFE".
...

Arnold just saying so does not make it so.

This is really a legal question and should be handled as such.
In general terms, civilians must, under no circumstances whatsoever, ever be made military targets. This is International Law (Geneva and The Hague law).

You surely are aware that, for example, the German Bundesverfassungsgericht has recently ruled that, because of most fundamental legal principles of human dignity and universal human rights, no state agency (no government, no military commander) can possibly order the killing of domestic civilians, even to prevent the killing of more civilians.

Please acknowledge that you are aware that such a shoot-down of any civilian airliner, regardless of the possible intent of hijackers, is totally, unambiguously forbidden under German law. Please acknowledge that you are aware of the reason for this: Article 1 of the German constitution, which posiuts that the Dignity of Humans is to be protected by the state. Period. Please acknowledge that you are informed that making civilians the subject of a killing action by the state would violate their dignity, as humans can never become mere subjects of state operation.

With these legal acknowledgments, please make a legal case of why YOU think that the Bundesverfassungsgericht and the German Constitution are wrong, and in fact any military person, commander or not, should have, at any time they find convenient, the right to declare an emergency and start killing their own civilians?

[progge]

It was such a emergency condition, and according to Robin Hordon and JREF-debunker "Reheat", even the pilots, by themselves, could shoot down the airplanes by declaring "IFE".

"Sure, in hindsight AA11 should have been handled as an IN FLIGHT EMERGENCY (IFE) in order to enable Hordon's fantasy. But it wasn't, it was a hijacking and it was handled as such by both the FAA and NEADs. To emphasize that it should have been handled as an IFE is simply a convenient hindsight fantasy." Source (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6089837&postcount=172)

Declaring an in-flight emergency includes (self-)authorization to shoot down an airliner?:eye-poppi Declaring AA 11 to be an IFE would have shortened the chain of communication from ZBW to NEADS (less interlinks); declaring the aircraft to be a potential weapon against NYC facilities would be completely another issue. Again, you show that you have no clue what you are talking about, and don´t understand your very own sources.

[Reheat]

NORAD Commander Larry Arnold later states that on 9/11, “I have the authority in case of an emergency to declare a target hostile and shoot it down under an emergency condition.”
Filson, 2003, pp. 75

It was such a emergency condition, and according to Robin Hordon and JREF-debunker "Reheat", even the pilots, by themselves, could shoot down the airplanes by declaring "IFE".

"Sure, in hindsight AA11 should have been handled as an IN FLIGHT EMERGENCY (IFE) in order to enable Hordon's fantasy. But it wasn't, it was a hijacking and it was handled as such by both the FAA and NEADs. To emphasize that it should have been handled as an IFE is simply a convenient hindsight fantasy." Source (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6089837&postcount=172)

Edited for rule 12. Scrambling fighters due to an IFE and shootdown authority are two distinctly separate issues. You have grotesquely misrepresented what I said. I'm sure everyone else understood what I meant by the IFE reference when I further elaborated on the shootdown issue in the post you "cherry picked".

Let me make it perfectly clear again. No one involved in the known 9/11 scenario would have authorized a shootdown of UA 175 considering what they knew prior to it's impact with the second tower. That includes anyone involved with even speculative shootdown authority. Edited for rule 12.

[bio]

At ~08:56:10 EDT there is an explicit denial from Bob Birch that the WTC crash resulted in any aircraft holding or similar activities; this is recorded on position 31 TMU DD of the N90 Tapes, if anyone wants to check. So N90 started halting aircraft at ~08:56:30 EDT at the earliest. I don’t know when exactly the order from Barrett arrived at N90, but based on the ATC Tapes N90 didn’t start to communicate any aircraft halting before 08:59, possibly 08:58 EDT. I base this judgement on the N90 TMU and AMIC channels alone, however, i.e. I didn’t check the radar data or other channels. In any case, aircraft halting on part of N90 didn’t start before 08:56:30 EDT.
Thus we can conclude that Birch misremembers when he thinks that McCormick told him about a possible second hijack after the aircraft halting activities at N90 started.[B]McCormick told him at least 2-3 minutes before. So much for this detail.
As to the halting order from Barrett, given that N90 didn’t start to communicate the order before 08:56:30 EDT, and given that N90 was in constant contact with ZNY, my estimate is that Barrett’s order wasn’t given before 08:55 EDT, and probably a few minutes later. However, I’ll check the ZNY Tapes to find out the exact time, and I’d encourage you to do the same. Listen to the ZNY Tapes (http://62.204.241.30/911_files/faa/faa_atc/zny/).

What is your evidence, that McComrick told Birch about the second flight "at least 2-3 minutes before"?

Thanks for the link. I was reading all transcripts of the thread "FAA_atc", but unfortunately the transcripts are most probably altered in the important time between 12:53 and 12:56.
See: http://62.204.241.30/911_files/faa/zny_atc.htm
So they are useless to answers our question, when Barrett stopped the incoming flights.
I hope, that Scoggins is going to help us out.

edit:
i come forward and was able to download an important file about Barrett. I will be esciting, hopefully i will understand him.
5 ZNY 228 X5959 OMIC 1337-1458 UTC SS.mp3