9/11 commission lies about flight 175 timeline

[Mutton-Head]

The 9/11 commission's claim that NORAD didn't know about flight 175 until after it crashed into the WTC is contradicted by NORAD's first statement, by Captain Michael Jellinek, a Canadian who on 9/11 was overseeing NORAD's headquarters in Colorado, and by Laura Brown of the FAA.

[CptColumbo]

So the one thread wasn't working out the way you hoped and you started another with an equally weak point?

Did you know that on the dial-knob for old televisions there is no Channel One? ...and go!

[gumboot]

I have found something interesting about the 9/11 Commission report:

It is clear that no one knew what was going on, and that no one really knows when various things happen.

For example the 9/11 Commission claims the Langley AFB F-16's were launched to intercept AA11 because it turned south for Washington DC. The Commission claims they were never intended to intercept AA77 at all.

This is combined with reports that 2 aircraft had hit the WTC, and a third (AA11) was turning south for Washington DC.

This is (obviously) ridiculous. AA11 was the FIRST plane to hit the WTC. There is no WAY the Langley F-16s could have been scrambled to intercept it, and there is no WAY it could have been airbourne, headed for Washington DC, AFTER two aircraft had already hit the WTC.

Obviously the people reporting to the 9/11 Commission got AA11 and AA77 mixed up.

-Andrew

[Mutton-Head]

So the one thread wasn't working out the way you hoped and you started another with an equally weak point?

Did you know that on the dial-knob for old televisions there is no Channel One? ...and go!


I'm still involved in the Mineta thread. It's going exactly the way that I knew it would. No one has an answer. The point on this thread is not weak.

[CptColumbo]

I have found something interesting about the 9/11 Commission report:

It is clear that no one knew what was going on, and that no one really knows when various things happen.

For example the 9/11 Commission claims the Langley AFB F-16's were launched to intercept AA11 because it turned south for Washington DC. The Commission claims they were never intended to intercept AA77 at all.

This is combined with reports that 2 aircraft had hit the WTC, and a third (AA11) was turning south for Washington DC.

This is (obviously) ridiculous. AA11 was the FIRST plane to hit the WTC. There is no WAY the Langley F-16s could have been scrambled to intercept it, and there is no WAY it could have been airbourne, headed for Washington DC, AFTER two aircraft had already hit the WTC.

Obviously the people reporting to the 9/11 Commission got AA11 and AA77 mixed up.

-Andrew
You mean they were human beings! :o

[CptColumbo]

I'm still involved in the Mineta thread. It's going exactly the way that I knew it would. No one has an answer. The point on this thread is not weak.
Yes it is.

[Mutton-Head]

I have found something interesting about the 9/11 Commission report:

It is clear that no one knew what was going on, and that no one really knows when various things happen.

For example the 9/11 Commission claims the Langley AFB F-16's were launched to intercept AA11 because it turned south for Washington DC. The Commission claims they were never intended to intercept AA77 at all.

This is combined with reports that 2 aircraft had hit the WTC, and a third (AA11) was turning south for Washington DC.

This is (obviously) ridiculous. AA11 was the FIRST plane to hit the WTC. There is no WAY the Langley F-16s could have been scrambled to intercept it, and there is no WAY it could have been airbourne, headed for Washington DC, AFTER two aircraft had already hit the WTC.

Obviously the people reporting to the 9/11 Commission got AA11 and AA77 mixed up.

-Andrew

The claim that AA11 was being followed by fighters instaed of AA77 was a fabrication. But that's off topic. Perhaps I'll start a "Phantom flight 11" thread.

[Mutton-Head]

Yes it is.

No, it's strong

[CptColumbo]

The claim that AA11 was being followed by fighters instaed of AA77 was a fabrication. But that's off topic. Perhaps I'll start a "Phantom flight 11" thread.
And your point will be just as weak.

[gumboot]

You mean they were human beings! :o


Exactly! My main point is people at the time weren't even sure which flights they were talking about.

Yet Mutton-Head expects their recollection of what time they were doing what to be exactly right (not to mention that people have their watches set to different times - it's not totally odd in a random collection of people to have a variation of 15 - 20 minutes in the total range of different times on their watches, cellphones, etc).

Take right this moment... my PC says it is 1722. My phone says 1716. My clock in my room says 1721, and my wristwatch says 1723. That's a range of SEVEN MINUTES! And I'm only one person! AND I am completely calm and relaxed, with nothing else to think about, as I carefully look at each device and record the exact time.

I wouldn't be surprised to discover people's estimates of when a given action occured on 9/11 varying by 30 or 40 minutes.

-Andrew

[CptColumbo]

No, it's strong
No, it's not.

[CptColumbo]

Exactly! My main point is people at the time weren't even sure which flights they were talking about.

Yet Mutton-Head expects their recollection of what time they were doing what to be exactly right (not to mention that people have their watches set to different times - it's not totally odd in a random collection of people to have a variation of 15 - 20 minutes in the total range of different times on their watches, cellphones, etc).

Take right this moment... my PC says it is 1722. My phone says 1716. My clock in my room says 1721, and my wristwatch says 1723. That's a range of SEVEN MINUTES! And I'm only one person! AND I am completely calm and relaxed, with nothing else to think about, as I carefully look at each device and record the exact time.

I wouldn't be surprised to discover people's estimates of when a given action occured on 9/11 varying by 30 or 40 minutes.

-Andrew
Assuming they were wearing watches, mine is currently broken.

[Mutton-Head]

And your point will be just as weak.


No it's strong

[Mutton-Head]

No, it's not.


Yes, it is strong

[Mutton-Head]

The 9/11 commission's claim that NORAD didn't know about flight 175 until after it crashed into the WTC is contradicted by NORAD's first statement, by Captain Michael Jellinek, a Canadian who on 9/11 was overseeing NORAD's headquarters in Colorado, and by Laura Brown of the FAA.

I'm quoting myself, since no one seems to be able to stay on the topic. The commision is trying to shift the blame for lack of fighter intercepts to the FAA.

[apathoid]

I'm quoting myself, since no one seems to be able to stay on the topic. The commision is trying to shift the blame for lack of fighter intercepts to the FAA.
I think your expectations are a little high for intercept times. It took 76 minutes to intercept Payne Stewarts Learjet. The F-16 was also scrambled unarmed. There were relatively few armed interceptors on alert the morning of 911.
The 911 flights time from takeover(contact lost) to impact were as follows

AA11 -8:14 to 8:47 - 33 minutes
UA 175 - 8:42 to 9:04 - 22 minutes
AA77 -8:51 to 9:38 - 47 minutes
UA 93 -9:27 to 10:04 - 37 minutes

Courtesy 911Myths

The unarmed intercept of Stewarts jet took 30 minutes longer than any of the 9/11 flights would-be armed intercepts.

It should also be noted that the flights were flying with their transponders off while Stewarts' was still operating making the Lear easy to find; susequently AA77 vanished when it flew through a hole in the primary radar coverage. This would make it difficult for the intercepting fighters to locate the airliners outside of their internal radars range of 90 miles or so..

If you can come up with a single intercept(unarmed) of a civil aircraft within the US that took less 47 minutes, I might concede that its possible a stand down of some sort couldve been ordered. Just one is all I'm asking. I think its a reasonable request.
Can you do it?

[Gravy]

I think your expectations are a little high for intercept times. It took 76 minutes to intercept Payne Stewarts Learjet. The F-16 was also scrambled unarmed.
That interception actually happened within minutes of loss of contact with Stewart's plane, but it was apparently by an F-16 test pilot who was already airborne. http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2000/aab0001.htm

[MikeW]

I think your expectations are a little high for intercept times. It took 76 minutes to intercept Payne Stewarts Learjet...
Here's the timeline of another example, from 2002, where jets from Andrews were scrambled to intercept a Cessna flying by the White House. So this was with tighter, post-9/11 security; a problem occurring in what CTs tell us should be the most highly defended airspace, over Washington; jets flying a minimal distance; a slower-moving target with its transponder turned on; and nothing else major going on, so you'd expect the system to work at its best. What happened?

7:59 p.m. Cessna enters "restricted" air space
8:03 p.m. FAA notifies NORAD
8:04 p.m. Cessna enters "prohibited" air space
8:06 p.m. Two F-16s get orders to scramble
8:06 p.m. Cessna passes White House "within a few miles"
8:17 p.m. F-16s take off from Andrews AFB. Intercept occurs "a few minutes later."
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/06/20/plane.intercept

This should have been the simplest of intercepts, in tighter, post-911 security, yet it still takes 18 minutes from a problem occurring to jets taking off, and "a few minutes" more for the intercept to occur. How many? If it were 5 then that takes us to 23 minutes, longer than the time available to tackle Flight 175. If even this ideal example can't deliver anything like the ten minute intercept time that people like David Ray Griffin talk about, then why do some seem to expect that to have happened on September 11th?

[apathoid]

That interception actually happened within minutes of loss of contact with Stewart's plane, but it was apparently by an F-16 test pilot who was already airborne. http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2000/aab0001.htm

Gravy, there is a timezone change in that timeline.

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

About 0952 CDT,7 a USAF F-16 test pilot from the 40th Flight Test Squadron at Eglin Air Force Base (AFB), Florida, was vectored to within 8 nm of N47BA

At first glance, it would appear that the intercept took possibly less than 20 minutes and I think the CTs latched onto to that at some point as if helped prove their point about intercepts.
But, as you mentioned, the Learjet was intercepted by an unarmed fighter that was already in the air.

[celestrin]

That interception actually happened within minutes of loss of contact with Stewart's plane, but it was apparently by an F-16 test pilot who was already airborne. w ww.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2000/aab0001.htm
[de-lurk]
Gravy, the time zone changes between the EDT and CDT. Contact was lost @ about 9:30EDT, while the interception occured at about 9:50CDT. That's 80 minutes.
[re-lurk]

edit: blasted, beaten by apathoid for link edit. Gotta get to those 15 posts :)

[apathoid]

Here's the timeline of another example, from 2002, where jets from Andrews were scrambled to intercept a Cessna flying by the White House. So this was with tighter, post-9/11 security; a problem occurring in what CTs tell us should be the most highly defended airspace, over Washington; jets flying a minimal distance; a slower-moving target with its transponder turned on; and nothing else major going on, so you'd expect the system to work at its best. What happened?

7:59 p.m. Cessna enters "restricted" air space
8:03 p.m. FAA notifies NORAD
8:04 p.m. Cessna enters "prohibited" air space
8:06 p.m. Two F-16s get orders to scramble
8:06 p.m. Cessna passes White House "within a few miles"
8:17 p.m. F-16s take off from Andrews AFB. Intercept occurs "a few minutes later."
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/06/20/plane.intercept

This should have been the simplest of intercepts, in tighter, post-911 security, yet it still takes 18 minutes from a problem occurring to jets taking off, and "a few minutes" more for the intercept to occur. How many? If it were 5 then that takes us to 23 minutes, longer than the time available to tackle Flight 175. If even this ideal example can't deliver anything like the ten minute intercept time that people like David Ray Griffin talk about, then why do some seem to expect that to have happened on September 11th?
Very, very interesting Mike. Like with most of the CT talking points on various subjects, their understanding of what NORAD is and what it was desinged to do, especially pre-911, is borne of sheer ignorance. They more or less expected F-16s to be sitting fully-armed on the end of a runway waiting to intercept an airliner. They point to all the airbases full of F-16s and F-15s within range of the hijacked flights but fail to understand that without any "live" air-to-air armament, all those aircraft were useless on 911...
Only the 24(?) or so planes that were armed with crews on alert were important to the equation.
I think it wouldve been unreasonable to expect anything more than about:
- 5 minutes from FAA reporting contact lost to NORAD and from NORAD to the airwings with interceptors on alert..
- 5 more minutes to get the aircrews briefed, and the aircraft out of the shelters and in the air.
- 20 more minutes enroute at high subsonic speeds to areas where the target radar would pick up the flights
- 10 more minutes to intercept and shootdown.

Thats a total of at least 40 minutes minimum for an intercept...

Only one of the flights exceeded that time and it was lost in a primary radar hole for several of those minutes...

[apathoid]

[de-lurk]
Gravy, the time zone changes between the EDT and CDT. Contact was lost @ about 9:30EDT, while the interception occured at about 9:50CDT. That's 80 minutes.
[re-lurk]

edit: blasted, beaten by apathoid for link edit. Gotta get to those 15 posts :)
hehe, you'll get there in about 2009 at your current rate :D
On no less than 3 occasions I had written fairly long posts before getting to 15, only to leave a link in the quote box wiping out everything I typed ! D'oh

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

The 9/11 commission's claim that NORAD didn't know about flight 175 until after it crashed into the WTC is contradicted by NORAD's first statement, by Captain Michael Jellinek, a Canadian who on 9/11 was overseeing NORAD's headquarters in Colorado, and by Laura Brown of the FAA.

So even if the 911 Report got this wrong, it would prove...... what? Please explain. I have a hard type making these types of wild connections.

[gumboot]

Only the 24(?) or so planes that were armed with crews on alert were important to the equation.

14, nationwide.
:)




I think it wouldve been unreasonable to expect anything more than about:
- 5 minutes from FAA reporting contact lost to NORAD and from NORAD to the airwings with interceptors on alert..
- 5 more minutes to get the aircrews briefed, and the aircraft out of the shelters and in the air.


The 14 fighters on fast reaction are fueled, loaded, and ready to go. The pilots are already in their flightsuits. They literally jump in their aircraft and take off (no briefings or anything).

The time allowed by NORAD, I believe, is 15 minutes.

Something people don't realise about aircraft... they're not like a car. You can't just jump in, flick a switch, and off you go. You have to do pre-flight instrument checks, and you have to run the engines for a significant amount of time to get them up to temperature and make sure everything is running smoothly.

For an F-15 (such as were scrambled from Otis) that's two engines, so twice as long for engine-run checks.

Then you have to taxi out to the runway, which itself can take a while...

-Andrew

[Shrinker]

14, nationwide.
:)






The 14 fighters on fast reaction are fueled, loaded, and ready to go. The pilots are already in their flightsuits. They literally jump in their aircraft and take off (no briefings or anything).

The time allowed by NORAD, I believe, is 15 minutes.

Something people don't realise about aircraft... they're not like a car. You can't just jump in, flick a switch, and off you go. You have to do pre-flight instrument checks, and you have to run the engines for a significant amount of time to get them up to temperature and make sure everything is running smoothly.

For an F-15 (such as were scrambled from Otis) that's two engines, so twice as long for engine-run checks.

Then you have to taxi out to the runway, which itself can take a while...

-Andrew

This can't be right. In the movies a guy says 'scramble fighters'. In the next shot, pilots sprint to planes. Two seconds later they're in the air. :confused:

Unless its a Michael Bay film, of course, then the pilot shot takes longer because of the slo-mo and patriotic music.

[Gravy]

Oh, snap! Thanks for that timeline change info, everyone!

[MikeW]

Only the 24(?) or so planes that were armed with crews on alert were important to the equation.
As someone else said, it was 14, but the CTs don't believe that either. Or that Andrews didn't have fighters on alert. But... oh dear... what's this from the December 1999 edition of "Airman"?

The Air National Guard exclusively performs the air sovereignty mission in the continental United States, and those units fall under the control of the 1st Air Force based at Tyndall. The Guard maintains seven alert sites with 14 fighters and pilots on call around the clock. Besides Homestead, alert birds also sit armed and ready at Tyndall; Langley AFB, Va.; Otis Air National Guard Base, Mass.; Portland International Airport, Ore.; March ARB, Calif.; and Ellington Field, Texas.
http://www.af.mil/news/airman/1299/home2.htm

14 fighters. None waiting at Andrews. Sound familiar at all?!

[Cylinder]

Something people don't realise about aircraft... they're not like a car. You can't just jump in, flick a switch, and off you go. You have to do pre-flight instrument checks, and you have to run the engines for a significant amount of time to get them up to temperature and make sure everything is running smoothly.

For an F-15 (such as were scrambled from Otis) that's two engines, so twice as long for engine-run checks.

Then you have to taxi out to the runway, which itself can take a while...

-Andrew

...and clear the taxiway

...and clear the airspace

...and arm

...and open the shelter doors (I don't know if CONUS alert aircraft were sheltered - USAFE are)

The point being that aircraft do not work in quite the same manner as Magic Pixie Dust.

[Cylinder]

Obviously the people reporting to the 9/11 Commission got AA11 and AA77 mixed up.

The mistake occurred on 9-11 - not in the testimony per se.

0837: Boston Center notifies NEADS (the NORAD area command for the northeast US) of a hijacked aircraft.

0838 (est): NEADS orders Otis alert aircraft to battle stations.

0846: NEADS orders alert F-15s from Otis AFB to scramble. Otis is 153 miles from NYC.

0846: AA 11 strikes WTC-1 - 9 minutes after NEADS notification. It's important to note here that at this time, NEADS was still searching primary radar for AA 11.

0850: NEADS is informed that an aircraft has struck WTC-1

0853: NEADS F-15 package from Otis become airborne - 7 minutes after scramble order. Since FAA did not provide a radar vector for AA 11, NEADS establishes a combat air patrol (CAPs) in military airspace off the coast of Long Island.

0903: New York Center alerts NEADS about the possibility of a second hijack.

0903: AA 173 strikes WTC-2 - the same minute NEADS learned of the possibility of the second aircraft.

0908: NEADS learns of a second explosion at the WTC site.

Mission Crew Commander, NEADS: This is what I foresee that we probably need to do. We need to talk to FAA. We need to tell 'em if this stuff is gonna keep on going, we need to take those fighters, put 'em over Manhattan. That's best thing, that's the best play right now. So coordinate with the FAA. Tell 'em if there's more out there, which we don't know, let's get 'em over Manhattan. At least we got some kind of play.

0909 - 0913: NEADS F-15 package fly CAPs near Long Island.

0913: NEADS vectors Otis F-15s to establish a CAPs over Manhattan proper.

0909: NEADS orders Langley alert F-16s to battle stations. per the conversation quoted above.

**Here is where the flights are conflated - not by NORAD, but by the FAA. I'll quote it directly from the Commission Report**

At 9:21, NEADS received a report from the FAA:

FAA: Military, Boston Center. I just had a report that American 11 is still in the air, and it's on its way towards-heading towards Washington.
NEADS: Okay. American 11 is still in the air?

FAA: Yes.

NEADS: On its way towards Washington?

FAA: That was another-it was evidently another aircraft that hit the tower. That's the latest report we have.

NEADS: Okay.

FAA: I'm going to try to confirm an ID for you, but I would assume he's somewhere over, uh, either New Jersey or somewhere further south.

NEADS: Okay. So American 11 isn't the hijack at all then, right?

FAA: No, he is a hijack.

NEADS: He-American 11 is a hijack?

FAA: Yes.

NEADS: And he's heading into Washington?

FAA: Yes. This could be a third aircraft.148

The mention of a "third aircraft" was not a reference to American 77.There was confusion at that moment in the FAA. Two planes had struck the World Trade Center, and Boston Center had heard from FAA headquarters in Washington that American 11 was still airborne. We have been unable to identify the source of this mistaken FAA information.

The NEADS technician who took this call from the FAA immediately passed the word to the mission crew commander, who reported to the NEADS battle commander:

Mission Crew Commander, NEADS: Okay, uh, American Airlines is still airborne. Eleven, the first guy, he's heading towards Washington. Okay? I think we need to scramble Langley right now. And I'm gonna take the fighters from Otis, try to chase this guy down if I can find him.

0924: Langley alert F-16s are scrambled.

0930: Langley alert F-16s are airborne.

7 minute response for Otis and 6 minutes for Langley. That is well within at least the NATO standard for alert aircraft which is closer to the 15 minutes you cited in an earlier post.

It's important to note that the time-line was reconstructed though radar data and the FAA and NORAD voice loops, so this is not just witness testimony but actual real-time events.

[gumboot]

It's important to note that the time-line was reconstructed though radar data and the FAA and NORAD voice loops, so this is not just witness testimony but actual real-time events.


The thing is Mutton-Head is claiming that the Langley F16's would have been in a position to shoot down AA77 had they not been chasing the phantom AA11 flight. This would make the mysterious order very important.

Had the F-16s been intercepting the supposed AA11 as NEADS thought they were, they would have been steaming towards Washington DC. So had they actually been chasing the phantom AA11 they would have been in precisely the right spot to find AA77 and shoot it down.

The point is, they weren't. They were flying east over the Atlantic Ocean. Not north. This is what I was trying to convey to Mutton-Head. In the context of whether Cheney specifically prevented the fighters shooting down AA77, the phantom AA11 and the supposed "order" are all irrelevant. The fighters were not close enough to do anything.

It's much like the Northwoods plan being used as evidence of the government's willingness to kill citizens. Northwoods didn't involve killing Americans, and the government wasn't willing to use it. So that makes anything about Northwoods completely irrelevant.

-Andrew

[LTC8K6]

You also cannot use the max speed of the fighter to say it should have taken X minutes to get from A to B.

I find people doing that all the time.

[gumboot]

You also cannot use the max speed of the fighter to say it should have taken X minutes to get from A to B.

I find people doing that all the time.



Not to mention the altitude thing. People look at the horizontal distance, but they don't take into account the vertical distance (which could be as much as 30,000ft+).

Granted, an F-15 can out-climb a Saturn V rocket if it has to, but that uses a massive amount of fuel. We know the pilots violated NORAD proceedure by using max thrust to get to New York. That doesn't mean they guzzled through all their gas flying vertically to whatever altitude they climbed to. More likely they climbed rather sedately, to conserve some fuel. This would add a significant amount of time to the flight (especially as you generally have to climb to altitude first).

[LTC8K6]

Yep, they wouldn't have been able to get anywhere near max speed for any intercepts on 9/11, nor is it really practical anyway.

[Regnad Kcin]

I'm still involved in the Mineta thread. It's going exactly the way that I knew it would. No one has an answer that disabuses me of my preconceived paranoia.I fixed that for you. No charge.