Andrews AFB seen by Google Earth

[ma2007]

One might conclude these are fine fighter jets, 10 miles away from the Pentagon.


Besides the interceptor jets on OTIS AFB which never were scrambled in the alleged time.

Quick Reaction Alert(QRA) is a NATO SOP, never forget that.
The DCANG website said (untill 9/11):
“DCANG MISSION To provide combat units in the highest possible state of readiness”

These fighter jets were ordered to stand down. That is the pure and direct link to the perpetrators of 9/11.

[vincent_vega_lives]

1. A date of when the photo was taken would help

Why are there Non USAF Jets at a USAF base? Those are F-18s on the right, either USN or USMC.

Otis is not an AFB it is an ANGB.

[ma2007]

2. How good to have experts around ...

1. The photo was taken for google earth. Anybody who ever experienced that tool will have noticed the patchwork character of GE. So it was taken at any time - maybe 2 or maybe 4 years ago. It does not matter. I wanted to illustrate what it means to have two squadrons at hand. More information you will find on their wbsite.

2. Google is unable to make a satelite photo look like a "normal" photo, so maybe the jets look a bit strange. But yed, it is possible that some jets are different. So what ?
Have a look at google earth - I did not add foreign jets, they are on the original photo.

3. Otis - you are right about the name. But it is of no importance. Important is: they did not scramble. Although having the task of airpolicing.

[DoYouEverWonder]

13. At 9:26 AM

all military bases in the United States were ordered to increase their threat conditions to Delta status.


THE 121st FIGHTER SQUADRON and 113th FIGHTER WING are both based at Andrews Air Force Base -

"…as part of its dual mission, the 113th provides capable and ready response forces for the District of Columbia in the event of a natural disaster or civil emergency. Members also assist local and federal law enforcement agencies in combating drug trafficking in the District of Colombia. are full partners with the active Air Force"


All hell should have been breaking loose at AFB even before 9:26AM. WTF took so long to launch even a feeble response?

[vincent_vega_lives]

53. 113th Wing

Not fighter wing.

[vincent_vega_lives]

3. More info

The seven dark aircraft on the left are F-16s belonging to the 113th Wing of the DC Air National Guard. They did scramble.

(10:42 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Andrews Fighters Finally Take Off, but Without Missiles: Two F-16s take off from Andrews Air Force Base lightly armed with nothing more than “hot” guns and non-explosive training rounds. Lead pilot Lt. Col. Marc Sasseville flies one; the other pilot is Capt. Heather Penney Garcia, also known by the codename Lucky. These fighters had been at another base that morning, waiting to be armed with AIM-9 missiles, a process that takes about an hour.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a1042andrewstakeoff#a1042andrewstakeoff

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/aw090971.xml

The eight aircraft on the right are USN F-18s, part of the Naval Air Facility. They would only be there temporarily for training. Not stationed there, why I asked for a date.

[wildbilln864]

4. hmmmm!

:popcorn:

[ma2007]

5. Not willing to be too intense, but ...

does the English language distinguish between:

"They did scramble."

and

"they finally took off"

It might be the difference of - let us say - two hours. And some lives. And of 9/11 taking place or not. And following the QRA- procedures or not.

I am talking about a president being told "America is under attack" at 9:05. Not 10:42.




Funny to see you guys getting nervous.

[vincent_vega_lives]

6. "Important is: they did not scramble"

Your quote.

I proved your quote wrong. Are you now changing your claim?

That last sentence is rather telling.

[ma2007]

7. Get nervous, huh ?

The sentence you quote is part of my post #2, point 3, beginning withe word Otis. This is the formal answer on a formally wrong quotation.

But to be correct in the sense: yes I meant Andrews too, they did not scramble there too.

When I always pointed on the QRA I always ponted on a time schedule. QRA means: to scramble in less than 15 minutes, the standard is between 8 and 10 minutes after alert. So I included the time when I say: they did not scramble. It is obvious for every reader.

It is like saying "the firebrigade did not come" and everybody knows that the meaning is "to come in time". And not after everything is burned down already.

The Andrews interceptor jets did not scramble in a due time. In a time adequate to "America is under attack". Do you not see the scandal - and the consequences ?

Yes I try to use "telling" phrases. In comparison with people who try to twist sentences I feel good to be a little bit plain and homegrown in my wording.

[vincent_vega_lives]

8. "The Andrews interceptor jets did not scramble in a due time."

There is a difference in the two phrases whether you like it or not.

So what was/has been the standard response time from confirmed hijacking to intercept in the USAF, NORAD or even the Air National Guard? Please provide a reference.

Do you often get nervous while posting on the internet? It's telling in that I wouldn't have even conceived of the notion.

[ma2007]

10. Wrong question

"time from confirmed hijacking to intercept in the "

As I said: NATO SOP, so not USAF.

"confirmed hijacking " is irrelevant. Alert according to airpolicing rules, according to FAA rules.

Loosing transponder, no radio contact, changing the course. it is international too.

But BTW: "America is under attack" seems to me alerting enough. Maybe it is nothing to worry about for old soldiers like Bush,Rumsfeld, Myers. You do not think "America is under attack is worth an alert" ?

[MervinFerd]

12. The jets may not be scrambled, but your logic certainly is.

You want the planes "scrambled" as in rushed into the air?

For what purpose?

[ma2007]

18. Don`t you notice

that
- scrambling
- QRA
- air policing
- interception

are termini technici that is language applied to the subject ?
Have a lok into the internet why the USAF has interceptor jets.

[Big Pappa]

19. See

post #16.

[hack89]

15. Can you show a single instance of an interception over US soil

in the past 20 years (besides Payne Stewart)? You can't so don't be so sure that it was SOP. By your criteria there should be many documented intercepts - can you show me some?

The only strip alert interceptors within range of DC were at Langley and Otis - that is a documented fact that CTrs, in their ignorance of how the military actually works, consistently ignore.

[ma2007]

17. QRA besides Payne Stewart case

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/06/19/white.house.evacuation/index.html

67 cases alone in the year before 9/11:
The Associated Press August 13, 2002 :"HERNDON, Va.— The military sent fighter jets to chase suspicious aircraft 462 times between Sept. 11 and June, nearly seven times as often as the 67 scrambles from the same period a year earlier"
http://www.msnbc.com/news/793814.asp?0bl=-0


Do not tell me what I shall be sure about: "so don't be so sure that it was SOP". I am talking about NATO SOP, The USA are the lead nation of the NATO.
See here about NATO airpolicing:
http://www.911citizenswatch.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&thold=-1&mode=flat&order=0&sid=344

[hack89]

26. None of those were over land.

NATO SOP is irrelevant to the discussion unless you have evidence that NATO procedures were used in the US on 911 - you will find that they weren't.

[ma2007]

29. NATO irrelevant ...

"that NATO procedures were used in the US on 911 - you will find that they weren't."

That is what I say. NATO SOP were not used.

Although the 7 QRA units are assigned to the common NATO protocolls.

NATO SOP are therefore very relevant - BECAUSE they were not followed.

And it is very interesting to find out that

- Washington is a deep sea capital I remeber Bush saying that fish and humans can coexist wonderfully.

- the transatlantic partnership does not include the Atlantic.

This is new. I have to learn a lot by such experts.

[hack89]

33. You don't understand

NATO procedures are not used in a non-NATO setting. In this case, the SOPs are joint FAA and Air Force procedures. The command structure for air defense was (and is) completely out of the NATO chain of command.

[Ferry Fey]

92. As my local fire chief said...

It is like saying "the firebrigade did not come" and everybody knows that the meaning is "to come in time". And not after everything is burned down already.

As the head of the volunteer fire department in my little country town once said to me with a wink, "We've never lost a foundation yet."

[MervinFerd]

9. This is ----SO----- 2002.

And -----SO------ discredited.

Blah, blah, blah.

I'm ----SO----- nervous.

Can't hardly stand it. We're busted! Ratted out! The Plot is Exposed!

DOOM!

[hack89]

11. No - you simply don't understand how the Air Force

was organized for continental air defense on 911. Fully fueled and armed fighters are an extremely rare sight - for safety, security, maintenance and cost reasons those planes in the picture are unarmed and mostly likely empty of fuel. For every hour of flight there are many more hours of pre and post flight maintenance - very hard to do on a fully fueled and armed plane. The weight of all that fuel would also add significant stress to the airframe. Weapons are normally store in depots in remote areas of the base for safety reasons.

As posted in this forum many time - there were 14 fully armed fighters on strip alert at 7 bases around the country. In the North East the bases were Otis and Langley - that's all there were. No CTr has ever proved this wrong - all we get is "if I ran the zoo" type logic like yours on what you think should have happened.

[ma2007]

20. Have you seen ?

"As posted in this forum many time - there were 14 fully armed fighters on strip alert at 7 bases around the country. In the North East the bases were Otis and Langley"

Have you seen the Otis and Langley fighter jets IN TIME over NYC or DC ?
And your account is quite correct, 7 bases with 14 interceptors in QRA status according to NATO treaties. But additionally - see the sentence quoted - Andrews had a "surplus", which is logical if you take into account the obligations of DCANG (providing security for DC, for airforce #1, escort service for state guests planes)

compare:
http://www.cpm-st-augustin.de/set/publikationen/Update-7.pdf

Additionally to the squadrins in Neuburg and Wittmund the USAF provides QRA jets in Ramstein and other facilities in Germany.

If anybody does not understand military it is YOU:
everxday exercises require fully tanked jets on so many bases ADDITIONALLY to the named ones that they are not countable.

[hack89]

25. This is not a NATO issue

Surplus does not equal strip alert interceptors. What happens in Germany is irrelevant.

So tell me where the exercises were and who was flying in them - there has never anything to show show that Andrews was involved - the flying exercise that I am aware of was in Alaska.

[ma2007]

28. NATO irrelevant ?

Airpolicing as NATO procedure was/is for more than 50 years the common interest of ALL NATO states.

Since the fall of the wall the units were reduced. To 7 in the continental USA, to 2 in Germany.

"Surplus does not equal strip alert interceptors" - yes, and I did not say that.

I ask: where were the units assigned according NATO-treaty ? And why did the USAF not scamble/redirect interceptors which were available as surplus, which were fully tanked and even OFFERED by commanders ?

The USAF with no fighter jets in the most traffced region: that is ridiculous. Except for those who died that day.

[ma2007]

32. To add a very official link

translate it yourself:
http://www.luftwaffe.de/portal/a/luftwaffe/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLN483CTMHSUGYxvqRaGIBhgihoJRUfW99X4_83FT9AP2C3NCIckdHRQAoGL3H/delta/base64xml/L2dJQSEvUUt3QS80SVVFLzZfN19MOU4%21?yw_contentURL=/01DB060000000001/W26NSAVU930INFODE/content.jsp

[hack89]

34. I like your sense of humor ...

but the Luftwaffe and NATO have nothing to do with the air defense of America. In case you haven't figured it out, we belong to many alliances, each with its own procedures. We also have our independent command structure that is completely separate from NATO.

[ma2007]

37. I like your sense of humor too

It is nice how you try to slup out of the topic. When I post Luftwaffe information I do not say that the Luftwaffe is uperior to the USAF. Nor that the NATO is superior. An organisation is an organisation, a treaty of souveriehn states. So I did not say anything about the command structure.

What we are talking about is: in case of a war (i.e. see Afghanistan) the units of the NATO states which are bound into a NATO command structire need to act together. So lots of structures and procedures were made compatible in the last half century. One of them is: the QRA units act in the same way. NATO wide.

And now my point:
they must be in the air in about ten minutes. Where were the units on 9/11 ?

And do not tell us: they did not know. "America is under attack" was official at 9:05. The whole world was sitting at the TV screens. If you are so proud of your OWN command structure (and I agree it is not NATO in Brussels which had to be phoned first) - if you are so proud: who was responsible and was degraded ? Who ?

The most "incompetent" military got medals and were risen in this wonderfull command structure.

[ma2007]

41. I repeat

Where were the interceptor jets on 9/11 ?

[raebrek]

96. Nato my two cents

NATO and other organizational like it were designed so that member countries would know how to work with each other for military protection and to conduct operations. If the jets were scrambled from a country on a NATO base using NATO forces, meaning more then just the US then NATO procedures would have been used. Members of NATO only use NATO for coordinated operations. England would use their procedures if they were doing something and so would France but if they were doing something together under the auspices of being a NATO exercise then they would use NATO procedures.

Raebrek

[achtung_circus]

36. OK, this one is too funny to ignore.

What does a generic description of Luftwaffe air defense response have to do with North America?

I think NORAD may be the treaty for which you seek, you know, N O RTH AMERICAN AIR DEFENSE.

[MervinFerd]

14. WHAT IS YOUR ACCUSATION? WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO PROVE?

Do you think the Air Force officers and pilots responsible for "scrambling" deliberately did not scramble so that the hijacked jets could hit their target?

Is -that- what you are claiming?

Just asking questions.

[ma2007]

22. Do YOU ?

Do you think the former Canadian minister of defense Hellyer asks his questions for fun ?

And Senator Dayton?

And different Reps?

The world is well aware of the US lies and forgeries, crimes and murders. The standards we talk about are INTERNATIONAL. Every pilot knows what he risks if he does not respond the radio, changes the course and shuts down the transponder.

Every pilot in the world knows: there was something terribly wrong in the U.S.A. on 9/11.

[Big Pappa]

16. Before 9-11

military bases did not have interceptors on alert status. Alaskan bases were the exception. Air Force alert facilities went down in 1991 after the fall of the USSR. Do you know how long it takes to arm and ready a fighter for flight? Much less happen to have a pilot just sitting around. I cannot speak to the status of Navy alert levels this is from an AF perspective.

[DoYouEverWonder]

21. Andrews had two fighter jets up in the air that morning

for practice flights, that were to the south around the Carolinas. Why didn't they scramble those two jets to intercept?

[ma2007]

23. yes, I forgot

But do not forget: those in exercise are just ADDITIONALLY.
They do NEVER replace those which are in QRA status. Airpolicing is NATO standard. No NATO state is allowed to use the jets in QRA (so applied to the security of the NATO air space) for exercises or any other use.

[DoYouEverWonder]

24. In addition, a C130 took off from Andrews at 9:30 AM

(after the base went to Threatcon Delta) and did catch up with Flight 77 and followed it in over the Pentagon. The same C130, the flew west, and was the first to spot the crater that was supposedly Flight 93. Pretty amazing C130, considering that no one could get real fighter jets anywhere near these hijacked flights.

[ma2007]

27. Are you sure ?

Because this was the official version after the existence of a c-130 over the Pentagon could not have neen denied any ore. But I have a witness who said it was a EC-130. for experts easily to distinguish with their big electric equipment. The ECs - see "commano Solo" - are stationed just in the middle of the flught pathes of the 4 planes.

The capability in terms of remote control of other planes should be examined more closely ....

[DoYouEverWonder]

30. Absolutely, no doubt

Lt. Col. Steve O'Brien started his day at the controls of a Minnesota National Guard C-130 cargo plane. He and his crew were heading back to the Twin Cities after moving military supplies around the Caribbean. About 9:30 a.m., O'Brien throttled the lumbering plane down a runway at Andrews Air Force Base, just southeast of the District of Columbia.

"When we took off, we headed north and west and had a beautiful view of the Mall," he said. "I noticed this airplane up and to the left of us, at 10 o'clock. He was descending to our altitude, four miles away or so. That's awful close, so I was surprised he wasn't calling out to us.

"It was like coming up to an intersection. When air traffic control asked me if we had him in sight, I told him that was an understatement - by then, he had pretty much filled our windscreen. Then he made a pretty aggressive turn so he was moving right in front of us, a mile and a half, two miles away. I said we had him in sight, then the controller asked me what kind of plane it was.

"That caught us up, because normally they have all that information. The controller didn't seem to know anything."

O'Brien reported that the plane was either a 757 or 767 and its silver fuselage meant it was probably an American Airlines jet. "They told us to turn and follow that aircraft - in 20-plus years of flying, I've never been asked to do something like that. With all of the East Coast haze, I had a hard time picking him out.

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/attack/minneapolisstartribune091102.html

There's a video interview with O'Brien available on the Internet. I'll have to dig around for the link.

[ma2007]

31. Again: are you sure ?

I know this story from the beginning. It was launched alot of time after 9/11. It is full of inconsistencies - one you noticed already (despite the order not to start ANY aircraft anymore).
But as well that it was allegedly THIS C-130 which -surprisingly - also visited the UAL93-place.

And some more.

It is just a story - with a person telling it. Like with Dufyy and Nasty - the alleged Otis pilots. Do not give a damn on what they say when it counters logic and facts.

I repeat: there is a necessity to cover-up that it was a EC-130.

[DoYouEverWonder]

35. I agree

You can drive a mack truck through O'Brien's story.

It makes no sense at all. There is no way he took of from Andrews at 9:30 AM and had absolutely no clue that the country was under attack and all hell was breaking loose. Then supposdely, Reagan tells him to chase Flight 77, not the military. He chase the plane over the Pentagon flies through the fireball and then continues on his way to MN? Give me a break. Then he's the first to find the crater in Shanksville. If anyone believes this, then I've got some swamp land in FL to sell you.

(I'm still looking for the video of him)

[DoYouEverWonder]

40. Finally found the video of O'Brien

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCVRkAkC8n4

[ma2007]

43. Thank you

and besides all the incredible rubbish which seeminly was bought by the public:

lokk at the gesture and body language of the liar.. Again - the purpose was to cover up the existence of ec-130s at the places of impact by explaing the existence of c-130.

[vincent_vega_lives]

56. Who's a Liar? O'Brien?

Thats fucking pathetic.

[vincent_vega_lives]

55. Incorrect and misleading

I have posted info about the mysterious C-130 before.

http://www.dma.state.mn.us/press_room/e-zine/articles/index.php?item=75

Witnessing, now remembering the 9/11 attacks

Five years after witnessing the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, a C-130 flight crew from the Minnesota Air National Guard's 133rd Airlift Wing remembers the day like it was yesterday.

Taking off from Andrews Air Force Base, the crew enjoyed the beautiful weather and admired the sun shining off the Potomac River. It was Lt. Col.

Steve O'Brien, the aircraft commander, who spotted an airplane at his 10 o'clock position. The aircraft was American Airlines Flight 77 that hijackers crashed into the Pentagon.

"When I first saw the aircraft it was moving fast and that's when air traffic control called and asked, 'Do you see an airplane, can you tell me what kind it is,' and then asked for us to follow it," said O'Brien. "Never in 20 years of flying was I asked to follow a commercial airliner."

A few minutes later, O'Brien and his crew witnessed the nation under attack without realizing it. "We saw a fireball on the ground from jet fuel exploding and then saw the silhouette of the Pentagon through the haze of smoke," said O'Brien.

After air traffic control received the report from O'Brien, the flight crew was advised to continue their original mission and return home to Minnesota. The F-16 fighter jets were immediately mobilized to patrol and secure the area.

Starting the flight home, the crew tuned in a newscast using an old-style navigation radio. Although they were expecting to hear about an airplane crashing into the Pentagon, the first thing the crew heard was that a second airplane hit the World Trade Center. New York City was reported to be up in smoke. And then reality struck; the nation was under an organized terrorist attack.

Minutes later while the crew was flying over Pennsylvania air traffic control made contact with O'Brien and asked if they could spot another aircraft, Flight 93. After glancing in all directions outside the windows, smoke was detected barreling from an open field at the left hand side of the airplane.

[Big Pappa]

38. Practice flights

normally do not use live ammo.

[ma2007]

39. Yes. So what ?

[Big Pappa]

42. So what?

What were they to do ram the planes out of the sky. Besides what is the flight time from the Carolinas to DC? Much less New York.

[ma2007]

44. What to do ?

http://www.luftwaffe.de/portal/a/luftwaffe/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLN483CTMHSUGYxvqRaGIBhgihoJRUfW99X4_83FT9AP2C3NCIckdHRQAoGL3H/delta/base64xml/L2dJQSEvUUt3QS80SVVFLzZfN19MOU8%21?yw_contentURL=/01DB060000000001/W26NSBC5498INFODE/content.jsp

But the question is theoretical. Who cares for the standard procedures when the jets which should do it are not there ?

First things first. Before talking about shouting, threatening, ramming or whatever: WHERE were they?

About distances:
There is a point. If New York is close to D.C. (in terms of jet planes only minutes) those two F-15 which ALLEGEDLY were scramble on Otis could have made their way from New York (wjere thex were too late and of no use anymore) to D.C.

But again: when not existing it is hard to move things from left to right.

[Big Pappa]

45. New York

to DC is more than just minutes. Min. time would be 20-30 min.

[ma2007]

47. Wrong

Take one tentn of an hour. I am talking about f-15 already in the air with afterburner in a case of emergency ("America is under attack")- not an exercise.

[Bolo Boffin]

49. Even F-15s run out of fuel.

That's why their "fastest speed" isn't their actual fastest speed. They could have blasted their way there in six minutes and then immediately had to land to refuel.

[vincent_vega_lives]

51. Good example of the confusion of the day

8:52 a.m. September 11, 2001: Fighters Ordered Toward the Crashed Flight 11
Two F-15s take off from Otis Air National Guard Base. This occurs six minutes after being ordered to go after Flight 11(which has already crashed); 26 minutes after flight controllers were certain Flight 11 was hijacked; and 39 minutes after flight controllers lost contact with Flight 11. According to the Cape Cod Times, as soon as the pilots strap in, the green light to launch goes on, and they’re up in the air even before their fighters’ radar kicks in. In Rome, NY, NEADS has just received news of the plane hitting the WTC (see (8:50 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 area, if you can. Make sure that the FAA clears it—your route all the way through. ... Let’s press with this.” Yet there are conflicting reports of the fighters’ destination (see 8:52 a.m. (and After) September 11, 2001), with some accounts saying they are directed toward military-controlled airspace off the Long Island coast. NEADS Commander Robert Marr says, “My intent was to scramble Otis to military airspace while we found out what was going on.”

8:52 a.m. (and After) September 11, 2001: Otis Fighters Scramble to New York; Conflicting Accounts of Urgency and Destination
The F-15 fighters are scrambling to New York City. Later accounts concerning these fighters conflict significantly. According one account, pilot Lieutenant Colonel Timothy Duffy later recalls that they are in a hurry at this time: “we’ve been over the flight a thousand times in our minds and I don’t know what we could have done to get there any quicker.” However, though Duffy says he’s been warned Flight 11 had been hijacked and appears headed toward New York City, he does not yet realize that his flight is anything other than a routine exercise: “It’s just peacetime. We’re not thinking anything real bad is going to happen out there.” But, in another account, Duffy claims that fellow officer tells him before takeoff, “This looks like the real thing.” “It just seemed wrong. I just wanted to get there. I was in full-blower all the way.” Full-blower means the fighters are traveling at or near full speed. An F-15 can travel over 1,875 mph. A considerable amount of fuel is required to maintain such high speeds for long, but a NORAD commander notes that, coincidentally, these fighters are stocked with extra fuel. Duffy later says, “As we’re climbing out, we go supersonic on the way, which is kind of nonstandard for us.” He says his target destination is over Kennedy airport in New York City. Similarly, another account states that, as the F-15s are taking off, “Duffy told his wingman they would fly supersonic.” According to Duffy, “When we took off I left it in full afterburner the whole time.” He says, “When we off we climbing a 280-heading, basically towards New York City. I supersonic. ... We to proceed to Manhattan directly and set up a combat air patrol.” There are different accounts as to just how quickly they travel. According to Major General Paul Weaver, director of the Air National Guard, “The pilots ‘like a scalded ape,’ topping 500 mph but unable to catch up to the airliner.” ABC News later says, “The fighters are hurtling toward New York at mach 1.2, nearly 900 miles per hour.” NORAD commander Major General Larry Arnold later states that the fighters head straight for New York City at about 1,100 to 1,200 mph. “An F-15 departing from Otis can reach New York City in ten to twelve minutes, according to an Otis spokeswoman.” At an average speed of 1,125 mph, the fighters would reach the city in ten minutes—9:02 a.m. If NORAD commander Arnold’s recollection is correct, these fighters should reach Flight 175 just before it crashes. Yet according to a NORAD timeline developed just after 9/11, the fighters take about 19 minutes to reach New York City (arriving at about 9:11 a.m.), traveling below supersonic speeds at less than 600 mph. According to a later account though, these fighters weren’t even heading toward Manhattan. Contradicting his earlier recollection, pilot Timothy Duffy says, “we were supersonic going down to Long Island. ... e have no idea what we are going toward. We are taking off to go help somebody and we needed to get there quickly to assess the situation.” NEADS Commander Robert Marr says that after they received word of the first plane hitting the WTC, “Our jets are heading down south toward Whiskey 105 and we don’t really have a mission for them at this point, because we don’t have any other problems in the air.” Whiskey 105 is military training airspace southeast of Long Island. Consistent with this account but also contradicting the earlier recollections of pilots and others involved that day, the 9/11 Commission later concludes, in direct contradiction of the recollections of the pilots and others involved that day, that the fighters are never directed toward New York City at all, but rather are ordered to head out over the Atlantic Ocean. According to the 9/11 Commission’s conclusions, the fighters do not reach New York City until 9:25 a.m. <9/11 Commission, 6/17/2004[br />

[ma2007]

58. All rubbish

The whole amount of stories here mixed together is well known to me. The only pronlem is: there is NO EVIDENCE at all to all these allegations.

More than that: they are contrydictionary in itself plis contraicting logic, do not explain anything and there are witnesses against them.

I.e.
- "supersonic","scalded apes" and afterburners on mean: to get as fast as a F-15 can be. That gives by logic a certain time of arrival. But the official account said these jets were about half of the mileage away from NYC at 9:03. Now we have a new alleged time of arrival 9:11, additionally the allegation they were not supersonic anymore. WHY?

2."but rather are ordered to head out over the Atlantic Ocean". Godd, let us take it face value. Why not supersonic THERE ? There mnight have been a lame excuse over land - but over sea ?

3. Where is the evidence of "departure" and "arrival". We have witnesses who witnessed that the alarm went off on Otis long AFTER TV cameras already showed the scenario. They witnesses that pairs of F-15 took off AFTER 10:00. They did not witness scrambling at 8:52.
This ums up with millions i New York who did not witness fighter jets at 9:03 or 9:11 or even half an hour later. Bo video shows fighters untill about 10++. No sonic boom, no nothing.

4. Even Nasty and Duff, the pilots, NEVER said themselves that they scrambled at 8:52.

5. Why shuld I twice believe liars ? The stories differ from month to month.

6. They are anyway lame excuses for not following NATO Sops and International regulations which FOR SURE are the same in FAA and NORAD regulations (if not better). It is of no importance if a ATC tries to make sure if a plane is hijacked. That is as if he would first make a diagnosis about the sickness of the pilot WHEN HE DOES NOT ANSWER the radio. Just hit the button. That is standard, it is the rule, it is the law. Same with NEADS. There is no ecuse to be so lame (and in fact they were not even lame, they did not scramble at all).


7. Here additionally a suveil of the Otis fihjters on the airfiel which Commander Quenneville could have sent as well to New York or to Washington:

[vincent_vega_lives]

76. After bothering to read all this

:eyes:

[Big Pappa]

79. Are

you saying this picture was taken on 9-11. If it was not then that picture means crap.

[ma2007]

83. No. I am not saying that.

Why do you ask ? I already stated about the photo of the Andrews interceptors that the google Earth photos could have been made on any day (so there might be a 0.1 percent chance of 9/11). It is not crap anyway to illustrate that these airbases have interceptor jets available on the airfield. just to show the every day business.
Every day: exercises, training, availability of a pair in QRA, inspection, fuelling, repairing, all this every day.

[Big Pappa]

84. Having spent

20 years and 21 days in the Air force I can promise you there are many days when you will find no aircraft on the tarmac. Besides, after looking a little closer to that photo, I see F-18 Hornets which would have been there only in a transitional basis.

[Big Pappa]

72. Like I said

what were they to do if they even got there in time. No armament. I cannot believe one of those pilots were willing to ram another a/c with theirs.

[Big Pappa]

46. By the way,

I lived in Ramstein for 2 years. Super place with great food!:headbang:

[ma2007]

48. Good - so you are a witness

and can tell that i.e. a c-130 with heavy load for the Iraq war (upcoming) was struck by lightning in the end of 2002 or begining of 2003 and it got immediately help by zwo interceptor hets of the USAF in grafenwöhr.

Ask your comrades. That is how airpolicing works.

The plane lost dadio and different instruments and was safeguarded back to Ramstein.

[vincent_vega_lives]

50. Without a source that doesn't tell us much

1. What were the aircraft doing? Were they diverted from another mission, hot launched, or from a standing start? Why were they sent?

2. Weapon status. Were they armed or not?

[ma2007]

52. What are you refering to ?

The incident in Germany ?

[ma2007]

61. Food? Beer. n/t

[rman]

86. yet the air force managed to intercept planes on

at least 67 occasions in the year prior to June 1, 2001.

[Big Pappa]

95. Check

where most of those happened. I bet 90% were in Alaska. Alert A/C were taken off alert status in the early nineties.

[ma2007]

97. Wrong again

1. I am not interested in your bets. Prove what you know. Your OPINION is nothing to discuss about. Believe your Alaska opinion or not - we do not care. Maybe you are right. Or not.

2. Lots of units were taken out, i.e. Atlantic City, but as far as I know in the end of the nineties.

3. But obviously you insinuate that the lower number of AFB being on QRA means a lower level of alert and somehow directed to Alaska or whereever.

This is defintely wrong. A simple deviation from the flight path, problems with the electric equipment (i.e. caused by a lightning stroke), illness of pilots, drunken pilots - there are so many causes for an alert, and this everywhere: why do you insist so much on leading the discussion away from the simple fact: 7 units were on alert, Andrews was additionally on the highest level - and there were no fighter jets to do the simple job of interception.

[Big Pappa]

99. Your

telling me that Andrews was on high alert with armed fighters ready to fly? And if you think jets scramble for every deviated flight path you have been drinking to much Bitburger. And if others opinions mean nothing then why are you here? Look, like I said alert status was downgraded after the end of the Cold War.

[ma2007]

100. So poor

Incredibly poor the way you argue.

Anybody can read that I

- am not telling only you
"that Andrews was on high alert with armed fighters ready to fly" I do it not out of the blue, it is not just an opinion like "I find the green colour ugly, I do not like milk" or so. I just told you what the Andrews homepage said. I retell it. And I support the words of them by logic of defending Airforce#1, DC and escorting state guests. Feel free to ARGUE against that.

- get insulted by you as a drunkard just because I retell the official guidelines. If a plane leaves its flight path it will be asked why. Immediately. And if there is no answer by radio the interceptors get scrambled. What do you think flight pathes are made for ? Why do we have ATCs? Why does any pilot FIRST talk his flight path with th FAA officials, gets a CD to insert the data into his computer system onboard? What do you think the airspace would look like in the triangle New York - D.C. and Cleland if not ? It is the most heavily crowded in the world - not like 600 feet above Arizona soil. To get the comparison.



- answered correctly to your repeatedly wrong "opinion"
"Look, like I said alert status was downgraded .."
First - this is not an opinion. It is stating a fact which may be right or wrong.
In this case it is both as I asid already. It is right seen U.S.A.wide (the number of units was reduced). But it is wrong if you try to insinuate that the alert status (that is the missin of the QRA units) was downgraded.

Is it fun for you to add letters on letters black on white to this forum? What about adding some sense ? Some facts ?

[ma2007]

101. There is no need to end a thread at post #100

enjoy real friendship:

http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=-3248177088876820839&q=rumsfeld+saddam

[vincent_vega_lives]

54. Andrews was NOT an alert site

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

[Bolo Boffin]

57. Plus, this picture was taken in the last 4 years.

I.e., AFTER any changes in policy from 9/11 had taken place.

This is like bashing the HBO series ROME because they didn't have Caesar celebrating his triumph in the Coliseum.

[ma2007]

59. Bolo, are you seriously telling us

that the USAF provides MORE fighters on the Andrews AFB or on Otis when having a war war in Afghanistan and Iraq and deploying units all over middle asia ?

Do you have ANY hint that these squadrons have more fighter jets than BEFORE 9/11 ?

Please tell us about that miracle.

[Bolo Boffin]

65. You are using a post-9/11 picture to talk about pre-9/11 conditions.

The miracle is: you think it makes sense to do so.

[ma2007]

66. Sense and miracle

You see I made some research before I say this or that. I did not find that on Andrews AFB they got more jet fighters or less before or after 9/11. Nothing changed in the amount as far as I could get out.

So I show some of them to maje clear what was available on 9/11 -and not used.

If you are able to tell us other findings feel free to do so. I do not find any miracle in counting 2+2 and to find out that the result does not change after 9/11.

[Bolo Boffin]

67. Present your research. n/t

[ma2007]

68. No. It is you who makes the allegation

of a change after 9/11. So you should be able to present what has changed on Andrews. I already presented different links and information and photos.

You should be able to provide evidence for your allegation. A help: take the official website which i already linked in this thread.

To move adequately in the world of facts and science may be this video is a help for you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qiL79oxxfIE

[Bolo Boffin]

69. You need to get over yourself in a real hurry.

YOU made the OP. YOU said you did all of this research. Present it.

[ma2007]

70. Bolo - even a child

understands this:

"You see I made some research before I say this or that. I did not find that on Andrews AFB they got more jet fighters or less before or after 9/11. Nothing changed in the amount as far as I could get out"

My research saxs: nothing changed (except the website).

And you ask me to present that nothing changed ?

You are looking for evidence of NOTHING ?

Again: you told us about big changes. Prove it.

[Bolo Boffin]

71. Yes. You did research. You presented an OP based on that research. Present it. n/t

[ma2007]

Tell us something new.

Andrews was NOT an alert site in the sense of one of the 7 QRA units assigned to airpolicing. I know, I said it, I do not deny it.

But as the military airport providing guard to airforce #1, to Washington DC and to escort all state guests (who normally do not land on Reagan or Dulles) it provides

"DCANG MISSION

To provide combat units in the highest

possible state of readiness. We will support

the Air Force and other DOD agencies. We

will provide operational support to our

local communities whenever possible.

DCANG VISION

To be the premier organization in the Air

National Guard recognized as the

benchmark for fulfilling our federal, state,

and community missions."




as the website said untill 9/11.
It is logically AND fact AND evidence. Ir is just one phone calll to scramble them. And even WITHOUT being ordered: any commander not being told differently would scramble his units after seeing the New York impacts and so knowing: "America is under attack.

[vincent_vega_lives]

62. If you admit it why do you keep mentioning

"airpolicing" a term AFAIK is not used in the USAF? It either provides QRF aircraft or it doesn't.

"Readiness" refers to mobilization readiness in that they can provide aircraft for a mission within 24 hours, not 24 minutes. HUGE difference.

This whole thread is a waste of band with, but I'm sure you will continue your uninformed speculation.

[ma2007]

63. Do I understand correctly ?

Are you telling us that in case

- of a wish of Mr. Bush to alter the plan of the day and to attend a summit in country XYZ he is left alone with his airforce#1, and the Andrews fighter jets come up 24 hours later ?

- of an attack by a rogue state America is safeguarded only by 7 units with altogether 14 interceptors, and all the thousands others need to get fuelled in the next 24 hours ?

- of any need " in the highest possible state of readiness" means 24 hours except the 7 units which belong to another group of languages, readiness is something like " I am now thinking about fuelling my car tomorrow and I am ready to think about driving to the gas station in the next 24 hours" ?

As I said - i like your sense of humor.

You are funny indeed.

[vincent_vega_lives]

75. More or less

But there is a LOT more to it than fueling jets.

Alert status is very taxing on ground crews, pilots and equipment and very expensive to maintain.

There were 14 in the North East, IIRC there were a total of 20 in CONUS available.

On this subject I am as funny as a heart-attack. You are just uninformed.

[ma2007]

77. Oh. Geography.

You say:
"14 in the Noth East".

You mean the 14 fighter jets on these AFB, ABB or ANG bases:d Homestead, Tyndall, Langley, Otis, Portland Ore.,March, Ellington.

I thought March in California did NOT count as North East U.S.A., I believed Ellington in Texas was never seen as North East. Floridas Tyndall now slipped to be North East ?

Okay. I am uninformed. Now I Learned a lot. Thank you.

Then you tell us: " LOT more to it than fueling jets". Oh I did not know at all. How tricky are these guys in Otis to scramble so fast (allegedly) according to NATO procedures when it takes SO MUCH time, may be 24 hours ? Allegedly they scramble at 8:52 that day.


Please Mr. teacher be so kind and decide:

- where are the bases ?

- were they in a state of preparation which is normally called AIRPOLICING, quick alert, highest state of readiness or whatever - but just READY AS THEY SHOULD BE TO INTERCEPT ?

- you are referring to ground crews. I know about the prewarming of the machines, about the caps on the airholes. And so on. May be I do not know the exact wording in English. Now go on and call me uninformed.
Be aware that it is more or less public knowledfe of any pilot. The procedures are not so much different in the world and systems.

[vincent_vega_lives]

78. Otis was an alert base on 9-11!!!

As I said, IIRC there were 20 aircraft total available in CONUS. Both Otis and Langley were scrambled on 9-11.

[ma2007]

81. Shall I laugh ?

I see you have learned some acronyms. Important is to know hat they mean. Additionally some geography.

"Both Otis and Langley were scrambled on 9-1." is what you say. No. Prove it. And IF (!!) the fighter jets were not scrambled in total, not even according the official lie-line. Two of Otis and miraculously three of Langley /which is impossible according to your description of how time-consuming a preparation for scrambling is, btw.).

[vincent_vega_lives]

91. You sir are a Troll.

Now you are just being obtuse. And you lack of comprehension is quite laughable.

See Paul Thompson's timeline regarding the Otis and Langly fighters.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

Regarding my "description of how time-consuming a preparation for scrambling is" I was talking about the fighters at ANDREWS!!! which were NOT ON ALERT!!! NOT THE FIGHTERS AT OTIS which WERE ON ALERT!!!

OMG can you at least comprend that?

[ma2007]

94. Oh. Basics. Peaches are not apples. Otis is not Andrews.

1. Time consuming is to prepare fighter jets which are not on QRA alert. So Andrews had a problem to scramble fighter jets, I learn (not Otis)
This is what you say.

2. The explanation for the delay of the (allegedly) scambled Otis interceprors is still missing.

3. The explanation for the THIRD Langley interceptor which was allegedly scrambled is still missing - there must have been a surplus of availability, my guess.

4. Andrews could not afford such an surplus, I understand. Except untill 10:41 when suddenly the extreme times of prep were shortened from 24 hours to les than two. Like different other bases, BTW.

Isn`t it a miracle too how bread is baken ? some is white, some is brown, some takes a longer time of preparation. But all in all is a miracle. And tasty. Is it this what you want to tell us ? Or about the birds singing. So small but so loudly singing. A real miracle. The early ones catch worms. What do the others do ? Questions everywhere.

[vincent_vega_lives]

98. Oui

1. Time consuming is to prepare fighter jets which are not on QRA alert. So Andrews had a problem to scramble fighter jets, I learn (not Otis) This is what you say.

Oui!

2. The explanation for the delay of the (allegedly) scambled Otis interceprors is still missing.

Quantify the alleged delay. Was it unusual in your opinion? What would be reasonable?

The rest of your post is unintelligible.

[ma2007]

60. Tell us something new.

Andrews was NOT an alert site in the sense of one of the 7 QRA units assigned to airpolicing. I know, I said it, I do not deny it.

But as the military airport providing guard to airforce #1, to Washington DC and to excort all state guests (who normally do not land on reagan or Dulles) it provides

"DCANG MISSION

To provide combat units in the highest

possible state of readiness. We will support

the Air Force and other DOD agencies. We

will provide operational support to our

local communities whenever possible.

DCANG VISION

To be the premier organization in the Air

National Guard recognized as the

benchmark for fulfilling our federal, state,

and community missions."


as the website said untill 9/11.
It is logically AND fact AND evidence. Ir is just one phone calll to scramble them. And even WITHOUT being ordered: any commander not being told differently would scramble his units after seeing the New York impacts and so knowing: "America is under attack".

[ma2007]

64. Why not the official website ?

Here it is:
http://www.andrews.af.mil/

[Contrite]

73. NORAD lied

Senator Dayton: NORAD Lied About 9/11

Sunday, August 1, 2004

Introduction

Mark Dayton has become the first U.S. senator to challenge the rush to consensus that "The 9/11 Commission Report" settles the open questions of Sept. 11, 2001.

In hearings last Friday, Sen. Dayton (D-MN) raised an obvious point: if the timeline of air defense response as promoted in the Kean Commission's best-selling book is correct, then the timeline presented repeatedly by NORAD during the last two years was completely wrong. Yet now no one at NORAD is willing to comment on their own timeline!

When the official story of 9/11 can be changed repeatedly without anyone ever being held accountable, we have no right to ever again expect honest government. Please read the following story and do your part to support Sen. Dayton for highlighting the contradiction, and to encourage the media to follow up.

Background: Evolution of the Official Story

From the beginning, the 9/11 investigations, official and alternative, have been about timelines: what happened, who knew and who did what, when, where and how.

Written by the government's Kean Commission, the just-published "9/11 Commission Report" presents a timeline of air defense response that differs radically from all of the previous official stories.

Since Sept. 11 government representatives have in fact promoted a series of mutually contradictory narratives of how the nation's air defenses responded to the unfolding attacks. Various chronologies were presented at different times by the high military command, the North American Air Defense command (NORAD), the Federal Aviation Administration, and now the Kean Commission.

Little noticed, the original story was delivered by Gen. Richard Myers, the acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on 9/11. Just two days after the events, Myers appeared before the Senate for hearings, scheduled many weeks earlier, to consider his appointment as the nation's supreme military officer. Myers told the Senate that no fighter jets were scrambled to intercept any of the 9/11 flights until after the Pentagon was struck.

The Pentagon attack occurred at 9:38 a.m., a full 1 hour 20 minutes after the first of the 9/11 flights was diverted from its designated flight path.

Myers's statement to the Senate was incredible, given the standard U.S. air defense protocols for dealing with errant instrument flights (including off-course passenger planes). In place many years before Sept. 11, these procedures are automatic and require no special order. Within minutes after a flight ceases to respond to ground control, the FAA is expected to alert NORAD - which scrambles jet fighters to intercept the errant flight for reconnaissance purposes. These are supposed to be airborne within 10 minutes of the problem arising.

This routine was activated on at least 67 occasions in the year prior to June 1, 2001. Exceptional as the events of 9/11 proved to be, the procedures should have also been activated automatically within minutes of each flight diversion on that day (i.e., long before anyone needed to realize that hijackers would fly multiple airliners into buildings). This did not happen.

Before Myers's disturbing admission to the Senate received much notice, NORAD under General Ralph Eberhard effectively put the lie to his statement. A partial timeline of U.S. air defense response published on Sept. 18, 2001 presented the times at which NORAD was alerted about each flight diversion by the FAA. In its statement, NORAD claimed to have responded to the alerts by scrambling two pairs of interceptors from the air force bases in Otis, Massachussetts and Langley, Virginia. These four fighters, however, never reached any of their targets in time to intercept and survey the situation, let alone prepare for a possible shootdown.

The NORAD timeline indicated that during the crisis hours of 9/11, the FAA became increasingly slower in delivering alerts to NORAD. This seemed to shift the blame for the failed response to the FAA.

As late as May 2003, General Arnold of NORAD, sitting alongside Gen. Myers, presented a slightly revised version of NORAD's Sept. 2001 timeline, in testimony to the Kean Commission. He revealed for the first time that NORAD was alerted about the hijacking of Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania, at 9:16 a.m., a full 47 minutes before the claimed crash time at 10:03. But he stuck to the story about the other flights; in the case of AA77 which hit the Pentagon, the alert supposedly arrived at 9:24 am.

The FAA disputed Gen. Arnold's testimony with a statement of May 21, 2003. The FAA claimed that regardless of the official notification times claimed by NORAD, phone bridges were established immediately after the initial attack (at 8:46). NORAD was informed in real time throughout of all developments, including about the plane that ultimately hit the Pentagon, the FAA said.

Thus for more than a year the FAA has been in open dispute with NORAD on the issue of who informed whom and when about the Sept. 11 hijackings; unfortunately, this has never become the major media story it deserves to be.

The Kean Commission itself intervened in June 2004. In a staff statement delivered at its final set of hearings ("Improvising a Homeland Defense"), the Commission outlined a chronology that completely ditched the timeline that NORAD had upheld for two years. It also effectively placed almost all of the blame for delayed air defense response on the FAA.

Gens. Arnold and Myers, who testified to the Commission that same morning, were not held to account for having presented an entirely wrong timeline a year earlier. Instead, they simply thanked the Kean Commission for clearing up the confusion. In return, one commissioner made a point of telling the generals they were not to blame; after all, it was all the FAA's fault!

A group of FAA officials who testified in the subsequent, final session stuck by their old defense that they had in fact provided adequate and timely information to NORAD via the phone bridges. As the hearings concluded, they still disputed both timelines: the old one from NORAD, and the new one from the Kean Commission.

Dayton: Demanding Accountability

Now that the Kean Commission has published the new timeline in its final report, these contradictions must not be simply swept under the rug. Either the Kean Commission is wrong, or else NORAD was pushing a flawed timeline for more than two years. Either way, the FAA story still differs from both.

There can be no excuses. Those responsible for dispensing false information must be held accountable, or else nothing in the behavior of government is likely ever to improve.

Instead of accountability, several of the key figures - Gens. Myers and Eberhard, FAA official Ben Sliney - have been promoted since Sept. 11! Yet one or more of them must be wrong about what happened on 9/11.

This is the simple point that Sen. Mark Dayton made yesterday at Senate hearings on the 9/11 Commission Report: now that it has accepted the Kean Commission findings, NORAD must explain its old timeline, and anyone responsible for pushing it, whether intentionally or not, must be held accountable.

To our knowledge the story so far has been reported only by Greg Gordon in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. An excerpt:

Dayton: FAA, NORAD hid 9/11 failures

By Greg Gordon, Star Tribune Washington Bureau Correspondent

July 31, 2004

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Sen. Mark Dayton, D-Minn., charged Friday that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) have covered up "catastrophic failures" that left the nation vulnerable during the Sept. 11 hijackings.

"For almost three years now, NORAD officials and FAA officials have been able to hide their critical failures that left this country defenseless during two of the worst hours in our history," Dayton declared during a Senate Governmental Affairs Committee hearing.

(snip)

During the hearing, Dayton told leaders of the Sept. 11 commission, that, based on the commission's report, a NORAD chronology made public a week after the attacks was grossly misleading. The chronology said the FAA notified the military's emergency air command of three of the hijackings while those jetliners were still airborne. Dayton cited commission findings that the FAA failed to inform NORAD about three of the planes until after they had crashed.

And, he said, a squadron of NORAD fighter planes that was scrambled was sent east over the Atlantic Ocean and was 150 miles from Washington, D.C., when the third plane struck the Pentagon -- "farther than they were before they took off."

Dayton said NORAD officials "lied to the American people, they lied to Congress and they lied to your 9/11 commission to create a false impression of competence, communication and protection of the American people." He told Kean and Hamilton that if the commission's report is correct, President Bush "should fire whoever at FAA, at NORAD ... betrayed their public trust by not telling us the truth."

Asked about Dayton's allegation, a spokesman for Colorado Springs-based NORAD said, "We stand on our testimony to the commission" and declined to discuss the 2001 chronology. Erin Utzinger, a spokeswoman for Dayton, said the senator "assumes the FAA knew of NORAD's coverup."

(Story: Nicholas Levis)

http://www.infowars.com/print/Sept11/dayton_911truth.htm

[ma2007]

74. "This did not happen."

refering to the routines.

That is it. We are looking for something which did NOT happen. It is much easier to talk about things which happened, to provide photos and so on.

But if we change the appoach to the "NOT HAPPEN" we get the direct line of responsibilities. It is what CTers and OCTers try to hide so eagerly.

[Big Pappa]

80. Trying

to prove a double negative?

[ma2007]

82. No. Nothing to prove.

1. We are talking about a simple negative, not a double one.

2. It is already proven and world wide known: no fighter jets appeared on 9/11 in time and intercepted.

3. The only thing to do is to say: it was obligatory and technically possible that these interceptor jets arrive.

4. The burden of evidence is on the side of the Bush administration: They have to explain what Senator Dayton asks. They have to prove their allegations about the perpetrators.

[rman]

85. I'm not so sure that CTers are equally eager as OCTers

to hide the direct line of responsibilities.

What's the basis of your assertion?

BTW i use the term CTers loosely, meaning anyone who does not buy the official story. The fact that many feel a need to prove what did happen rather then demonstrate that what officials claim can not have happened, is another matter.

[ma2007]

87. "anyone who does not buy the official story"

Obviously in this thtreat I do not buy it too.

So by your open definition I would be a CTer - and a CTer who claims that CTers are eager to hide what I just try to show. The defintion makes no sense or my position is completely impossible annihilating itself.

Take a definition close to the wording. The word DT includes the "C", and unless somebody claims 9/11 to be a tragic series of traffic accidents we can comonly conclude: there was a conspiracy. But of whom with whom ?
The allegation of the 19 evildoers stays without evidence. It is the official theory.

So let us take the "T". As you see I do not use or need a theory. It is fact when I say:
1. no interceptor jets were there on 9/11 in time
2. They should have neen there according to FAA rules, NORAD rules, international regulation, logic and so on.
3. Those who are responsible for the "delay" are conspirators. None of them was held responsible or even accused yet.

There is no theory in this.
Those who try to build up a case of "whatever hit, whoever planted bombs" try to build up a theory ( it is not even one by definition, btw). And if they would prevail they would lead us into the nowhere. WHO pulled the triggers for the "cruise missiles" or the "exolosions" ? There is not even proof for that, but even if - so what ? There would not even be a slightest chance to prove the authorship of the bombs. These people - willingly or led by red herring throwers - do not care a dime for the facts of this threat. Except as eye catcher - i.e. in the first minutes of "loose change" - and then to drop it behind their theories in which they lure those who must agree that the facts are commonly know: no interceptors. America defenseless. Why ?
(as you see, in the last remarks: I do focus on the OCT.

[rman]

88. I think that does not explain how it is that

CTers are equally eager as OCTers to hide the direct line of responsibilities.

It seems as though you're saying that both CTers and OCTers cover for the officials responsible for this crime.

I agree that an alternative scenario is not the core of the issue, but that does not mean that those who do seek for a plausible alternative scenario are "eager" (implying deliberation) to "hide the direct line of responsibilities".

[ma2007]

89. Very well

the word eager implies deliberazely doing so. It is too sharp for most of the CTers. But it is hard to differ who are the "planters" of red herring stories and who are the followers. So I do not stand to the word "eager" anymore - but please take into account that I differed myself in these two fractions from the beginning.

And I add: in a criminal investigation (and this is what we all want) the questions of the "why" and "how" are always used to solve the "who". If they do not lead in this direction of the main question, they are put aside and brought up again in the courtroom to clarify details, to measure the guilt and so on.

But the "who did it" is the center. Whoever pulls attention apart should be judged carefully in what he says and does.

[rman]

90. Fair enough

I appreciate your position, and you rigor in it.

In this you are one of few that i know off, and pretty much unique in how outspoken you are about it.

Causes me to yet again reconsider my position in all this.

It seem to me that there's a strong "framing" of having to come up with a thoroughly proven alternative to the official scenario as the only way to show that what happened is not what we're being told by officials.
Doesn't take much to realize that's ridiculous. Even if this were a criminal trial all we'd have to do is prove means, motive and opportunity. When you go after who done it you'll find out what happened as you go.
And if i understand correctly, having heaps of strong circumstantial evidence plus falsifying the alibi goes a long way toward being found guilty.

Even though i realize this i find it hard not to dwell on possible explanations for the evidence at hand - in other words, dwell on alternative scenarios.
Then again i think my goal is not so much to prove who did it, nor is it to figure out what the recorded evidence means. It's obvious that something is very very wrong, not just regarding 9-11, even without knowing exactly who did it. It is that realization that i want to disseminate.

[ma2007]

93. If I do not disagree you are not embarressed too much ?

About alibis :
http://www.medienanalyse-international.de/rumsfeld.html