The Cessna Incident - too simple or too much a key problem ?

[medienanalyse]

A Cessna pilot was heading towards the no-fly- zone of Washington. Fighter jets scrambled and forced the Cessna to land.

So what ?

I wonder why nobody here in the last 12 hours reacted on that. What we could witness was the normal functioning of the standard operational procedures. Which did NOT work on 9/11.

So the Cessna incident is the proof of

a) Andrews Airforce base is the base in charge of the security of Washington. It has F-16 in QRA-status, that is that at least two jets are on quick reaction alert - besides of the two squadrons of fighters for normal work. Air policing is not done by Otis or Langley - as I have proved in www.medienanalyse-international.de/hunt.html . It is Andrews, it was Andrews, and it will be ANdrews.

b) SOPs work. Alarm at 11:59, mission accomplished at 12:14. QRA and flight times and RADAR and CIMIC (at least 30 FAA ATCs working on Andrews !) were fully operational. This is no secret. That means: hundreds and thousands of pilots and workers and family members and politicians and Washington citizens KNOW that Andrews AFB "failed" on 9/11 - and they do not speak out. In Germany it was millions who saw how Jews and Kommunists, Social democrats and Gypsis, homosexuals and Christians "vanished" in concentration camps. They saw the train waggons, they saw the prisoners in rows, they knew and stayed silent.

c) All this did not "work" on 9/11. The media did not ask why. There is no discussion. Although this is the key question:

WHO OPENED THE AIRSPACE FOR THE TERROR ?

The role of the media, the role and responsibility of anybody in public position is no issue here in this forum and not in the public of our countries.

d) I notice - again and again - that most of the DU ers are NOT interested in this question. They prefer to follow conspiracy theories and so-called "material problems" as melting steel, hidden pixels, fake planes or so. If I were responsible for opening the airspace on 9/11 I would be gratefull fo such assistance in diverting the public interest. So I must not fire any of my co-key holders. i.e.

Sleep on.

[paulthompson]

1. Three years

MA, It's been three years since 9/11. One would fully expect the security arrangements around Washington DC to have been completely reworked since then. So this incident says almost nothing to me about what Andrews AFB might have been able to do on that day.

[medienanalyse]

2. Right. And not right.

Dear Paul,

Jared Israel provided the proof that Andrews was always on full alert - for sure BEFORE 9/11 too. It is historic fact, it was stated on the homepage of Andrews AFB, it is logic, it is proven.

Whatever they have improved: QRA is a SOP all over the NATO world. In Germany, in the netherlands, the UK, whereever.

This SOP was used about 70 times in the year BEFORE 9/11. It is raison d ètre of the airforce of the NATO in decades of the cold war, in decades of hijackings, of electric failures in the cockpits.

QRA is no fun, there is no laxness. Ask any pilot. Any. Air policing was, is and will be a key part of the secirity of the airspace all over the world. And especially over Washington, the heart of the most aggressive and important centre in the motherland of airtraffic.

This all cannot be dimished by "improvements" which do not change ANY of the substantial questions. More in: www.medienanalyse-international.de/schluesselfrage.html

[hack89]

7. Links to this "proof" please...

from my experience at Andrews I would question his full alert comment prior to 9/11. I don't recall strip alert, armed fighters at all.

QRA's or Quick Reaction Alerts were very common in NATO due to the close proximity of the Soviet Union - they are very rare now due to a lack of a credible air threat. QRA's were not common in the US during the 90's - perhaps a handful of fighters on either coast (Mass, Va, FL and NC on the east) prepared to intercept unidentified aircraft approaching US air space. Again the perception was there was no foreign air threat. There was certainly no perception of a domestic threat. The Payne Stewart intercept, you will find if you look, is the only recorded intercept that took place over the US land mass. You would have to prove to me that any of those 70 intercepts you cite were over land. There are no QRAs in the interior of the US, in for example, the Midwest or Rocky Mtns. I think you are mistating the intent of US QRAs in the Cold War and after - their focus was completely outward from the contental US with very little concern for domestic air space. The Air Force could not imagine an internal threat.

[paulthompson]

9. Andrews?

I would be curious to hear what you have to say about working at Andrews (if you wrote about it somewhere else, I missed it). When did you work there, what did you do, etc? How many fighters were stationed there before 9/11, roughly?

I believe this idea that NORAD was only focused outwardly before 9/11 is completely untrue. For instance, before 9/11, NORAD planned Amalgam Virgo II, which involved a real plane taking off from Utah and getting hijacked at the same time another plane taking off from Vancouver would be hijacked. Utah isn't exactly on the coast.

Payne Stewart is also hardly the only intercept over land. Here's some info:

In all of the year 2000, there were 425 “unknowns”--pilots who didn’t file flight plans or diverted from them or used the wrong frequency. In many cases issues would get quickly resolved, but in 2000 fighters had to take off and investigate these unknowns 129 times. (Calgary Herald, 10/13/01)

A GAO report in May 1994 stated: “Overall, during the past 4 years, NORAD’S alert fighters took off to intercept aircraft 1,518 times... Of these incidents, the number of suspected drug smuggling aircraft averaged one per site, or less than 7 percent of all of the alert sites’ total activity. The remaining activity generally involved visually inspecting unidentified aircraft and assisting aircraft in distress.” (General Accounting Office, 5/94, p. 4) (Unfortunately I don't know of similar detailed level of statistics in the years since then.)

Do you think all the planes off course, in distress, and so forth were over water? Of course not - planes over land are just as liable to have problems. Of course, incidents right in the middle of the US were rare, but for instance those near the Canadian border were not, and there were bases dedicated to just that until about the mid-1990's. Scrambling fighters was very routine before 9/11, and there was nothing magical about them only flying over water.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Borg]

3. Air Policy is working fine

this is the message which is to read between the lines. The Bush administration is able to defend themselves.

[DemonFighterLives]

4. They must have gotten the radar turned around

Remember when they put forward the lame ass excuse that our radar was all pointed out to sea since the cold war.
Interceptors do aparently work when they are not stood down.
I would never argue with Paul, but this admisistration ia always claiming to fix things and reform things. I have yet to see anything that they have done that works as well as in the past. I would sooner return to the old ways than proceed with the demented b*sh plan.

[dbeach]

5. I smell a rover rat...

can't put a label on it but sounds like rover trying to scare DC folks..

Is'nt another WH or repuke sex scandal brewing???

God those repukes are kinky and they complain that librals do this stuff..

[Last Lemming]

6. You know

if that's the case it didn't seem to work very well
People are asking more questions:
why did nobody notify POTUS
why were we running around outside when there was a chance they would shoot down a plane?
Why did we shit on the mayor of DC yet again?

[stickdog]

8. 9/11 Air Response: What's wrong with this picture?

http://www.airdisaster.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-53037.html

More:

The official 9/11 story contends that 9/11 Command and Control decided that it was a better military strategy to keep three fighters circling DC than to send one of them to intercept the only confirmed hijacked plane in the air between 9:40 and 10:06 EDT that was (supposedly) still flying unescorted over Pennsylvania more than a hour after the 2nd WTC was hit.

Assuming that the official story is correct and that only three fighters total were available 45 minutes after the second terrorist plane hit the WTC (which already strains credulity to absurd limits in and of itself), what we are weighing here is:

1) The infinitesimal probability that two fighters couldn't manage to protect DC's airspace by themselves against whatever UNCONFIRMED attacks might arise in the 20-30 minutes it would take for the third fighter to down Flight 93 and return to DC.

Worst case: An evacuated low-rise building (and all the important ones were being evacuated by 10:00 AM) is destroyed if and only if two F-16 fighters somehow need a third to stop a passenger jet that somehow becomes a threat within the next 30 minutes out-of-the-blue.

Best case: You have to bring down Flight 93 over a highly populated area.

vs.

2) The completely unknown probability that Flight 93 might decide to target a skyscraper in a city other than DC or, worse yet, a nuclear plant.

Worst case: Thousands of Americans die and millions get radiation poisoning while three fighters circle a few empty buildings.

Best case: You get to bring down Flight 93, THE ONLY KNOWN, CONFIRMED AND ASSUMED SUICIDAL HIJACK, over a largely unpopulated area--limiting casualties to those on the plane and possibly allowing you to cover up the whole thing.

This isn't a case of 20/20 hindsight. This is no more than 20/300 foresight. From the 1970s on, interception by fighter jet has been THE standard operating procedure for any suspected hijacking. But here we have a confirmed hijacked (variously reported as being confirmed sometime between 9:16 and 9:30) more than a hour into a confirmed terrorist attack, and somehow it's supposed to require some brilliant insight on the part of some ineffectual bureaucracy to arrive at the same patently obvious decision that each and every person reading this forum would have made if they'd just be honest about it.

I'm sorry, but we all know US military just ain't quite that damn incompetent. Maybe incompetent enough to account for Flight 77, although that's ridiculous enough to fathom. But to believe the official story about Flight 93 is to equate Command and Control with Comedy Central. I mean, if ramming a plane directly into the Pentagon didn't get the US military to spring into decisive action, I have to wonder what in the world possibly could. This is like saying cops get a confirmed sighting of a cop killer and they decide it's more important to keep protecting the donut shop than it is to pursue the suspect because:

1) hey, anybody could turn into a murderer at any time

and

2) well, the murderer is basically headed in this direction, so who knows, maybe he's hungry and is coming to the donut shop soon--so why go to the trouble of leaving to find him?

Here is the obvious conclusion that any objective, informed individual will form simply and directly from the preponderance of the evidence the public has been offered about Flight 93. There are only four possibilities, ranked from most to least believable:

1) Flight 93 was helped down by one or more of the fighters dispatched to intercept it.

2) Command and Control decided to use another weapon to deal with Flight 93 rather than a fighter jet and somehow had this other weapon in range by 10:00 EDT.

3) At least one weaponed military plane was shadowing Flight 93 when it miraculously exploded in some manner--shedding charred bolt-sized pieces of sheet metal (and probably a large swatch of fuselage and large piece of one engine among other parts). Then it miraculously crashed just minutes before it would have reached a densely populated area over which it could not have been brought down without the significant risk of far more numerous casualties.

4) Command and Control was at least partially complicit in the attacks.

[demodewd]

11. re: "material problems"

I truly believe that you are overreacting to those who pursue the "physical" aspects of 911.Those who are genuinely interested in finding the truth aren't going to be diverted negatively by pod theorists or melting steel argumentations.I think you underrate we skeptics' ability to sift through the disinfo and bs.I concentrate on the physical evidence but do also entertain the circumstantial.Just as JFK conspiracy acceptance has grown to a wide audience by the general public,so too in time will 911,pods or no pods.

Speaking of physical proof...I am rather pursueded by Hoffman's mathematical argumentation that the voluminousity and speed of the dust clouds points to an energy source far exceeding that of a gravitational collapse. Now if we could just get some major professional corroboration on this point by University physicists and mathematicians.

[medienanalyse]

13. overreacting ?

me ?

I would consider those a little bit overeacting who try to prove that the perpetrators of 9/11 were "killing" the WTC.
Not once.
Not twice.
Not three times.

These "reaearchers" are so kean to prove that the planes were not planes,
but if they were they girst fired a missile out of the pod
then they sent whatever into the builöings
then the kerosine was not enough
so they used additional explosives.

"Bring them down" must have been their heated combat shouting.

Who cares who they were ? Most important is, if they used bombs, kerosine, knives, fingernails, bullshit, teardrops, missiles.

Make it physical. It is not overeacting. it hepls a lot in finding the mirderers ...

BZW, you "physical" experts: take a gram of the WTC-dust, bring it to any univerits laboratory and send it through a mass spectrometer. And you have any evidence fpr explosives that you want. But my guess is: you do not want it. Better chat and chat and chat.

[demodewd]

14. Who supports holograms? No one on this board.

A very small small minority of "researchers" even fathom the possibility of holograms.Obviously if there was an anomoly on the underside of the plane the plane was not a hologram. Apples and oranges,and yet you tie the two ideas together.

You would need more than a "grain of dust" to identify explosives in a scientifically controlled inquiry. Besides there is the option of microwave technology which might explain the end of collapse afterglow of both WTC1 and WTC2 but not present in the end of collapse of WTC7. Wonder why? Two different types of explosions? I refer you to http://www.kpfa.org/archives/archives.php?id=13&limit=N Please if you will, listen to the December 15th archive with Jim Hoffman.

A gravitational collapse explains the extreme heat of rubble pile,and the massive dust clouds and their amazing speed through Lower Manhattan? Gravitational collapses pulverize cement and gypsum to particles smaller in width to that of a blade of hair throughout the entire collapse?

[medienanalyse]

15. I just learned that the dust in Manhattan was

no good for the health of the people there. Jimmy Walter asked everybody to file lawsuits.

Because of the mercury in the light buldbs, because of radioactice substances in the smokedetectors and so on - all pressed to dust on 9/11. The scientific examination of the dust already took place. For sure. And without any hint of explosives. Anybody can repeat the inquiry. Anybody will find dust, even today. Just any evidence is missing for TNT or any other explosives.

But you say: "You would need more than a "grain of dust" to identify explosives in a scientifically controlled inquiry. "

Do you have - despite the obvious need of gundreds of boxes with explosives well spread all over the buildings and strong enough to cut massive steel -

a single cause to prove your sentence? Please tell the astonished public: jow many grams do you need?

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[medienanalyse]

17. tell me the name of the man

who told you that the WTC only contained kerosine and steel

and no

- paper
-furniture-
Carpets
curtains
and so on. Expecially plastic.

Once indended it gets very different temperatures. Ask firefighters about temperatures in office building fires. Ask them what happens if a fire is contained under pressure of hundredthousand tons.

BTW: where were the Andrews based interceptors ?

Yu are not going to alter the issue of this thread, aren ? you?

[demodewd]

18. fires and planes

I never stated that the building contained only kerosene and steel.

The buildings were billowing black smoke indicating an oxygen starved fire.

The firefighters in the South Tower had the small fires under control.


Steel has a high level of thermo conductivity. How many miles of steel were in those buildings?

The voluminousity and speed of the dust clouds indicates something other than a gravitational collapse.

Why would all the steel beams lose its fireproofing from a gravitational collapse?

A hydrocarbon fire doesn't reach the temperatures under the most optimal conditions of at least 700 plus C.

The Andrews Base interceptors should have intercepted the alleged Flight 77(at least). Where were they? I know their web site was altered after 911 to exclude their emergency readiness capabilities.

[medienanalyse]

19. What is this ? Kindergarten ?

Quote:
"I never stated that the building contained only kerosene and steel."

Yes. You never said that. And I did never claim that you said that. So what are you pointing at?
You did not take into account all the other materials which produce other temperatures when incended. That is the point I made. And I must not repeat that I do not even know exactly what materials they are and in which amount. It is enough to say: the WTC is a office building. Those who claim "abnormal" temperatures and tell us degrees must tell us what the normal temperatures in office fires are. Before they use the word "abnormal". Before they count.


"The buildings were billowing black smoke indicating an oxygen starved fire."
Yes. Before and after the collapse. And what can you read out of the black smoke? O see a lot of rubble and dust and concrete in a big heap. What should I wonder about?

"Steel has a high level of thermo conductivity. How many miles of steel were in those buildings?"
Many. What are you saying? Some steel melted, most of it was shown in fotos and videos: torn, bended, unbended, crisscrossed, cut by the firefighters and so on. BTW: the melted one I have not seen on a foto - it is still a claim out of quotes.


"The voluminousity and speed of the dust clouds indicates something other than a gravitational collapse."
There are people who say : never a steel building collapsed in a fire. And you know how it must look like? When I smash concrete out of 5 meters I get a veritable cloud of dust. I have never seen concrete smaashed out of 400 meters - and picked by steel beams and smashed again by hundred thousnd tons of other concrete and steel. You have ?

"Why would all the steel beams lose its fireproofing from a gravitational collapse?"

Yes why would they ? Did they ? You insinuate they did.

And so I stop now in answering you. Because it is obviously: KINDERGARTEN talk.

Spend your time somewhere else. I do it with mine anyway.

[demodewd]

20. time for a cookie and a glass of milk and then we get to finger paint

Hydrocarbon fires(office fires) don't produce high enough temperatures to compromise steel.The Madrid building which burned throughout its entire structure intensely,thouroughly only suffered a very small partial collapse.Why would you assume that I would not take in account office materials?

I read out of the black smoke that the fires were burning at temperatures well below the threshold point of compromising the core columns.

The heat from the those steel columns directly exposed to the fire would have been conducted by the remaining steel columns throughout the building.

The voluminousity and speed of the dust clouds was a gross anamoly in the annals of demolished buildings. Compare with any videos of buildings being demolished and notice the gross difference in dust circumferance.When you drop a concrete block five meters you get nothing compared to the phenomenon we see on 911 where concrete,gypsum,glass etc are reduCed to a granular size less in width than a human hair fiber.A one floor drop in the initiation of the collapse is about 14 feet and yet we immediately see dust plumes of finely granulated dust.The concrete was immediately pulverized and dropped outside the building's structure.

[Sterling]

24. I know some of the people who worked on the suit aganst the EPA

To acknowledge that the air was very bad for us NYers in the days after the attacks. No one has ever focused on looking ofr explosive material in the rubble. In fact the rubble was carted of to CHina before much of any research could be done.

It was not so much the smoke detectors that were toxic as the materials in the building itself like asbestos ets...

That building was a liabilty to the Port Authority (Gov) as well as some big money interests. It was a two birds with one stone kind of job IMHO.

If the WTC had to be taken down outside of the context of a national emergency it would have been a huge liability for everyone involved. Funny that following 9-11 the attack became a windfall for the interests that controlled the buildings and our tax dollars covered the bills instead of the Gov and and fat cats having to pay out lots of money to NYers and possibly relocate much of the people in lower NYC.

[spooked911]

26. Oh yes, it is just that simple to take a sample to a university lab and

get it analyzed for explosives.

Do you even know what you are saying?

And what is all your attitude for? If you don't want to discuss this, then please feel free to go elsewhere.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dbeach]

22. Journal of Psychohistory?

Interesting!

[spooked911]

25. Wow-- is this a respected journal?

The Journal of Psychohistory, that is.

[althecat]

23. Lots of analysis here - Bottom line: System failed on 5/11 Lots of Qs

It is just the bogus news reports from the MSM that suggest otherwise.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3655689