Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

How did 2 identical buildings fall in the same manner? Think about that for a sec.

How did they fall straight down? Gravity. The buildings weren't strong enough to stay together while they toppled over, as soon as one side failed and they started to tilt, the tilt made the other side fail, and it went straight down from there. No part of the building was strong enough to hold one side of the top part to act as a pivot. And they were not anywhere near 'in their own footprints', every building for a couple blocks in every direction was damaged, some so severly they had to be destroyed, and one so bad it fell on its own.

Kevin, I respect your opinion, thats what this Forum is about. Not to argue, or be smart, but I said "drop within such a small area {considering their height, weight, and size}" meaning for their size they dropped in a small area, several blocks is a small area, to me at least, for the massive size of the buildings. If they had fell on their side, or just 1/2 of it fell on its side, then you would have been talking about a very large damage area. I didnt say that they fell "in their own footprints". Like i said, i respect everyones opinion, and thats what people do here, they discuss, and voice their opinion. Like i stated a while back, I try to end my posts with "just my opinion, FWIW", and thats just what they are. If people dont agree, thats fine. Then its not worth much to them personally. Just my opinion, FWIW.

thanks-smitty

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Sorry I didn't mean to misquote you.

The section of the building that broke away at the top of building 2 did tilt. But once it started to tilt, any remaining structure still attached was torn away and there was no more pivot point. With no more pivot point, there was only gravity pulling straight down, and the building below which was resisting the same on all sides since it was undamaged until that point.

There's really no way to break the building near the top and have that top piece tilt significantly out of the area of the building, and there's no reason the bottom should have fallen over when it was being crushed from the top down.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Without going into any detail at this point, ask yourself one thing..........how do two, almost identical buildings, hit at different levels, at different angles, "fall" almost perfectly straight down?? Two almost identical {they didnt call them the "Twin Towers" for nothing} drop in such a manner that they did not topple, lean, partially fall, fall into one another, and drop within such a small area [considering their height, weight and size] without causing any other major damage and deaths??

I don’t get it, you would find the similarity of the collapses less suspicious if the buildings weren’t so similar?

Let’s see 2 near identical buildings were hit by near identical planes in similar manner (level angle and speed) and collapsed in similar but different fashion.

Level - The 1 WTC impact centered on the 96th floor (87% the height of the tower, the 2 WTC impact on the 81st floor {74% the height of the tower}).

Angle - Flight 11 hit the North Tower (1 WTC) almost head on, flight 175 crashed into the other tower 23 degrees off center (i.e. 67 degrees).

Speed – Flight 11 was estimated to be at 470 mph flight 175 at 590 mph.

Collapses – 2WTC collapsed 56 minutes after being hit and the top part started to tilt before coming straight down. 1 WTC collapsed after 102 minutes and collapsed straight down.

Funny most inside jobbers point to the differences as being suspicious. The difference between the buildings and how they were struck explains the differences in how they collapsed. 2 WTC was hit at higher speed and the rectangular core was closer to the perimeter wall stuck than 1 WTC and 1 WTC had thinker fire proofing according to a June 2002 story in the Washington Post entitled Fireproofing Faulted in Trade Center Collapse “The North Tower, which had 1 1/2-inch-thick fireproofing, fell in 104 minutes, and the South Tower, with its 3/4-inch-thick fireproofing, collapsed in 56 minutes”*. These factors explain 2 WTC collapsing in less time. That building having about twice as many floors above the impact zone as the North Tower explains the former tilting and the later not.

As for the mistaken belief that the towers should have toppled over all that I’ll add to Kevin’s explanation is that none of three civil engineers who back CD have said this. Also conrary to your belief three other buildings collapsed that day and several others were so badly damaged they had to be torn down, others need to under go extensive renovations.

WTCdamagedBuildings.gif

Len

* http://tinyurl.com/y45hgp , http://www.prorev.com/wtc.htm (middle of page)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
Guest Stephen Turner

I have no interest in reviving the whole tiresome 9-11 imbroglio, but perhaps Members will indulge me in debating a couple of points that seem to diverge wildly from the official report.

Flight 93, and the "Lets roll" story.

It is no secret that US air defences had been massively reduced following the end of the cold war. During the 60s, 70s and 80s the US had literally thousands of fighters on alert, by the time of 911 this number had been gradually reduced, and now stood at between 30-40 fighters.

Even this though does not, IMO, explain the slow responce status, nor the full extent of NORADS failure's that awful day. Lets start with the times NORAD claims it heard of the hijackings. By 8-43am they had information concerning the probable hijackings of the first two planes, it was now, that any system wide crisis emergency plan should have kicked in.At 8-46 flight 11 crashes into the first WTC Tower, surely at this point all regional air traffic controls would have been recieving reports of seemingly co-ordinated hijackings taking place over American airspace, yet when flight 77 is hijacked at 8-46, Norad claims not to hear about it until 9-24, a mere 13 minutes before it crashes into the Pentagon.

The time officially taken to react to the hijack of flight 93 is, if anything, even more staggering, NORAD claims to hear of the hijacking at 9-16, the Pentagon position is that it had not yet intercepted the plane before it crashed, just minutes away from Washington at 10-06, an almost unbelievable 50 minutes after they recieved the report. But some evidence strongly suggests that flight 93 was shot down after all. Officials have never disputed that a secondary debris field existed, more than six miles from the main crash site, local pres claimed it contained one of the planes engines, if true, this points to either an onboard explosion, or an external missile strike, as there has never been the merest suggestion that the terrorists were carring explosives, and a handfull of eyewitnesses reported seeing low flying US military jets in the area at the time of the crash it raises a question, why, if 93 was shot down, the only right thing to do, given the circumstances, has it been repeatedly denied. Conversely, if no fighter jets were on the scene, given the amount of time they had to be there, why on Earth wern't they......Steve.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some other info to consider. Before 911, the only intercept by NORAD over the continental US was of Payne Stewart's jet. All other intercepts had been over international waters. That is what they trained for. Further, the intercept of Stewart's jet took over an hour and 15 minutes. Even then, the jet was intercepted not by an armed jet used for air defense but instead by and unarmed jet that was already airborne for another unrelated mission and diverted. The air defense jets got there much later.

Edited by Matthew Lewis
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Stephen Turner
Some other info to consider. Before 911, the only intercept by NORAD over the continental US was of Payne Stewart's jet. All other intercepts had been over international waters. That is what they trained for. Further, the intercept of Stewart's jet took over an hour and 15 minutes. Even then, the jet was intercepted not by an armed jet used for air defense but instead by and unarmed jet that was already airborne for another unrelated mission and diverted. The air defense jets got there much later.

Matthew thanks for the above, given your background I shall give it the weight it deserves.

a question (and I really dont know the answers) What is the essential difference between an airborn interception over the sea, and one over land.

To your knowledge was no training given to pilots in intercepting, and disabling potential enemy aircraft over the continental United States.

Is the Payne Stewart example, in your opinion, a Like-for like with the situation that pertained on 911. Because it seems a little bit apples and oranges to me.

Regards, Steve.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Stephen Turner

8-46, Flight 11 hits WTC North Tower.

9-03, Flight 175 hits WTC South Tower.

9-16, Flight 93 goes off course.

9-16, NORAD claims notification of hijack of 93

9-37, flight 77 crashes into the Pentagon

10-06, 93 crashes in Pennsylvania.

The closest airbase was Langley, near Norfolk Virginia, about 129 miles south of Washington. So what is the maximum airspeed of an Airforce Jet, on an emergency intercept proceedure.

Edited by Stephen Turner
Link to post
Share on other sites
Some other info to consider. Before 911, the only intercept by NORAD over the continental US was of Payne Stewart's jet. All other intercepts had been over international waters. That is what they trained for. Further, the intercept of Stewart's jet took over an hour and 15 minutes. Even then, the jet was intercepted not by an armed jet used for air defense but instead by and unarmed jet that was already airborne for another unrelated mission and diverted. The air defense jets got there much later.

Matthew thanks for the above, given your background I shall give it the weight it deserves.

a question (and I really dont know the answers) What is the essential difference between an airborn interception over the sea, and one over land.

To your knowledge was no training given to pilots in intercepting, and disabling potential enemy aircraft over the continental United States.

Is the Payne Stewart example, in your opinion, a Like-for like with the situation that pertained on 911. Because it seems a little bit apples and oranges to me.

Regards, Steve.

Steve – If you don’t mind – I happened to do a lot of research about this topic when I had a discussion with a conspiracy believer a few years back -

NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command) was set up as command and control for the defense of the US and Canada's from outside aerial attack (aircraft and missile). As such, most if not all of the sensing equipment looks outside of our boarders.

The goal was to intercept enemy aircraft long before they got close the boarders. In the case of a real attack, the goal was to destroy the enemy, NOT disable them – didn’t matter if it was over water or land. During the cold war, our interceptors would simply fly in close proximity to the other aircraft – a mostly friendly game of tag – they tested us, we let them know we spotted them.

There is no practical way to force another plane to change course or land if the other pilot’s #1 goal isn’t living.

He gave you the Stewart example because, as far as we know, it is the only time NORAD intercepted a civilian aircraft over the US. There wasn’t any clear channel between the FAA and the military and the military had no pre-established rules for such an intercept, which is the primary reason that it took so long for the Stewart flight to be intercepted. Those channels had not been established on 9-11.

As for the airspeed of an intercept, all aircraft are limited to below Mach 1 over the US in peacetime. IRRC, that was one of the quandaries for the pilots dispatched to intercept Flights 11 and 175 – whether or not to go supersonic. Also, there was much confusion about who had the authority to order a shoot-down of a civilian airliner. Another factor governing the response time for an intercept is how long it would take to pre-flight and arm an aircraft, assuming there was a pilot available. I don't think there were many USAF bases with interceptors at the ready between the end of the Cold War and 9-11.

Edited by Steve Ulman
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Payne Stewart example was already addressed well by Steve Ulman. As for the question about fighters from Langley, I don't believe Langley was one of the bases that had alert fighters. IIRC, there were only 4 fighters on alert status in the east that day. That was normal at that time with the drawdown with the disappearance of the Russian threat. Even if they did, there would be some time associated with getting the aircraft running (only in the most extreme cases are alert aircraft already running and ready to go), taxi to takeoff and get airborne. Then they have to climb to altitude. Depending on their alert status, they could be running and airborne in as little as 10-15 minutes also depending on the alert training they have had. Already addressed was the issue of going supersonic over land. I believe that the situation has changed now since 911 that they are allowed in the case of an emergency but they weren't before. Even if they had been allowed, it takes some time to get to an altitude to go supersonic (much easier to go fast at higher altitudes than at sea level, not to mention safer) and it takes some time to speed up. It is not instantaneous. There also has to be a consideration of how much fuel going supersonic will use. It does no good to get there fast on the afterburner if you can't do anything when you're there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I too have spent considerable time on this subject. I'd like to know what Steve U. and Steve T. and Matt Lewis have to say about my report, as it stands so far.

The 177th New Jersey Air National Guard on 9/11

Why none of the hijacked airlines were intercepted

By William Kelly –

The new, multi-million dollar state-of-the-art communications facility at the 177th New Jersey Air National Guard base at the Atlantic City airport is now there because of the events of September 11, 2001, a belated effort to ensure that there are no more breakdowns in the lines of communication and command like those that occurred on 9/11.

While some of the problems have been addressed by the 9/11 Commission Report and recommendations, there are still unanswered questions about what happened that day, among them – why none of the hijacked planes intercepted by jet fighters.

There is also the question as to why no one been held responsible and accountable for the breakdown in our national and personal security that day. Most of those in command positions that day remained there or have been promoted.

At the Atlantic City Airport, the new communications facility is there as a direct result of what happened on 9/11.

It was just another typical Tuesday weekday morning for most of those who worked at the 177th New Jersey Air National Guard base at Atlantic City airport, including James Cusak, an F-16 pilot who, with his wingman, taxied out to the runway shortly before 8:30 am on September 11, 2001.

Sometime after 8 a.m., Cusak, whose radio handle is "Gilligan," along with his wingman, a former Navy pilot who attended Annapolis, were all fueled and ready to go. They slowly made their way out to the end of the runway, prepared to go on a practice bomb run in upstate New York. They waited at the end of the runway for quite a while, without being given the signal to take off. After about twenty minutes, both pilots later said they sensed something was wrong, and suspected something had happened, perhaps a personal family emergency, but not what was really going down.

Eventually they were told not to take off and return to headquarters.

It would be fifteen minutes before the first hijacked plane would crash into the World Trade Center and the world would know something was wrong, but some of those on duty at the 177th headquarters knew because they had received a troubling telephone call from a Boston Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) official requesting jet fighter support for a hijacking in progress.

The 177th has jet fighters, except that after being on 24-7, 24 hour, seven days a week alert status for decades, that's more than twenty years, the unit was taken off alert two years earlier, in 1999.

Usual missions for the 177th included escorting Soviet planes down the coast heading for Cuba and South America, and buzzing Russian nuclear submarines offshore. Now they were occasionally enforcing the no-fly zone over Iraq and running training exercises, as they were on that Tuesday morning, September 1, 2001.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which has a large facility (The William Hughes Technical Center) right there at the Atlantic City Airport, is responsible for air traffic safety in the continental United States. When FAA officials in Boston realized there was an air emergency, and more than one plane was being hijacked by terrorists, they notified the military.

The FAA Boston Center made the call – but apparently to the wrong number. The closest base to Boston with jet fighters on alert status was Otis AFB at Cape Cod, Massachusetts, but Boston FAA Center called Atlantic City, outside the routine chain of command.

Apparently the person who received the call in Atlantic City informed Boston FAA that they were off alert and Otis was the closest base on alert because Otis also got a panicky call from Boston FAA requesting jet fighter assistance for a hijacking. But because that call too, did not come through the regular chain of command, the pilots there got ready, but didn't take off until ordered to do so.

According to the 9/11 Commission Report [p. 20 Military Notification and Response], "Boston Center did not follow the protocol in seeking assistance through the prescribed chain of command. In addition to notification within the FAA, Boston Center took the initiative, at 8:34, to contact the military through the FAA's Cape Cod facility. The center also tried to contact a former alert site in Atlantic City, unaware it had been phased out. At 8:37:52, Boston Center reached NEADS. This was the first notification received by the military – at any level – that American 11 had been hijacked."

[Footnote p. 458- (115) FAA memo, "Full Transcript: Aircraft Accident; AAL1; New York, NY: September 11, 2001," April 19, 2002, p. 5; Terry Biggio interview (Sept. 22, 2003); Collin Scoggins interviews (Sept. 22, 2003; Jan. 8, 2004;): Daniel Bueno interview (Sept. 22, 2003)."]

According to transcripts of a tape of that conversation, it went like this:

"FAA: Hi Boston Center TMU [Traffic Management Unit], we have a problem here. We have a hijacked aircraft headed towards New York, and we need you guys to, we need someone to scramble some F-16s or something up there, help us out…"

NEADS: Is this real-world or exercise?

FAA: No, this is not an exercise, not a test."

At the time the Northeast Air Defense Sector was involved with NORAD in a number of war games [ Vigilant Guardian – simulated Russian attack over the Artic; Vigilant Warrior – simulated hijackings; Northern Vigilance – simulated attack over Alaska and Canada; Northern Guardian and a CIA/NRO exercise of a plane crashing into a defense contractor building.], so the confusion was mounted by these war games.

If a similar call came in to the 177th, they would have been told that the 177th was not on alert and to try Otis, which was on alert. It is probable the 9/11 Commission Report got the order of phone calls backwards, and the call to the Atlantic City came in before the call to Otis, since Otis was on alert and there would have been no need to notify Atlantic City if Otis was already called, unless they called Atlantic City before notifying NEADS. Notifying NEADS would have been the correct chain of command rather than notifying the alert base(s) directly.

While it has yet to be determined exactly who in Boston made the call and who in Atlantic City received the request, (and if there is a tape recording or transcripts of the conversations), the call set off an alarm at the 177th base that is still being heard. It delayed the take-off of two F-16 jet fighters from their bombing practice mission, and brought them back to their headquarters and led to the construction of the new, multi-million dollar communications facility at the base.

By the time the two pilots arrived back at their 177th headquarters that September 11th morning, helmets in hand, they saw the first burning tower on television, and realized what was up. But they also realized how unprepared they were for what was happening. For one thing, while their planes were fueled and ready to go, the bomb displacements on their planes had to be reconfigured from bombs to air-to-air missiles, and the missiles had to be retrieved from a remote former nuke bunker hundreds of yards away and then mounted under their wings.

If the two F-16s on the runway at 8:30 am would have taken off on time, they would have intercepted the first plane before it crashed into the WTC, although without any weapons, they would only have been able to observe the situation.

When United Air Flight 175 was hijacked at approximately 8:42 am [see map: 9/11 CR p. 32], it flew directly south before cutting over the New Jersey Pine Barrens and North to strike the WTC. It was a path that would have intersected the 177th F-16s had they taken off anytime before 9 am, a full half hour after the first request for assistance came in to Atlantic City.

Piloted by Victor Saracini, an Atlantic City native, whose daughter was an acquaintance of Cusak, UA 175 out of Newark, N.J. was one hijacked plane that could have been intercepted by the jet fighters, but it wasn't because the planes were refitted with air-to-air missiles.

Cusak later said that he wondered what he could have done if he intercepted a hijacked airliner without being armed. Could he have tipped its wings or rammed the plane or otherwise prevented the hijacked plane for completing its suicide mission? He concluded that he couldn't have done so without dying himself, and maybe would have done so, but was never presented with that circumstance.

As General Richard Meyers USAF, then the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said, "We are the last line of defense," and the air forces should come into play only after the failure of all other lines in the multi-layered defense including the penetration of the country at the borders, evading airport security, breaching the cockpit and hijacking the plane, so the air defense failures are magnified by those before it.

117th MISSION STATUS – OFF ALERT

Then there's the issue of the change in the mission status of the 177th N.J. Air National Guard that for over two decades, always had two planes on alert status, on the tarmac, armed, fueled and ready to go, and two pilots on standby, within a few hundred yards of the planes. They had the ability to intercept planes or boats from upper New York state to Virginia, or to put up a protective air umbrella over New York, Philadelphia or DC within a matter of minutes.

Historically, the 177th NJANG began in September 1917 as the 199th Aero Squadron, an active duty training unit during World War I. In 1958, the 199th Fighter Squadron moved to Egg Harbor Township, N.J., and was activated in 1961 during the Berlin crisis. In 1962 it was re-designated the 177th Tactical Fighter Group, and was reactivated during the Pueblo incident in 1968, as well as during Desert Storm and in Panama. But the 177th was most proud of its active, alert status protecting the skies from New York to Virginia.

With 17 single-seat F-16C "Fighting Falcon" aircraft, the wing maintains its base in buildings on a 296 acre tract at the Atlantic City International Airport, which is also the home of the William Hughes FAA Technical Center. The airport's extra-long runways are cleared for landings of the Concord, when it was flying, and Air Force One.

A typical mission at the height of the Cold War would be to intercept and escort Soviet Russian aircraft heading for Cuba and South America, or buzz a Soviet nuclear submarine offshore, but after the fall of the Berlin Wall and Soviet Communism in Russia, the mission of the 177th changed. They were taken off alert status in October, 1998, according to the Defense Reform Initiative (DRI).

As Cusak later explained, the new defense posture would be a quadrangle grid, with an alert base responsible for each grid, a sort of zone defense, which he attributed to Gen. Colon Powell, then Commander of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

When General Meyers testified before the 9/11 Commission, Commissioner Jamie Gorelick asked him, "….You know 20/20 hindsight is perfect, but if I were sitting at the Pentagon and seeing the kinds of threats that were coming in that summer, I would say to myself, is business as usual appropriate? I mean, the question I have is whether you thought to say: Should we have defenses pre-positioned in a way that we don't? We know that our forces, that our aircraft from NORAD came to late to the Pentagon."

Meyers response: "Sure, we changed our whole air defense posture at the end of the Cold War. We went from about 22 sites [on alert status – including the 177th] down to about 7, I believe, between the United States and Canada, PURPOSELY AND AT DIRECTION OF OUR LEADERSHIP." (Emphasis added –BK).

So a subtle, but profound change in military and defense policy occurred in 1997-1998 when the Defense Reform Initiative was enacted, and "designed to streamline the organizational structure and business practices of the Department of Defense."

Still unasked is why did it cost more to do less? As 9/11 Commissioner and former Navy Secretary John Lehman, a pilot himself publicly pondered, "We have hundreds of jet planes that cost millions of dollars each all along the coast, so how much more would it cost to keep some of them armed and fueled?"

At the time, as part of the Quadrennial Defense Review proposals of May, 1997, the Air Force removed the Air National Guard (ANG) fighter wings, including the Atlantic City and Andrews AFB units, from their traditional and historic air defense alert mission status and made them part of the general-purpose fighter force, reducing the number of dedicated air defense units from 10 in 1997 to 4 in 2001. Others have sited statistics that they went from 20 to 7, including those in Canada and Alaska, but in any case, the number of jet fighter bases on alert was dramatically decreased before 2001.

Reported in the 177th's 1998 Annual Report, "As a result of NORAD tasking, the 177th Fighter Wing began conversion to the general purpose F-16 mission on October 1, 1998. This action ended the wing's 25-year association as part of NORAD's alert force. During that tenure, the wing's NORAD responsibility included providing air sovereignty of the mid-Atlantic between Long Island, New York and the Virginia Capes. As of October 1, the wing extended into its extensive period of general-purpose F-16 role, the 177th will be capable of assuming a variety of air force missions to include overseas deployments and assignments to one of the newly created Air Expeditionary Force." One of the overseas deployments the 177th participated in was enforcing the "No-Fly Zone" over Iraq.

In the months leading up to September 11, 2001, the 177th ran simulated and real bombing runs, and simulated and live air-to-air missile training at Tyndal Air Force Base in Florida, the home of the First Tactical Air Force Headquarters of the NORAD defense system of the Northeast Sector of the continental United States.

The 177th also participated in Operation Stand Down, a community effort to assist homeless veterans, that through its name, infers the non-alert status of the deactivated wing.

On the morning of September 11th 2001, the 177th was not part of the NORAD defense command, which was engaged that morning in an annual war game exercise – VIGILANT GUARDIAN, or any of the other war games being enacted.

According to S. Rowan Wolf, another change in command status occurred on May 8, 2001, when it was announced that President Bush placed Vice President Dick Chaney in charge of Domestic Counter-Terrorism. Wolf interprets that, "…dramatically changed the decision making chain of authority, effectively centralized all response to Chaney, not to NORAD."

In addition, as the military would repeatedly point out during the 9/11 Commission inquiry, the FBI, FAA and domestic law enforcement agencies were tasked with the primary response to a terrorist attack, not NORAD, which as a military department, was prevented by "Pose Comatas" from engaging in domestic law enforcement activities.

Nor were the pilots trained to respond to a situation such as being ordered to shoot down an unarmed commercial airliner with Americans on board, even though that scenario was part of some of the war imagined war games being conducted by the military.

An order to shoot down an unarmed commercial airliner would have to originate with the president and come down the official chain of command, opposite the way the early warnings of hijacked planes went up the chain of command.

Regardless of the possible armed military response, they do have a clear role to intercept, monitor, survey and escort planes that have strayed from their planned route, which they did many times over the preceding two years under the new quadrangle zone defense posture. They did not need to know if this was a hijacking to respond as they had in the past when the first sign of an air emergency was clear – off course, off transponder, off communications and not responding to commands. "They routinely respond to any plane that drifts off-course," said John Judge, of the 9/11 Citizens Research Project, "and did so hundreds of times a year before 9/11, but not on that day."

So on the morning of September 1, 2001, the entire air defense of North America was in the hands of 14 fighter pilots on alert at 7 sites in the continental United States, Alaska and Canada.

As General Meyers testified, "In accordance with Department of Defense (DOD) directives in effect on 9/11, NORAD was to monitor and report the actions of any hijacked aircraft, as requested by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). We had procedures for potential air hijackings, which were based on the premise that a hijacked aircraft would be used for ransom or political purposes, not as a weapon."

"On the morning of 9/11, we were conducting a NORAD command post exercise and our headquarters and regions were postured for 'wartime conditions.' Six minutes prior to the first attack on the World Trade Center, the FAA informed NORAD of the potential hijack of American Airlines Flight 11. As events unfolded throughout the morning, NORAD responded immediately with fighters and appropriate airspace control measures. Unfortunately, due to the constraints of time and distance, we were unable to influence the tragic circumstances."

The entire excuse of the DOD for not intercepting any of the hijacked planes is set in the timeline-chronology. But rather than six minutes before the first plane hits the WTC, 8:40 am, when NEADS is alerted, the alarm should have gone off ten minutes earlier, at 8:30 when the FAA Boston Center first attempted to call Atlantic City and Otis. But being off alert, they could not respond.

If that call did not come in however, the two F-16s on the tarmac would have taken off on their scheduled mission and however coincidently they would have intercepted the second plane to hit the World Trade Center, and although lacking air-to-air missiles or weapons of any kind, they could have tried change the outcome of the day.

William Kelly

Bkjfk3@yahoo.com

Parts of this article previously appeared in the Egg Harbor Township Current newspaper.

xxxx

Edited by William Kelly
Link to post
Share on other sites

In

Rumsfeld speaks of the "plane shot down over Pennsylvania - although he's not necessarily a trustworthy source ;)

One wonders, indeed, whether Rumsfeld could lie straight in his coffin?

Flight 93 seems to have been - like the Pentagon hit that same day - a case no apparent corpses - yet subsequent DNA analysis enabled almost perfect confirmation of the respective flight lists.

Oh, the wonders of modern science!

This page on the physics911.ca site is well worth a look - as is the rest of that fine website

Edited by Sid Walker
Link to post
Share on other sites
In
Rumsfeld speaks of the "plane shot down over Pennsylvania - although he's not necessarily a trustworthy source ;)

One wonders, indeed, whether Rumsfeld could lie straight in his coffin?

Flight 93 seems to have been - like the Pentagon hit that same day - a case no apparent corpses - yet subsequent DNA analysis enabled almost perfect confirmation of the respective flight lists.

Oh, the wonders of modern science!

This page on the physics911.ca site is well worth a look - as is the rest of that fine website

Sid,

I'm sure Bill can tell you about a lady named T Carter. She was an air hostess on the route of the plane that hit the pentagon. Obviously she was not in work that day. many of her friends died in the crash. She was allowed into the crash area following the incident. She had to identify the arm of her best friend, which still had a friendship bracelet that T had given her on it.

Most of the people that believe that a plane did not hit the pentagon dismiss T's story without investigating it or verifying it for themselves. She spoke at the 2002 COPA conference about it.

A lot of people proclaiming to be 'researchers' into 9/11 simply state that they don't believe her. Research is not a case of what you believe, it is what you can prove.

I thought that this story might interest you Sid,

All the best,

John

Link to post
Share on other sites
I too have spent considerable time on this subject. I'd like to know what Steve U. and Steve T. and Matt Lewis have to say about my report, as it stands so far.

William-

Excellent work. You've done a great job connecting the details of 9-11 to the overall defense issues in play at the time. I just wish we had some more details about just who (agency or person) was supposed to have taken responsibility that day. Unfortunately, either everyone did a great job of CYA or no one has a clue.

I'd seen some of the info from various sources before - perhaps even your article. Your info matches and expands everything I could find regarding the 9-11 response as well as the changes in our defense posture as part of the "Peace Dividend".

What has always bothered me about the our reduction in force allowing the "Peace Dividend", is that the bureaucrats were more concerned about making it look good for JQ Public, than they were about making sure everything still worked. Of course, no one knew just how messed up the system was until it was really needed. History tells us that 9-11 wasn't the first time that has happened - and probably won't be the last.

Link to post
Share on other sites
In
Rumsfeld speaks of the "plane shot down over Pennsylvania - although he's not necessarily a trustworthy source ;)

One wonders, indeed, whether Rumsfeld could lie straight in his coffin?

Flight 93 seems to have been - like the Pentagon hit that same day - a case no apparent corpses - yet subsequent DNA analysis enabled almost perfect confirmation of the respective flight lists.

Oh, the wonders of modern science!

This page on the physics911.ca site is well worth a look - as is the rest of that fine website

Sid,

I'm sure Bill can tell you about a lady named T Carter. She was an air hostess on the route of the plane that hit the pentagon. Obviously she was not in work that day. many of her friends died in the crash. She was allowed into the crash area following the incident. She had to identify the arm of her best friend, which still had a friendship bracelet that T had given her on it.

Most of the people that believe that a plane did not hit the pentagon dismiss T's story without investigating it or verifying it for themselves. She spoke at the 2002 COPA conference about it.

A lot of people proclaiming to be 'researchers' into 9/11 simply state that they don't believe her. Research is not a case of what you believe, it is what you can prove.

I thought that this story might interest you Sid,

All the best,

John

Well, she's a new new for me, John. As you didn't provide a reference, i thought I'd google her up.

So I googled "flight 93" and "T Carter".

First and only liunk was to the COPA 2002 conference.

Here she is...

T Carter was a regular stewardess on that flight and had witnessed one of the alleged hijackers doing a pre-911 test flight. She also has inside information on disinformation related to telephone calls associated with this flight.

So it seems that T Carter is what the cricketing community call an "all-rounder".

Not only does she claim to have witnesses one of the 'hijackers' doing test flights.

She also was a regular on Flight 93.

She can also put a presentation together about the MLK assassination.

And you tell me, John, that some folk think she may not be the full quid? A disinformationalist, even?

Surely not!

How could anyone be so horrid!

Whatever happened to the Age of Innocence?

Edited by Sid Walker
Link to post
Share on other sites
In
Rumsfeld speaks of the "plane shot down over Pennsylvania - although he's not necessarily a trustworthy source ;)

One wonders, indeed, whether Rumsfeld could lie straight in his coffin?

Flight 93 seems to have been - like the Pentagon hit that same day - a case no apparent corpses - yet subsequent DNA analysis enabled almost perfect confirmation of the respective flight lists.

Oh, the wonders of modern science!

This page on the physics911.ca site is well worth a look - as is the rest of that fine website

Sid,

I'm sure Bill can tell you about a lady named T Carter. She was an air hostess on the route of the plane that hit the pentagon. Obviously she was not in work that day. many of her friends died in the crash. She was allowed into the crash area following the incident. She had to identify the arm of her best friend, which still had a friendship bracelet that T had given her on it.

Most of the people that believe that a plane did not hit the pentagon dismiss T's story without investigating it or verifying it for themselves. She spoke at the 2002 COPA conference about it.

A lot of people proclaiming to be 'researchers' into 9/11 simply state that they don't believe her. Research is not a case of what you believe, it is what you can prove.

I thought that this story might interest you Sid,

All the best,

John

Well, she's a new new for me, John. As you didn't provide a reference, i thought I'd google her up.

So I googled "flight 93" and "T Carter".

First and only liunk was to the COPA 2002 conference.

Here she is...

T Carter was a regular stewardess on that flight and had witnessed one of the alleged hijackers doing a pre-911 test flight. She also has inside information on disinformation related to telephone calls associated with this flight.
So it seems that T Carter is what the cricketing community call an "all-rounder".

Not only does she claim to have witnesses one of the 'hijackers' doing test flights.

She also was a regular on Flight 93.

She can also put a presentation together about the MLK assassination.

And you tell me, John, that some folk think she may not be the full quid? A disinformationalist, even?

Surely not!

How could anyone be so horrid!

Whatever happened to the Age of Innocence?

Diane Burley (sp?) called me last week and asked me to be on her Chicago radio talk show and discuss John O'Neill and 9/11.

Another guy was on as co-host, whose name I didn't get.

In any case, in the course of the program I mentioned Peter Lance's new book Triple Cross, and his assertion that John O'Neill and the FBI covered up the terrorist bomb that was planted on Pan Am 800 - which blew up after taking off from NY. O'Neill got help from the CIA to show that what appeared to be a missle hitting the plane was actually flames shooting out of fuel tank. They tried to show that it was a electrical malfunction that sparked the empty center fuel tank to explode.

Lance shows that the alQaeda terrorist on trial in NY -Yossef, from prison, order there was resudue of a small bomb like the Boshinka plot bombs, assembled from different parts aboard the plane and placed under a seat near the fuel tanks and set to explode on the next flight, so it was not a sucide mission. I don't know why O'Neill, the FBI and the CIA would cover up the terrorist bomb plot to make it appear a malfunction, but it appears they did.

In any case, because Lance's scenario didn't include a missile shooting down the plane, or a missile hiting the Pentagon, this other host, when asked his opinion, merely branded me a disinformation agent of the government.

Where these missiles come from doesn't seem to concern some people.

As for T. Carter, she doesn't need anyone to stick up for her.

BK

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...