Were 35 USAF Bases Within Range On 911?

[shatoga]

http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum6/HTML/001397-3.html

>35 USAF Bases Within Range On 911
The 7 Air Stations On Full Alert Covering The Continental United States
And 28 More Air Stations That Were In Range Of The 4 Airliners On 911

http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum6/HTML/001397-3.html
The following list were the seven Air Stations that were armed and on full alert to protect the continental United States on Tuesday September 11, 2001.
<

Details at link:
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum6/HTML/001397-3.html

Can anyone post indisputable evidence to refute the assertion?

Thesis at link/ anti-thesis requested.

Not personal attacks against me/ rational arguments against the thesis presented at:
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum6/HTML/001397-3.html

[Old and In the Way]

1. Here's a graphic map and thread I started a couple of weeks ago...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=125&topic_id=2633#2634

<>


I'd say it's rather odd that nary a single plane intercepted any of the flights on 9/11........

Since Bush has clearly stated that we did not shootdown or intercept 93, my earlier statement stands. Of course, if he did lie about this fact, I wonder what else could be suspect?

Gee, wonder why we never had a public investigation?

[papau]

2. Otis workers reported pilots told no shoot down order received

Congress was told the chase planes from Otis Air Base in Mass went at max throttle - meaning if you check their max speed that they should have caught the two planes and shot them down. Later testimony implied the chase planes flew at less than 600 knots. Nobody cares about bad "estimates" or implications of words used in testimony. DC non-chase plane is totally un-explainable. Implication of testimony was we had 4 planes defending the US that day on the East coast.

Otis even has a 24/7/365 Missile Warning Operations Center where AFSPACECOM and Canadian crews monitor consoles around-the-clock which display tracking data. "Crews consisting of a crew commander, crew chief and a space console operator use the data to warn of potential attacks on North America."

[RH]

6. and shot them down?

"...planes from Otis Air Base in Mass went at max throttle - meaning if you check their max speed that they should have caught the two planes and shot them down"

As if no plane ever flew at full throttle without shooting something down?

:silly:

[Braden]

3. I would be more interested

in seeing what restricted airspace was overflown.

as many have stated not all of the installations on that map are air bases, but certainly there is much restricted airspace often times not directly located near a government facility.

[MikeS]

4. Refuting the 35 Bases Argument

Most of the 35 bases mentioned in the chemtrailcentral argument don't have aircraft capable of intercepting an airliner and in some cases, don't have any aircraft, at all. Having some time on my hands and feeling more stupid as I went along, I looked up the 35 bases to see what's stationed at each. Here are the results:

Andrews has the 121 Fighter Squadron (ANG) flying F-16s. However, it was not an alert base, as it belonged to Air Mobility Command (AMC). The chief tenant is the 89th AW, for VIP support.
http://public.andrews.amc.af.mil/
Bolling AFB 3 miles south of US Capitol
Bolling provides Admin support to the Pentagon and houses the Air Force Band and the Air Force Honor Guard. The only aircraft that operate out of Bolling are helicopters.
http://www.bolling.af.mil/main.htm
Dover AFB Dover, DE
Dover AFB is an AMC base for C-5 aircraft. The only flying tenant unit is the Civil Air Patrol flying Cessnas 172/182 aircraft
http://public.dover.amc.af.mil/
Hanscom AFB 17 miles northwest of Boston, MA
Hanscom is the home of the Air Force Electronic Systems Center. There are no flying units assigned there.
http://www.hanscom.af.mil/default.asp
McGuire AFB 18 miles southeast of Trenton, NJ
McGuire is an AMC base with C-141, KC-10, and KC-135 aircraft. There are no fighters stationed there.
http://www.mcguire.af.mil/
Wright-Patterson AFB Dayton, OH
Wright-Patt is the home of the Air Force Material Command and the Air Force Museum. The only fighters there are in the museum.
http://www.afmc-pub.wpafb.af.mil/
Cape Cod, MA AFS
Cape Code AFS houses the PAVE PAWS radar site. The Coast Guard flies helos and Falcon jets from there on rescue missions.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/cape-cod.htm
New Boston, NH AFS
New Boston is a satellite tracking station and has no aircraft.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/facility/new-boston.htm
Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve Bases
Atlantic City Airport, NJ 10 miles west of Atlantic City
Atlantic City Airport is home to the 177th Fighter Wing (ANG) flying F-16s. They are now on 24 hour alert.
http://www.defendamerica.mil/articles/feb2002/a022202a.html
Barnes Municipal Airport, MA 3 miles northwest of Westfield
Barnes houses the 104th Fighter Wing (ANG) flying A-10s. A-10s are slow, ground attack aircraft that cannot catch an airliner.
http://www.defendamerica.mil/articles/feb2002/a022202a.html
Bradley International Airport, CN Windsor Locks
Bradley houses the 103rd Fighter Wing flying A-10s
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/usaf/103fw.htm
Byrd Field, VA 4 miles southeast of Richmond
Byrd Field is home to the 192nd Fighter Wing flying F-16s.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/usaf/192fw.htm
Eastern West Virginia Regional Airport 4 miles south of Martinsburg
Martinsburg ANGB is home to the 167th Airlift Wing flying C-130s.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/usaf/167aw.htm
Frances S. Gabreski Airport, NY Westhampton Beach
Gabreski ANGB houses HC-130s and UH-60s of the 106th Rescue Wing
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/gabreski.htm
Greater Pittsburgh International Airport, PA 15 miles nw of Pittsburgh
Home of the 911th Airlift Wing with C-130s and the 171st Air Refueling Wing with KC-135s
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/usaf/911aw.htm
Harrisburg International Airport, PA 10 miles east of Harrisburg
Harrisburg IAP is home to the 193 SOS flying EC-130s and two squadrons of KC-135s
http://www.scramble.nl/usaf.htm
Martin State Airport, MD 8 miles east of Baltimore
Martin State is the home of the 135 Airlift Wing, flying C-130s
http://www.af.mil/news/airman/0101/ang.html
New Castle County Airport, DE 5 miles south of Wilmington
Home to 166th Airlift Wing C-130s
http://www.scramble.nl/usaf.htm
Pease ANGS, NH Portsmouth
KC-135s of the 157 Air Refueling Squadron
http://www.constantphoenix.com/afstructure/ang.htm
Quonset State Airport, RI Providence
143rd Airlift Wing C-130s
http://www.constantphoenix.com/afstructure/ang.htm
Rickenbacker ANGB, OH Columbus, Oh
121st Air Refueling Wing KC-135s
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/rickenbacker.htm
Stewart International Airport, NY Newburgh, NY
Home to the 105th Airlift Wing C-5s
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/stewart.htm
Toledo Express Airport, Swanton, Ohio
The 180th Fighter Wing, flying F-16s
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/toledo.htm
Westover ARB, MA 5 miles northeast of Chicopee
438th Airlift Wing, C-5s
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/westover.htm
Willow Grove Naval Air Station, PA 14 miles north of Philadelphia
Home to VP-66, flying P-3s and various helo units
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/willow-grove.htm
Yeager Airport, WVA 4 miles northeast of Charleston
Yeager has C-130 aircraft of the 167th Airlift Wing
http://www.constantphoenix.com/afstructure/c130.htm
Youngstown-Warren Regional Airport ARS, OH 16 miles north of Youngstown
Youngstown is home to the 757th and 773rd Airlift Squadrons, flying C-130s
http://www.constantphoenix.com/afstructure/c130.htm

By my count, only Andrews, Byrd Field, Atlantic City, and Toledo had aircraft that might have done anything - aside, of course, Langley AFB, which has the 1st Fighter Wing and Otis ANGB which has F-15s. So, to that extent, the number 35 is rather misleading.

A good source for finding USAF airfields is

http://www.scramble.nl/usaf.htm

The author of the post in chemtrailcentral makes a big deal about the response of the Toledo F-16s. He is right in saying that 15 minutes is any extraordinary response time, unless one is sitting cockpit alert (something only done in a war zone or during an exercise) or the aircraft had been "cocked" (preflighted in advance), which would likewise only happen on alert. However, I'd bet the 180th simply had two aircraft already preparing to take off, accounting for their fast response time. And, since they are not part of the air defense network, they undoubtedly had only practice munitions on board, even if they had found an airliner.

The same thing somewhat applies to another part of the post. At the end, he says:

"Also, there is an Air Defense Intercept Zone just off shore for the entire Atlantic Coast. This zone is constantly being patrolled. In general fast movers would not need to be scrambled. They can be diverted from routine patrol and training flights for the intercept. The odds are that on a beautiful blue morning in September many flights would be on patrol just off shore. It would be most improbable that even one commercial flight could go more than fifteen minutes without being intercepted."

Any aircraft on training flights in the Northeast would probably have "blue" or training munitions on board, so unless they intended to ram, they would have been helpless to do anything.

I'm a retired Air Force pilot and flew EC-121 Early Warning aircraft in the 1970s and often helped intercept Russian bombers testing our defenses. I also worked in fighter ops while stationed at HQ USAFE in Germany in the 1980s. I can confirm that the ADIZ (pronounced Aye-Dizz) was intended to prevent unchallenged penetration from outside. Even so, it was not infrequent for a straying civilian aircraft to go without intercept, since the idea of an enemy attacking with a single aircraft didn't make sense. The Rules of Engagement (ROE) just didn't consider suicide hijackings (though they sure do now.) As to the number of pure air defense patrols (therefore armed) available, I would be greatly surprised to hear that there were more than two for the entire Northeast portion of the ADIZ.

Finally, someone asked why any responding fighter aircraft couldn't simply go supersonic to catch the airliners. First, it was pretty clear that the hijackers had turned off the transponders, making intercept guidance pretty difficult for civilian controllers to provide. More importantly, flying supersonic requires use of the afterburners (until the F-22 comes on board). Continuous use of afterburner reduces your flight time to mere minutes, unless there is a tanker already on station somewhere, so it wouldn't have been done until they had a firm fix on the target aircraft - which they never obtained.

I hope this sheds some light on the issue.

v/r, MikeS

[Llyr21]

5. not quite

Any aircraft on training flights in the Northeast would probably have "blue" or training munitions on board, so unless they intended to ram, they would have been helpless to do anything.
Ummm before the aircraft actually hit the towers, there was no reason to assume that they needed to be shot down, tis standard procedure to divert and intercept for a look see. Why weren't they?

First, it was pretty clear that the hijackers had turned off the transponders, making intercept guidance pretty difficult for civilian controllers to provide. More importantly, flying supersonic requires use of the afterburners (until the F-22 comes on board). Continuous use of afterburner reduces your flight time to mere minutes, unless there is a tanker already on station somewhere, so it wouldn't have been done until they had a firm fix on the target aircraft - which they never obtained.
Baloney, ATC gets skin paints just as clear as transponder codes. Only lacking altitude info.

[MikeS]

7. Re Your Demurrals, Llyr21

Bear in mind that the airliners were already inside the ADIZ, meaning that the ATC controllers were probably less accomplished at directing intercepts. However, you seem to assume that there were any number of training flights up to choose from. Unless Langley was running some kind of training exercise, there were probably no more a handful of fastmover flights up, it being a weekday. And it's a big sky out there. I have no difficulty believing that there were no flights within easy intercept distance.

As to ATC being able to get a fix off skin paint, it's possible, but not a sure thing. I make no claim to be an expert in radar and perhaps your experience exceed mine. I have 4,000 flying hours in military aircraft, including two years spent flying an early warning radar aircraft. I certainly have been asked to confirm my position hundreds of times by ATC, even though I was on the jet route centerline. It's been my experience that getting a fix off skin paint has always been at least a little chancy, especially if the target has descended dramatically. Remember, we're not talking about military fire control radars here - any radical descent would place the aircraft well below the horizon of succeeding ATC radars, forcing the ATC controllers to quickly coordinate with the next controller who might have coverage. And you lose more than just altitude information from a lack of transponder signal. You also lose digital information about course and speed and the clarity of any return is degraded by the necessity to switch from digital reception to analog reception, which I understand is what's needed to get a skin paint return.

So I agree with you, an ATC controller can often pick up skin paint, but it is more difficult and isn't a sure thing, especially against someone who doesn't want to be tracked.

v/r, MikeS

[Llyr21]

9. well I defer to you about the radar

But the idea that ANG Fighters were up on training flights is based on my experience working next an F-16 ANG Base a few years ago. They flew EVERY day. Which leads me to believe either it was strange that there WEREN'T any training flights up, or it is strange they didn't divert one or more. Heck maybe they did and just won't admit it?

Back to the Radar though, even if the ATC had iffy contact, they'd only need to get an F-16 within 50 or 60 miles before THEY could find it with their much better fire control Radar. We aren't talking about intercepting enemy fighters/bombers that have Radar warning receivers where you would have to vector them in close to avoid detection.

[MikeS]

10. ANG Trains Everyday

That's true. But typically, the ops tempo picks up on the weekend. In any case, most of these ANG/ARC units only have a dozen or so aircraft, so the tendency is for maintenance to release aircraft two at a time. There is usually an ops/maintenance "contract" that details how many "tails" will be available for missions each day and it rarely exceeds half the aircraft possessed. First first sorties of the day might have already finished and the next ones not yet scheduled. But these tiny units are simply incapable of flooding the air with aircraft.

Remember, CONUS based units are mostly at a peacetime readiness posture. It's only when we are deployed full up, with all the pieces of modern aerial warfare in place, that we are capable of sweeping the skies.

It's true that the F-16 acquisition radar can pick up targets down in the weeds, but it is never a certain thing, which is why they are most often used with AWACS and other assets. So, if some fastmovers were available, ATC might have gotten them close, at which point they might have been able to spot them, etc... Pile up the mights and maybes and it adds up to a fairly low probability of intercept. I know everyone likes to think we in the military are infallible, but it ain't so. :)

v/r, MikeS

[Llyr21]

15. now you are dancing

That's true. But typically, the ops tempo picks up on the weekend. In any case, most of these ANG/ARC units only have a dozen or so aircraft, so the tendency is for maintenance to release aircraft two at a time.

Not from what I saw, that's all I can say about that. Maybe things were cut back, or maybe for some reason ANG just wasn't flying that day (which is part of the suspicion). But they flew Flights of 4, and more than one per day out of the base I was next to (maybe the same planes though, can't be sure about that).

Remember, CONUS based units are mostly at a peacetime readiness posture. It's only when we are deployed full up, with all the pieces of modern aerial warfare in place, that we are capable of sweeping the skies.

You don't have to be "sweeping the skies" to have a flight within a couple hundred miles.

Pile up the mights and maybes and it adds up to a fairly low probability of intercept. I know everyone likes to think we in the military are infallible, but it ain't so. :)

But you see, according to the official story, it wasn't even attempted, and THAT's the point, as I said, according to the official story the FIRST thing they thought of, and this is before any planes hit buildings, was to launch Armed ready alert planes. THAT's the part of the story that smells.

As I recall the order to launch came before the first plane hit, and they were taking off or just about to, about the time it did.

[MikeS]

18. Who, Me Dance? :)

If by that you mean seeking to avoid answering, no, not at all. Got no reason to, after all.

The 2 X 2 rate at which maintenance releases aircraft doesn't preclude the use of four-ships. It depends on what mission is going to be accomplished that sortie. A four-ship is more likely to be a pure training sortie - either for air combat maneuvers or air to ground training. A straightforward ADIZ patrol (assuming there were any scheduled) is more likely to be a two-ship - there is little sense burning JP-8 in four jets when two should do. It's also common to "turn" the earlier aircraft to later missions, so that an eight aircraft maintenance contract might result in as many as 24 sorties in a single day - more in an exercise.

I'm not at all familiar with which base (I suppose Otis?) actually had an armed alert flight. I don't think any other air defense-tasked unit was anywhere in range of the activity of that terrible day. The other bases with suitable aircraft, even Langley, would be useless, since I assume they weren't tied in with the NORAD Emergency Action Message (EAM) system, nor had any emergency procedures for such a contingency. I could speculate about the chronology of events, but that doesn't shed any new information.

I also assume we have modified our procedures since.

v/r, MikeS

[JackRiddler]

8. please tell me...

Now what about Vigilant Guardian, the NORAD exercises on the day? Doesn't this imply they might have been cocked and ready? And there would have been more flights than usual on training in the air?

My question is about intercepting (recon), as opposed to shooting down...

(I doubt I would have shot any of the planes down, to be honest...)

[MikeS]

11. Not necessarily, Jack

The CJCS exercise calendar has anywhere from three to four hundred exercises annually and about half are conducted within the United States. Each warfighting command also schedules numerous exercises that didn't make the cut for JCS funds. On top of that, there are Service and base level exercises all the time. I don't know anything about that particular exercise, but it would be extremely unusual for there not to be an exercise happening somewhere in the US.

Depending on the exercise, NORAD might have had no aircraft involved (in the case of a command post exercise or CPX) or they might have relied on "volunteers" (aircraft from units with nothing more pressing on the schedule), or they might energize the full capability of the Air Force and Navy. As I said, it just depends on the type and scope of the exercise and I'm not familiar with that one.

v/r, MikeS

[JackRiddler]

13. I hope you will forgive the next question...

You have been cordial and factual, and I want to stay on that level too. I just cannot help wondering why you, a pilot with so many hours experience and knowledge of the air defense system, and someone who apparently does not doubt the official story (or am I wrong?) are spending the time here to inform and correct us of our apparent misconceptions. Do you mind if I ask? I am prepared to believe that you just got involved in the argument and felt you had something to important contribute, to eliminate misconceptions... that's happened often enough to me in other cases. But I'd like to hear from you about your motivation. Thanks.

[MikeS]

14. No problem, Jack.

I routinely poke into this conference to see what's going on. I noticed some things that didn't ring true to me and thought I'd throw my two cents worth. Frankly, I'm surprised more pilots haven't commented on this subject.

Yes, I believe the standard version of what happened on 9/11, mostly because it seems the most reasonable. Occam's Razor, and all that.

I don't think of it as an argument and I'm not accusing anyone of anything. I do know we were caught flat-footed on 9/11 and I know what steps we've taken since (and, no, I won't discuss them) to prevent anything similar.

Unless you have other questions, I'll just go back to lurking. :)

v/r, MikeS

[DulceDecorum]

16. Oh please don't go back to lurking

That place is now the refuge of the skeptics.
Remain here where you are most welcome and none dare dispute you.

Mike,
can you tell us ANY reason
why the good people of the US should continue to maintain the bases you mentioned
or ANY bases at all?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=152665

Why not spend the money on those "bleeding heart liberal" causes such as education, child welfare, veterans hospitals, rebuilding bridges and roads and other such activities?

Why spend it on a bunch of Rip Van Winkles who could barely manage to roll out of bed when they found themselves under attack?
Why spend more money updating the Pentagon information systems which were so damn lousy that the Secretary of Defense had to turn on the telly for CNN to find out what was going on in his neck of the woods?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/05/19/national/main554514.shtml

The way I figure it, that lot won't even realise that they have run out of money, unless Arthur Andersen goes and squeals like the stuck pig that he is. But if he dares open his gob, we will simply make him accountable for a certain trillion dollars that went AWOL.
http://bernie.house.gov/documents/articles/20030520151455.asp

[Old and In the Way]

19. Hey, what kind of defense do you expect for $300+BB/year?

Defense?

Heck, we can't even get a plane up to see what was going on in the cockpit of 77.....51+ minutes after the 2nd plane hit the WTC.

Condi told us, they never imagined that terrorists would hijack airplane and crash them into buildings...besides, the radar was pointing the wrong way!

But I'm sure that this unfortunate happenstance helped this administration increase the offense (err defense) budget, start pre-emptive war with any country they decide has terrorists ('cept us of course), and get those oilfields secured.

I mean, every dark cloud has a silver lining, right?

[RH]

12. I've been surpised

not to have heard a lot more about 'Vigilant Guardian'.

If intending to perform the 9/11 debacle as an 'inside job', with sufficient ways and means, I'd have set it up to go down as a dress rehearsal of a hijacking that somehow went horribly wrong. The course of the subsequent 'classified' cover up would then be predictable, relatively easy to pull off as compared to any more blatent scenario.

[DulceDecorum]

17. I have an idea

Let us shut down all those bases.
That will free up a lot of tax money,
and help us achieve smaller government.

It is not like we are losing anything we need, since:
"Most of the 35 bases mentioned in the chemtrailcentral argument don't have aircraft capable of intercepting an airliner and in some cases, don't have any aircraft, at all."

Fat lot of use those bases turned out to be.
What the heck else are they doing now, besides taking up space?

We can send the former soldiers out to rebuild the decaying infrastructure and dedicate more energy to making sure than Johnny can read.
Literacy greatly reduces the dittohead phenomenon and increases the Democratic powerbase. When a Dem writes "moran" it is only to mock the Republicans who honestly believe that to be the correct spelling for the word "moron."
Those who are properly educated and truly patriotic do not come up with, or follow the directions of, anyone who issues statements such as this:

First, we currently believe and are certainly hopeful that the number of casualties being reported in the press is high. As you know from your own observation out there, the work is still going forward, and we won't know for some time precise numbers. But from everything that we currently know, the estimate that's been widely reported is considerably high, and we certainly pray that that's the case.
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2001/t09122001_t0912sd.html