Official NORAD timeline from 9/11 Commission

[BeFree]

linkto 9/11 Commission Report

.....record. And, with your indulgence, sir, I would like Colonel Scott (ret.), Alan Scott, to walk you through the timeline.

MR. SCOTT: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, commissioners. It is my pleasure to be here with you today. General Arnold and I worked together that day on September the 11th.

What I will walk you through here is a chronology of the attacks, and I've presented it in a matrix form. And the only thing I lay claim to is having studied all of the attacks and how they are interwoven together. This was not a linear sequence of events where one attack began and ended and then a second attack began and ended. This was a coordinated, well-planned attack. We had multiple airplanes in the air. The fog and friction of war was evidence everywhere in the country, both on the civil side as well as the military side. And this hopefully will show you how those interwoven events came about.

I will tell you the times on this chart come from our logs. The time on the chart is the time that's in the log. It may not be the exact time the event happened. It may be the time when the log-keeper was advised or became aware of the event.

The first thing that happened in the morning related to the events at 9:02, or I'm sorry 8:02 a.m., Eastern Standard Time, is when American Airlines 11 took off out of Boston. American Airlines 11 was a 767, and it was headed, I believe, to Los Angeles. Fourteen minutes later, also coming out of Boston Logan, United Airlines 175, a 757, also headed to Los Angeles, took off out of Boston, and initially took roughly the same ground track as American 11. Three minutes later, American Airlines 77 took off out of Dulles here in Washington, also headed to Los Angeles, and also a 757, and proceeded westbound toward the West Coast. So now the first three airplanes are airborne together. The first time that anything untoward, and this was gleaned from FAA response, that anything out of the ordinary happened was at 8:20, when the electronic transponder in American Airlines 11 blinked off if you will, just disappeared from the screen. Obviously the terrorists turned that transponder off, and that airplane, although it did not disappear from the radarscope, it became a much, much more difficult target to discern for the controllers who now only could look at the primary radar return off the airplane. That was at 8:20.

At 8:40 in our logs is the first occasion where the FAA is reporting a possible hijacking of American Airlines Flight 11. And the initial response to us at that time was a possible hijacking had not been confirmed. At that same moment, the F-15 alert aircraft at Otis Air Force Base, Massachusetts, about 153 miles away, were placed immediately on battle stations by the Northeast Air Defense Sector commander. At 8:43, as this is going on, the fourth airplane, United 93, takes off out of Newark, New Jersey. It's a 757. It is headed for San Francisco. At 8:46, our next log event, we get the last, and, by the way, much of this radar data for these primary targets was not seen that day. It was reconstructed days later by the 84th Radar Evaluation Squadron, and other agencies like it who are professionals at going back and looking at radar tapes and then given that they are loaded with knowledge after the fact, they can go and find things that perhaps were not visible during the event itself.

At 8:46, the last data, near the Trade Center,8:46, the first impact on the Trade Center. At that minute is when the Otis F-15s were scrambled. And, again, they were 153 miles away. And that scramble came, and General Arnold, I am sure can address this, based on a conversation between the Northeast Sector commander and himself. Those F-15s were airborne in six minutes. That is well inside the time that is allowed for them to get airborne. But because they were on battle stations, the pilots were in the cockpits ready to start engines, that scramble time was shortened by a significant amount of time.

At 8:53, that's a minute later, in the radar reconstruction, we are now picking up the primary radar contacts off of the F-15s out of Otis. At 8:57, which is seven minutes after the first impact is, according to our logs when the FAA reports the first impact. And about this time is when CNN coverage to the general public is beginning to appear on the TV, not of the impact, but of the burning towers shortly thereafter. So you can see what in the military I am sure you have heard us talk to the fog and friction of war, and as the intensity increases the lag tends to also increase for how quickly information gets passed.

9:02 -- United 175, the second airplane, which by the way never turned off its transponder before impact, crashes into the North Tower at 9:02.

The distance of those fighters which had been scrambled out of Otis, at that particular point they were still 71 miles away, about eight minutes out, and going very fast.

At 9:05, FAA reports a possible hijack of United 175. Again, that's three minutes after the impact in the tower. That's how long it is taking now the information to flow through the system to the command and control agencies and through the command and control agencies to the pilots in the cockpit. At 9:09, Langley F-16s are directed to battle stations, just based on the general situation and the breaking news, and the general developing feeling about what's going on. And at about that same time, kind of way out in the West, is when America 77, which in the meantime has turned off its transponder and turned left back toward Washington, appears back in radar coverage. And my understanding is the FAA controllers now are beginning to pick up primary skin paints on an airplane, and they don't know exactly whether that is 77, and they are asking a lot of people whether it is, including an a C-130 that is westbound toward Ohio. At 9:11 FAA reports a crash into the South Tower. You can see now that lag time has increased from seven minutes from impact to report; now it's nine minutes from impact to report. You can only imagine what's going on on the floors of the control centers around the country. At 9:11 -- I just mentioned that -- 9:16, now FAA reports a possible hijack of United Flight 93, which is out in the Ohio area. But that's the last flight that is going to impact the ground.

At 9:24 the FAA reports a possible hijack of 77. That's sometime after they had been tracking this primary target. And at that moment as well is when the Langley F-16s were scrambled out of Langley.

At 9:25, America 77 is reported headed towards Washington, D.C., not exactly precise information, just general information across the chat logs; 9:27, Boston FAA reports a fifth aircraft missing, Delta Flight 89 -- and many people have never heard of Delta Flight 89. We call that the first red herring of the day, because there were a number of reported possible hijackings that unfolded over the hours immediately following the actual attacks. Delta 89 was not hijacked, enters the system, increases the fog and friction if you will, as we begin to look for that. But he lands about seven of eight minutes later and clears out of the system.

At 9:30 the Langley F-16s are airborne. They are 105 miles away from the Washington area; 9:34, through chat, FAA is unable to precisely locate American Airlines Flight 77; 9:35, F-16s are reported airborne. And many times, reported airborne is not exactly when they took off. It's just when the report came down that they were airborne. At 9:37 we have the last radar data near the Pentagon. And 9:40, immediately following that, is when 93 up north turns its transponders off out in the West toward Ohio, and begins a left turn back toward the East.

At 9:49, FAA reports that Delta 89, which had been reported as missing, is now reported as a possible hijacking. So again he is --

MR.: That's 9:41, sir.

MR. SCOTT: I'm sorry, 9:41. Again, he is in the system. He is kind of a red herring for us.

Now, the only thing that I would point out on this chart is this says 9:43, American Airlines 77 impacts the Pentagon. The timeline on the impact of the Pentagon was changed to 9:37 -- 9:43 is the time that was reported that day, it was the time we used. And it took about two weeks to discover in the parking lot of the Pentagon this entry camera for the parking lot, which happened to be oriented towards the Pentagon at the time of impact, and the recorded time is 9:37. And that's why the timeline went from 9:43 to 9:37, because it is the best documented evidence for the impact time that we have. Getting toward the end now, 9:47 is when Delta 89 clears the system by landing in Cleveland. So he is not a hijack. Lots of things are going on now in the system as the sectors begin to call both units that are part of 1st Air Force and NORAD, as well as units that have nothing to do with us. We are beginning to call everyone now and the 103rd Air Control Squadron, for instance, stationed in Connecticut, is an air control squadron, a radar squadron, and they got their radar online, operational, and begin to link their radar picture into the Northeast system. They are not normally part of NORAD. This is really the initial part of a huge push the rest of that day to link as many radars in on the interior as we can, and to get as many fighters on alert as we can.

At 10:02, United 93 last radar data and the estimated impact time for United 93 is 10:03.

At 10:07 FAA reports there may be a bomb on board 93 -- that's four minutes after the impact. At 10:15 they report that it's crashed. And you can see now that fog and friction lag time has increased from seven minutes to nine minutes to 15 minutes, because of the level of activities that are going on. And there are notations here about other airplanes as we begin to divert other airplanes that are just out were intended for training that day. We're picking up the phone, calling Syracuse, the Air National Guard. They're beginning to get flights airborne. They're beginning to arm those aircraft with whatever weapons they have handy so we can posture that defense.

That is how the timeline unfolded. As you can see, it is a fabric of interwoven actions. This is not just a linear event. So lots of things going on, lots of activities, and lots of C2 centers. Sir, that completes my piece.

[BeFree]

1. Excerpt from the timeline

At 9:09, Langley F-16s are directed to battle stations, just based on the general situation and the breaking news, and the general developing feeling about what's going on. And at about that same time, kind of way out in the West, is when America 77, which in the meantime has turned off its transponder and turned left back toward Washington, appears back in radar coverage. And my understanding is the FAA controllers now are beginning to pick up primary skin paints on an airplane, and they don't know exactly whether that is 77, and they are asking a lot of people whether it is, including an a C-130 that is westbound toward Ohio.

End Excerpt.

Note that America 77, has turned off it's transponder and appears back in radar coverage so, America 77 left the radar screen? What'd it do, Land? How else could it "appears back on radar" if it didn't land and then take off again? And there are questions as to whether it is indeed America 77.

Maybe the theories about exchange of passengers from one plane to another has some real truth?

[einniv]

2. Or perhaps the radar has a specific range to it?

And
"is when America 77, which in the meantime has turned off its transponder and turned left back toward Washington, appears back in radar coverage"

means exactly that. It TURNED and came back in radar range?

[BeFree]

4. Reading the whole transcript...

...one sees that what the Col. is refering to is a compilation of all the radars of all the flights involved that day. IOW, every piece of radar anywhere in the country in which America 77 traversed was examined to trace the whereabouts of said airplane. No airplane ever escapes radar coverage. At least not in the US.

[einniv]

7. No.

Reading the transcript one sees he is talking about Langley.

[BeFree]

8. Read the whole transcript at the link

Excerpt from my original post:

At 8:46, our next log event, we get the last, and, by the way, much of this radar data for these primary targets was not seen that day. It was reconstructed days later by the 84th Radar Evaluation Squadron, and other agencies like it who are professionals at going back and looking at radar tapes and then given that they are loaded with knowledge after the fact, they can go and find things that perhaps were not visible during the event itself.

[BeFree]

6. What it means EXACTLY is:

The radar people did not know what plane it was, and that whatever plane it was just appeared on radar.

[LARED]

3. Just a guess

But I would think based on the information that flt 77 appeared back on radar at Langley after moving far enough east.

[BeFree]

5. Guessing allowed

So lets guess that what happened was that flt 77 landed, and from the same airport, another plane took off.

Makes perfect sense. Flt 77 left the radar screen and then another plane took it's place.

Pretty good guess, eh?

[LARED]

10. Makes perfect sense

Hmmmm, no it doesn't.

[damnraddem]

11. The flight was being followed via transponder.

When that went off, all flight controllers had was radar, which was picking up many, many planes, not to mention weather conditions and flights of birds. Radar is fine, but there is a reason that planes carry active transponders.

[BeFree]

12. Do not discount the fact

The fact is.... this report comes from a complete military study. A study that was probably a year in the making. The Col. says that they did NOT know if the plane was flt 77 or another. They even asked other planes in the area if they could indentify it!

[Robb]

14. A report a year in the making...

...that ignores its own comissioned study showing that UAL93 impacted at 10:06, not 10:03.

Ignoring it again, I might add.

If they can discount the physics of seismology, I wouldn't rely on much in this testimony.

[damnraddem]

9. Here's a more-basic reconstruction of events:

1) for all our vaunted technology, the military could not mount an effective, timely response;
2) civilians on Flight 93 used telephones to call relatives, found out what had happened to the WTC, and took effective action to make sure Flight 93 was not used in the same way.

We, the citizens, our the defense against terror. The military is effective against other militaries. Homeland Gestapo is the harbinger of a police state, not an effective defense against outside terrorists.

[BeFree]

13. There is no doubt...

...that what they are trying to do is close the barn doors, after all the horses ran out. The question remains: Who let the horses out?

The key to the barn was held by NORAD. Now comes a retired Col., a Col. who was on duty that day, saying that NORAD did not know if the plane they saw was American 77.

As for the idea that our Military could not launch a defense....that matter has been completely disqualified by the Payne Stewart event.

[Bolo Boffin]

15. What do you imagine the Payne Stewart event proves?

It took an hour and a half to intercept Payne Stewart's jet. How does that fact disqualify anything about our military being able to launch a defense?

The response times on 9/11 were notably faster than for Payne Stewart's plane.

[BeFree]

17. Hour and a half?

The AF was on Stewart's case much faster than you guess.

And, according to this NORAD report, no air response ever came about until the dirty deed was damn near done. Nearly an hour went by before the battle stations alarm sounded. This report, imo, is an indictment, in their own words, of the failure of NORAD to do it's mission. The key piece of evidence is the fact that they had NO radar blip from what they believed to be flt. 77 for some time, and then a blip appeared and they guessed it was flt 77. THEY GUESSED! Even now, years fter the event, all they can come up with is a guess. Shameful.

The blip that did appear is, was, and remains, a UFO. What say yee about that?

[Bolo Boffin]

19. Hour and a half, according to the official records.

http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2000/AAB0001.htm

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

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

From the time of the first failed contact to the approach of the fighter pilot is an hour and 19 minutes - about an hour and a half. So much for the Payne Stewart excursion, which you still haven't explained the reason why you think it's relevant.

BeFree: The key piece of evidence is the fact that they had NO radar blip from what they believed to be flt. 77 for some time, and then a blip appeared and they guessed it was flt 77. THEY GUESSED! Even now, years fter the event, all they can come up with is a guess. Shameful.

The blip that did appear is, was, and remains, a UFO. What say yee about that?

Do you know how they guessed it was Flight 77? When they went to the site where the blip had crashed, they found the remains of Flight 77, passengers and all. It wasn't hard to figure out.

[BeFree]

20. Thanks for the link!

Really, you saved me some work. I thought I'd get someone to do that, you came thru bolo, thanks.

Now, lte's look at what you posted....
At 9:33 plus the 4.5 minutes that the controller kept trying to make contact, the time would be around 9:40 EDT

At 10:52 EDT is first contact air to air. That's a dif of 1:12

Using your rounding of 1:12 minutes to 1:30, it only seems fair to say that I could round down by the similar ratio. I come up with around 20 minutes mol. That places the time around :52 minutes response time.

Now, given that the transponder had not been turned off, and there being no known voice recordings of any hi-jacking -as there was on 9/11 - I would say the lackadasial attitude of the Jacksonville controller is allowable. Also, the report never does state just when NORAD was contacted.

The air to air contact on 9/11 did round out to over 1:30 minutes, as you suggest. That would make it about :38 minutes longer than the Stewart event.

Excuse, please, my ignorance as concerns the remains found at the pentagon, but I've yet to see an official report of those remains. Maybe you would be so kind as to link me to such a report? Many thanks.

[LARED]

21. While the

dubious mathamatical stunts you just employed are fun to watch, what do the two events have to do with each other?

[BeFree]

22. The Relations

Both events were initiated by the FAA and reacted to by NORAD. But you knew that, right?

The percentages of time differences is what most amazes me. It seems as if it took the agencies almost twice as long to respond to the event on 9/11 as it did for the Stewart event.

[RH]

27. to link to such a report

search the DU archive.

During the past couple of years every aspect of the Pentagon event has been thrashed out over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over agin, official reports and all.

[medienanalyse]

16. why did the Otis fighters not fly on to intercept AAL77 ?

... if they ever scramled. What they did not at 8:46/8:52.

This NORAD timeline is full of lies. See:
http://www.medienanalyse-international.de/hunt.html

>>>The distance of those fighters which had been scrambled out of Otis, at that particular point they were still 71 miles away, about eight minutes out, and going very fast.<<<<

Simple counting shows: 153 miles minus 71 miles = 82 miles in 10 minutes (between take-off at 8:52 and 9:02)
Ten minutes multiplied by 6 makes one hour, 82x6 = 492 miles/hour.

In comparison with 1.875 miles/hour maximum speed it is not "going very fast". It is not the speed of "scalded apes" with "full afterburner". It is the speed of a simple civil plane, i.e. a Boeing 757. It is contradictory to the words of the Otis commander who said 10-12 minutes to Manhattan.

It is simply a lie. There is no proof that they scrambled at 8:52. There is proof of fighters scambling after 10:00 at Otis.

AND THEY DO NOT SPEAK ABOUT ANDREWS AFB -10 miles away.

>>>At 9:05, FAA reports a possible hijack of United 175. Again, that's three minutes after the impact in the tower. That's how long it is taking now the information to flow ...<<<

That is another lie. 8:38 last contact, 8:41 "possible hijacling" , and 8:43 notification of NORAD.

TV stations changed programms much earlier (8:52), radiostations even earlier than that. There is nearly no time correct in the story. Blunt lies. And no sense. Even with the low speed the two F-15 could have reached the Pentagon flight, date of impact 40 minutes later. Time enough to go from NYC to Washington, low speed.

[BeFree]

18. Of course it's full of misinformation

But it's all theirs. I am not aware of any other official statements from NORAD besides this one. And this one leads one to the conclusion that NORAD was totally screwed up that day.

Interesting note: The Col. admits training flights were in the air the whole time, but there is no record of an alert given unto those training missions, as was the case with flights like the Stewart flight.

[k-robjoe]

23. A.Q. planner

Put yourself in the position of an Al Qaida planner. You are aware of course that the US has airbases and standard intercept proceedures. You have studied where those airbases are, and how long it takes to scramble fighters, and are planning your mission accordingly. 1. What kind of indescribably cretinous moron would expect to be able to successfully execute a plan which required that *after* crashing two planes into the WTC, one would then fly another hijacked plane *for 3/4 hour* towards one of the worlds most heavily guarded buildings -knowing that there was an air base with the specific mandate of protecting it only *10 miles away* ? Answer: Anybody too stupid to realize that such a moronic scheme had no chance of success whatsoever, would have been incapable of carrying out any other part of the plan.Therefore the mythical hijackers *had to know* that the airforce would be stood down to accomodate them.
- Gerard Holmgren

[RH]

26. *for 3/4 hour*??

Meanwhile, back in the real World:

Flight 77 and Flight 94 both took off late and there was no reason whatsoever to suppose that the US air force were burdened by any "specific mandate" to shoot down, ad hoc, a civilian aircraft, and if they were to intercept it would possibly aggravate. In a hostage situation, for obvious reasons, is is not at all de rigeuer to attack impetuously.

There is in any case no hard evidence of any sort to substantiate the notion that the Pentagon was the pre planned Target, and why in any case would an Al Q'aeda planner be so worried? The propaganda value of the US Air force shooting down an airliner would be pretty much as good to them.

[k-robjoe]

30. 77

You seem to allways twist logic to get it your way. Here, you make it seem like flight 77 headed straight for Washington, and didn´t make a long "round".
And you make it seem like it matters a lot, in relation to the Holmgren quote, if Pentagon was the goal, or if it really was the White House.
And yes: The propaganda value of the Pentagon crash (for diehard muslim fundamentalists) was much bigger than a shootdown would have been (or the faith of the forth plane).

[RH]

36. I make it

seem like flight 77 headed straight for Washington, and didn´t make a long "round"?

While speaking, or twisted logic, how did I do that?

:shrug:

And how did I make it seem like it matters a lot?

It was not I who wrote of "one of the worlds most heavily guarded buildings".

The message spoke of a specific plan to attack such a place. So please forgive me for responding to it according to its own terms, for my point would equally apply to the White House. The planning premise is refuted either way, so why do you pick up on it in such a fashion?

[k-robjoe]

41. target

> It was not I who wrote of "one of the worlds most heavily guarded buildings".

You miss the point. If we say that the real target was the White House, this does not in any way affect Holmgrens reasoning of "one of the worlds most heavily guarded buildings". When it comes to what you´ll have to deal with if you plan to crash a plane into it, it is practically the "same" target. ( I don´t believe it is an option to argue that the real target was somewhere else.)

Flight 77 took off ten minutes late. then made a long "round" before returning back east, hitting the Pentagon.
Also in this matter you ignore Holmgrens point, and start arguing as if it wasn´t there. This is why I said that you make it seem like flight 77 headed straight for Washington. It seemed like you refused to see the point.

[RH]

44. No. You miss the point,

the point being the premise that something would have been planned to begin with. With nothing apart from conjecture to substantiate an argument to the effect that anything in Washington was an intended target there is thus a yawning flaw in the logic.

If you suppose that cats are black and an animal seen was not black, You have not then proved that an animal was not a cat. You first have to to prove that all cats are black. So where then is the proof that everything that Al Qaeda does is planned? There is none.

To comprehend sensibly you need to be able think without the benefit of hindsight. It may now perhaps be reasonable to surmise that something in Washington was an intended target but when all that anybody knew was that that a plane had vanished from the ATC screens, how the hell were they to know what was intended or where it was headed to anyway? For the time being how were they to know that Flight 77 had not already crashed?

Or are you seriously intending to suggest that the air force shoot first and think about it later?

[k-robjoe]

47. Holmgrens question

I don´t believe that there is any actual doubt that the Pentagon (or the White House) was the target, but you wish to point out that the airdefence couldn´t know.
But the start of this discussion was Holmgrens question : How could any A.Q. planner think that he could hijack a plane at this point, way after the twin towers had been hit, and fly it for half an hour (and more?) towards Washington, without being intercepted by fighter jets?
Answer : He was thinking : "Ah, but they won´t know what our plan is."

Just kidding. I realize that you have been thinking along different lines.

[RH]

24. Who said "full afterburner"?

:shrug:

[medienanalyse]

28. afterburner - too lazy to read your own stuff?

"Another officer told Duffy, "This looks like the real thing."
Consequently, he jammed the F-15's throttles into afterburner and the two-ship formation devoured the 153 mi. to New York City at supersonic speeds."
http://www.aviationnow.com/content/publication/awst/20020603/avi_stor.htm
I am not responsible for contradictions. It is the NORAD :-))

[RH]

35. Who said "full afterburner"?

You would appear to be responsible for nothing.

N.B. "FULL"

too lazy to read .....

:nopity:

[medienanalyse]

40. are you insinuating

my dear RH, that a person who mentions words like "immediately", full thrpttle" "with afterburner","supersonic", "as quick as possible"

that such a person means and tries to hide "slow", "a quarter of my maximum speed", "no afterburner", "not supersonic"?

Or are you posing a technical question which consists of the deep trust that pilots using the afterburner will regulate them down to a low speed of less than 500 miles per hour?

Summary: are you telling us that it is possible to fly supersonic, like salded apes, with afterburner but with 482 mph?

[RH]

42. I am not "insinuating".

In a much more straight forward manner than would appear to suit you, I am seeking to establish whether or not you placed phrase in quotes as if to insinuate that it was an authentic technical quote albeit that it was not an authentic quote. Nobody actually said it, did they?

Regardless of any semantic spin the speed capabilities of fighter aircraft were reviewed in a previous DU thread. The advice there suggested is that the top speed is designed to be employed only in defense, to escape in emergency, not to intercept, because far too much fuel is used at the top speed to keep it up for any length of time.

That advice makes sense to me, so are you then otherwise qualified doubt it, or do you know of any good reason to doubt it? Or do you simply not really know what you are talking about?

[RH]

25. Simple counting

is for simple minds.

After taking off northwards from Otis Air Base the planes would have to circle around. How much further than the 82 miles would that take them?

And they would presumably not be taking off and circling at a supersonic speed. How long would it take to reach the full speed?

The take off time is of course verifiable.

[medienanalyse]

29. simple minds?

>>>After taking off northwards ...would have
.... the 82 miles would that take them?
...And they would presumably ...
...How long would it take to reach the full speed?<<<

Would-would-would. How realistic and stunningly grounded in facts your arguments are! In comparison to conspiracy theorists :-))

Take this: the commander said: 10-12 minutes to Manhattan. Are you arguing Lt.Commander Quenneville does not know where New York is situated and how long it takes to get there? Are you arguing interceptors take off in the opposite direction of the region which they are responsible for? Are you arguing at all? Or do you just like to hammer some letters in your keyboard to show us that you are master of the English language?

>>>The take off time is of course verifiable.

Yes? I asked you several times to do it by quoting Duffy or Nasty who should have said "at 8:52". They did not. They talked about "supersonic" and this and that - but not when they took off. Only NORAD lies about that time. Not the pilots themselves.

[RH]

33. Aircraft take off

into the wind.

:eyes:

I hold no brief to answer for Lt.Commander Quenneville.

The take off time issue was been dealt with before.

If you have any reason to suppose that Duffy or Nasty would not confirm the take off time to be anything other than 8:52, go get them to sign an affidavit; we'll all be impressed.

In the mean time you do not, of course, because you know perfectly well that they would not. Your disingenuity in that respect is excruciatingly boring.

:nopity:

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

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

[BeFree]

53. Into the wind

Yes. On aircraft carriers. But on land, while runways are pointed into prevailing winds, jets don't wait for the wind to be just right before taking off.

[BeFree]

32. Turn around time

Many an Air Force jet with afterburners on -- has been seen by this ol' boy -- taking off and making 90 degree turns at about 300 feet off the ground.

Still, why is there no mention of airborne craft not being sent to intercept any of the flights? Like they did in the Stewart event...

[RH]

34. There was a mention

of an airborne craft sent to intercept one of the flights.

Where were you?

:shrug:

[RH]

37. Hint:

C130

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

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

[RH]

45. You were wrong

There was a mention of an airborne craft sent to intercept.

So I am right to correct that, yes?

So therefore I do not want the truth out?

Is that somehow supposed to make sense?

I offer a correction so I am therefore trying to obfuscate?

Is that somehow supposed to make sense?

You say "I don't want to know."

So there must be something about the truth that I do not want out?

:shrug:

[BeFree]

48. I was wrong

Everybody here wants the truth to be known and works to see that it is well disbursed. We all just look at things from different angles.

Correcting mistakes is one path toward the truth. I made a mistake, you corrected me, I attempted to clarify my mistake. That's all. No big deal.

[BeFree]

49. A C130 was indeed asked to see if the 'skin' was AA77

But I do not recall an order for an intercept as was requested in the Stewart event.

[FannySS]

52. I am not so sure, medienanalyse

... and I always thought, Mach 2,5 or so is only possible in the stratosphere (see http://www.geocities.com/anubis72000/F-15D..htm, which is in german). At sea level the max. speed is 921 mph (see http://jsbsim.sourceforge.net/F15.html, which is in german too).

I do not want to be pedantic, but theese sources do not show a max. speed (in stratosphere) of 1.875 mph, but only 1.650 mph ok, that doesn´t make so much difference...)

Do not let us forget that it is worthwhile to come up to stratosphere only if the fighters have to fly very far.

QUOTE:
>>>At 9:05, FAA reports a possible hijack of United 175. Again, that's three minutes after the impact in the tower. That's how long it is taking now the information to flow ...<<<

That is another lie. 8:38 last contact, 8:41 "possible hijacling" , and 8:43 notification of NORAD.
END OF QUOTE

I think the times you mention (8:38, 8:41, 8:43) refer to flight 11, not to flight 175. If they know that something is wrong with flight 11, they don´t have a reason to hunt flight 175.

Fanny

[medienanalyse]

56. for sure you cant be sure, Fanny

about maximum speed, because it is dependend on hight (as you already stated), air pressure, gravity, humidity and so on.

But you must not be sure about any maximum speed, because it is never defined in an exact absoluteness. And because it is completely irrelevant if it is 1.875 or 200 mph less.
NOBODY expects the F-15 to reach the max. speed. Launching, low height must be taken into account.

But it was not an exercise. And an afterburner gives you the max of the POSSIBLE speed 8which was reduced, what I and you agree on).

The speed the F-15 allegedly had was the same as a Boeing. The speed of these interceptors was half of the estimation that the commander of the unit gave. That is the point.
I am waiting on an explanation like "they did not know the way". These bushist lies get only a laughter, but a tired one.

>>>I think the times you mention (8:38, 8:41, 8:43) refer to flight 11, not to flight 175. If they know that something is wrong with flight 11, they don´t have a reason to hunt flight 175.<<<

No. I am talking about UA175. Last contact included Saracini being asked if he sees Ogonowskis machine, which was positive in about 29.000 feet at 8:38. Two minutes later he got a new order by the ATC which he did not respomd to. Thats it - milion times printed and retold all over the world. In the view of FAA UAL175 was missing more than a quarter of an hour before 9:00 - and for sure NORAD claims they got the story too late, somehow. Which was definitely wrong: it took one minute.

When the F-15 allgedly took of they had the chance to intercept UAL175 (but they did not scranle at 8:52) and at least to intercept AAL77 - Duffy and Nasty themselves claim that they were more than 4 hours in the air after scrambling.

We are talking about a crime, BTW. At least criminal negligence, and lies to the 9/11 commission. But it looks much more like complicity.

Some Germans died too. They lived about half an hour away from the place where I sit now and write, I met one of the best buddies who told me about the family.

Who gave the order not to scramble interceptors? Have a guess.

[DU GrovelBot]

31. ## Support Democratic Underground! ##

RUN C:\GROVELBOT.EXE
 
This week is our first quarter 2004 fund drive.
Please take a moment to donate to DU. Thank you
for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.

[BeFree]

46. The Col. needs to be brought up on charges

The Patriot Act is partly meant to stop anyone from deceiving a gov. agency. It's obvious that Colonel Scott's report to the 9/11 commission is full of deception.

It does not tell the complete story. Many facts have been totally left out of this report and some of the Colonel's 'facts' are twisted completely away from the actual findings.

He has broken the law.

His whole report is nothing more than an attempt to cover his sorry ass because he was complicit in the NORAD failure that day. The commission needs to nail his ass to the wall. 'Twould be the first, eh?


9/11 Commissioners have A TARGET IN SIGHT. Let's hope the fire away.

[FannySS]

50. 9/11: 4.546 planes on air, 11 planes without radar contact

As far as some sources say, on Sept. 11th there were 4.546 planes in the air in the U.S., that means having 4.546 radar tracks coming every seven seconds.

And at 9.15 on that morning the FAA's national command center counts 11 aircraft out of contact or flying unexpected routes.

Sources:
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/terrorism/terrchron2.html
http://www.public-action.com/911/faa-many-planes/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A42754-2002Jan26?language=printer

In german: www.aeropers.ch/PDFDateien/RS2_2002.pdf

Knowing only this, it seems to be not too easy to launch a defense.

Fanny

[BeFree]

51. Exactly...

At 9:15, almost a half hour after they KNOW a hijacked airplane has hit the WTC, and with 11 more planes out of whack, it really would have been the right thing to do and launch an all out defense. Shoot first and ask questions later. At the vey least, put attack/interceptors on all 11 airplanes, right then and there.

But, they didn't. That's why this Colonel Scott, since he was on duty that day, is the first target for 9/11 Justice.

[JackRiddler]

54. yes, you must consider

how many people are actually employed to handle that traffic, how many planes do they watch in a day? Eleven is not that many to track!

[medienanalyse]

57. hi Jack

nice to meet you here again

[nomatrix]

55. I was curious about how many

other exercises in "War Games" were happening on that date or related to what happened on that date.

http://www.oilempire.us/wargames.html