Why did the Otis fighters not protect Washington?

[medienanalyse]

They were too late for Manhattan - but they were in the air and must not be scrambled. And when they arrived in NewYork (when ever that may have taken place) the towers were already burning and the AAL77 was already missed.

Same with the Langley fighters: to late to protect the Pentagon. But why were they not ordered to look for the UAL93?

As I already said here and proved on
http://www.medienanalyse-international.de/hunt.html

they never scrambled at the alleged times. I just ask these questions to show the absurditys if you follow the NORAD lies.

i.e. one more: who believes that two late coming fighter jets, approaching with afterburner, supersonic, just some minutes too late
WERE NOT NOTICED IN MANHATTAN? After the two loud booms ...

There are millions of witnesses who can prove: there were no fighters coming just some minutes too late. One hour later the fighter jets populated the skies - nobody denies that.

Put the NORAD guys in jail, dear Americans. And not alone.

[papau]

1. Otis base service folks said pilots said they were told to not shoot

down the planes, and indeed the speed of over 1100 mph -which intercepts 5 minutes before first crash - was toned down.

So no sonic boom can be expained - it is the 911 orders that can not be explained.

Post 9/12 two different stories were put out, one by a pilot - the other in testimony to Congress. Folks at the base no longer talk openly about it unless they are just repeating one of the two later stories.

[medienanalyse]

2. How that?

>>>and indeed the speed of over 1100 mph -which intercepts 5 minutes before first crash - was toned down.<<<

If we follow the bushist story it can only be spoken about the SECOND plane, second crash (UA175).

Where do you draw the INDEED of the speed from? The max is still much higher. So you just take in your argument one of the stories which were told (more than only two) and interpret them?
"toned down" why when where who said that? You say that the missing supersonic boom can be explained by that?

No. How? And even without the boom: there are no videos of the two towers burning with interceptors circling in the minutes after 9:02. But there is even a small police plane on the first videos which was faster than the interceptors. To make it cristalclear: there was not only no sonic boom - there was no F-15.
To be "explained" is not only the lack of a sound but more the missing of any evidence that there was a sound-making machine.

Why cant you just state (instead of arguing "911 orders that can not be explained") that the Otis story is a blunt lie and stays a lie as long as there is no evidence that it is true?

They say they scrambled in time. We say they did not. Statement vs. statement. Who must prove? Who is responsible? Any fireworker who did not show up in time would have to answer more questions than the US government.

[k-robjoe]

5. Seen this?

(My translation)
" Mike Kelly shows in an article for the North Jersey Media Group ( as the first US-commentator ) how, 28 months after the attack, it is still totally unclear what the (responsible) people at the FAA did and did not do on that day. (...)

The publicized transcript shows that the flight supervisors (?) at New York airport La Guardia were completely in the dark, after the North Tower was hit. In an exchange, at the same time as WTC 1 is burning, and just before the second plane hits the WTC 2 at 9.03, we hear a ( not identified ) man, speaking from the flight tower (?) at La Guardia : "Do you guys know what happened at the World Trade Centre?" Another man (in the flight tower) answers : "We´re listening to the news right now. Do you know what happened, was it a plane that crashed?" The first man : "We heard it was a bomb that hit it." "We heard it was a plane" the second man replies, and adds that they are turning on the television now to try and find out. "But you don´t know anything for sure?" asks the first man. "No, we don´t" says the other, "We´re watching it on Channel 5 right now."
Kelly remarks that there wouldn´t be anything strange about this exchange, if these were two ordinary people, trying to figure out what happened at the WTC. But this is two flight supervisors that speak, people high up in the information chain(?), that allegedly allready since 8.20 saw the aircraft (on their radars) go off course and head south, and that must have sounded the alarm."

http://www.119-questions.com/# ( click : "updates and stories" )

[medienanalyse]

6. no. not yet. nice story

>>>>high up in the information chain<<<

seems to me to be exaggerating the ranks. I am talking about the heads. Anyway - it is contradictory and can not have taken place. Since 8:13 the alarm went off at the FAA, and the ATCs knew quite well that the finish of the blip on the screens was identical with the final stop - which was relyaed minutes later on radio and TV.

BTW: the book of Mr. Christian Walther is a very supportive one, good for beginners and still-believers.

[papau]

7. Day after Cape Code media reports agree with you that someone is

a liar.

I tend to buy what low levels say the moment of the event (the top speed quote was from Congressional testimony - I believe it was mid teens in 100's of miles per hour - but the ground said they did not get a kill authorization - and simple math has the arrival and takeoff adding to something like 5 hundred mph.

I suspect the cover-up is only a cover-up of Bush being too scared to order a shoot down. I really do not want to believe he allowed it on purpose.

But the facts are as you state - many stories, and those stories do not explain the facts on the ground.

Why has no one gone back to Cape Cod media or re-interviewed the ground types (the pilots have shut up)?

[k-robjoe]

8. makes you wonder

And it makes you wonder. If flight 11 was a terrorist hijack (with no enemies inside the gate), how come the flight controllers at La Guardia were not told that a hijacked plane was coming right into their area, New York. And then another hijacked plane, flight 175, and they still don´t have a clue what´s happening.

"Real hijackers with "an incredible degree of organization or skill" would not have taken jets from Boston to hit New York, and given the NORAD 30 minutes and 50 minutes, respectively, to intercept them." - C.Valentine

Well, maybe if the security at Boston was especially poor. But these guys supposedly hijacked a plane out of Newark international airport as well.( Flight 93 ) Wouldn´t it make a lot more sense to hijack two planes out of Newark to use to hit the WTC ?? Those two planes would have been only ten minutes away from the target.

[Abe Linkman]

9. Very good points.

I tell ya, it's enough to baffle the curious. Let's see IF (and HOW)
the "Wacky Cave Man Did It" Conspiracy Theory supporters try to explain ("spin") what you said.

[medienanalyse]

10. do you have a link for

>>>the flight controllers at La Guardia were not told that a hijacked plane was coming right into their area, New York<<<

I am very interested in a link to put it together with

a) police taking over nashua
b) evacuation of Cleveland

On the one hand you must give over the plane from one atcc to the other which may result in a different transponder signal.

On the other hand the La Guardia could have found out themselves that something strange is coming towards them: Radar blip without transpondersignal.

So La Guardia ATCs were treated like i.e. the security of the WTC which was not alarmed AFTER #1 was hit - that is why i.e. the husband of Mrs. Breitweiser died.

[k-robjoe]

11. 119-questions.com

> do you have a link for "the flight controllers at La Guardia were not told that a hijacked plane was coming right into their area, New York"

I am concluding that they were not told, from the transcript that reveals that they didn´t know what was happening ;
In german, at : http://www.119-questions.com/# ( click : "updates and stories" )
Translated (sort of) in post 5 of this thread.

[k-robjoe]

3. arriving too soon?

Agree with the big picture. But one link in relation to the question if people wouldn´t notice jets arriving only minutes too late :
http://www.the-movement.com/air%20operation/Fighter.htm

[medienanalyse]

4. thank you but my eyes are untrained too

and so I do not believe any pics anymore which are said to be "evidence" for this or that. Why did nobody of the hundredthousands of people notice the fighter and ask questions about it? Two answers:
1) There was no plane at all, something is wrong with the sequence. But you believe in the authenticy, so

2) it is real but it was not noticed. Why. Different answers are posssible. The most plausible one is: this plane was not recognized as a fighter jet. Why?
2a) Because all these people could not differ between a fighter and a normal plane (because it was too far or they did not know)
2b) Because it was not a fighter jet but a plane which was acknowledged as a plane just heading towards one of the airports, anyway not a threat to the WTC (this must have been the question #1 in these minutes - are there more coming?)

To me 2b) seems to be a valid explanation. I would have expected to see an EC-130 as it was recognized by Manhattan people in these minutes. But in fact I can not exclude any other type and not clearly see what it is.
I just know: EC130 were everywhere around the terrorplanes. My pics which I obtain do NOT EXCLUDE the possibility that the foto shows an EC130. That is not positive, only not negative.