Pentagon Hole Explanation

[LARED]

From
Seconds from Disaster from National Geographic Channel


Interesting simulation of Pentagon Impact


Explanation of beam and column construction

So who's going to be the first to tell me Natonal Geographic is a tool of the BFEE?

[seemslikeadream]

1. National Geographic changing the name of the Persian Gulf

:shrug:

Persian Gulf will remain persian


To: National Geographic Society
Dear National Geographic Editors,

We the undersigned, through this letter, protest your irresponsible and unscientific actions.

This letter is in concern of publication of a map by your organization, which, according to all international organizations, is fraudulent and distorted, and its publication guarantees the violation of undeniable international legal rights.

It is a proven scholarly fact that the name of the Persian Gulf is a genuine name, with historical roots, and using any fraudulent names such as the “Arabian Gulf”, and islands “Occupied by Iran” is in fact inducing political animosity.

We did not expect National Geographic, as a prestigious international scientific institution, to ignore the proven obvious, and damage its own reputation on the basis of political intentions, and thus create an atmosphere of public mistrust in its content, and hurt the national pride of the millions of Persian speakers while doing so.

While announcing our disgust at such a heresy, we demand an immediate editorial review and correction of this publication by the National Geographic.

Sincerely,

The Undersigned


http://www.petitiononline.com/persian/petition.html

[LARED]

2. National Geographic responds like a credible organization

Naming controversy with Iran
The magazine has recently been accused by tens of thousands of its readers across the globe of failing to keep its objectives in focus in the names used on maps of Middle East in its 2005 atlas. In its newest atlas the National Geographic has labeled the islands of Greater and Lesser Tunbs and Abu Musa recognized as being "Occupied by Iran, Claimed by U.A.E.". National Geographic has also included alternate Arabic names for the Iranian islands of Lavan and Kish, and listed "Arabian Gulf" as an alternate name for the Persian Gulf. This resulted in heavy protests by many Iranians, most specially the Internet user community, which led to the Iranian government acting on the issue and banning the distribution of the society's publications in Iran.

National Geographic has since conceded that the use of the Arabian name "Qeys" for the island of Kish was inaccurate. It has also removed any allusions to the status of the three islands. In addition, "Arabian Gulf" has been relegated to a small note explaining: "Historically and most commonly known as the Persian Gulf, this body of water is referred to by some as the Arabian Gulf." These corrections have been made in the online atlas and it has promised to change future print versions accordingly. See Dispute over the name of the Persian Gulf.

http://www.answers.com/topic/national-geographic-society

Sorry, but National Geographic using Arabian Gulf instead of Persian Gulf is hardly evidence its not a credible organization.

So to the point, what do you think of the videos?

[ROH]

3. Why wasn't it prevented by standard operating procedures?

David Ray Griffin comments:
"Assuming that the strike was made by Flight 77 under the control of hijackers, why was it not prevented by standard operating procedures? To critics, this question seems even more powerful in relation to this strike because it occurred over a half hour after the second WTC tower was hit, so that the National Military Command Center at the Pentagon should have been in the highest possible state of alert, and also because the Pentagon is probably the most well-defended building on the face of the planet."

[LARED]

6. SOP's????

why was it not prevented by standard operating procedures?

What standard operating procedures are you talking about?

and also because the Pentagon is probably the most well-defended building on the face of the planet."

I've heard this often, but have never seen any evidence this is true. Do you have any?

[ROH]

9. The comments are from David Ray Griffin

http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2004/06/141355.php

David Ray Griffin refers to Nafeez Ahmed's section on "Standard Operating Procedures for Air Emergencies":
http://www.druckversion.studien-von-zeitfragen.net/Chapter%20V.htm

Edit: second reference URL

[Make7]

13. Would it be too much to ask....

...if you could post the quotes you are referring to instead of just some links? (Or at least a brief explanation.) It helps us dumb people figure out what it is that you wish to discuss.

Thanks,
Make7

[ROH]

17. The second link presents the author's comments

regarding the standard operating procedures for air emergencies, and his presentation cannot easily be summarized further.

Working from the assumption that the Pentagon was hit by Flight 77 under the control of highjackers, the conclusion of each of the linked authors (David Ray Griffin, Nafeez Ahmed) seems to be that this Pentagon strike would have been prevented *if* the standard operating procedures for air emergencies had been followed.

The question posed by David Ray Griffin is:
"Assuming that the strike was made by Flight 77 under the control of hijackers, why was it not prevented by standard operating procedures?"

Can you answer his question?

[Make7]

22. How's this for a brief explanation:

"...procedures...dictate that controllers immediately alert the military to scramble fighter craft if a plane deviates from its flight path and communication between the plane and controllers is blocked. This occurs whether or not the situation consists of a potential hijacking..."

If it is fair to use the Payne Stewart incident as an example of SOP, let's see what the article you linked to has to say:

“... from the official National Transportation Safety Board crash report: 9:19 a.m. :

“The flight departs.

“9:24: The Learjet’s pilot responds to an instruction from air traffic control.

“9:33: The controller radios another instruction. No response from the pilot. For 4 ½ minutes the controller tries to establish contact.

“9:38: Having failed, the controller calls in the military. Note that he did not seek, nor did he require, the approval of the President of the United States, or indeed anyone. It’s standard procedure, followed routinely, to call in the Air Force when radio contact with a commercial passenger jet is lost, or the plane departs from its flight path, or anything along those lines occurs.

“9:54: 16 minutes later—the F-16 reaches the Learjet at 46,000 feet and conducts a visual inspection. Total elapsed time: 21 minutes”

http://www.druckversion.studien-von-zeitfragen.net/Chapter%20V.htm

That said it was from the official NTSB report but if you check the footnote, it lists a secondary source. Here's the NTSB report:

... According to ATC radio transmissions, the flight departed MCO about 0919 EDT bound for DAL. At 0921:46 EDT, the flight contacted the Jacksonville Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) and reported climbing through an altitude of 9,500 feet to 14,000 feet.

At 0921:51 EDT, the controller instructed N47BA to climb and maintain FL 260. N47BA acknowledged the clearance by stating, "two six zero bravo alpha." At 0923:16 EDT, the controller cleared N47BA direct to Cross City and then direct to DAL. N47BA acknowledged the clearance. At 0926:48 EDT, N47BA was issued instructions to change radio frequency and contact another Jacksonville ARTCC controller. N47BA acknowledged the frequency change.

At 0927:10 EDT, N47BA called the Jacksonville ARTCC controller and stated that the flight was climbing through an altitude of FL 230. At 0927:13 EDT, the controller instructed N47BA to climb and maintain FL 390. At 0927:18 EDT, N47BA acknowledged the clearance by stating, "three nine zero bravo alpha." This was the last known radio transmission from the airplane. The sound of the cabin altitude aural warning was not heard on the ATC recording of this transmission.

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. About 0954 CDT, at a range of 2,000 feet from the accident airplane and an altitude of about 46,400 feet, the test pilot made two radio calls to N47BA but did not receive a response. About 1000 CDT, the test pilot began a visual inspection of N47BA. There was no visible damage to the airplane, and he did not see ice accumulation on the exterior of the airplane. Both engines were running, and the rotating beacon was on. He stated that he could not see inside the passenger section of the airplane because the windows seemed to be dark. Further, he stated that the entire right cockpit windshield was opaque, as if condensation or ice covered the inside. He also indicated that the left cockpit windshield was opaque, although several sections of the center of the windshield seemed to be only thinly covered by condensation or ice; a small rectangular section of the windshield was clear, with only a small section of the glare shield visible through this area. He did not see any flight control movement. About 1012 CDT, he concluded his inspection of N47BA and proceeded to Scott AFB, Illinois.

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

The important thing to notice here is the times:

09:33 EDT - radio communication lost
09:54 CDT - intercept plane within 2,000 ft of aircraft

That's not 21 minutes - that's an hour and 21 minutes.

Is that the standard time that was not achieved on 9/11/01? The first hijack was known at 8:20am, the Pentagon was hit at 9:38am. That's an hour and 18 minutes - still less than our baseline example of the Payne Stewart accident.

-Make7

[ROH]

27. "... about 20 minutes after ground controllers lost contact."

The following reports (Dallas Morning News, USA Today) are interesting, particularly with respect to the early stages of the emergency escorting.


http://www.wanttoknow.info/991026dallasmorningnews
----------------------------
Shooting down the plane "was never an option," Air Force spokesman Capt. Joe Della Vedova said. "I don't know where that came from."

Instead, according to an Air Force timeline, a series of military planes provided an emergency escort to the stricken Lear, beginning with a pair of F-16 Falcons from the Air National Guard at Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla., about 20 minutes after ground controllers lost contact.

An F-16 and an A-10 Warthog attack plane from Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., took up the chase a few minutes later and were trailing the Lear when it climbed abruptly from 39,000 to 44,000 feet at 9:52 a.m. CDT.

Fifteen minutes later, the F-16 intercepted the Lear, the pilot reporting no movement in the cockpit.

At 10:44 a.m., the fighters from Eglin diverted to St. Louis for fuel. Fifteen minutes later, four Air National Guard F-16s from Tulsa, Okla., took up the chase, accompanied by a KC-135 refueling tanker.

F-16s from Fargo, N.D., later scrambled to intercept the Lear jet, too. At noon Dallas time, the Fargo F-16s reported that the windows of the jet were fogged with ice and there was no evidence anyone was piloting the plane.

At 12:14, the Lear jetbegan to spiral. It crashed about six minutes later.
----------------------------


http://www.usatoday.com/sports/golf/stewart/stewfs13.htm
----------------------------
A preliminary chronology developed by the Air Force of events surrounding the crash Monday of a Learjet who passengers included professional golfer Payne Stewart. Material in quotations is verbatim from the chronology. All times are Eastern.

9:09 a.m. Plane leaves Orlando, Fla.

10:08 a.m. "FAA requested emergency escort." F-16 from Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., was airborne on routine mission when diverted to provide the initial escort.

10:52 a.m. "Aircraft jumped to 44,000." (Pentagon spokesman Kenneth Bacon said the plane was "porpoising," fluctuating between 22,000 and 51,000 feet. This may be because it was on auto pilot.)

11 a.m. "Emergency track has five souls on board. Still no contact."

11:14 a.m. Responsibility for escorting plane is transferred from Southeast Air Defense sector to Western Air Defense sector.

11:25 a.m. "Lear 35 tail number N47BA."

11:44 a.m. Escort fighter from Eglin heads to Scott Air Force Base, Ill., for refueling.

11:59 a.m. FAA reports that four F-16s from Tulsa, Okla., and a refueling tanker (KC-135) are ready to help escort. (Bacon said these F-16s never got closer than 100 miles to the Learjet).

12:03 p.m. Northeast Air Defense sector scrambles two F-16s from Fargo, N.D. (Bacon said an AWACS radar plane on an exercise north of Chicago was diverted to provide additional radar coverage in the event the plane crossed into Canada.)

12:13 p.m. Learjet estimated to have one hour of fuel remaining. "Flight path on 320 (degrees) heading over mostly sparsely populated area."

12:16 p.m. "Northeast Air Defense sector reports aircraft will run out of fuel in vicinity of Pierre, S.D."

12:50 p.m. "Second set of jets scrambles from Fargo."

12:54 p.m. Fargo fighters intercept Learjet.

1 p.m. F-16s report that Learjet's windows are fogged with ice. "No flight control movement noted. Fargo F-16s 30 minutes fuel remaining."

1:13 p.m. Second set of Fargo F-16s put on alert. (Bacon said they were armed.)

1:14 p.m. Western Air Defense sector reports Learjet "beginning to spiral."
----------------------------

[Make7]

33. Times

According to USA Today:

"10:08 a.m. (EDT) "FAA requested emergency escort." F-16 from Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., was airborne on routine mission when diverted to provide the initial escort." - http://www.usatoday.com/sports/golf/stewart/stewfs13.htm

The NTSB report says that communication with the airplane was lost at 9:33 a.m. EDT. That means it took the FAA 35 minutes to request an emergency escort. Is this the time we should use to compare with the response on 9/11/01? Okay...

Flight 77:

Last radio contact: 8:50 a.m.
NORAD notification: 9:24 a.m.
(http://billstclair.com/911timeline/main/flight77.html)

That's 34 minutes. One minute less than the Payne Stewart incident.

-Make7

[ROH]

52. Let's align the events in the reports...

You wrote: "The NTSB report says that communication with the airplane was lost at 9:33 a.m. EDT. That means it took the FAA 35 minutes to request an emergency escort. Is this the time we should use to compare with the response on 9/11/01?"

No. Let's examine the specific parts of the two reports again:


http://www.wanttoknow.info/991026dallasmorningnews
----------------------------
Shooting down the plane "was never an option," Air Force spokesman Capt. Joe Della Vedova said. "I don't know where that came from."

Instead, according to an Air Force timeline, a series of military planes provided an emergency escort to the stricken Lear, beginning with a pair of F-16 Falcons from the Air National Guard at Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla., about 20 minutes after ground controllers lost contact.

An F-16 and an A-10 Warthog attack plane from Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., took up the chase a few minutes later and were trailing the Lear when it climbed abruptly from 39,000 to 44,000 feet at 9:52 a.m. CDT.
----------------------------


http://www.usatoday.com/sports/golf/stewart/stewfs13.ht...
----------------------------
A preliminary chronology developed by the Air Force of events surrounding the crash Monday of a Learjet who passengers included professional golfer Payne Stewart. Material in quotations is verbatim from the chronology. All times are Eastern.

9:09 a.m. Plane leaves Orlando, Fla.

10:08 a.m. "FAA requested emergency escort." F-16 from Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., was airborne on routine mission when diverted to provide the initial escort.

10:52 a.m. "Aircraft jumped to 44,000." (Pentagon spokesman Kenneth Bacon said the plane was "porpoising," fluctuating between 22,000 and 51,000 feet. This may be because it was on auto pilot.)
----------------------------


Sections <a1> and <a2> (see notes below) are contemporaneous and clearly refer to an F-16 from Eglin Air Force Base, Fla. Note that the first report also mentions an A-10 Warthog, whereas the second report does not.

Sections <b1> and <b2> are contemporaneous (specifically referring to 9:52 a.m. CDT (in the first report) / 10:52 a.m. EDT (in the second report)) mentioning that the Lear climbs to 44,000 feet.

From the first report:
----------------------------
<a1> An F-16 and an A-10 Warthog attack plane from Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., took up the chase a few minutes later and <b1> were trailing the Lear when it climbed abruptly from 39,000 to 44,000 feet at 9:52 a.m. CDT.
----------------------------

From the second report:
----------------------------
<a2> 10:08 a.m. "FAA requested emergency escort." F-16 from Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., was airborne on routine mission when diverted to provide the initial escort.

<b2> 10:52 a.m. "Aircraft jumped to 44,000." (Pentagon spokesman Kenneth Bacon said the plane was "porpoising," fluctuating between 22,000 and 51,000 feet. This may be because it was on auto pilot.)
----------------------------


Now look at this earlier section from the first report:
----------------------------
Instead, according to an Air Force timeline, a series of military planes provided an emergency escort to the stricken Lear, beginning with a pair of F-16 Falcons from the Air National Guard at Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla., about 20 minutes after ground controllers lost contact.
----------------------------

Note that the second report does not mention the Air National Guard at Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla. The flight departed from Orlando, south-east of Tyndall Air Force Base, which is in turn south-east of Eglin Air Force Base.

Since <a1> and <a2> are contemporaneous and refer to the Eglin Air Force Base (*not* the Tyndall Air Force Base), this earlier section describes the prior actions, and mentions that the emergency escorting begins with "a pair of F-16 Falcons from the Air National Guard at Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla." occurring "about 20 minutes after ground controllers lost contact".

[Make7]

56. I don't get it.

Why is the FAA requesting emergency escort at 10:08 EDT (USA Today) if the plane was already intercepted at 9:53 EDT?

If the first escort begins with F-16's from Tyndall Air Force Base, why does USA Today say this:

"F-16 from Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., was airborne on routine mission when diverted to provide the initial escort"

Why does the official NTSB report not make any mention of an intercept until 10:52 EDT?

From a link you posted:

The well-known example of Payne Stuart’s Learjet also gives an idea of the acceptable time periods of a routine air response. On 11th September, there was virtually no air response at all:

"... from the official National Transportation Safety Board crash report: 9:19 a.m. :

"The flight departs.

"9:24: The Learjet's pilot responds to an instruction from air traffic control.

"9:33: The controller radios another instruction. No response from the pilot. For 4 ½ minutes the controller tries to establish contact.

"9:38: Having failed, the controller calls in the military. Note that he did not seek, nor did he require, the approval of the President of the United States, or indeed anyone. It’s standard procedure, followed routinely, to call in the Air Force when radio contact with a commercial passenger jet is lost, or the plane departs from its flight path, or anything along those lines occurs.

"9:54: 16 minutes later—the F-16 reaches the Learjet at 46,000 feet and conducts a visual inspection. Total elapsed time: 21 minutes"

http://www.druckversion.studien-von-zeitfragen.net/Chapter%20V.htm

Let's compare that to the actual NTSB report:
(note: I've changed the reference of all times to EDT and changed the text formatting for added clarity.)

...the flight departed MCO about 0919 EDT bound for DAL.

At 0921:46 EDT, the flight contacted the Jacksonville Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) and reported climbing through an altitude of 9,500 feet to 14,000 feet.

At 0921:51 EDT, the controller instructed N47BA to climb and maintain FL 260. N47BA acknowledged the clearance by stating, "two six zero bravo alpha."

At 0923:16 EDT, the controller cleared N47BA direct to Cross City and then direct to DAL. N47BA acknowledged the clearance.

At 0926:48 EDT, N47BA was issued instructions to change radio frequency and contact another Jacksonville ARTCC controller. N47BA acknowledged the frequency change.

At 0927:10 EDT, N47BA called the Jacksonville ARTCC controller and stated that the flight was climbing through an altitude of FL 230.

At 0927:13 EDT, the controller instructed N47BA to climb and maintain FL 390.

At 0927:18 EDT, N47BA acknowledged the clearance by stating, "three nine zero bravo alpha." This was the last known radio transmission from the airplane. The sound of the cabin altitude aural warning was not heard on the ATC recording of this transmission.

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 1052 EDT, 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.

About 1054 EDT, at a range of 2,000 feet from the accident airplane and an altitude of about 46,400 feet, the test pilot made two radio calls to N47BA but did not receive a response.

About 1100 EDT, the test pilot began a visual inspection of N47BA...

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

If the information in the first excerpt came from the NTSB report, why does it have an entry at 9:38am when there isn't one in the NTSB report? Why does it list the time when the military was contacted as 9:38am, but it was reported as 10:08am in USA Today?

Notice the wording of the first excerpt's 9:54am entry and compare it to the 1054 EDT (9:54am CDT) entry in the NTSB report. Is this describing the same intercept, but the first one's time wasn't changed to account for the time zone difference? Or did the NTSB forget to include the intercept that occured at 0954 EDT in their report?

-Make7

[ROH]

59. "... about 20 minutes after ground controllers lost contact."

It is possible that the secondary source simply made a CDT / EDT error. In any case those events occur *after* the earlier events described in the USA Today and Dallas Morning News reports.

The USA Today report (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/golf/stewart/stewfs13.htm) gives a fuller account of the early events, and the Dallas Morning News (http://www.wanttoknow.info/991026dallasmorningnews) has fuller information still on the early events, as quoted:
----------------------------
"... according to an Air Force timeline, a series of military planes provided an emergency escort to the stricken Lear, beginning with a pair of F-16 Falcons from the Air National Guard at Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla., about 20 minutes after ground controllers lost contact."
----------------------------

[Make7]

60. When an intercept might not really be an intercept.

"Pentagon officials said the military began its pursuit of the ghostly civilian aircraft at 10:08 a.m., when two Air Force F-16 fighters from Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida that were on a routine training mission were asked by the FAA to intercept it. The F-16s did not reach the Learjet, but an Air Force F-15 fighter from Eglin Air Force Base in Florida that also was asked to locate it got within sight of the aircraft..."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/oct99/crash26.htm

How could it have only taken 20 minutes when it was 35 minutes before a request for an escort was made? And when the planes from Tyndall tried to intercept, how long did it take them to not reach the aircraft?

-Make7  [i]test[/i]

[ROH]

62. Whatever we may decide regarding these several somewhat differing reports,

consider the wider subject of the September 11 flights and responses...


From http://11september-paxamericana.chez.tiscali.fr//Scene5.htm quoting the "Herald Tribune, 25.06.03":
---------------------------------------
"Almost 113 minutes elapsed between the time <...> Flight 11 lost contact and was hijacked at 8:13:31 until the time <...> Flight 93 crashed <...> at 10:06:05.

One hour and 53 minutes went by and the Air Force did not intercept one of the four planes. <...>

Why no reprimands or firings?

Why virtually no investigative reporting?

Why such a lack of cooperation from the Bush administration?"
---------------------------------------


Any answers to these three questions posed by the Herald Tribune?

[Make7]

63. You brought up the issue of standard operating procedures.

When questioned about it, you posted a link to an article that said:

"The well-known example of Payne Stuart's Learjet also gives an idea of the acceptable time periods of a routine air response."

The article then proceeds to give a time-line "from the official National Transportation Safety Board crash report."

If this truly is an acceptable example to give an idea of response times and the NTSB report is also an acceptable source, then we should use the NTSB's time-line which reports that it took one hour and twenty one minutes to intercept after losing radio contact.

Or is this not an acceptable example?
______________________________

"Why no reprimands or firings?

Why virtually no investigative reporting?

Why such a lack of cooperation from the Bush administration?"

Please don't keep me in suspense, post a link that explains what the standard procedures are for dealing with the set of circumstances outlined. And what exactly should have happened.

-Make7

[ROH]

64. Let's look at your own comments on NORAD notification...

Your own comments on the Lear jet were as follows:
------------------------------
According to USA Today:

"10:08 a.m. (EDT) "FAA requested emergency escort." F-16 from Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., was airborne on routine mission when diverted to provide the initial escort." - http://www.usatoday.com/sports/golf/stewart/stewfs13.ht...
The NTSB report says that communication with the airplane was lost at 9:33 a.m. EDT. That means it took the FAA 35 minutes to request an emergency escort.
------------------------------

However, examine the Washington Post article you also referenced (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/oct99/crash26.htm):
------------------------------
The FAA said air traffic controllers lost radio contact with the plane at 9:44 a.m., just after they had cleared the twin-engine jet to climb to 39,000 feet northwest of Gainesville, Fla. An FAA spokesman said that air traffic controllers noted "significant changes in altitude" by the plane, but that the aircraft's crew did not respond to repeated radio calls from the ground.
------------------------------

We read that the time for loss of radio contact was 9:44 a.m. according to your Washington Post reference, with NORAD notification occurring in 24 minutes.

The Dallas Morning News (http://www.wanttoknow.info/991026dallasmorningnews) stated:
------------------------------
"... about 20 minutes after ground controllers lost contact."
------------------------------

So the NORAD notification occurs in 24 minutes (according to the Washington Post) / after "about 20 minutes" (according to the Dallas Morning News).

Yet at a time of greatly heightened urgency (one WTC tower already hit by a plane, and the second WTC tower will be struck within this period), you have stated that the NORAD notification time regarding Flight 77 was 34 minutes.

Here are your own comments on this NORAD notification:
------------------------------
Flight 77:
Last radio contact: 8:50 a.m.
NORAD notification: 9:24 a.m.
(http://billstclair.com/911timeline/main/flight77.html)
That's 34 minutes.
------------------------------


Note that on the same website as the timeline you chose to reference above (http://billstclair.com/911timeline), we see "THE FAILURE TO DEFEND THE SKIES ON 9/11": http://billstclair.com/911timeline/main/essayairdefense.html


Now are you interested in the questions from the Herald Tribune, or not?
------------------------------
"Almost 113 minutes elapsed between the time <...> Flight 11 lost contact and was hijacked at 8:13:31 until the time <...> Flight 93 crashed <...> at 10:06:05.

One hour and 53 minutes went by and the Air Force did not intercept one of the four planes. <...>

Why no reprimands or firings?

Why virtually no investigative reporting?

Why such a lack of cooperation from the Bush administration?"
------------------------------

Can you answer these three questions posed by the Herald Tribune?

[Make7]

70. just save me the effort and tell me

ROH wrote in post #52:
...the emergency escorting begins with "a pair of F-16 Falcons from the Air National Guard at Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla." occurring "about 20 minutes after ground controllers lost contact".

ROH wrote in post #64:
So the NORAD notification occurs in 24 minutes (according to the Washington Post) / after "about 20 minutes" (according to the Dallas Morning News).

Which is it? Time to intercept or time to notification? It's all so confusing.

Why did the example in this article you linked to state that it took 21 minutes to intercept after losing radio contact? It also said it took 16 minutes to intercept after the military was notified.

But if, as you suggest the Dallas Morning News meant, the notification was about 20 minutes after radio contact was lost, then the time to intercept after notification would be about one minute. Is that right? I forget, when did the Dallas Morning News say the intercept occurred? Oh, yeah - here's what they wrote:

"Instead, according to an Air Force timeline, a series of military planes provided an emergency escort to the stricken Lear, beginning with a pair of F-16 Falcons from the Air National Guard at Tyndall Air Force Base, Fla., about 20 minutes after ground controllers lost contact.

An F-16 and an A-10 Warthog attack plane from Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., took up the chase a few minutes later and were trailing the Lear when it climbed abruptly from 39,000 to 44,000 feet at 9:52 a.m. CDT." - http://www.wanttoknow.info/991026dallasmorningnews

Interpret it however you want to.

Do you honestly think I need to defend an example that is inaccurate when you are the one that posted the article as an answer to a question in the first place?

Even if we were to go by the Washington Post's time of 24 minutes to notification, that just proves my point that the original example was incorrect. Unless, of course, you would like to try to convince me that the military intercepted the plane 3 minutes before being notified.

I think, in using the NTSB report, the original example was correct. I just find it unfortunate that it was misrepresented.
____________________

"Why no reprimands or firings?

Why virtually no investigative reporting?

Why such a lack of cooperation from the Bush administration?"
------------------------------

Can you answer these three questions posed by the Herald Tribune?"

Why would you think that I could?

Why don't you just save me the effort and tell me the answers already? Or better yet, just post a link to an article by David Rey Griffin.

-Make7

[ROH]

71. As I have already mentioned to you (see above messages)...

"It is possible that the secondary source simply made a CDT / EDT error. In any case those events occur *after* the earlier events described in the USA Today and Dallas Morning News reports."

We have seen several somewhat differing reports. For example, the Dallas Morning News report mentions an "A-10 Warthog attack plane", which other reports do not mention it. Was the A-10 Warthog attack plane deliberately omitted from other reports, was there a simple oversight, or was an A-10 Warthog attack plane not involved at all?

You wrote: "It's all so confusing." I think we agree that it is complex to unravel the actual events based upon the various reports we have found.

However, at the very least, I think we can also agree on the following point - a key point to emphasize based upon the reports of the Lear jet events and your own comments regarding Flight 77 is:
------------------------------
The NORAD notification on the Lear jet occurs in 24 minutes (according to the Washington Post) / after "about 20 minutes" (according to the Dallas Morning News).

Yet at a time of greatly heightened urgency (one WTC tower already hit by a plane, and the second WTC tower will be struck within this period), you have stated that the NORAD notification time regarding Flight 77 was 34 minutes.
------------------------------


The Herald Tribune commented:
------------------------------
"Why no reprimands or firings?

Why virtually no investigative reporting?

Why such a lack of cooperation from the Bush administration?"
------------------------------

and I wrote: "Can you answer these three questions posed by the Herald Tribune?"

You replied: "Why would you think that I could?"


It is possible that you cannot answer the questions posed by the Herald Tribune, but you may be able to make some constructive suggestions in reply. So let's simplify if we can and consider the specific subject of investigative reporting (as this is also related to the first question) and firstly the underlying basis of the question posed by the Herald Tribune:
Do you think that there should have been more investigative reporting, or you happy with the extent of the investigative reporting to date?

It's still a wide subject to consider. For some relevant comments, which suggest to me that more investigative reporting may have been useful, let's look at the timeline that you have referenced (http://billstclair.com/911timeline/main/timelineafter2001.html):
------------------------------
March 31, 2003:
The 9/11 Independent Commission has its first public hearing. The Miami Herald reports, "Several survivors of the attack and victims' relatives testified that a number of agencies, from federal to local, are ducking responsibility for a series of breakdowns before and during Sept. 11." <Miami Herald, 3/31/03>

The New York Times suggests that the Independent Commission would never have been formed if it were not for the pressure of the 9/11 victims' relatives. <New York Times, 4/1/03>

Some of the relatives strongly disagreed with statements from some commissioners that they would not place blame. For instance, Stephen Push states, "I think this commission should point fingers.... Some of those people are still in responsible positions in government. Perhaps they shouldn't be." <UPI, 3/31/03>

The most critical testimony comes from 9/11 relative Mindy Kleinberg, but her testimony is only briefly reported on by a few newspapers. <UPI, 3/31/03, Newsday, 4/1/03, New York Times, 4/1/03, New York Post, 4/1/03, New Jersey Star-Ledger, 4/1/03>

In her testimony, Kleinberg says, "It has been said that the intelligence agencies have to be right 100% of the time and the terrorists only have to get lucky once. This explanation for the devastating attacks of September 11th, simple on its face, is wrong in its value. Because the 9/11 terrorists were not just lucky once: they were lucky over and over again." She points out the inside trading based on 9/11 foreknowledge, the failure of fighters to catch the hijacked planes in time, hijackers getting visas in violation of standard procedures, and other events, and asks how the hijackers could have been lucky so many times. <Independent Commission, 3/31/03>
------------------------------

[Make7]

74. Why wasn't it prevented by standard operating procedures?

You entered the discussion with that question. When LARED asked you what SOP's you were talking about, you replied with links to articles that basically said (correct me if I'm wrong) that the planes should have been intercepted faster and that the Pentagon is protected from attack from the air.

The example used for a reasonable response time for an intercept was the Payne Stewart incident. One of those articles said that the military was notified in 5 minutes and the plane was intercepted in 21 minutes. By that measure, Sept. 11 was very deficient in response times. The only problem is that those times given for the Payne Stewart intercept are incorrect. Using the intercept time from the NTSB report and the notification time from multiple media accounts, the response times on Sept. 11 do not seem too far removed from what the Payne Stewart example says they should be.
____________________

"Yet at a time of greatly heightened urgency (one WTC tower already hit by a plane, and the second WTC tower will be struck within this period), you have stated that the NORAD notification time regarding Flight 77 was 34 minutes." - ROH

Why wasn't it prevented by standard operating procedures? - ROH

Which is it? Was it supposed to be prevented by SOP's? Or "greatly heightened urgency" procedures?

I thought we were discussing SOP's, like the air defense of the Pentagon. On that subject, I find the following disaster scenarios interesting:

The Oct. 24-26, 2000 Pentagon Mass Casualty Exercise, part of an annual emergency response rehearsal, envisioned a commercial airliner crashing into the Pentagon, killing 341 victims. The Pentagon is less than a mile from Reagan National Airport and is daily in the flight path of small commuter planes. Larger airliners generally fly to the east of the massive building over the Potomac River.
http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/20040422-090447-8354r.htm

Air Force Exercise Prepared Staff For Crash

While nothing could prepare the country for the events of Sept. 11, the Air Force medical staff had practiced for this type of situation. Dr. Carlton told U.S. MEDICINE that his team had run an exercise in May (2000) with a scenario in which a 757 crashes into the Pentagon. "We had worked out what would happen what was needed," he said.
http://www.usmedicine.com/article.cfm?articleID=270&issueID=31

If the Pentagon was protected from air attack, why are they running drills for when an aircraft crashes there?

I'm still trying to figure out what standard operating procedures were in place that day that you think were supposed to have prevented it.
____________________

The Herald Tribune commented:
------------------------------
"Why no reprimands or firings?

Why virtually no investigative reporting?

Why such a lack of cooperation from the Bush administration?"
------------------------------
Can you answer these three questions posed by the Herald Tribune?

I am not responsible for the actions of others, therefore I cannot directly answer the questions posed by the Herald Tribune.

As for my opinion, I think the people responsible for protecting America did not do a very good job. And if the Bush administration was truly concerned with protecting the American people he would have immediately started a thorough investigation into the events that day, what caused them, and how to protect from future threats. I also think the true failures that day were caused by the policies put in place by people (past and present) who had reached a level high enough in the government and in corporate America that the likelihood of any firings would have been almost zero. Reprimands would also have been extremely unlikely, however much they may have been deserved.

-Make7

[ROH]

76. Thank you for your investigations...

and your helpful information (particularly the specific links you have provided) for this discussion.

You wrote: "Which is it? Was it supposed to be prevented by SOP's? Or "greatly heightened urgency" procedures?"

First let's be clear about my comments:
===========================================
I think we can also agree on the following point - a key point to emphasize based upon the reports of the Lear jet events and your own comments regarding Flight 77 is:
------------------------------
The NORAD notification on the Lear jet occurs in 24 minutes (according to the Washington Post) / after "about 20 minutes" (according to the Dallas Morning News).

Yet at a time of greatly heightened urgency (one WTC tower already hit by a plane, and the second WTC tower will be struck within this period), you have stated that the NORAD notification time regarding Flight 77 was 34 minutes.
------------------------------
===========================================

I was suggesting (in broadening the discussion) that we could reasonably expect that response times would have been at least as good as SOPs under the circumstances that applied to Flight 77.

And now you have commented: "As for my opinion, I think the people responsible for protecting America did not do a very good job."


You wrote: "If the Pentagon was protected from air attack, why are they running drills for when an aircraft crashes there?"

Meyssan claims (with respect to September 11, 2001) that the Pentagon is protected by "five extremely sophisticated antimissile batteries". He states: "Contrary to the Pentagons claims, the military thus knew perfectly well that an unidentified vehicle was headed straight for the capitol. Yet the military did not react and the Pentagons anti-missile batteries did not function. Why? The close-range anti-aircraft defenses at the Pentagon are conceived to destroy missiles that attempt to approach. A missile should normally be unable to pass. As for a big Boeing 757-200, it would have strictly no chance. Whether an airliner or a missile, an explanation needs to be found."

So is Meyssan wrong? Is he giving out some disinformation?

[JackRiddler]

65. The NTSB report makes itself dubious...

What am I supposed to make of an official account so hazy that it doesn't bother to rationalize the time between time zones? This sure ain't a conspiracy - just bad writing, which I suppose supports incompetence paradigm.

The interception occurred over Florida, suggesting it indeed took 21 minutes, not 1:21.

However, Payne Stewart is one incident; it should not be our baseline.

We need a statistically valid sampling of air defense response times over a longer period; we do not have that baseline.

To quote myself:

1. Even before it became clear that the September 11 flights had been hijacked, or that the intent was to use these aircraft in kamikaze attacks, their diversions from flight plan should have activated routine responses for dealing with errant planes. Civilian and military regulations and longstanding working procedures for commercial passenger planes and other aircraft under Instrument Flight Rules ("IFR") call upon air traffic controllers under the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") to alert NORAD upon determining that a flight has veered significantly from the route assigned to it by controllers; has ceased responding to ground control; or is an "unknown." NORAD's role in that case is to issue "scramble orders" for interception of the errant flight by jet fighters from U.S. Air Force Bases ("AFBs"). Interception of an errant flight allows for visual reconnaissance of the situation and a graduated menu of possible further actions (these might include attempts at radio contact, looking into the cockpit of the errant aircraft, visual signals such as tipping wings, attempts to force a landing, etc.).

2. These standard procedures were activated on 67 occasions in the period from September 2000 to June 2001 (see, FAA news release, 8/9/02; AP, 8/13/02); and in 129 cases in the year 2000 (see, Calgary Herald, 10/13/01). These figures were released by FAA and NORAD officials to the press in 2002, but go completely unmentioned in The 9/11 Commission Report. The report does not indicate whether the Kean Commission requested comprehensive performance data on these prior interception orders from the military, or whether the military provided any such information. An analysis to determine the typical circumstances and response times for interception orders prior to 9/11 would require, in each case for which orders were issued, data on the times it took for air traffic control to determine that a flight was errant; for the FAA to alert NORAD; for NORAD to issue a scramble order and for the scrambled jet(s) to take to the air; and, subsequently, for the interception itself; as well as the location of the errant flight, and information on whether it was still broadcasting transponder data. (Transponder broadcasts from planes under IFR locate the craft and specify its altitude. When these are interrupted, craft can still be located by "skin paint" on primary radar, albeit without altitude data.) Also necessary would be data on cases of errant planes or unknowns in which no scramble orders were issued. Of special interest would be the prior performance within NORAD's Northeastern Air Defense Sector ("NEADS"), which is headquartered at Rome, New York. Such a cumulative analysis--with special attention to cases when passenger planes deviated from course in the air-traffic control zones within which the 9/11 attacks occurred--would provide indispensable context for serious research into the subject of air defense response on September 11. This data is currently unavailable to the public, and there is no indication such an analysis was undertaken by the Kean Commission.

MUCH MORE HERE:
http://justicefor911.org/iiA1_AirDefense_111904.php

[ROH]

68. An analysis that a detailed investigation would undertake...

You wrote:
"Of special interest would be the prior performance within NORAD's Northeastern Air Defense Sector ("NEADS"), which is headquartered at Rome, New York. Such a cumulative analysis--with special attention to cases when passenger planes deviated from course in the air-traffic control zones within which the 9/11 attacks occurred--would provide indispensable context for serious research into the subject of air defense response on September 11. This data is currently unavailable to the public, and there is no indication such an analysis was undertaken by the Kean Commission."

Thank you - very important point.

[hack89]

7. How do you think the Pentagon is defended from air attack? (NT)

[ROH]

12. See above message

regarding David Ray Griffin's comments and reference material.

[hack89]

28. Your example show a test pilot on a routine training flight..

being diverted after a lengthy period of time (one hour 20 minutes) to intercept a wayward Lear jet. It most likely was not even armed - I am not sure how this relates to protecting the Pentagon. Do you have
any other examples of armed jets intercepting suspicious airplanes over US territory? As far as I know, the Air Force routinely intercepts airplanes in the Air Defense Zones (ADZs) that lie beyond our borders IE they intercept airplanes approaching the US.

[ROH]

30. Specific comments from Griffin on the Pentagon defenses are as follows...

David Ray Griffin states:
"If we assume that the Pentagon was struck by Flight 77, we must ask how this could have occurred. The Pentagon is surely the best defended building on the planet, for three reasons. First, it is only a few miles from Andrews Air Force Base, which has at least three squadrons that keep fighter jets on alert at all times to protect the nation’s capital. To be sure, part of the official story is that Andrews was not keeping any fighters on alert at that time. But as I argued in my critique of The 9/11 Commission Report, that claim is wholly implausible. <31>

Second, the US military has the best radar systems in the world. One of its systems, it has bragged, "does not miss anything occurring in North American airspace." This system is also said to be capable of monitoring a great number of targets simultaneously, as would be necessary in the case of a massive missile attack. <32> Given that capability, the official story, according to which Flight 77 flew toward the Pentagon undetected for 40 minutes, is absurd, especially at a time when the Pentagon knew the country was under attack. Any unauthorized airplane coming towards the Pentagon would have been detected and intercepted long before it got close.

Third, the Pentagon is ringed by anti-missile batteries, which are programmed to destroy any aircraft entering the Pentagon’s airspace, except for any aircraft with a US military transponder.<33> If, by some fluke, Flight 77 had entered the Pentagon’s airspace, it could have escaped being shot down only if officials in the Pentagon had deactivated its anti-aircraft defenses."

http://www.911citizenswatch.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=535&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0 details Griffin's references.


Regarding the wayward Lear Jet, my earlier message above quotes two reports (Dallas Morning News, USA Today) on the timings of the emergency escorting.

[hack89]

32. Griffin is wrong.

1.The military search radar systems such as Pave Paws are oriented to look out out the United States - that is where the threat is. There are air traffic control radars at large military air bases but no long range surveillance radars. What point is there in serveilling the continental USA when the FAA has complete coverage? It would be a monumental waste of money and people. There may be military radar coverage at high value targets post 9/11 but not before.

2. "the Pentagon is ringed by anti-missile batteries, which are programmed to destroy any aircraft entering the Pentagon’s airspace, except for any aircraft with a US military transponder" is nonsense on many levels. First, the Pentagon is right next to a major civilian airport whose airplanes fly within hundreds of yards of the Pentagon hundreds of times daily. These airliners do not have military transponders - how come the automated defense system hasn't shot down one of these planes? Surely over the years at least one has strayed off course and passed over the Pentagon. Secondly, Griffen has no understanding of surface to air missiles. A missile big enough to destroy an airliner is a big missile - a Patriot would be the best example. A Patriot missile battery takes up a lot of real estate - radars, missile launchers and control facilities. How do you hide them in such a crowded metropolitan area as Arlington? I challenge you to show me any evidence of missile sites around the Pentagon. Patriot missiles are also long range missiles - they have a significant minimum range inside of which it can't intercept a target. In order for Patriots to protect the Pentagon, they would have to be located several miles away in the middle of very dense urban development. If Patriot missiles are remove from the equation, you are left with short range, shoulder launched Stinger missiles that could be fired from the roof of the Pentagon. The problem here is that the Stinger has a 7 pound warhead. This tiny warhead will not stop a 767 heading at you at full speed. There were numerous reports of US tactical jets being hit by Iraqi shoulder fired missiles and still being able to fly back to their bases. Such missiles will protect the Pentagon from a Piper Cub but not from a 767.

3. As to the Lear, my point is that it did not represent SOPs but was an exception to Air Force policy. The Air Force has intercepted hundreds of suspicious planes, but only in the Air Defense Zones of which there is not one that covers the US land mass.

[DulceDecorum]

47. Since the Pentagon is not protected,

at least, not according to you,
OSAMA CAN HIT IT AGAIN.
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/2229902308

Ooops.
Pardon me.
http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level.php?cat=Politics&loid=8.0.160970646&par=0
Abu Musab al-Zarkawi has now said that
he will refrain from setting his one good foot
in the House of Gannon-iniquity.
http://rawstory.com/exclusives/byrne/secret_service_gannon_424.htm

The Pentagon can now afford to reduce their budget on at least one item.
http://www.consumermedhelp.com/Attends1.html

[hack89]

51. I did not say that the Pentagon was not protected....

I said that Griffin had his facts wrong. I have no idea how the Pentagon is protected - but then neither do you.

[TomClash]

75. Hmmm

I can only comment on number 2. I think you're right about automation. But Pats are new. Think old, real old.

[hack89]

82. Think Patriot PAC-3 Think real new (NT)

[DulceDecorum]

48. If the Pentagon cannot frickin defend ITSELF

then why does ANYONE in America think that
the Incredible (and we DO mean INCREDIBLE) Penta-generals
are going to be able to defend ANYONE?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/04/20050427-1.html

Golly Gosch!!
Dubya himself has now acquired guards that no-one in America can identify.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/04/24/secret_service_eyes_volunteer_who_tossed_3_from_bush_event/

I guess THAT tells us all just how much faith HE has in the Pentagon
when it comes to his own personal safety.

[JackRiddler]

66. Hm, apparently it's not...

which is why the 9/11 scenario was rehearsed as a "Mass Casualty Exercise" at the Pentagon in October 2000, complete with a paper model of a passenger plane set aflame by a lighter at the command center.

As the U.S. military press covered it:

http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/Contingency_Planning.html

Contingency planning Pentagon MASCAL exercise simulates
scenarios in preparing for emergencies
Story and Photos by Dennis Ryan
MDW News Service
Click on image to view article's photos

Washington, D.C., Nov. 3, 2000 — The fire and smoke from the downed passenger aircraft billows from the Pentagon courtyard. Defense Protective Services Police seal the crash sight. Army medics, nurses and doctors scramble to organize aid. An Arlington Fire Department chief dispatches his equipment to the affected areas.

Don Abbott, of Command Emergency Response Training, walks over to the Pentagon and extinguishes the flames. The Pentagon was a model and the "plane crash" was a simulated one.

http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/Contingency_Planning.html

But hey, "no one could have imagined" planes would be used as weapons, right? Rice and Rumsfeld both said so...

And good thing Hani "Superpilot" Hanjour took a difficult maneuver on his first-ever 757 flight to assure a ground-level crash on the just-renovated (against terrorist attack) nearly empty side of the Pentagon!

[hack89]

84. The Pentagon is within spitting distance of a major airport..

with hundreds of airplane flying within a hundred yards on a daily basis.
Wouldn't a reasonable worst case disaster drill be an airplane accidentally crashing into the Pentagon due to bad weather or mechanical malfunction? It would be a logical drill to test your procedures and to practice coordination with local emergency services.

[Project_Willow]

4. I didn't realize

that wings had hinges on them like that! Is that so they can fold 'em up and put 'em away at night???
:sarcasm:

Interesting simulation of Pentagon Impact:

:rofl:

[DulceDecorum]

44. .... about those folding wings,

they actually do exist.
Yup.
Since World War Two and maybe even before that.

BRITAIN
In June 1943 the RN began receiving the Seafire Mk. III. This was powered by a Melin 55 engine and, at last, had FOLDING WINGS. Basic specifications for the Seafire LF Mk. III included a top speed of 348 mph at 6,000 feet, climb to 5,000 feet in 1.9 minutes, service ceiling of 24,000 feet, and range of 513 miles with an external fuel tank.
<snip>
The last production Spitfires were the Mk. 21, 22, and 24. The Equivalent Navy models were the Seafire F Mk. 45, 46, and 47. The Seafire Mks. 46 and 47 came with a contra-rotating propeller to negate the tendency to swing on takeoff. None of these Spitfire and Seafire models were produced in large numbers. All came with a teardrop canopy, and for the first time the wing was redesigned. The new wing was similar in plan, but was stronger, carried more fuel, housed a longer landing gear (which allowed a larger diameter propeller), and carried four 20mm cannon. The Seafire Mks. 46 and 47 had improved FOLDING WINGS, while the Mk. 45 had fixed wings. The Seafire 47 served in the Korean War. Top speed of the Spitfire Mk. 22 was 450 mph and best climb rate was 4,900 ft./min.

With these models the Spitfire had reached the end of its long career. The first Mk. 21's entered service in April 1945; the last Mk. 24's were delivered in March 1948. The war was over and the jet age had begun. A total of about 22,800 Spitfires and Seafires of all types had been produced.
http://www.chuckhawks.com/spitfire.htm


USA
.... The subsequent F4F-4, incorporating several improvements including FOLDING WINGS, six guns and self-sealing fuel tanks, was delivered in November 1941. It was then that the name "Wildcat" was first given to the F4F. As war raged around the world, the Wildcat's reputation and utilization grew immensely. It flew with the US Navy and US Marines in all of the major Pacific battles, and in North Africa with the Navy.
http://www.planesoffame.org/airshow05-performers.php

MCDONNELL DOUGLAS F/A-18C HORNET:
wingspan with AAMs 12.31 meters 40 feet 5 inches
wingspan (FOLDED) 8.38 meters 27 feet 6 inches
http://www.vectorsite.net/avhorn1.html

The Navy relies on the F/A-18C Hornet primarily as a flightier/attack aircraft. Operating from aircraft carriers, it has great speed and agility.
It's two powerful F404-GE-402 turbos lets it speed along at Mach 1.8 with a ceiling of 50,000 feet and a range of 700 miles.
http://www.abacuspub.com/fsd/catalog/s518.htm

And since we are also interested in missiles,
let us have a look at the Harpoon.

...The missile flies at a low cruise altitude, and at a predetermined distance from the expected target position, its AN/DSQ-28 J-band active radar seeker in the nose is activated to acquire and lock on the target. The radar switch-on distance can be set to lower or higher values, the former requiring a more precisely known target location but reducing the risk to be fooled by enemy ECM. An alternative launch mode is called BOL (Bearing-Only Launch). In this mode, the missile is launched in the general direction of the target, and its radar activated from the beginning to scan for the target in a +/- 45° sector in front of the flight path. Once a target has been located and the seeker locked, the xGM-84A missile climbs rapidly to about 1800 m before diving on the target ("pop-up manoeuver"). The 221 kg (488 lb) WDU-18/B penetrating blast-fragmentation warhead (in the WAU-3(V)/B warhead section) is triggered by a time-delayed impact fuze.


But the Coalition did NOT invent the folding wing.
No.
Not at all.
When the US had learned the "secret" of the Zero new aircraft such as the Grumman Hellcat and Vought Corsair were introduced, planes that outperformed the Zero in every way but maneuverability. To correct that shortcoming, US pilots had to apply the correct tactics. The result was that the US Navy's 1:1 kill ratio suddenly jumped to better than 10:1. However Japanese development did not remain static - newer planes like the George were excellent fighters and a match for the later US models.
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Mitsubishi-Zero

So, if anyone sneers at you
for suggesting that the plane,
or missile,
or-whatever-it-was-that-hit-the-Pentagon
had wings that folded like a Swiss Army knife,
show them these links.

[Bolo Boffin]

5. :chuckle:

LARED, don't you know that the National Geographic provided a bogus field trip, complete with imaginary middle schoolers and teacher/chaperones, in order to lend credence to the false flag operation known as Flight 77? Of course, they're a tool of the BFEE!

After all, they get major funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting for all those TV specials they produce! That's a clear motive for their involvement - ante up the fake field trip or lose funding! Rather ingenious of the plotters, don't you think?

Seriously, though: that's a remarkable set of images and videos. So the A-E Drive hole was punched out, not by the engines, but by the pressure waves? Wow...

[LARED]

8. Pressure waves

actually make a lot of sense. Pressure waves are very interesting. I recently have started grad school and a professor is working in thermo-acoustic energy.

He did not work on this project acoustics, but was involved in studying acoustics for different applications.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

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

[DulceDecorum]

50. Oh my! The National Geographic provided a bogus field trip??

Were they paid by Ketchum?
Or is it Abramoff that we should thank?

How much did that bogusness cost the American taxpayer?
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/031305Z.shtml

Date: 23 July 2002
C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
<snip>
On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1593607,00.html

On the other hand,
maybe Dubya did us all a favor by destroying the PR industry.
Or at least smacking it a good one.
http://hnn.us/articles/10144.html

[Bolo Boffin]

57. Yes, DD, to keep their PBS funding.

You see, the National Geographic is actually the BFEE's secret cover story for all the secret planning they need to do. They go all over the world and provide the perfect cover story when they get there - "Oh, we're just the National Geographic, and we're here to take a couple of pictures."

I understand that the National Geographic isn't listed in the SSN national database. That certainly does imply something, don't you think?

[DulceDecorum]

58. Most certainly.

http://bravo411.blogspot.com/2005/05/usweb-remakes-art-of-shill-into-art-of.html

[spooked911]

10. That's really interesting, thanks. But there are a few problems.

1) the plane goes well into the building before exploding. If this is accurate, then this means the famous pentagon security camera video with the explosion has a couple of seconds missing-- several frames have to be missing.

2) if the plane shredded and blew up once it got INSIDE, how did so much debris get carried OUTSIDE?

3) the shockwave theory is nice, but it fails to account for two things:
a) there wasn't simply open space with beams where the plane went in-- there were lots and lots of separate rooms, with concrete walls between.
b) the "path of least resistance" would have been OUT the hole the plane made coming in!

So, I am simply not convinced by this. But it is a nice try!

I just love how these people are so creative in these theories but refuse to believe something else might have hit the pentagon.

[LARED]

11. Something else?

The theory the guy presents has some merits. And I believe at a minimum resolves some of the hole puzzle. Without going into detail, your problems qualify as a nice try as well.

Frankly, there is no reason to believe for a second that something else hit the Pentagon. That notion is so far fetched (based on easily available evidence) that no serious person can really hold that position.

I'm not trying to offend you, but face the facts, flight 77 hit the pentagon.

[demodewd]

14. inferno location

If the plane exploded well inside the building why do we have a light colored inferno located at the very front of the facade spilling out onto the lawn?

[LARED]

15. Because

when the aircraft enter the building it made a hole where the flames can exit the building?

[demodewd]

16. true but..

True. But the main inferno is located at the very front of the building.This is obvious.

[LARED]

26. I must ask

This is obvious

What do you mean by "this"? And it is obvious to whom?

IOW's, what in the world are you talking about?

[demodewd]

34. incineration

The tree located just outside the building was completely incinerated. The blast was initiated at the plane's immediate contact with the building. This is why you see the huge extremely hot inferno at the very fore of the building. It is highly improbable that there would have been DNA recovered from this inferno area. Firemen have stated that they wre unable to enter that area for three hours because of the intensive heat.Compare that to the WTC1 entry wound where people were seen standing at the very edge of the scar shortly after the plane's entrance.

[meppie-meppie not]

72. self delete

[meppie-meppie not]

73. no it didn't and "no serious person could hold that position". n't

[Make7]

18. "there are a few problems"

spooked911 wrote:
1) the plane goes well into the building before exploding. If this is accurate, then this means the famous pentagon security camera video with the explosion has a couple of seconds missing-- several frames have to be missing.

2) if the plane shredded and blew up once it got INSIDE, how did so much debris get carried OUTSIDE?

3) the shockwave theory is nice, but it fails to account for two things:

a) there wasn't simply open space with beams where the plane went in-- there were lots and lots of separate rooms, with concrete walls between.
b) the "path of least resistance" would have been OUT the hole the plane made coming in!

1. Have you studied the pentagon security camera footage? There are missing frames. There is quite a bit of time between the released frames.
   http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/pentagon/video.html


2. There was debris outside because when a plane strikes a object that resists the plane's path of motion, parts of the plane get crushed, torn, and broken as it continues its forward movement against the resistance of that object. (It also looks as if there was an explosion that might cause debris to be scattered.)



3. a) There were concrete walls in between rooms in the interior of the building? Could you share the source of that information with us? How many concrete walls were there in the path of the plane?
   b) Based on what model?

-Make7

[demodewd]

19. re: debris

There was debris outside because when a plane strikes a object that resists the plane's path of motion, parts of the plane get crushed, torn, and broken as it continues its forward movement against the resistance of that object. (It also looks as if there was an explosion that might cause debris to be scattered.)

I agree with you here but then why aren't there any reported human debris outside?

[spooked911]

20. exactly!

[Make7]

23. Based on the size of the hole...

...in the wall of the Pentagon, it looks like most of the fuselage probably went inside the building. Since the passengers were in the fuselage, that's where I would expect to find them.

-Make7

[demodewd]

25. it should have penetrated well into the building but didn't

The speed and volition of the plane should have permitted at least part of the fuselage to easily access a number of the rings before the subsequent ignition of the fuel.This I believe did not happen because the the plane was triggered to ignite via a bomb and or shaped charges upon immediate contact with the building. There are no recognizable photographed fuselage parts in the A-E drive. Yet we have a nine foot high concentric hole blown out of the C ring wall leading to the A-E drive. This could not have been caused by a severely mulilated and shaved off or radically compressed fuselage,nor the landing gear nor an engine.



The main inferno is centered at the very front of the building leading out onto the lawn again suggesting that the initial blast took place there. One tree located immediately outside the building was completely incinerated . The fire burned with amazing heat and intensity with yellow coloration suggestive of something other than jet fuel.

[Make7]

35. fuel fires

The fuel tanks are in the wings. Perhaps they broke open when the plane hit the building. Maybe the fuel started on fire when this happened.

It is possible that the main part of the fire is at the entry hole, but it is impossible to know how big the fire is inside the building from a photo taken at a distance. The main inferno might be inside. The fuel would almost certainly have spread out both outside and inside.

How does blowing up the plane with bombs upon impact with the building explain the hole to the A-E drive?

-Make7

[demodewd]

37. IMHO

The fuel tanks are in the wings. Perhaps they broke open when the plane hit the building. Maybe the fuel started on fire when this happened.

IMHO the initial blast was from shaped charges or a bomb in the plane or set off just inside the building,thus the light yellow coloration at first with the explosion. This to me explains why so much of the fuel was pushed out over the facade and roof.

{i]It is possible that the main part of the fire is at the entry hole, but it is impossible to know how big the fire is inside the building from a photo taken at a distance. The main inferno might be inside. The fuel would almost certainly have spread out both outside and inside.

From photos that I have seen in the C-ring north of the plane's entry point and around that hole,it is surprising how little fire and smoke damage there is.There seems to be extensive fire damage south of the entry point.Again,I think this plays in to a blast preceding the plane's fuel ignition.

How does blowing up the plane with bombs upon impact with the building explain the hole to the A-E drive?

The hole has been explained by being caused by a missile though I tend to support the idea of shaped charges implanted in the plane's cabin. http://eric.bart.free.fr/iwpb/

[hack89]

38. Shaped charges make little holes.

They focus their energy into a narrow jet that burns through metal. A good rule of thumb is that the jet is approximately one seventh the width of the shaped charge. The hole in the E ring is at least 6 feet wide - that would require a 40 foot shaped charge. Is this what you really believe?

[Make7]

53. I'm not quite understanding your theory.

Most of the fire may have been at the entry point to the building, but if that was ignited by explosives on the plane, are you saying that there was a second set of explosives that went off after the initial impact to cause the hole?

-Make7

[philb]

78. Did you see the discussion of the color of the fire? too red for gas fire?

Has anyone followed up on this? I'm new to this list. But I was on another one.

There are a lot of pictures of the fire being put out,
but for some reason the Pentagon only released very partial pictures of the original explosion. Which seen like they may be doctored according to some; or at least missing frames.

But didn't even these imply a missile rather than a plane?

[demodewd]

81. philb

I find this site interesting. What do you think?

http://eric.bart.free.fr/iwpb/

[spooked911]

21. We agree on the missing frames-- why were they deleted?

I understand the explsoion would carry some debris out. But so much debris and so far when the explosion was mostly inside according to the video? And why were no human remains carried outside even though the fuselage was clearly shattered as fuselage piece flew out?

As far as point 3a-- there were lots of concrete walls:


Point 3b-- common sense would say that the path of least resistance is out the hhole that was already made. Why would pressure waves make new holes if there was already a huge entry hole?

[Make7]

24. Was wasn't the video released?

I think parts of the plane were crushed and shattered on impact. Some pieces broke off of the plane as it went inside the Pentagon. I don't think any of the resulting explosions are the primary cause of debris found outside. Most of the fuselage went inside the building, so that's where the passengers would likely be found.

How can you tell what the interior walls are made out of from a picture? Like the room right behind the CAT, what are those walls made out of? How can you tell?

If there is an explosion inside a building, the pressure waves would generally radiate out in all directions. The waves going away from the side of the entry hole would have to go somewhere in that direction.

-Make7

[spooked911]

29. Reply

Pieces of the fuselage-- the painted part form the front of the plane were found on the pentagon lawn. That part of the plane must have blown up very strongly to go outside. So why not the passnegers?

The pentagon is an old building, it had concrete walls, you can see multiple walls on the first floor.

Your last point about the pressure waves doesn't make sense to me.

[Make7]

36. Why would it have to be caused by an explosion?

Is that the only way can debris can be formed? Wouldn't just the physical impact of a speeding plane and a building cause parts to break off? Especially the outer skin of the plane that made direct contact with the building.
__________

I can see walls in the picture. How can I tell that they are concrete?
__________

Imagine a square room with a hole on the left side. Now imagine a bomb goes off in the middle of the room. This causes high pressure waves to radiate out in all directions from the middle of the room. The waves going to the right are going to impact the right side of the room. If they have enough pressure to make a hole in the right wall, they aren't going to bounce off the wall and go out the hole on the left side of the room just because it's there.

-Make7

[LARED]

31. Because pressure waves don't work that way

common sense would say that the path of least resistance is out the hhole that was already made. Why would pressure waves make new holes if there was already a huge entry hole?

Think of a pressure wave as a billion ping ping balls 1/10,000th size of a pin point pulsed out in a vector (ie they have magnitude and direction). They don't seek the path of least resistance, they deflect around based on the shape of the container.

[DulceDecorum]

40. From evaporation to pressure waves.

What of the Kevlar and the magnificent windows?
Are they susceptible to pressure waves?

What about OTHER PLANE CRASHES?
Do THEY generate pressure waves?
And why does the Pentagon NOT have any seismic activity that corresponds to a plane crash?

[LARED]

41. DD, it's such a pleasure to 'see' you back in the forum

What of the Kevlar and the magnificent windows?

Is there a specific question about the Kevlar and windows?

Are they susceptible to pressure waves?

What do you mean by susceptible?

Other plane crashes????

Do THEY generate pressure waves?

Any explosion generates a pressure wave.

And why does the Pentagon NOT have any seismic activity that corresponds to a plane crash?

Was there supposed to be seismic activity? I can think of a few reason why there was none verse the WTC's, but you know we have gone over this any number of times. So is there a point to your questioning?

[DulceDecorum]

45. LARED, you know that it is the absolute truth

when I say,
I wish I could say the same.

[LARED]

46. I really did miss you

You provide a truly unique view on 9/11. I can hardly ever figure out exactly what that view is, but hey, that's part of the challenge

[DulceDecorum]

49. Your job is safe.

[Make7]

54. Are you saying you are both spies? eom.

[DulceDecorum]

55. No.

[MrSammo1]

42. I like

how they left the vertical stabilizer out!

And the SIMULATION is about as wrong as it gets!

The physics of the WTC impacts prvoe this!

[LARED]

43. Really????????

And the SIMULATION is about as wrong as it gets!

And you know this is true how?

The physics of the WTC impacts prvoe this!

Again, how does it do this?

[yodermon]

61. Enough chit-chat.

Does the Nat'l Geographic explain the UNDAMAGED GLASS WINDOWS directly above the entry point of the "757", exactly where the tail fin should have entered?

These pictures should be presented a priori in any Flight-77 debate. Who cares what the National Geographic and their computer simulations say, when direct photographic evidence is right here in front of your nose?











Link to very large image

(all images from http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/flight77/building.html )

And PS: why is the lawn undamaged?

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

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

[Borg]

69. Lamp-posts in front of the building

I'm searching for the first issue of the pictures (web or newspaper), which demonstrates the flying lane through the lamp-posts between the Pentagon and highway.



I would like to know the date and the source.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

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

[philb]

79. And there's a report somewhere that says box being carried is wing of smal

small plane? Has that been followed up on here? Is there evidence regarding what was in the big box being carried off? or was it a wing rather than a box?

[spooked911]

80. I never heard that and I have looked into the Pentagon hit a lot

I tend to doubt that it is a small wing, I doubt it was a small plane that hit the pentagon.

[philb]

83. Have the Pentagon articles on Physics911 page been discussed here? link

The Missing Wings- A. K. Dewdney and G. W. Longspaugh
http://physics911.ca/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3

Physical and Mathematical Analysis of the Pentagon Crash by Gerard Holmgren http://physics911.ca/modules/news/article.php?storyid=13