Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Too Far,Too Slow,Too Late

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
demodewd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-09-03 10:34 PM
Original message
Too Far,Too Slow,Too Late
Pentagon says 911 Interceptors flew:
Too Far, too slow, too late
by William Thomas
www.globalresearch.ca 19 November 2003
The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/THO311B.html


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It happens all the time. When a small private plane recently entered the 23-mile restricted ring around the U.S. Capitol, two F-16 interceptors were immediately launched from Andrews Air Force Base, just 10 miles away. In a similar episode, a pair of F-16 "Fighting Falcons" on 15-minute strip alert was airborne from Andrews just 11 minutes after being notified by the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) of a Cessna straying towards the White House.

These were well-practiced routines. With more than 4,500 aircraft continuously sharing U.S. airspace, between September 2000 and June 2001 the Pentagon launched fighters on 67 occasions to escort wayward aircraft.

But on Sept 11, 2001, NORAD and the FAA ignored routine procedures and strict regulations. In response to a national emergency involving hijacked airliners as dangerous as cruise missiles, interceptors launched late from distant bases flew to defend their nation at a fraction of their top speeds.

WHAT NORAD KNEW A recently resurfaced NORAD news bulletin released seven days after Sept. 11 explains that America's aerial defenders were slow to counter rapidly developing air attacks because they didn't hear from the FAA that American Airlines Flight 11 had been hijacked until 8:40 that fateful morning.

But at the National Military Command Center (NMCC) in the basement of the Pentagon, Air Force staff officers monitoring every inch of airspace over the northeastern seaboard would have caught that first hijacking when Flight 11's identification transponder stopped transmitting at 8:20 - automatically triggering a radar alarm.

With their capability to monitor developing "situations" by tapping into military and civilian radars, U.S. military commanders would have also seen Flight 175 turn abruptly south 25 minutes later - just as they had watched on radar in October 1999 when pro golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet abruptly departed its flight path while enroute o Dallas.

In that legendary intercept, a fighter jet out of Tyndall, Florida was diverted from a training flight to escort the Lear, whose pilot had become incapacitated, trapping Stewart in the stratosphere. An F-16 was reportedly sitting off the left wingtip of Payne's pilotless business jet within 19 minutes of the FAA alert.

If NORAD had been as quick to scramble or divert airborne fighters on Sept. 11, two "anti-terrorist" F-15's on armed alert could have been sent south from Otis Air Force Base on Cape Cod. Flying at full afterburners without edging over the Atlantic to disperse their sonic footprint, two of the fastest fighters on the planet would have broken a few windows. But all the glass in the Twin Towers might have stayed intact had the "fast-movers" intercepted Flight 11 over the Hudson Rive at least six minutes from Manhattan.

NO HURRY SAYS NORAD Instead, in a stunning admission that received little press scrutiny at the time, NORAD noted that for all interceptions flown against the hijackers on Sept. 11, "Flight times are calculated at 9 miles per minute or .9 Mach." In other words, every interception flown by the world's hottest air-combat aircraft was flown at less than a third of the planes' top speed.

A Defense Department manual insists, "In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA." To make this happen, the Federal Aviation Administration permanently posts a liaison officer in the Pentagon air defense room.

Yet, according to NORAD, after air traffic controllers realized that Flight 11 had been hijacked, 38 vital minutes passed before a pair of F-15's were scrambled from Otis. As they lifted off, American Airlines Flight 11 struck the North Tower of the World Trade Center, 153 air miles away as a Falcon flies.

United Airlines Flight 175 was still 20 minutes out.

"The F-15 pilots flew ''like a scalded ape, topping 500 mph but were unable to catch up to the airliner," Maj. Gen. Paul Weaver later told reporters.

Scalded apes? Airliners fly at 500 mph. An F-15 can fly almost four-times faster.

STEP ON IT One of the Otis intercept pilots dubbed "Duff", later lamented: "We've been over the flight a thousand times in our minds and I don't know what we could have done to get there any quicker."

For starters, he and his wingman could have tried pushing their twin throttles fully forward. Instead of flying two-and-a-half times faster than a bullet, "Nasty" and "Duff" drove their expensive air superiority fighters at a leisurely 447-mph - supposedly to intercept a Boeing 767 flying 43 mph faster! Utilizing only 27% power, the F-15's were "eight minutes/71 miles" away, according to NORAD, when Flight 175 struck the South Tower with 56 souls and more than ten tons of fuel onboard.

HONOR THE THREAT With both Trade Towers burning, and hijacked United Flight 93 shadowed by a circling F-16 over Pennsylvania, American Airlines Flight 77 was the only threat left in the sky. When that Boeing 757 silenced its transponder signal, made a U-turn over Kentucky and headed directly for the White House and the Pentagon, one billion viewers riveted to the big networks knew this was a kamikaze run.

With no other bogeys on eastern seaboard scopes, air combat doctrine dictates that the two unemployed Otis F-15s already in the area be redirected to "honor the threat" of an incoming flying bomb, 330 miles out. Even loafing along, the fighters would have more than 20 minutes to confront Flight 77 before it neared the Pentagon.

Instead, Pentagon professionals defending their country's nerve centers waited more than an hour after watching Flight 11 go rogue - including 30 critical minutes after Flight 77 turned abruptly toward them and the nearby White House - before scrambling two F-16's out of Langley Air Force Base to protect the capitol.

Nearly half-an-hour after receiving the belated order to scramble, two Falcons coasted in over the burning Pentagon. Slowed down to just 410 mph, it had taken the 1,500 mph-capable fighters 19 minutes to cover the 130 miles from Virginia. It should have taken just over seven minutes to reach the Pentagon - at about the time Flight 77 was making a predatory circle overhead.

GROUNDED The supersonic jets were flown no faster than WWII prop-driven fighters. But it hardly mattered. Sitting on the Andrews ramp just 10 miles away, were two fully armed and fueled supersonic interceptors tasked with protecting the capitol from airborne terrorist threats on 15 minutes' notice!

Isn't it about time someone asked why those routinely launched Andrews interceptors were "stood down" as Flight 77 bored in toward the headquarters they were supposed to protect?
In the most heavily armed nation on Earth, at least two-dozen air force installations were within fast flying time of the World Trade Center and Pentagon. Does anyone else wonder why none of those aircraft were ordered launched - or why none of the armed fighters on training flights or patrolling Air Defense Intercept Zones just off the Atlantic Coast were diverted to intercept four commandeered airliners until after the Pentagon was struck - one-hour and 18 minutes after Flight 11 was hijacked? < [www.af.mil/sites/alphabetical.shtml#a >

According to NORAD, the F-16s from Langley were still "12 minutes/105 miles" away when the big Boeing they were "chasing" soared past the White House and the Andrews runways. Allegedly flown by an incompetent Egyptian flight student who couldn't solo a Cessna, the 757 peeled off and piled into the Pentagon after an abrupt dive and pull-up that left veteran pilots agape.

Immediately after the Pentagon was hit, the Andrews alert jets were launched to guard empty skies.

REWARDED FOR INCOMPETENCE Responding to questions from a Senate confirmation committee two days after this suspicious fiasco, the Joint Chief's acting air defense chief on Sept. 11 said he was in a meeting while all hell was breaking loose in his sector.

Air Force Gen. Richard Myers had not let a TV report about a small plane hitting the World Trade Center interrupt his routine. As jumbo jetliners kept diving into buildings, apparently no one thought to inform the acting commander of U.S. air defenses that his country was under attack. Myers said he came out of his meeting just as the Pentagon was hit.

Asked repeatedly when the brass were first informed of the emergency, and when interceptors were scrambled, Myers repeated a muddled mantra six times, saying ""I'll have to get back to you on that." < www.defenselink.mil/news/Oct2001/n10232001_200110236.html >

Instead of being court-martialed like the luckless commanders defending Pearl Harbor, or even reprimanded, General Myers was awarded command of the entire U.S. military as new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Bush publicly commended the air force general for his "calm manner, sound judgment, and his clear strategic thinking."

As this bizarre and possibly treasonous story goes to press, the FAA has refused to disclose documents relating to when that agency notified U.S. air defenses about the four hijacked airliners. A second subpoena served on the Pentagon by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States has been similarly unsuccessful in attaining records concerning whether NORAD responded quickly enough in dispatching interceptors on Sept. 11.

Instead of fingering air traffic controllers for not following procedures, these documents could show that the FAA did follow its own Standard Intercept Procedures and notify NORAD within a few minutes of each hijacking - which would leave the Air Force with even more explaining to do.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
cprise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-09-03 10:49 PM
Response to Original message
1.  .
:(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abe Linkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-09-03 11:41 PM
Response to Original message
2. General Myers was rewarded for his treasonous dereliction of duty
Other than the folks who are here for reasons other than to try and understand what really happened on 9-11, it's hard to believe that a reasonable person could read even just this one message you posted, and
still believe in the Official Story Conspiracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gandalf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-10-03 05:46 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. One exception:
The career journalists working for mainstream media outlets. For them anything that differs from the Official Story is a conspiracy.
My German newspaper not even mentions the 9-11 commission, let alone the fact they have to subpoena every single bit of information.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-10-03 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. It IS a good article on a worthwhile subject
There are many questions raised that deserve answers. Fortunately, we don't have to believe various theories of Flight 77 denial or WTC controlled demolitions to understand the article's real issues.

A full and public accounting of the actions of various agencies on that day will be the only thing that quiets these questions. The stonewalling of the Bush Administration into investigating this matter proves that there's something there that they don't want us to know.

PS: Abe, could you provide any evidence you possess of the folks who are here for reasons other than to try and understand what really happened on 9-11 to the DU moderators? I'm sure they'd be interested in tombstoning any disinformation agents at DU. You must have some evidence; why would you continue to spread what can only be understood as slander if you didn't have evidence?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
impe Donating Member (185 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-10-03 11:30 AM
Response to Original message
4. Great Article

This is 9/11's major smoking gun. NORAD and the military stood down that day. The military ordering jets from Langley AFB to protect DC versus Andrews given the NY attacks is truly laughable. Great point, the military was out manueuvered by top-gun wannabees, flying by the seat of their pants.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-10-03 07:42 PM
Response to Original message
6. Sophistry
It happens all the time.

No it doesn't. Best I can tell it happened twice since 1994.

When a small private plane recently entered the 23-mile restricted ring around the U.S. Capitol, two F-16 interceptors were immediately launched from Andrews Air Force Base, just 10 miles away. In a similar episode, a pair of F-16 "Fighting Falcons" on 15-minute strip alert was airborne from Andrews just 11 minutes after being notified by the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) of a Cessna straying toward the White House.


Best I can tell one of these incidents happened in June 2002. It was acknowledged that the intercept was to late. Best I can tell the other incident mentioned happened in 1994.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/06/20/plane.intercept/

These were well-practiced routines.

Doesn't seem to be true given the facts

With more than 4,500 aircraft continuously sharing U.S. airspace, between September 2000 and June 2001 the Pentagon launched fighters on 67 occasions to escort wayward aircraft.

6.7 times per month over the entire US Continent does not strike me as well practiced.

But on Sept 11, 2001, NORAD and the FAA ignored routine procedures and strict regulations. In response to a national emergency involving hijacked airliners as dangerous as cruise missiles, interceptors launched late from distant bases flew to defend their nation at a fraction of their top speeds.

All of the previous BS was just to set the tone for the rest. Why anyone thinks so called routine procedures were employed on 9/11 is a question I would like to be answered. Lets see, two aircraft were flown into the WTC towers, there are other planes being hijacked and people think we had well practiced, routine procedures and protocols to deal with the events of that day.

For crying out loud even in June 2002, they still couldn't get it right.

That was only the first three paragraphs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demodewd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-10-03 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Duh
Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh ad infinitum.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gandalf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-11-03 08:26 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. Very coarse reasoning
"6.7 times per month over the entire US Continent does not strike me as well practiced"
It is a strong argument that there are consistent procedures that are adhered to. Probably they exercise these routines, besides executing them in possible emergencies.

"Lets see, two aircraft were flown into the WTC towers, there are other planes being hijacked and people think we had well practiced, routine procedures and protocols to deal with the events of that day."
That is very imprecise reasoning with the intention to make a point otherwise not reachable.
"two aircraft were flown into the WTC towers" is indeed not a thing for which well practiced routines exist. That is the reason why nobody who is serious makes that assertion. But an airplane who behaves irregularly is a phenomenon for which these routines exist. And here we have four airplanes behaving irregularly over a long time. In the case of flight 77 there was enough reason to be cautious (i.e. to assume an emergency) and not to wait 40 minutes to see if the problem would vanish without doing anything.
The 9-11 commission asks the question why these routines were not adhered to. Assuming they are serious people that could be a hint that these questions are justified.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cowpie Donating Member (67 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-24-03 02:35 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. Here come the black helicopters!!!
The Eastern seaboard is filled with airliners 24/7. How pray tell are our fighters to pick out 4 out of the hundreds that were in the air? They don't paint huge numbers on the side of each flight. Were they to start shooting indiscriminately at any plane that looked suspicious?

9/11 was a terrible tragedy without a doubt. There was obviously some lack of preparedness on the part of shrub's administration. But to attempt to exploit this great tragedy for political purposes is just disgusting. On both sides.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RBHam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-26-03 01:13 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. oh, please...
my lord. read the article. the planes were stood down. somebody had to give the order. why was myers promoted for failure?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-26-03 09:57 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. Somebody had to give the order!?
So who then is supposed to have given the imagined order then? Where is the evidence? Such an order is simply not feasible without a footprint. The order would have to be defined, especially in view of operation Vigilant Guardian.

:shrug:

And what on Earth then please would substantiate the assertion that "Sitting on the Andrews ramp just 10 miles away, were two fully armed and fueled supersonic interceptors tasked with protecting the capitol from airborne terrorist threats on 15 minutes' notice!"?

:shrug:

The alleged stand down was long since discussed and in a much more sensible fashion on this very site, e.g.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/cgi-bin/duforum/duboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=1136&forum=DCForumID61#69

Circumstantially it is abundantly clear that there was no such "stand down". The essential facts were long since well established.

NORAD had 20 fighters on armed alert throughout the North American continent; 14 of which were in the continental U.S. at seven bases; only four of those were in the North East and that was not an unusual disposition.

http://www.aviationnow.com/content/publication/awst/20020603/avi_stor.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2222205.stm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/usaf/1af.htm

While Flights 11 and 175 were in the air, 2 F-15s were already hovering off Long Island. After the second tower was hit at 9:03, they were ordered to head to Manhattan.

These facts are acknowledged even by many of the most rabid conspiracy theorists.

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/defense/#ref5

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/defense/#ref5

http://www.capecodonline.com/cctimes/archives/2002/aug/21/ithought21.htm

At 8:52 AM two F-15s from the 102nd Fighter Wing of Otis Air National Guard Base in Falmouth, Massachusetts were scrambled and airborne.

At 9:09, NORAD ordered Langley to put F-16s on alert. An order to scramble was then implemented at 9:25, authorized to shoot down civilian aircraft.


Even some the most rabid conspiracy theorists acknowledge the facts:

http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/defense/#ref5


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RBHam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-26-03 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #11
12. There is a chain of command to give the order to stand down...
Myers-Cheney-Bush
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cowpie Donating Member (67 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-26-03 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. It was incompetence and complacence
not some bs black helicopter right wing conspiracy. You guys sound like a bunch of whackos with this stuff. We saw the same complacence under the GASP! Clinton administration. As I said previously, if we want power back we have to beat the republicans in the realm of ideas, not nutjob conspiracy theories. I don't like our chances with our leading presidential hopeful spouting this garbage. If there is a god, Lieberman will somehow get the nomination.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abe Linkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-26-03 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. PR Spinners are spouting garbage.
"You guys" don't sound like hacks who could hack it at H & K, spouting this garbage about negligence, laziness, OBL, SH & some guy named Moe who couldn't hang on to his passport but is supposed to have been a ringleader in the biggest military assault on U.S. soil ... armed only with his special secret weapon: a box opener.

I don't like our chances of influencing the world to our point of view if that is the best our supposedly best PR Spinners can come up with.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cowpie Donating Member (67 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-27-03 07:25 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. stop.
Just stop before you hurt yourself. You are expecting us to believe that a giant conspiracy involving thousands of people from the media to congress to the White House and the Middle East and none is talking? Not one person has a story to sell? You really think a sitting President would go through so much trouble and murder three thousand people so he can fight a war that he all ready has the constitutional power to embark upon? I bet you think OJ was innocent too don't you? You remind me of my ex-boyfriend. He was certain that everything in the world he didn't like was some sort of conspiracy in which the whole world was out to get him. He flunked out of college? Well, the administration and professors hated him. I caught him cheating on me with another woman? Nope, me and the other woman got together to make up a much jucier excuse to dump him other than the fact that he was a lazy bum with no ambition. Or even better, I must have dumped him because he was black and I am prejudice. These are all great stories, but in reality he was a terrible student, he was a selfish pig that couldn't accept the fact that I would not have sex with him and put his needs ahead of mine by breaking the trust I put in him. And you need to accept the reality that we lost the 2000 election due in part to our candidates inability to win even his own state, and that George W. Bush is pounding us right now because he is able to communicate his ideas and has the courage to stand up for what he believes is the right thing to do. I disagree with him vehemently, but that is no excuse for not showing him the respect he deserves and it is certainly no excuse for leveling outrageous accusations at him. At least the man has courage, something that our party is short on in the extreme. With the exception of Senator Lieberman not one of our leaders is willing to stand up and say unequivocably what his beliefs are. If that makes me a hack so be it. I can deal with that. I can't deal with the thought of going through life as bitter and jaded as you black helecopter fanatics are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abe Linkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-27-03 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. You and your other personalities are welcome to heed your words:
"I can't deal with the thought of going through life as bitter and jaded as you black helicopter fanatics are."

Were you forced to come here to DU? Does your job require that you read things you find offensive? Is someone "making" you post silly messages? If not, your personal freedom is just a click away. (sorry, can't do anything about bush pounding on you)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
plaguepuppy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-27-03 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. Straight from the playbook
"I really pity you poor schmuks who believe this stuff and your twisted, hate-filled little lives."

And I guess that ex-boyfriend line was supposed to really hurt?

Guess she just has a compulsion to re-live bad relationships...
Try this instead, you might actually get somewhere:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
impe Donating Member (185 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-05-04 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #15
39. Connection Explanation?


What does your BF have to do with the price of tea in China?

Bush and Company are winning because no one has the balls to stand up and question him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-05-04 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #39
40. no one has the balls
to stand up and question him because he's winning.

It is not so much a matter of what they have not got.

What they have got to lose is the rub.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
homelandpunk Donating Member (787 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-12-04 02:21 AM
Response to Reply #15
41. my oh myyyyyyyyyyy
Edited on Mon Jan-12-04 02:23 AM by homelandpunk
You wrote: >>And you need to accept the reality that we lost the 2000 election due in part to our candidates inability to win even his own state, and that George W. Bush is pounding us right now because he is able to communicate his ideas and has the courage to stand up for what he believes is the right thing to do. I disagree with him vehemently, but that is no excuse for not showing him the respect he deserves and it is certainly no excuse for leveling outrageous accusations at him. At least the man has courage, something that our party is short on in the extreme.<<

I like how you spiced in the "I disagree with him vehemently", but looky here, Laura Ingraham, or whoever the hell, you really need to
pack your things. It is waaaaaaaaaay too obvious.
Furthermore, just what the hell are they teaching in Troll 101 these days? I swear, these new kids come out without any learning of the basics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
plaguepuppy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-27-03 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #11
18. Circumstantially it is ... clear that there was no such "stand down"
Right, circumstantially all you have is some of the best-defended airspace in the world with four hijacked airliners flying around bumping into buildings for a couple of hours or so, completely unmolested by interceptors. That pretty much rules out a "stand down" for me.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-27-03 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. re: stand-down
Has anyone come up with reasons for a stand-down? I've thought of a few that are less nefarious than LIHOP; anyone else?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
plaguepuppy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-27-03 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. Pretty hard to think of an innocuous reason
Just as it's hard to think of an innocent reason for destroying (almost) all the WTC evidence so quickly:

“Some 185,101 tons of structural steel have been hauled away from Ground Zero. Most of the steel has been recycled as per the city's decision to swiftly send the wreckage to salvage yards in New Jersey. The city's hasty move has outraged many victims' families who believe the steel should have been examined more thoroughly. Last month, fire experts told Congress that about 80% of the steel was scrapped without being examined because investigators did not have the authority to preserve the wreckage.”
N.Y. Daily News, 4/16/02

See also http://members.aol.com/erichuf/PainfulQuestions_1.pdf

But for whatever reason, there sure as hell was a stand-down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-27-03 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. So you haven't considered any other possibilities? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
plaguepuppy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-28-03 12:34 AM
Response to Reply #23
28. Possible reasons for a stand-down order?
Considered, yes. Considered to be plausible? No, honestly I can't imagine any rational reason for a stand-down other than to make sure the attacks took place.

And I have heard from two sources (friends with friends/family in the military) that I consider quite reliable, and with no inclination to look at things in terms of conspiracy, who have told me flat-out that stand-down orders were in fact given. One of the individuals concerned (USAF) was reassigned and taken off flight duty for asking too many questions. The other is retired AF and really doesn't have anything to lose.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-28-03 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #28
30. So what would you do then if
for the sake of the argument, a hijacker aboard a plane said
"
we have a bomb; we have hostages; if any of your planes come near .... "

?

There may well have a cover up.

There was surely a great deal of embarrassment, no shortage of big fat arses to cover.

But before supposing that what you want to think was covered up was in fact the case how about, just for once, some due respect to evidence?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-28-03 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #28
31. Really?
The only reason for a stand-down you consider plausible is that the chain of command wanted the attacks to take place?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abe Linkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-28-03 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #31
32. YES.
You don't think Osama ordered a "stand-down", do you?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-28-03 01:19 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. Of course not.
But imagine you're me, for a second, and you believe 93 and perhaps 77 were downed by RF weapons.

You'd have to wonder to yourself, "Why bother with exotic weapons, when a sidewinder would do as well?"

Then you think to yourself "Sure is a lot of evidence that intel folks knew this was coming."

Then think again: "So they knew it was coming. Why bother with exotic weapons, when a sidewinder would do as well?"

Then you think about what, really, started off the funding for RF weapons.

Then you start to understand why a sidewinder would be disastrous.

Then the stand-down makes a whole lot of sense.

How about that for the biggest tinfoil hat in all of Texas?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abe Linkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-28-03 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #33
34. I missed whatever point you were trying to make.
Try again. In plainER English. Thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Robb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-29-03 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #34
38. Think about it....
When directed energy, as a DoD initiative, was in its infancy, what was it going to help "us" do? What was the "killer app"?

It certainly wasn't for ATAC, or to stop fleeing cars on the highway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-28-03 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #32
35. Possibly.

Qui bono?

Seeing that the "stand down" propaganda would appear to amount to nothing more than a subversive illusion to terrorise anybody disposed to believe in it, Osama Bin Laden's possible ordination of the scam would make some sense.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-27-03 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. Han anybody yet cited
the name of but one military or official individual or group known to have been at all delayed, let alone prevented, from acting in any respect because, expressly, of any previously conceived order that applied only to the day in question, September 11th 2001?

:thumbsdown:

Give a name; it will then be that person's rightful prerogative to rule the "stand down" allegation in or out, nobody else's.

Piss or get off the pot.

:hurts:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demodewd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-27-03 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. Oh
... I see ...unless we can come up with evidence of an official command we best remain silent. Well hell...why speculate AT ALL about government or military activity...we'll just be stupid obedient sheeple.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-27-03 08:55 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. The point

would rather be that you would not therefore see at all; you would but imagine.

Is the difference not significant?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abe Linkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-27-03 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. What's that got to do w/OBL's orders to "the boys" to carry out 9-11?
Unless you have evidence proving that OBL gave the "take down" orders regarding the WTC & Pentagon, the point would rather be that you would not therefore see at all; you would but imagine.

Is the difference not significant?

Or, are you saying (but without any evidence) that the orders were transmitted telepathically to Mr. Atta & the other "attackers"?

NOTE: Apologies for not using the required number of double negatives per post. Hopefully, the sentence structure is sufficiently mind-numbing to make up for the lack of evidence that Osama gave any "take down" orders to the "boys" from cave #911 (just west of the Rhybar
Towers Freeway in Kabul Sh-t.)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-27-03 10:11 PM
Response to Reply #25
26. QED.
When did I ever say anything about any orders transmitted to Atta or any other attacker?

:shrug:

By appearing to ascribe to me some sort of position or opinion that I had never yet alluded to what is thereby proved?

Imagining not seeing, yet again.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abe Linkman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-27-03 10:46 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. So, you DON'T have any evidence. That right?
If OBL didn't give the orders to Atta or any other "attacker", then who did? Condi Rice? Cheney? Tony "The Poodle" Blair?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-28-03 10:06 AM
Response to Reply #27
29. A case was tried

Examine the Hamburg trial. The evidence was held to be strong enough to incriminate a third party, Mounir El Motassadeq.

http://www.911hamburgtrial.com/

Did any of those here who'd thought they knew better ever bother to inform his legal representative?

To the best of my knowledge no case against Condi Rice, Cheney or Tony "The Poodle" Blair was ever tried.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gandalf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-29-03 06:02 AM
Response to Reply #29
36. NOT the evidence needed here!
The only evidence that could be presented in that trial was that Motassadeq lived together with and was a friend of the group around Atta in Hamburg. The court’s reasoning was: As Motassadeq was a friend, he must have known of the plans of the attacks (no hard evidence was produced for that), so that the support he provided to the Atta group (they could use his bank card and so on) was support to the terrorist’s 9/11-project.
The court took it for granted, but produced no evidence, that the attacks were planned in Hamburg and carried out as reported by the leading media outlets.
So, RH, this trial produced not the evidence that you implied it did (as you are generally well informed, you know that probably).
As a leading German newspaper stated, the court should have set Motassadeq free if it had used the same standards that it applied in the Mzoudi case (Mzoudi was set free some weeks ago, he was on trial for more or less the same allegations and based on the same evidence as Motassadeq). The court now assumes that the attacks were not planned in Hamburg.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RH Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-29-03 08:11 AM
Response to Reply #36
37. "Took for granted"?

While Mottasadeq held a right-of-attorney to a German bank account held by Al Shehhi, evidence showed that the account helped to finance flight training classes at two air schools in Venice, Florida.

As conspiracy cases go you could hardly hope to establish a clearer practical connection. To whom and for what would you grant a right-of-attorney to your bank account?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 08:44 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC